WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.560 So we're going to call to order for students. 00:00:04.560 --> 00:00:10.040 All right, welcome, everyone, to our Historic Landmark Commission meeting. 00:00:10.040 --> 00:00:14.920 Today is November 14th, Monday, and the time is 530. 00:00:14.920 --> 00:00:15.920 Welcome, everyone. 00:00:15.920 --> 00:00:17.720 Thank you all for coming. 00:00:17.720 --> 00:00:21.560 And if we would stand up and do the punch. 00:00:21.560 --> 00:00:29.360 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for 00:00:29.360 --> 00:00:38.720 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:38.720 --> 00:00:40.440 Honor the Texas flag. 00:00:40.440 --> 00:00:53.760 I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. 00:00:53.760 --> 00:00:56.040 So we have a fairly busy meeting tonight. 00:00:56.040 --> 00:01:01.120 We will start out with our public meeting. 00:01:01.120 --> 00:01:06.400 And so I think our first item is to consider the minutes from November 12th, which I've 00:01:06.400 --> 00:01:07.960 just put away. 00:01:07.960 --> 00:01:15.320 Has anybody got any corrections or comments to add? 00:01:15.320 --> 00:01:22.800 Minutes from, sorry, not November 12th, November 2nd. 00:01:22.800 --> 00:01:27.560 Anybody have any updates for it? 00:01:27.560 --> 00:01:28.560 Thank you. 00:01:28.560 --> 00:01:29.560 Anybody want a second? 00:01:29.560 --> 00:01:30.560 Second. 00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:33.360 All those in favor, aye. 00:01:33.360 --> 00:01:34.360 Anybody opposed? 00:01:34.360 --> 00:01:35.960 I stand approved. 00:01:35.960 --> 00:01:46.120 All right, so now we're going to take up COA 22-0014, we're going to hold a public 00:01:46.120 --> 00:01:51.360 meeting and consider an application for a certificate of appropriateness in accordance 00:01:51.360 --> 00:01:58.040 with Section 2.9.2 of the Denton Development Code to install solar panels on the roof of 00:01:58.040 --> 00:02:05.200 an existing residence at 2101 West Oak Street within the West Oak Area Historic District. 00:02:05.200 --> 00:02:10.920 This site is located on the southwest corner of West Oak Street and abouts. 00:02:10.920 --> 00:02:14.440 And Cameron will give us a rundown. 00:02:14.440 --> 00:02:17.540 Thank you, Chair. 00:02:17.540 --> 00:02:22.160 So the address is 2101 West Oak Street as mentioned, it's on the southwest corner of 00:02:22.160 --> 00:02:24.480 West Oak Street and Fouts Street. 00:02:24.480 --> 00:02:28.640 The owners are Marybeth Butler and Kenneth Pritchett. 00:02:28.640 --> 00:02:34.800 Its construction date is circa 1923, but it did have a second story addition added circa 00:02:34.800 --> 00:02:35.800 1937. 00:02:35.800 --> 00:02:40.960 So just a little bit of the building's history, it was constructed for a fair in Fouts. 00:02:40.960 --> 00:02:43.120 Its architectural style is a bungalow style. 00:02:43.120 --> 00:02:48.360 Some of its defining features are that square massing, the overhanging closed eaves as you 00:02:48.360 --> 00:02:55.680 can see here, that curved portico supported by decorative brackets. 00:02:55.680 --> 00:03:01.680 So as stated, the request is for the installation of 23 solar panels on the roof as you can 00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:02.680 see here. 00:03:02.680 --> 00:03:08.000 So you do see the house located here, a front view of the house from West Oak Street and 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:09.940 then that site plan. 00:03:09.940 --> 00:03:15.040 It would be located both on the first and second story roofs. 00:03:15.040 --> 00:03:17.880 So this is the current conditions of the property. 00:03:17.880 --> 00:03:22.360 This is looking southwest from West Oak Street in front of the property and you can kind 00:03:22.360 --> 00:03:27.680 of highlight it here at the proposed solar panel locations. 00:03:27.680 --> 00:03:31.880 This is the current conditions looking southeast from West Oak Street. 00:03:31.880 --> 00:03:35.920 And once again, the proposed solar panel locations here on the first story roof and then the 00:03:35.920 --> 00:03:39.580 second story roof in the rear. 00:03:39.580 --> 00:03:45.400 And then the current condition is looking west from Fouts Street. 00:03:45.400 --> 00:03:49.840 So looking at the architectural drawings, this is looking west. 00:03:49.840 --> 00:03:52.680 This is facing east and then this is facing south. 00:03:52.680 --> 00:03:58.800 So on the west side, we're looking at eight solar panels on that first story, we're looking 00:03:58.800 --> 00:04:03.560 at two solar panels on that rear second story towards the rear of the property. 00:04:03.560 --> 00:04:09.560 Then there is proposed to be six solar panels on that south facing roof on the second story 00:04:09.560 --> 00:04:10.560 as well. 00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:18.800 An additional two solar panels on that east side facing Fouts Street and then five solar 00:04:18.800 --> 00:04:23.040 panels on that first story facing Fouts Street as well. 00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:29.600 This is a solar panel elevation, so it can be about 10 inches max off the roof. 00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:35.240 So this shows the roof line right here with those shingles and then it would have a support 00:04:35.240 --> 00:04:42.240 structure here with the solar panel located about approximately 10 inches off of the roof. 00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:46.840 Additionally, this is the proposed system layout just showing where the utility meters 00:04:46.840 --> 00:04:49.920 and some of the electrical wiring would be located. 00:04:49.920 --> 00:04:56.720 It would be located on that western facade, but it would be located behind Davey Sistine 00:04:56.720 --> 00:04:57.720 Properties Gate. 00:04:57.720 --> 00:05:02.200 So you wouldn't be able to see it from the street. 00:05:02.200 --> 00:05:04.680 So this is just delving into solar panel detailings. 00:05:04.680 --> 00:05:06.240 I'm not going to go into high level. 00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:09.600 I'm going to keep it really high level for you all, but this would be the solar panel 00:05:09.600 --> 00:05:15.200 itself and then just some of the support systems that will support the solar panels to the 00:05:15.200 --> 00:05:16.200 roof. 00:05:16.200 --> 00:05:20.600 So we do have that cross rail, which is located here by number two. 00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:25.720 So that's this system right here and then we also have this system, support system as 00:05:25.720 --> 00:05:33.640 well, which goes to this cross rail and which is highlighted by number three. 00:05:33.640 --> 00:05:39.240 And then this is just a breakdown of the actual solar panel system, which would be basically 00:05:39.240 --> 00:05:43.760 what runs the solar panels and we'll see only a little bit of that on the exterior as I 00:05:43.760 --> 00:05:47.240 stated, but once again, it would be behind the gate, but I just wanted to show you some 00:05:47.240 --> 00:05:50.480 of that detailing. 00:05:50.480 --> 00:05:55.840 So staff's analysis as part of the packet, it did look at the standards for rehabilitation, 00:05:55.840 --> 00:06:03.960 specifically looking at numbers nine and 10 in regards to exterior alterations. 00:06:03.960 --> 00:06:10.800 Additionally, staff did look at section 4.9.6C, which is in regards to the West Oak Area 00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:12.600 Historic District. 00:06:12.600 --> 00:06:18.000 And one of the relevant architectural requirements that applied to this specific project was 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:21.780 the roof forms, specifically looking at skylights and solar panels. 00:06:21.780 --> 00:06:26.160 So as part of that, the Historic Landmark Commission may allow skylights and solar panels 00:06:26.160 --> 00:06:30.320 on a building if their placement does not have an adverse effect on the architecture 00:06:30.320 --> 00:06:34.400 of a building or the district as a whole. 00:06:34.400 --> 00:06:42.080 So staff is recommending an approval of the COA request to install solar panels at 2101 00:06:42.080 --> 00:06:47.640 West Oak Street as the proposed project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 00:06:47.640 --> 00:06:51.900 and section 4.9.6C of the Debt and Development Code. 00:06:51.900 --> 00:06:55.200 However, staff is doing this subject to conditions. 00:06:55.200 --> 00:06:59.920 Staff is recommending that six proposed solar panels not being solved on the first story 00:06:59.920 --> 00:07:01.200 roof. 00:07:01.200 --> 00:07:05.520 This would include the five solar panels proposed for the east side of the roof and the northernmost 00:07:05.520 --> 00:07:07.280 panel proposed for the west side of the roof. 00:07:07.280 --> 00:07:10.080 So I'm just going to skip ahead real quick. 00:07:10.080 --> 00:07:11.080 It would be these ones. 00:07:11.080 --> 00:07:15.720 So it would be this solar panel that staff is recommending to not be implemented, nor 00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:21.600 these on the east side due to the fact that it's on a corner lot. 00:07:21.600 --> 00:07:27.320 Additionally, prior to any issuance of any building permits, a report would be provided 00:07:27.320 --> 00:07:32.040 to the city to confirm that the solar panels are removed in the future, that the essential 00:07:32.040 --> 00:07:36.280 form and integrity of the historic property is unimpaired, according to the Secretary 00:07:36.280 --> 00:07:40.280 of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. 00:07:40.280 --> 00:07:50.160 So any questions? 00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:58.640 So the specific picture right here is showing this silver in terms of the actual details 00:07:58.640 --> 00:07:59.640 that were provided. 00:07:59.640 --> 00:08:04.760 It did state that it would be a darker aluminum, and I don't know what is necessarily meant 00:08:04.760 --> 00:08:08.640 by darker, but I'm assuming closer to something like this, so it blends as one. 00:08:08.640 --> 00:08:10.560 But the applicant is here. 00:08:10.560 --> 00:08:14.720 Mary Beth Butler is here to answer any questions that you all have specifically about this 00:08:14.720 --> 00:08:15.720 project. 00:08:15.720 --> 00:08:17.960 And the roof color is a green, I thought. 00:08:17.960 --> 00:08:20.120 It is a darker gray. 00:08:20.120 --> 00:08:21.120 Oh, yes. 00:08:21.120 --> 00:08:22.120 Oh, a green. 00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:23.120 Thank you. 00:08:23.120 --> 00:08:24.120 Yes. 00:08:24.120 --> 00:08:25.120 I have a question. 00:08:25.120 --> 00:08:26.120 Why so many? 00:08:26.120 --> 00:08:31.120 Because typically, we don't see that many on it. 00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:34.640 I don't know the whole size of the house, but is there a reason why there's so many? 00:08:34.640 --> 00:08:39.640 I am not sure, I would have to hear that question towards the applicant, if they're willing 00:08:39.640 --> 00:08:40.640 to answer. 00:08:40.640 --> 00:08:41.640 I'm sorry that I'm not able to really answer it. 00:08:41.640 --> 00:08:42.640 I know the solar company recommended it for us, so it looks like we're not going to get 00:08:42.640 --> 00:08:43.640 what was actually recommended based on the recommendation for the conditions. 00:08:43.640 --> 00:08:58.160 So I'm sorry I'm not a solar expert. 00:08:58.160 --> 00:09:05.840 That's actually not so many, when you look at houses in our neighborhood, they have more. 00:09:05.840 --> 00:09:06.840 Really? 00:09:06.840 --> 00:09:07.840 How big are those panels, by the way? 00:09:07.840 --> 00:09:08.840 Yeah, and it might have to do with size. 00:09:08.840 --> 00:09:09.840 I think it may have to be the size is rather large. 00:09:09.840 --> 00:09:10.840 Because I think they're getting bigger now, they've gotten better at the chemistry of 00:09:10.840 --> 00:09:11.840 making panels. 00:09:11.840 --> 00:09:12.840 I was just going to say, I would have to look at the specific details in the packet. 00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:13.840 I didn't include that on here. 00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:14.840 Yeah, it just... 00:09:14.840 --> 00:09:31.400 But I think they are, because if this is three feet right here, we're looking probably at 00:09:31.400 --> 00:09:45.320 six feet each, six feet by probably four feet. 00:09:45.320 --> 00:09:49.920 How beneficial is it going to be in the summer when the tree, the leaf canopy is out? 00:09:49.920 --> 00:09:54.440 I'm concerned about the health of the trees, if you know what I mean, in the long term, 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:58.240 somebody may buy it after you and just go whack, whack, we need our trees because we 00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:00.240 know the tree where this is not enforced. 00:10:00.240 --> 00:10:03.560 If I may, we bought that house because of the trees. 00:10:03.560 --> 00:10:06.920 No, I know, not you, but after you, it means somebody will... 00:10:06.920 --> 00:10:07.920 Our houses outlive us. 00:10:07.920 --> 00:10:08.920 We only care to take them. 00:10:08.920 --> 00:10:09.920 We only rent them. 00:10:09.920 --> 00:10:14.440 We don't actually own them, and it costs a lot to rent them. 00:10:14.440 --> 00:10:21.080 Yeah, because the picture you should is so many trees, I just can't see that this is 00:10:21.080 --> 00:10:22.080 very beneficial. 00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:27.080 We have consulted with two tree sergeants and we have a plan for the trimming that would 00:10:27.080 --> 00:10:28.080 need to be done. 00:10:28.080 --> 00:10:36.020 It would not be harmful to the trees. 00:10:36.020 --> 00:10:40.840 So the six that are going to be removed, there was one, or the six that are recommended to 00:10:40.840 --> 00:10:42.840 be not included in the approval? 00:10:42.840 --> 00:10:43.840 Yes. 00:10:43.840 --> 00:10:48.080 The one in the top left, what is the purpose for that one not being there? 00:10:48.080 --> 00:10:51.520 That is to just reduce the visibility from West Oak. 00:10:51.520 --> 00:10:57.000 So in my packet, and staff included, the fact that, yes, you would be see it from the pedestrian 00:10:57.000 --> 00:11:04.200 level, but due to the vehicular traffic going from East to West, and also it facing a shared 00:11:04.200 --> 00:11:10.760 drive as well as a neighboring property, and the fact that this is less than a foot from 00:11:10.760 --> 00:11:19.720 the front, it would be highly visible, and so this was to just reduce that visibility. 00:11:19.720 --> 00:11:24.080 So this is zoomed in a little bit, so it's close to that roof edge right here. 00:11:24.080 --> 00:11:30.200 It would reduce it a little bit further in, about four or five feet in. 00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:36.480 So just if someone's looking straight on at the property, you wouldn't be able to see 00:11:36.480 --> 00:11:41.840 it as well, because it is, like I said, a maximum of about 10 inches off. 00:11:41.840 --> 00:11:45.120 So they are going to be parallel to the roof. 00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:48.000 That's the picture that worries me of the trees. 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:49.000 I love trees. 00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:55.560 Well, you know, I have lots of trees on my lot, and it's so many trees, in fact, that 00:11:55.560 --> 00:11:58.600 solar is not possible without cutting down some of the trees. 00:11:58.600 --> 00:12:02.160 He said, "Well, we'd have somebody come in and pick out the trees." 00:12:02.160 --> 00:12:03.160 No, no. 00:12:03.160 --> 00:12:05.360 Yeah, I mean, my trees keep my house full. 00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:11.000 I don't know the answer to a question about whether or not it's, we'll see. 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:14.840 We have spoken to Frenchies, and we have spoken to tree shepherds, and we have a plan in place 00:12:14.840 --> 00:12:19.200 to work with tree shepherds to do the trimming that's needed to make those trees, to make 00:12:19.200 --> 00:12:22.200 those solar panels allow to be effective. 00:12:22.200 --> 00:12:26.000 And without the five, or is it six? 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:32.840 It would be five over here, and then it would be the reduction of one over here, but it 00:12:32.840 --> 00:12:33.840 would leave seven. 00:12:33.840 --> 00:12:35.840 Without those six, does it still work? 00:12:35.840 --> 00:12:36.840 I don't know. 00:12:36.840 --> 00:12:37.840 It may not. 00:12:37.840 --> 00:12:38.840 It may very well not. 00:12:38.840 --> 00:12:42.840 And I would find out that my neighbors across the street in the new house have solar panels 00:12:42.840 --> 00:12:47.240 across the expanse of their porch roof that faces the street on the south side. 00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:49.840 So if visibility is an issue, I'm not sure. 00:12:49.840 --> 00:12:52.360 Yeah, that was a discussion before. 00:12:52.360 --> 00:12:55.880 When did that come forward? 00:12:55.880 --> 00:12:59.360 It was just before you came. 00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:00.360 Okay. 00:13:00.360 --> 00:13:01.360 Yeah. 00:13:01.360 --> 00:13:08.960 So my understanding is that there's, it sounds like it's not a difference in the neighborhood 00:13:08.960 --> 00:13:12.160 if there's other houses like that that have it. 00:13:12.160 --> 00:13:13.160 I guess. 00:13:13.160 --> 00:13:14.160 Is it really going to change? 00:13:14.160 --> 00:13:15.160 It wasn't a historic house, though. 00:13:15.160 --> 00:13:19.560 The house was a new house. 00:13:19.560 --> 00:13:22.240 So that does matter somewhat if it's not a new house. 00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:26.840 Is this going to be any kind of detriment to the, I mean, if any, I don't think that'll 00:13:26.840 --> 00:13:30.960 help protect the roof and that sort of thing. 00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:33.960 I guess I just don't see the issue with it. 00:13:33.960 --> 00:13:35.320 Is it just purely aesthetic? 00:13:35.320 --> 00:13:37.880 Which side is east and west? 00:13:37.880 --> 00:13:38.880 Yes. 00:13:38.880 --> 00:13:46.360 So this is facing north, this is facing west, this is facing east, this is south, and it 00:13:46.360 --> 00:13:47.360 is a corner lot. 00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:51.880 So this is West Oak right here, and then this is Valdez Street. 00:13:51.880 --> 00:13:57.040 So that is why staff's argument is due to the fact that it's on a corner lot, and there 00:13:57.040 --> 00:13:58.680 will have to be some trimming of trees. 00:13:58.680 --> 00:14:03.160 There will be a higher visibility of seeing these versus these western edge ones. 00:14:03.160 --> 00:14:09.000 Would you mind putting up the ordinance again that shows us how we're supposed to deal with? 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:10.000 Okay. 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:15.600 Are you asking for staff's recommendation or for- 00:14:15.600 --> 00:14:16.600 That. 00:14:16.600 --> 00:14:17.600 Yeah. 00:14:17.600 --> 00:14:25.340 Thank you. 00:14:25.340 --> 00:14:27.600 So what is the adverse effect? 00:14:27.600 --> 00:14:29.600 Is it building? 00:14:29.600 --> 00:14:34.140 If it is close to the color of the roof. 00:14:34.140 --> 00:14:35.140 We don't know that. 00:14:35.140 --> 00:14:38.220 We just saw a picture. 00:14:38.220 --> 00:14:40.360 Let's assume that it is. 00:14:40.360 --> 00:14:41.360 What is the adverse effect? 00:14:41.360 --> 00:14:42.360 Yeah. 00:14:42.360 --> 00:14:48.680 I mean, I've driven down Locust, and it's only a few blocks from here, and there was 00:14:48.680 --> 00:14:56.000 one that faces the street, and it's quite visible and not at all in style with the architecture. 00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:00.120 It doesn't look the same at all. 00:15:00.120 --> 00:15:02.040 So it's not changing the building in any way. 00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:04.120 But that's not what they said. 00:15:04.120 --> 00:15:05.120 It's the overall architecture. 00:15:05.120 --> 00:15:10.400 I mean, I have less of a concern about that one panel at the very edge, but the others 00:15:10.400 --> 00:15:15.980 I absolutely positively can see. 00:15:15.980 --> 00:15:18.920 I guess we don't define that adverse effect in that ordinance, do we? 00:15:18.920 --> 00:15:19.920 No. 00:15:19.920 --> 00:15:20.920 It's the subjective. 00:15:20.920 --> 00:15:21.920 That's what we're here for. 00:15:21.920 --> 00:15:22.920 Yeah. 00:15:22.920 --> 00:15:26.080 I think that's a good point, too, because I live in an older home, and anything that 00:15:26.080 --> 00:15:32.280 we can do to help with energy efficiency, because if we stay where we don't change windows, 00:15:32.280 --> 00:15:34.280 we don't have energy efficiency there. 00:15:34.280 --> 00:15:39.640 So it's like, what can we do to help if it does? 00:15:39.640 --> 00:15:43.160 So I look at it that way, too. 00:15:43.160 --> 00:15:49.760 What is the adverse effect, or is it more of a better effect that they have that energy 00:15:49.760 --> 00:15:50.760 source coming in now? 00:15:50.760 --> 00:15:53.600 I think they're investing in the property in general, and not keeping it. 00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:54.600 Right. 00:15:54.600 --> 00:15:58.880 Well, I mean, I've been through, I guess this is the third one of these I've been through. 00:15:58.880 --> 00:16:01.400 I don't know, Angie, have you been through the other two? 00:16:01.400 --> 00:16:04.200 Oh, I've been through-- before you, Mary. 00:16:04.200 --> 00:16:05.200 Really? 00:16:05.200 --> 00:16:06.200 Okay. 00:16:06.200 --> 00:16:07.200 Okay. 00:16:07.200 --> 00:16:10.200 I thought I was the oldest person here before. 00:16:10.200 --> 00:16:11.200 No. 00:16:11.200 --> 00:16:12.200 Yeah, I don't know. 00:16:12.200 --> 00:16:13.440 The visibility is kind of an issue. 00:16:13.440 --> 00:16:16.720 If you've driven down locusts, try to cross from Soho Salon. 00:16:16.720 --> 00:16:22.140 That is in great detriment to what it looks like. 00:16:22.140 --> 00:16:24.960 The whole character of the neighborhood changes when you see those solar panels. 00:16:24.960 --> 00:16:31.320 And I'm all for saving money, by the way, because I live on West Oak Street. 00:16:31.320 --> 00:16:33.320 And I don't mind the one panel that's there. 00:16:33.320 --> 00:16:36.160 The others I really do agree with. 00:16:36.160 --> 00:16:43.280 I might want to have an addition to the considerations that we don't harm the trees taking any out, 00:16:43.280 --> 00:16:47.360 because that's my fear, is what Lenny said is that they would decide that we should take 00:16:47.360 --> 00:16:48.360 them out. 00:16:48.360 --> 00:16:49.360 I guess it's quite negative. 00:16:49.360 --> 00:16:53.120 Do we have an authority to dictate what happens to trees? 00:16:53.120 --> 00:16:58.320 It would change the architectural style, it would change the neighborhood. 00:16:58.320 --> 00:17:03.440 And that is a bit of a concern, because trees seem to vanish on Friday nights at 5 o'clock 00:17:03.440 --> 00:17:04.440 around Denton. 00:17:04.440 --> 00:17:05.440 I'm just saying. 00:17:05.440 --> 00:17:06.440 Well, there's no indication. 00:17:06.440 --> 00:17:15.100 I mean, who knows what a future owner of the property would do, but there's no indication 00:17:15.100 --> 00:17:20.480 that the present owner would be removing trees. 00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:25.560 Well, and we, for the record, we do have our Tina Bergens, deputy director of the services, 00:17:25.560 --> 00:17:27.040 we do have a tree preservation ordinance. 00:17:27.040 --> 00:17:30.920 And so we have requirements in place with respect to removal of trees. 00:17:30.920 --> 00:17:37.320 So property owners do have some rights under our tree preservation ordinance for being 00:17:37.320 --> 00:17:43.240 able to remove trees, if it's so allowed under the ordinance, but also they have the ability 00:17:43.240 --> 00:17:45.560 to provide for maintenance of the trees as well. 00:17:45.560 --> 00:17:51.920 So we would work with the property owner that regardless this applicant or any other applicant 00:17:51.920 --> 00:17:56.280 or property owner in the community to make sure that if any tree removal is done so it's 00:17:56.280 --> 00:17:59.440 in accordance with our tree preservation ordinance that the city council has established. 00:17:59.440 --> 00:18:03.320 Well, that's true, except at 5 o'clock suddenly the tree hackers come out and whack away. 00:18:03.320 --> 00:18:07.080 I'm just saying that I live across the street from someone I, you know, there's no, there's 00:18:07.080 --> 00:18:10.480 nobody to protect that tree at 5 o'clock on a Friday, I can assure you, and I'm not talking 00:18:10.480 --> 00:18:11.480 about you, ma'am. 00:18:11.480 --> 00:18:15.440 I'm just saying in general that I've seen this happen more than once, but I think we're 00:18:15.440 --> 00:18:16.440 away from the point now. 00:18:16.440 --> 00:18:17.440 I have another question. 00:18:17.440 --> 00:18:18.440 Yes. 00:18:18.440 --> 00:18:25.400 On the five that you, that staff is recommending, if that's because it's on Fout Street, not 00:18:25.400 --> 00:18:27.280 because it's on Oak Street. 00:18:27.280 --> 00:18:28.280 Correct. 00:18:28.280 --> 00:18:30.360 But it's due to the fact that it's visible from both. 00:18:30.360 --> 00:18:35.520 So say if you're at the corner of West Oak and Fouts, you'd be able to see it and due 00:18:35.520 --> 00:18:39.240 to vehicular traffic going that way and being able to have vehicular and pedestrian traffic 00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:40.240 on Fouts. 00:18:40.240 --> 00:18:41.240 So that is why staff is recommending. 00:18:41.240 --> 00:18:44.440 Is Fouts part of the Oak history, historic history? 00:18:44.440 --> 00:18:45.440 Yes. 00:18:45.440 --> 00:18:46.440 It does extend halfway down to Fouts. 00:18:46.440 --> 00:18:47.440 And you would see it coming. 00:18:47.440 --> 00:18:48.440 Hold on. 00:18:48.440 --> 00:18:50.640 It only extends halfway down on Fouts Street? 00:18:50.640 --> 00:18:51.640 Yes. 00:18:51.640 --> 00:18:59.360 Let me go back to my aerial. 00:18:59.360 --> 00:19:03.880 So it extends down to here, sorry, down to here. 00:19:03.880 --> 00:19:06.760 So right here is still within the historic district. 00:19:06.760 --> 00:19:12.160 So the fact that it's visible from West Oak and Fouts here, if you're vehicular or pedestrian 00:19:12.160 --> 00:19:17.320 traffic and being able to see visible, especially due to the fact that it probably won't need 00:19:17.320 --> 00:19:18.320 the trees. 00:19:18.320 --> 00:19:19.920 I don't know what to extend. 00:19:19.920 --> 00:19:26.600 They will be needed to be trimmed back a tiny bit that during the winter months you would 00:19:26.600 --> 00:19:27.880 be able to see them. 00:19:27.880 --> 00:19:29.200 Summer months, I'm not sure. 00:19:29.200 --> 00:19:30.200 I don't know. 00:19:30.200 --> 00:19:31.200 Yeah. 00:19:31.200 --> 00:19:34.760 I was going to say, I doubt during the summer months. 00:19:34.760 --> 00:19:38.800 So that is why staff is recommending the five trees be removed on that side. 00:19:38.800 --> 00:19:45.760 So that Fouts, including part of that historic district, is it just that one property that 00:19:45.760 --> 00:19:48.940 that encompasses right there on Fouts? 00:19:48.940 --> 00:19:50.800 Also the neighboring property across the street. 00:19:50.800 --> 00:19:51.800 Across the street though? 00:19:51.800 --> 00:19:52.800 Yes. 00:19:52.800 --> 00:19:53.800 Just those two? 00:19:53.800 --> 00:19:54.800 Yes. 00:19:54.800 --> 00:19:55.800 Just those two. 00:19:55.800 --> 00:19:56.800 The line goes down very strangely. 00:19:56.800 --> 00:19:57.800 Oh, I see that. 00:19:57.800 --> 00:19:58.800 That's why I'm asking. 00:19:58.800 --> 00:19:59.800 I just wanted... 00:19:59.800 --> 00:20:00.800 I'm sorry. 00:20:00.800 --> 00:20:01.800 If it helps to do Google, do you want me to do Google? 00:20:01.800 --> 00:20:02.800 No. 00:20:02.800 --> 00:20:03.800 No, no, no. 00:20:03.800 --> 00:20:04.800 You answered it for me. 00:20:04.800 --> 00:20:05.800 Okay. 00:20:05.800 --> 00:20:11.000 And then I did just want to note, it is in the packet, but I just wanted to note in terms 00:20:11.000 --> 00:20:16.100 of recommendations from the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation in regards to specifically 00:20:16.100 --> 00:20:17.900 solar panels. 00:20:17.900 --> 00:20:22.040 It does mention that installing solar panels horizontally, flat, or parallel, which these 00:20:22.040 --> 00:20:28.400 would be parallel, and that was stated to reduce visibility as one of the recommendations. 00:20:28.400 --> 00:20:32.320 Additionally, installing a solar device on the historic building in a manner that does 00:20:32.320 --> 00:20:38.000 not damage historic roofing material, which this is not historic, but or does not negatively 00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:40.760 impact the building's historic character and is reversible. 00:20:40.760 --> 00:20:44.960 So that is why staff provided their second recommendation as just confirming that it 00:20:44.960 --> 00:20:50.080 is reversible in the future if this property was to be sold and just to make sure that 00:20:50.080 --> 00:20:52.360 there's no damage to the historic building as well. 00:20:52.360 --> 00:20:55.200 But I just did want to add that from the standards. 00:20:55.200 --> 00:20:56.200 Thank you. 00:20:56.200 --> 00:20:57.200 That's all. 00:20:57.200 --> 00:20:58.200 Yeah. 00:20:58.200 --> 00:20:59.200 But... 00:20:59.200 --> 00:21:03.320 Do the guidelines that they have have anything about visibility from pedestrian areas or 00:21:03.320 --> 00:21:04.880 anything like that sort? 00:21:04.880 --> 00:21:05.880 Yes, it does. 00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:07.880 And I want to make sure I get the wording correct. 00:21:07.880 --> 00:21:08.880 So hold on. 00:21:08.880 --> 00:21:09.880 Let me just make sure. 00:21:09.880 --> 00:21:14.440 Installing a low profile solar device on the historic building so that it is not visible 00:21:14.440 --> 00:21:18.480 or only minimally visible from the public right of way is recommended. 00:21:18.480 --> 00:21:22.360 For example, on a flat roof and set back to take advantage of a parapet or other roof 00:21:22.360 --> 00:21:27.160 feature to screen solar panels for view or on a secondary slope of a roof out of view 00:21:27.160 --> 00:21:28.640 from the public right of way. 00:21:28.640 --> 00:21:32.120 So that is why staff recommended keeping these in the rear due to the fact that they were 00:21:32.120 --> 00:21:35.120 a secondary roof. 00:21:35.120 --> 00:21:45.980 Is there any more discussion? 00:21:45.980 --> 00:21:49.680 And how much view do you get on that one up there where you're recommending taking out 00:21:49.680 --> 00:21:50.680 the one? 00:21:50.680 --> 00:21:51.680 In terms of... 00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:52.680 Power or... 00:21:52.680 --> 00:21:53.680 Visibility. 00:21:53.680 --> 00:21:59.960 I'm not sure without an actual rendering, but due to the fact that it appears to be 00:21:59.960 --> 00:22:05.960 less than three feet from the roof's edge towards this front and just staff felt that 00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:09.680 it would be the most visible of the panels along that Western side. 00:22:09.680 --> 00:22:14.200 So that's why staff is recommending the removal of that panel, but then leaving the remainder 00:22:14.200 --> 00:22:16.800 of these panels, which would be seven panels. 00:22:16.800 --> 00:22:23.840 I'm trying to wrap my head around why one side we're worried because it's on a street 00:22:23.840 --> 00:22:25.920 that the ones across the street can see it. 00:22:25.920 --> 00:22:29.600 On the other side, the neighbors were not worried about that. 00:22:29.600 --> 00:22:32.360 The house across the street is not historical in that area. 00:22:32.360 --> 00:22:33.360 No, no, no, no, no. 00:22:33.360 --> 00:22:34.360 I'm not talking about that. 00:22:34.360 --> 00:22:35.360 I'm talking about on fouls. 00:22:35.360 --> 00:22:36.360 Okay. 00:22:36.360 --> 00:22:37.360 Okay. 00:22:37.360 --> 00:22:41.780 So we said because of maybe pedestrian, but we haven't said anything about the neighbors 00:22:41.780 --> 00:22:42.780 next door. 00:22:42.780 --> 00:22:49.280 So to me, it's not a saying either we're worried about it being visible or we're not. 00:22:49.280 --> 00:22:54.720 So that, I cannot wrap my mind around why one side, we don't want it here because maybe 00:22:54.720 --> 00:22:58.800 a vehicle could see it, but this side over here, these neighbors are going to see it 00:22:58.800 --> 00:22:59.800 all the time. 00:22:59.800 --> 00:23:00.800 Correct? 00:23:00.800 --> 00:23:01.800 But we haven't heard from them. 00:23:01.800 --> 00:23:02.800 Yeah. 00:23:02.800 --> 00:23:03.800 I mean, maybe. 00:23:03.800 --> 00:23:05.800 I mean, you can't, you can only limit, I think, Angie. 00:23:05.800 --> 00:23:08.800 I wonder why we're limiting it at all, is my point. 00:23:08.800 --> 00:23:15.440 Well, and you know, at a certain point you have to be flexible in the notion of technology 00:23:15.440 --> 00:23:16.440 changes, these kinds of things. 00:23:16.440 --> 00:23:20.080 I mean, how many houses in that neighborhood have gutters now that didn't originally? 00:23:20.080 --> 00:23:24.160 I mean, you could see it from the street, all these things, they're not permanently 00:23:24.160 --> 00:23:30.760 altering the structure and they serve a functional purpose and it's normalized now because everybody 00:23:30.760 --> 00:23:31.760 has them. 00:23:31.760 --> 00:23:37.680 And I'm wondering if this could be arguably the same thing where it may not be as normalized 00:23:37.680 --> 00:23:42.640 now as it may be five or 10 years from now, but if we're stuck in the same mindset of 00:23:42.640 --> 00:23:48.880 never going to be able to allow it or have it visible at all, then that evolution doesn't 00:23:48.880 --> 00:23:49.880 happen. 00:23:49.880 --> 00:23:53.520 Well, I mean, I would like to address the gutters. 00:23:53.520 --> 00:23:56.480 Gutters usually match the existing trim on the house. 00:23:56.480 --> 00:24:00.120 You cannot match this to the existing trim on the house, you cannot change the color 00:24:00.120 --> 00:24:01.120 of those panels yet. 00:24:01.120 --> 00:24:02.120 Change color of the trim. 00:24:02.120 --> 00:24:03.120 That changes historic characteristics. 00:24:03.120 --> 00:24:10.440 And secondly, the technology will advance such that, in fact, they actually exist except 00:24:10.440 --> 00:24:15.240 Elon Musk hasn't let it out again as they were making solar roofs, real roofs, but he's 00:24:15.240 --> 00:24:16.240 used it all up for Tesla. 00:24:16.240 --> 00:24:17.240 So yeah, they were. 00:24:17.240 --> 00:24:20.920 In fact, just before the last one that came about, there are these roof panels that would 00:24:20.920 --> 00:24:24.640 just exist and they would blend right in, and I would say no problem. 00:24:24.640 --> 00:24:30.760 So the technology is catching up, but these panels are really quite visible from the street. 00:24:30.760 --> 00:24:35.520 And I have no problem with letting the seven over here, as I drive down the street, going 00:24:35.520 --> 00:24:40.600 less all the time will show always, the eastern panels will always show. 00:24:40.600 --> 00:24:44.960 And if you've ever driven north on Locust, you will see the couple of buildings that stand 00:24:44.960 --> 00:24:45.960 out like a sore thumb. 00:24:45.960 --> 00:24:48.520 They do not fit in. 00:24:48.520 --> 00:24:55.200 So I would modify the one existing one facing west and let it be, because I don't think 00:24:55.200 --> 00:24:59.840 you can see much with most of the traffic going from east to west. 00:24:59.840 --> 00:25:10.560 You will see the east face. 00:25:10.560 --> 00:25:30.160 If they just took out the two on here, how much would they still see? 00:25:30.160 --> 00:25:35.560 The two that were street side. 00:25:35.560 --> 00:25:40.160 So these are all street side, but taking out these closest ones to the street. 00:25:40.160 --> 00:25:43.720 How high is that elevated, do you know? 00:25:43.720 --> 00:25:50.080 So this would be, so this is the secondary roof and this is the first floor roof. 00:25:50.080 --> 00:25:57.680 So you would still see all of those. 00:25:57.680 --> 00:26:01.320 And the secondary, where were the secondaries going to go on this picture? 00:26:01.320 --> 00:26:05.640 It would be on this roof line right here, it would be on that front roof line. 00:26:05.640 --> 00:26:10.280 And then show me again on the secondary and the other page. 00:26:10.280 --> 00:26:13.240 Where on this is the secondary? 00:26:13.240 --> 00:26:18.400 You would see, you would still have two solar panels visible, but due to the fact that they're 00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:23.800 on that secondary roof line, during the summer you wouldn't be able to have as high of visibility 00:26:23.800 --> 00:26:25.960 as you do during the winter. 00:26:25.960 --> 00:26:29.960 But due to the fact and based off the Secretary of Interior's standards, that's why staff 00:26:29.960 --> 00:26:31.760 made the recommendation of keeping these. 00:26:31.760 --> 00:26:36.360 Could you read the standards again, please? 00:26:36.360 --> 00:26:40.320 Well, I didn't provide... 00:26:40.320 --> 00:26:42.200 You have the other one you read. 00:26:42.200 --> 00:26:49.120 So these were provided in the backup. 00:26:49.120 --> 00:26:55.440 So in terms of the visibility, the standards recommends that they're not visible or only 00:26:55.440 --> 00:27:00.640 minimally visible from the public right of way. 00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:05.000 In terms of installing a solar device on the historic building, it should be done in a 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:08.840 manner that does not damage the historic roofing material or negatively impact the building's 00:27:08.840 --> 00:27:12.480 historic character and is reversible. 00:27:12.480 --> 00:27:19.920 Solar panels should be installed horizontally, flat or parallel to the roof to reduce visibility. 00:27:19.920 --> 00:27:23.160 Who promulgated those? 00:27:23.160 --> 00:27:38.560 These are Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. 00:27:38.560 --> 00:27:43.800 Do you know if there's any way to install those panels that would be a little bit lower? 00:27:43.800 --> 00:27:44.800 Lower to the roof? 00:27:44.800 --> 00:27:45.800 Yes. 00:27:45.800 --> 00:27:46.800 How could I know of? 00:27:46.800 --> 00:27:47.800 I'll do this. 00:27:47.800 --> 00:27:48.800 There we go. 00:27:48.800 --> 00:27:59.040 So this thing, I confirmed on the dimensions, I can't remember if you commented, it's 10 00:27:59.040 --> 00:28:03.000 to 10 inches from the roof to the face, if that helps? 00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:04.000 Correct. 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:05.000 Yes. 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:06.000 But it would be a maximum. 00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:09.000 Usually like eight to 10 inches off the roof. 00:28:09.000 --> 00:28:11.000 We've got some in our neighborhood. 00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:16.560 I see them all the time as we drive by, but obviously I'm not in a historic neighborhood 00:28:16.560 --> 00:28:39.520 and wouldn't be in one for that matter, but I just really would like, I'd like to be able 00:28:39.520 --> 00:28:47.120 to put solar panels on the roof. 00:28:47.120 --> 00:28:53.520 I appreciate them not trying to put them on the front and I think that goes without saying 00:28:53.520 --> 00:28:59.600 that I think that could definitely change, you know, the look of the neighborhood. 00:28:59.600 --> 00:29:06.800 But I actually think you'll see more driving west on Oak on the side than you will see 00:29:06.800 --> 00:29:10.440 on the front because as you approach from that side, that's what you're going to see 00:29:10.440 --> 00:29:12.080 because there's a street there. 00:29:12.080 --> 00:29:17.880 You will see that face more than anything else as you go by, the front face, that will 00:29:17.880 --> 00:29:18.920 show more. 00:29:18.920 --> 00:29:21.400 I'm happy to leave all of them on the west side. 00:29:21.400 --> 00:29:31.000 You know, people aren't driving the other way and most of our traffic is driving. 00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:36.160 And that's still 17 solar panels, which is more than most people put on their house, 00:29:36.160 --> 00:29:41.200 but I've counted in the past, so it's quite a good-sized panel, but something else. 00:29:41.200 --> 00:29:45.520 So this is a solar company, they specialize in installation and this is the number that 00:29:45.520 --> 00:29:46.520 they recommended? 00:29:46.520 --> 00:29:47.520 Is that correct? 00:29:47.520 --> 00:29:48.520 Exactly. 00:29:48.520 --> 00:29:52.280 Yeah, because we're not taking down all the trees to make a completely clear, you know, 00:29:52.280 --> 00:29:55.800 path that we have to have that many panels to make it worthwhile. 00:29:55.800 --> 00:30:00.480 So either taking down all the ones that are recommended, we may have to take some of the 00:30:00.480 --> 00:30:03.600 tree cover away and make a plan without those. 00:30:03.600 --> 00:30:07.440 You know, the trick is there is a tree ordinance, so taking them away is a little bit harder 00:30:07.440 --> 00:30:09.880 than you and just cutting them down because you don't want them. 00:30:09.880 --> 00:30:11.400 I'm not interested in taking them down. 00:30:11.400 --> 00:30:12.400 I agree with you. 00:30:12.400 --> 00:30:16.280 I mean, I actually said that before I believe you. 00:30:16.280 --> 00:30:19.720 And they're just out to maximize how many panels they install, which is their business, 00:30:19.720 --> 00:30:20.720 so that's fine. 00:30:20.720 --> 00:30:21.720 Have we gone any further on discussion? 00:30:21.720 --> 00:30:27.080 Is there anybody that wants to make a recommendation? 00:30:27.080 --> 00:30:33.160 I just, I feel like if the people next door wanted to put it on the same side of the house, 00:30:33.160 --> 00:30:36.400 we would say it's okay, because there's not a street there. 00:30:36.400 --> 00:30:41.040 So it's almost like you're penalizing these people because there's a street. 00:30:41.040 --> 00:30:42.040 I didn't tell them to buy it. 00:30:42.040 --> 00:30:43.040 Does that make sense? 00:30:43.040 --> 00:30:44.040 Yeah, but you can see it. 00:30:44.040 --> 00:30:45.040 That's the problem. 00:30:45.040 --> 00:30:48.880 As you drive down the street, it stands out. 00:30:48.880 --> 00:30:52.920 And I know there's some trees there that are going to be trimmed down, and you can see 00:30:52.920 --> 00:30:55.640 those panels that you can buy. 00:30:55.640 --> 00:30:59.120 And if you're going to minimize them, I think getting 17 is a pretty good number. 00:30:59.120 --> 00:31:04.000 I mean, I'm willing to take off the other west one and leave them half out. 00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:07.680 I'm not excited about those facing east. 00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:12.960 I'm ready to make a motion. 00:31:12.960 --> 00:31:18.640 That's a weak count on you. 00:31:18.640 --> 00:31:23.520 I mean, it helps with the energy. 00:31:23.520 --> 00:31:28.080 But remember, these are all things that are mined and processed and stuff. 00:31:28.080 --> 00:31:29.680 So it's not like it's greener here. 00:31:29.680 --> 00:31:38.680 I mean, it's greener here, not necessarily elsewhere. 00:31:38.680 --> 00:31:50.560 I'm not recommending that we approve the certificate of appropriateness request without conditions. 00:31:50.560 --> 00:31:51.560 No conditions from cameras. 00:31:51.560 --> 00:31:52.560 Okay. 00:31:52.560 --> 00:32:00.740 Should we have a discussion now? 00:32:00.740 --> 00:32:17.200 I just think maybe we need to look at the Historic Commission, no, Historic Properties 00:32:17.200 --> 00:32:18.200 with an idea. 00:32:18.200 --> 00:32:24.200 You know, in order to maintain these long term, they need to be feasible. 00:32:24.200 --> 00:32:31.240 And when we have things that will maintain the property and still be able to reduce the 00:32:31.240 --> 00:32:41.560 cost of living there, and all it would do is possibly offend somebody's eyes, I think 00:32:41.560 --> 00:32:44.560 that's asking a lot. 00:32:44.560 --> 00:32:46.800 I agree. 00:32:46.800 --> 00:32:52.520 I will point out as I also live in the Historic District, and you know, in that case, we don't 00:32:52.520 --> 00:32:53.520 need any regulations. 00:32:53.520 --> 00:32:54.920 Let's have a free for all. 00:32:54.920 --> 00:32:55.920 I love purple houses. 00:32:55.920 --> 00:32:56.920 I like to paint mine purple. 00:32:56.920 --> 00:33:04.720 There used to be one on Austin Street that was, or Oakland, Austin, it's very cute. 00:33:04.720 --> 00:33:07.000 They painted it over. 00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:13.240 But the regulations are put in here by the Secretary of the Interior. 00:33:13.240 --> 00:33:16.520 And it's not going to, I mean, I live in the Historic District, I have a bunch of trees. 00:33:16.520 --> 00:33:18.480 In fact, my house looks like yours from above. 00:33:18.480 --> 00:33:22.680 If you look at the, if you look at it on GIS maps, it looks the same. 00:33:22.680 --> 00:33:27.640 In fact, you can't find my roof in the summertime, it's covered over. 00:33:27.640 --> 00:33:33.560 So my highest bill, and I like my house cold, my highest bill has never cracked for electricity 00:33:33.560 --> 00:33:37.200 $350, ever. 00:33:37.200 --> 00:33:38.760 And it's the same size house. 00:33:38.760 --> 00:33:44.160 So I don't think the, yeah it is, it's 2,750 square feet, it's half the two story. 00:33:44.160 --> 00:33:48.880 So I don't think that $350 for two months out of the summer, because that's all it is. 00:33:48.880 --> 00:33:50.840 The rest of my timeline, 100 bucks. 00:33:50.840 --> 00:33:55.080 I don't think that is a huge savings to ask to keep the historic neighborhood. 00:33:55.080 --> 00:33:57.720 I mean, you didn't just buy it because of the trees, you bought it because you wanted 00:33:57.720 --> 00:33:59.120 to live in a historic neighborhood. 00:33:59.120 --> 00:34:03.880 Actually, ma'am, we had bought this house in 2001 before it was a historic neighborhood. 00:34:03.880 --> 00:34:08.560 So these regulations, we didn't move into a house with the Homeowners Association specifically 00:34:08.560 --> 00:34:12.320 because we didn't want this kind of oversight, this kind of regulation. 00:34:12.320 --> 00:34:17.180 And so now that we're in the historic district, we want to do what we need to do to comply. 00:34:17.180 --> 00:34:18.800 But we also want to be able to do things. 00:34:18.800 --> 00:34:24.400 My New Balance billing amount for the city for my energy bills is $360. 00:34:24.400 --> 00:34:26.760 And it's likely to go higher than that. 00:34:26.760 --> 00:34:31.780 So maybe your experience is different than mine, but our energy is high and getting higher. 00:34:31.780 --> 00:34:32.780 The electricity. 00:34:32.780 --> 00:34:36.440 May I ask, is this part of the motivation was to save electricity and save on the bill? 00:34:36.440 --> 00:34:37.440 Absolutely. 00:34:37.440 --> 00:34:38.440 Thank you. 00:34:38.440 --> 00:34:39.440 Oh, okay, that's just a discussion. 00:34:39.440 --> 00:34:42.640 Yeah, we have to close off public comments now. 00:34:42.640 --> 00:34:44.640 We're in the voting discussion. 00:34:44.640 --> 00:34:47.000 Lance, did you have more? 00:34:47.000 --> 00:34:48.000 No. 00:34:48.000 --> 00:34:52.600 I have a question with regard to the tree ordinance. 00:34:52.600 --> 00:34:55.840 Understand that the trees are being trimmed. 00:34:55.840 --> 00:35:01.240 Is there within the ordinance that they, regardless if it happens on 5 o'clock on Friday, that 00:35:01.240 --> 00:35:03.920 you're not supposed to cut down on the trees? 00:35:03.920 --> 00:35:10.040 And does it impact anything about how we're moving towards this decision? 00:35:10.040 --> 00:35:16.560 So in regards to the historic district, we do not have any regulation as a historic landmark 00:35:16.560 --> 00:35:18.440 commission over the trees themselves. 00:35:18.440 --> 00:35:23.920 That is a separate process that would be handled through the development services and through 00:35:23.920 --> 00:35:27.120 our permitting technicians, as well as our code enforcement. 00:35:27.120 --> 00:35:31.560 So that would be a separate if, say, if the trees were to be removed after hours and or 00:35:31.560 --> 00:35:34.160 without a permit, that would be handled by code enforcement. 00:35:34.160 --> 00:35:38.800 But under historic landmark commission, you all are not voting and do not have jurisdiction. 00:35:38.800 --> 00:35:42.520 Okay, so you can't say that the only condition would be that there would be only a trim and 00:35:42.520 --> 00:35:43.880 not removal of trees? 00:35:43.880 --> 00:35:44.880 No. 00:35:44.880 --> 00:35:45.880 Okay. 00:35:45.880 --> 00:35:46.880 Correct. 00:35:46.880 --> 00:35:47.880 Thank you. 00:35:47.880 --> 00:35:48.880 Correct. 00:35:48.880 --> 00:35:55.000 So is it possible to make an amendment to this or suggest an amendment? 00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:56.000 Yes. 00:35:56.000 --> 00:35:57.000 Yes. 00:35:57.000 --> 00:35:59.920 But Lynn, you would have to accept it. 00:35:59.920 --> 00:36:00.920 Yes. 00:36:00.920 --> 00:36:06.640 I would like to amend that we allow the panels, including the one that faces west, just not 00:36:06.640 --> 00:36:07.640 the east panels. 00:36:07.640 --> 00:36:08.640 Okay. 00:36:08.640 --> 00:36:09.640 Hold on. 00:36:09.640 --> 00:36:10.640 And so Leni would have to either accept or not. 00:36:10.640 --> 00:36:11.640 Yes. 00:36:11.640 --> 00:36:12.640 I know. 00:36:12.640 --> 00:36:13.640 So these would, this would stay. 00:36:13.640 --> 00:36:14.640 That would stay. 00:36:14.640 --> 00:36:15.640 But these would be still removed. 00:36:15.640 --> 00:36:16.640 No. 00:36:16.640 --> 00:36:17.640 Okay. 00:36:17.640 --> 00:36:18.640 Okay. 00:36:18.640 --> 00:36:19.640 So the amendment on the floor stands. 00:36:19.640 --> 00:36:20.640 So it stands. 00:36:20.640 --> 00:36:21.640 Sorry. 00:36:21.640 --> 00:36:22.640 It's not amended. 00:36:22.640 --> 00:36:23.640 Okay. 00:36:23.640 --> 00:36:24.640 The motion on the floor stands. 00:36:24.640 --> 00:36:25.640 The word that was supposed to come up. 00:36:25.640 --> 00:36:31.340 Other discussion, comments? 00:36:31.340 --> 00:36:38.640 Shall we have a vote? 00:36:38.640 --> 00:36:41.560 Shall we signify by raising hands? 00:36:41.560 --> 00:36:43.440 This is in support of Leni's proposal. 00:36:43.440 --> 00:36:44.440 Yes. 00:36:44.440 --> 00:36:45.440 Leni's proposal. 00:36:45.440 --> 00:36:50.440 All those in favor, raise your hand. 00:36:50.440 --> 00:36:51.440 Opposed? 00:36:51.440 --> 00:36:52.440 Passes. 00:36:52.440 --> 00:36:55.880 We need to take a break now? 00:36:55.880 --> 00:36:56.880 Yes. 00:36:56.880 --> 00:36:57.880 Yes. 00:36:57.880 --> 00:36:58.880 We'll take about a five minute break or so. 00:36:58.880 --> 00:36:59.880 Oh. 00:36:59.880 --> 00:37:00.880 Sorry. 00:37:00.880 --> 00:37:01.880 I was finding my page. 00:37:01.880 --> 00:37:02.880 No, you're totally fine. 00:37:02.880 --> 00:37:03.880 Yes. 00:37:03.880 --> 00:37:04.880 All right, everyone. 00:37:04.880 --> 00:37:05.880 I think we've had a good break. 00:37:05.880 --> 00:37:11.000 So hopefully we're all ready to get started on the second half of our agenda, which could 00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:12.000 take a little while. 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:22.040 It is the work session and we'll open by discussing HLC 22-081A. 00:37:22.040 --> 00:37:26.600 Discuss and provide direction regarding those sections of subchapter two of the Denton Development 00:37:26.600 --> 00:37:31.960 Code pertaining to the historic landmark conditions, composition, operational procedures, and regulatory 00:37:31.960 --> 00:37:32.960 responsibilities. 00:37:32.960 --> 00:37:33.960 So I'm going to pull this up. 00:37:33.960 --> 00:37:34.960 It's kind of a large one. 00:37:34.960 --> 00:37:35.960 Is there a presentation? 00:37:35.960 --> 00:37:36.960 No. 00:37:36.960 --> 00:37:37.960 No. 00:37:37.960 --> 00:37:38.960 Is there a presentation? 00:37:38.960 --> 00:37:39.960 Oh, okay. 00:37:39.960 --> 00:37:40.960 Just here finally getting it here. 00:37:40.960 --> 00:37:41.960 Okay. 00:37:41.960 --> 00:38:03.800 So is this the section that you were talking about and break on the number of days or no? 00:38:03.800 --> 00:38:06.040 I think there's several sections that just do that. 00:38:06.040 --> 00:38:07.040 Yeah, kind of a little. 00:38:07.040 --> 00:38:17.440 Is this so big that it's a little, you know, maybe we should start an order from just the 00:38:17.440 --> 00:38:23.320 subchapter starting with like 2.2 and working our way down or just seeing if you have any 00:38:23.320 --> 00:38:25.320 initial ideas and we can go around. 00:38:25.320 --> 00:38:26.320 Hang on. 00:38:26.320 --> 00:38:27.320 No worries. 00:38:27.320 --> 00:38:28.320 No worries. 00:38:28.320 --> 00:38:50.520 Before we begin, I just wanted to reiterate what the purpose of this discussion is. 00:38:50.520 --> 00:38:57.040 This discussion was for the commission as a whole to provide direction to our definitions 00:38:57.040 --> 00:39:05.040 ad hoc committee, which is made up of Commissioner Cooper, Commissioner Cable, and Commissioner 00:39:05.040 --> 00:39:06.040 Stripling. 00:39:06.040 --> 00:39:11.480 And this is to help them start working on those edits and adjustments to subchapter 00:39:11.480 --> 00:39:17.480 two in regards to the historic Landmark Commission and those historic procedures that you all 00:39:17.480 --> 00:39:23.040 are encountering during staff's review and during these meetings. 00:39:23.040 --> 00:39:28.920 So I just wanted to remind you all what the purpose of this discussion is about. 00:39:28.920 --> 00:39:39.920 Looking for 2.2 table eventually. 00:39:39.920 --> 00:39:42.640 So taking a look at this, wow, okay. 00:39:42.640 --> 00:39:56.040 Ms. Hemingway. 00:39:56.040 --> 00:39:57.040 There was nothing specific. 00:39:57.040 --> 00:40:08.000 It was more just so I need to see if I specifically it would be on I guess the third page of the 00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:13.840 table itself where it's listed historic preservation procedures. 00:40:13.840 --> 00:40:17.800 Just make sure everything looks good there and then we're moving on to that next section, 00:40:17.800 --> 00:40:23.880 which is listed as the 2.3.6, which is in regards to the historic Landmark Commission. 00:40:23.880 --> 00:40:31.400 But I'm going to bring it up here in the meantime, just so that we have it online. 00:40:31.400 --> 00:40:34.320 Oh yeah, that'd be great. 00:40:34.320 --> 00:40:38.520 I actually don't think I have teams up, unless I can sign in here. 00:40:38.520 --> 00:40:39.520 Oh, I hate teams. 00:40:39.520 --> 00:40:40.520 I accidentally leave it like I did earlier. 00:40:40.520 --> 00:40:41.520 Do we have it on the hand? 00:40:41.520 --> 00:40:42.520 I don't know. 00:40:42.520 --> 00:40:43.520 Teams hates me. 00:40:43.520 --> 00:40:44.520 I'm not sure why. 00:40:44.520 --> 00:40:45.520 I think I have teams someplace else that just won't work. 00:40:45.520 --> 00:41:06.480 Do you know how to get to the home from here? 00:41:06.480 --> 00:41:22.000 I can't. 00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:25.080 So the three of you worked on this, right? 00:41:25.080 --> 00:41:29.960 So I think this is more to get us to a point where we can't. 00:41:29.960 --> 00:41:30.960 Yes. 00:41:30.960 --> 00:41:31.960 Yes. 00:41:31.960 --> 00:41:32.960 I see. 00:41:32.960 --> 00:41:38.000 So we had staff sent this prior to so that you all came with ideas that you could discuss 00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:45.040 during this time rather than us working and trying to gather ideas right at this moment 00:41:45.040 --> 00:41:46.040 during the meeting. 00:41:46.040 --> 00:41:47.040 Because that could take potentially hours. 00:41:47.040 --> 00:41:48.040 Are we in discussion at this point? 00:41:48.040 --> 00:41:49.040 Oh, yes. 00:41:49.040 --> 00:41:50.040 Yes, it's a work session. 00:41:50.040 --> 00:41:51.040 Okay. 00:41:51.040 --> 00:41:54.040 So I think one thing that prompted this is we have a lot of discussions about, for example, 00:41:54.040 --> 00:41:55.040 windows, right? 00:41:55.040 --> 00:42:03.360 And where are the guidelines for that? 00:42:03.360 --> 00:42:11.040 And that's just one example of kind of mentally seeing like a window in a frame. 00:42:11.040 --> 00:42:14.920 That's one item, but we have to build the frame. 00:42:14.920 --> 00:42:16.920 That seems to be missing from this. 00:42:16.920 --> 00:42:25.680 And I don't know, I'm looking really, I think we're looking really, if y'all let me know, 00:42:25.680 --> 00:42:29.620 you know, Angelique, in case, at 2.9.1 and following. 00:42:29.620 --> 00:42:36.040 And where do we want to, if we want to, put in more guidelines? 00:42:36.040 --> 00:42:38.720 And so that's on page like 109. 00:42:38.720 --> 00:42:39.720 Thank you. 00:42:39.720 --> 00:42:40.720 Sure. 00:42:40.720 --> 00:42:48.120 And then really, I would just point out, if folks are interested, on page 111, and this 00:42:48.120 --> 00:42:54.760 is under 2.9.2, the certificate of appropriateness, kind of talking about some of the principles 00:42:54.760 --> 00:42:57.400 that guide that. 00:42:57.400 --> 00:43:02.280 And I don't know, I just sort of had frankly drawn, I mean, because I'm the newest guy 00:43:02.280 --> 00:43:04.080 here, I don't really know where to start. 00:43:04.080 --> 00:43:07.240 And that's one reason I wanted to get feedback from you guys. 00:43:07.240 --> 00:43:12.800 I didn't know if we wanted to put in, if we wanted to edit, maybe condense a little bit 00:43:12.800 --> 00:43:18.000 of the Secretary of Interior's guidelines, and put this in here, but in our own wording. 00:43:18.000 --> 00:43:24.200 And before, while you're pondering that, Cameron, when you have a new, you know, application 00:43:24.200 --> 00:43:30.840 for this, do you sort it into those four buckets that the Secretary of Interior provides? 00:43:30.840 --> 00:43:32.840 You know, is this, is that the first thing you do? 00:43:32.840 --> 00:43:37.800 No, that's the first thing I do when I receive an application, the applicant themselves do 00:43:37.800 --> 00:43:43.800 not do that, myself as the HPO does that, and that's where I kind of break it down, 00:43:43.800 --> 00:43:49.400 is it preservation, is it rehabilitation, is it reconstruction. 00:43:49.400 --> 00:43:51.440 And so that's where I'm breaking it down to those four buckets. 00:43:51.440 --> 00:43:52.440 Okay. 00:43:52.440 --> 00:43:58.640 So I did wonder if maybe there would be value in us doing something similar in our own code. 00:43:58.640 --> 00:44:02.360 I'll just put that out there. 00:44:02.360 --> 00:44:10.880 I mean, one of the areas that we were stuck was what is preservation and what is like 00:44:10.880 --> 00:44:11.880 preservation. 00:44:11.880 --> 00:44:20.080 And did I just say that same thing, preservation, anyway, to me, they get intermingled. 00:44:20.080 --> 00:44:21.080 Sure. 00:44:21.080 --> 00:44:22.080 Oh, it's improvement. 00:44:22.080 --> 00:44:23.080 Improvement, yes. 00:44:23.080 --> 00:44:24.080 Rehabilitation. 00:44:24.080 --> 00:44:25.080 Rehabilitation. 00:44:25.080 --> 00:44:26.080 That's it. 00:44:26.080 --> 00:44:31.480 Rehabilitation and preservation, and we start looking at that, it's like, well, what are 00:44:31.480 --> 00:44:34.600 the meanings of all of those when you start looking? 00:44:34.600 --> 00:44:39.760 And to me, they just start really, it starts many in the water bit. 00:44:39.760 --> 00:44:45.480 But if we created our own structure, if you will, then we can, as a group, figure that 00:44:45.480 --> 00:44:46.480 out. 00:44:46.480 --> 00:44:50.880 But I'm just right now, I'm trying to figure out, do we want that much of a structure within 00:44:50.880 --> 00:44:51.880 our own? 00:44:51.880 --> 00:44:56.760 I don't see anything wrong with having a little more structure, perhaps, because I admit that 00:44:56.760 --> 00:45:01.680 the difference between preservation and rehabilitation, to me, is very, is sort of muddled. 00:45:01.680 --> 00:45:07.000 I think there is a better definition than I have, mentally, but that'll be up to you. 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:11.560 Would it assist to, or would it be helpful to use the Secretary of Interior's standards 00:45:11.560 --> 00:45:17.160 of what preservation and rehabilitation is, and just use specifically their definitions? 00:45:17.160 --> 00:45:20.800 The problem is I don't think the city code uses those words. 00:45:20.800 --> 00:45:21.800 I think that was the problem. 00:45:21.800 --> 00:45:22.800 Correct, they do not. 00:45:22.800 --> 00:45:27.080 I think that was the problem, the city code, and they didn't directly translate. 00:45:27.080 --> 00:45:29.760 I'm sorry, is it an absence in the city code? 00:45:29.760 --> 00:45:30.760 No, they use different words altogether. 00:45:30.760 --> 00:45:31.760 They do. 00:45:31.760 --> 00:45:32.760 Remember, when we get together, it's all together different. 00:45:32.760 --> 00:45:33.760 Right, yeah. 00:45:33.760 --> 00:45:34.760 And we all went, "Wait a second." 00:45:34.760 --> 00:45:35.760 We could go from that, though. 00:45:35.760 --> 00:45:36.760 Yeah. 00:45:36.760 --> 00:45:46.480 But again, just to have an overarching framework, and then, as a group, we could put it up and 00:45:46.480 --> 00:45:50.400 we could literally edit on the fly, you know. 00:45:50.400 --> 00:45:55.520 But I think the one that stuck out in my mind was the improvement, the code, the city has 00:45:55.520 --> 00:46:00.320 used the word improvement, and we didn't know which one of those fell under, is that revotation, 00:46:00.320 --> 00:46:01.320 is that preservation? 00:46:01.320 --> 00:46:04.160 You could argue any one of those. 00:46:04.160 --> 00:46:09.240 Right, and if we do our due diligence here, and let's say that we deny something, and 00:46:09.240 --> 00:46:16.080 we do it for one of those reasons, it goes to council, and council is looking at totally 00:46:16.080 --> 00:46:24.560 different terminology, because that's what's in the code, city code, so it just gets real 00:46:24.560 --> 00:46:25.560 confusing. 00:46:25.560 --> 00:46:26.560 Sure. 00:46:26.560 --> 00:46:30.160 We may have to bend the Secretary of the Interior's things to it, but you know, that's... 00:46:30.160 --> 00:46:31.160 Oh, yeah. 00:46:31.160 --> 00:46:36.080 I mean, there's something behind this, though, is those are recommendations? 00:46:36.080 --> 00:46:45.480 Yeah, in some materials, the definitions are either at the front or back of words that 00:46:45.480 --> 00:46:49.920 make a difference, that really make a difference in what you're doing, and so you can look 00:46:49.920 --> 00:46:53.280 there and see how it's defined. 00:46:53.280 --> 00:47:01.760 Maybe that is something we should do, so that when we see this word, we know what it means. 00:47:01.760 --> 00:47:08.440 Even examples of an example of a rehabilitation or example, just to give a guideline, you 00:47:08.440 --> 00:47:11.800 know, not inclusive, but just as a one example. 00:47:11.800 --> 00:47:19.600 So Lenny, you mean in terms of, so say, in text, say it stated improvement, and then 00:47:19.600 --> 00:47:25.240 it provided the definition of improvement in that sentence, as it talks about, you know, 00:47:25.240 --> 00:47:33.040 as if you're going through a certificate of appropriateness, and you're looking into improvements, 00:47:33.040 --> 00:47:36.960 as such an improvement is this, and then it continues kind of the sentence on. 00:47:36.960 --> 00:47:38.800 Is that what you mean in terms of the text? 00:47:38.800 --> 00:47:39.800 No. 00:47:39.800 --> 00:47:46.320 I've seen it actually, there was a separate section in the, whatever it was, whatever 00:47:46.320 --> 00:47:52.000 ordinance or whatever you would need in which they defined the words, they were just all 00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:54.680 in a row, maybe two pages or something like that. 00:47:54.680 --> 00:48:00.760 Oh, are you talking, okay, the, are you talking about the definitions chapter that we have 00:48:00.760 --> 00:48:01.760 in our code? 00:48:01.760 --> 00:48:05.800 If, then can we add these in there? 00:48:05.800 --> 00:48:14.840 If there are terms that are not defined in the DDC that you feel need to be better addressed 00:48:14.840 --> 00:48:21.500 where they are defined, then as part of this discussion, we could entertain amendments 00:48:21.500 --> 00:48:24.160 to the DDC in the definitions section. 00:48:24.160 --> 00:48:29.760 So we put all the definitions, when we have an ordinance like the DDC, we try to keep 00:48:29.760 --> 00:48:34.800 all the like things in the like area, right, so all the definitions, we put in the definitions 00:48:34.800 --> 00:48:35.800 chapter. 00:48:35.800 --> 00:48:40.560 We try not to put standards in the, vary standards in the definitions subsection, we try to put 00:48:40.560 --> 00:48:43.920 those standards in whatever applicable section they need to be within it. 00:48:43.920 --> 00:48:48.440 So if there's, and then in another clue, and Ron, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron, you're 00:48:48.440 --> 00:48:49.440 welcome to come up here. 00:48:49.440 --> 00:48:54.440 Ron has been, I know y'all, some of you know Ron Mendita, our principal planner on our 00:48:54.440 --> 00:49:00.660 planning team through past work with the Historic Clean Work Commission, but also he's worked 00:49:00.660 --> 00:49:03.560 extensively on amendments to our DDC. 00:49:03.560 --> 00:49:09.080 And so one of the things, typically you'll know if a term is capitalized, then it's defined 00:49:09.080 --> 00:49:10.640 in the definition section. 00:49:10.640 --> 00:49:15.040 So that's one technique that's used so that the reader of the ordinance sees, wait a minute, 00:49:15.040 --> 00:49:20.000 this word is capitalized, so therefore, you know, I know to go look in the definition 00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:21.000 section. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:23.480 So we try to create those linkages if at all possible. 00:49:23.480 --> 00:49:29.080 Right, and Tina's correct, we want to keep those definitions in one area so that if there 00:49:29.080 --> 00:49:32.200 are changes to the definitions, they're not conflicting in the future. 00:49:32.200 --> 00:49:34.720 So that's the purpose. 00:49:34.720 --> 00:49:38.480 For the group that's putting together those suggested or recommended code amendments, 00:49:38.480 --> 00:49:43.440 yeah, I would suggest I start identifying those terms that are not in the development 00:49:43.440 --> 00:49:46.000 code, and then we can start to draft those definitions. 00:49:46.000 --> 00:49:51.000 Again, the purpose is really to help not only the HLC, but also the applicants that are 00:49:51.000 --> 00:49:56.920 also reviewing their applications through the development code as well. 00:49:56.920 --> 00:50:01.200 The other thing I might offer also, as you're considering whether or not 10-min certain 00:50:01.200 --> 00:50:11.380 components of the DEC as it relates to certificates of appropriateness, since that's 2.9, is so 00:50:11.380 --> 00:50:16.060 if there are areas where you're thinking you may want flexibility as part of your decision-making 00:50:16.060 --> 00:50:23.960 process, then either a separate policy might prove beneficial for evaluating certificates 00:50:23.960 --> 00:50:30.200 of appropriateness or the preservation plan if there's guidance in there. 00:50:30.200 --> 00:50:36.780 Also the standards provide the framework for the evaluation of certificates of appropriateness. 00:50:36.780 --> 00:50:39.960 So that's generally where you get more of your flexibility, right? 00:50:39.960 --> 00:50:45.320 When it's put into an ordinance, keep in mind ordinance is law, and so if someone is seeking 00:50:45.320 --> 00:50:51.000 relief from the DEC, then typically that relief has to go through the Zoning Board of Adjustment 00:50:51.000 --> 00:50:54.360 and they're subject to a different set of criteria for evaluation. 00:50:54.360 --> 00:51:00.560 So I only put that out there so that as the committee works through and the commission 00:51:00.560 --> 00:51:05.760 as a whole works through some potential amendment, you might keep that in mind that if there 00:51:05.760 --> 00:51:09.880 are areas where you think you may want some flexibility, then it's better to have that 00:51:09.880 --> 00:51:14.160 flexibility in the policy document or leaving that in the re-habilitation or the Secretary 00:51:14.160 --> 00:51:18.800 of Standards for evaluating the various certificates of appropriateness. 00:51:18.800 --> 00:51:23.280 Once it gets put into an ordinance and becomes law, then obviously it's much more stringent. 00:51:23.280 --> 00:51:28.280 So there may be certain things that the commission is wanting to see that are part of the ordinance 00:51:28.280 --> 00:51:33.260 because the criteria for relief under the ordinance is going to be much different than 00:51:33.260 --> 00:51:38.840 other criteria or that you may have that you find in some of your other documents, if that 00:51:38.840 --> 00:51:39.840 makes sense. 00:51:39.840 --> 00:51:42.160 I know Mary, you're looking at me kind of strangely, so. 00:51:42.160 --> 00:51:44.760 Yeah, that's the last bit kind of got me a little. 00:51:44.760 --> 00:51:45.760 Right. 00:51:45.760 --> 00:51:51.280 So keep in mind, so when regulations are put in the Denton Development Code or DDC, that's 00:51:51.280 --> 00:51:52.280 law, right? 00:51:52.280 --> 00:51:54.460 So they either meet or they don't. 00:51:54.460 --> 00:52:01.120 When a property owner or an applicant needs relief from the DDC because of how it's structured, 00:52:01.120 --> 00:52:02.640 that's considered a zoning regulation. 00:52:02.640 --> 00:52:08.000 So it has to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for relief. 00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:14.200 If you're finding as you're evaluating certificates of appropriateness that sometimes there is 00:52:14.200 --> 00:52:19.160 some gray areas, whether or not it's appropriate or not, I mean, we had a good example of that 00:52:19.160 --> 00:52:20.160 tonight, right? 00:52:20.160 --> 00:52:27.640 And your flexibility comes from those applications being evaluated under the standards, right? 00:52:27.640 --> 00:52:32.160 So and you have the opportunity to debate more of the standards and that offers you 00:52:32.160 --> 00:52:38.320 more flexibility compared to what you get out of the DDC because the DDC is essentially 00:52:38.320 --> 00:52:40.840 we try to make it as black or white as possible, right? 00:52:40.840 --> 00:52:43.560 So it's either permitted or it's not. 00:52:43.560 --> 00:52:51.200 So it's as you think about what amendments we might want to address or additional text 00:52:51.200 --> 00:52:56.880 that we might want to include in the DDC, just think about that aspect also of, okay, 00:52:56.880 --> 00:53:01.080 are we okay with having that true, a hard, hard, fast regulatory item that's provided 00:53:01.080 --> 00:53:07.320 for in the DDC or is this something where we might want to be able to have more flexibility 00:53:07.320 --> 00:53:12.840 for evaluating a request that the standards give us the opportunity for? 00:53:12.840 --> 00:53:17.120 So that's why I put that out there because going through the Zoning Board of Adjustment 00:53:17.120 --> 00:53:21.400 for Relief from the Debt and Development Code has a different set of criteria, one of which 00:53:21.400 --> 00:53:25.520 is typically property hardship that has to be demonstrated and it's very difficult for 00:53:25.520 --> 00:53:29.080 property owners to be, to demonstrate property hardships. 00:53:29.080 --> 00:53:31.840 So that's why I put that out there. 00:53:31.840 --> 00:53:36.240 So it's, I mean, there's probably still going to be some changes that you made in the code 00:53:36.240 --> 00:53:37.240 itself, more generally. 00:53:37.240 --> 00:53:43.680 Do you think it would be more useful to use the guidelines feature? 00:53:43.680 --> 00:53:51.080 So what is it, it's 236(c)(1)(b) says that one of the powers and duties of the Historic 00:53:51.080 --> 00:53:55.120 Landmark Commission is to establish guidelines to be used in determination whether to grant 00:53:55.120 --> 00:53:57.120 or deny certificates of appropriate. 00:53:57.120 --> 00:54:03.400 Oh, for demolition, you know, to finish reading that sentence. 00:54:03.400 --> 00:54:08.440 Is there something similar, some kind of mechanism that's similar as far as making guidelines 00:54:08.440 --> 00:54:14.280 that wouldn't have the same effect as a line in the code? 00:54:14.280 --> 00:54:22.360 Yes, I mean, if the commission wanted to put forth a set of guidelines for evaluating certain 00:54:22.360 --> 00:54:25.280 types of requests, you have the ability to be able to do so. 00:54:25.280 --> 00:54:28.280 I kind of think of like a criteria manual, if you will. 00:54:28.280 --> 00:54:29.280 Design guidelines. 00:54:29.280 --> 00:54:30.280 Yeah. 00:54:30.280 --> 00:54:31.280 Right. 00:54:31.280 --> 00:54:36.320 So that, because then when it's guidelines, it still gives you some of that flexibility 00:54:36.320 --> 00:54:40.800 that the ordinance tells you for evaluating certificate of appropriateness, the commission 00:54:40.800 --> 00:54:49.080 shall consider the Secretary of Interior standards, and also this guidelines document that the 00:54:49.080 --> 00:54:50.080 city has adopted. 00:54:50.080 --> 00:54:51.080 Right? 00:54:51.080 --> 00:54:52.080 So... 00:54:52.080 --> 00:54:53.080 It actually says that. 00:54:53.080 --> 00:55:01.200 Any applicable guidelines adopted by the city, and that is under 292 compliance required 00:55:01.200 --> 00:55:02.200 number 9. 00:55:02.200 --> 00:55:03.200 Number 9. 00:55:03.200 --> 00:55:08.400 So as you were talking, Tina, it talks about guidelines as well. 00:55:08.400 --> 00:55:11.400 Well, I can say 292. 00:55:11.400 --> 00:55:12.400 292. 00:55:12.400 --> 00:55:13.400 292. 00:55:13.400 --> 00:55:14.400 Under appeal. 00:55:14.400 --> 00:55:15.400 I think it's under appeal. 00:55:15.400 --> 00:55:16.400 292. 00:55:16.400 --> 00:55:17.400 292. 00:55:17.400 --> 00:55:18.400 292. 00:55:18.400 --> 00:55:19.400 292. 00:55:19.400 --> 00:55:20.400 292. 00:55:20.400 --> 00:55:21.400 292. 00:55:21.400 --> 00:55:22.400 292. 00:55:22.400 --> 00:55:23.400 292. 00:55:23.400 --> 00:55:24.400 292. 00:55:24.400 --> 00:55:25.400 292. 00:55:25.400 --> 00:55:26.400 292. 00:55:26.400 --> 00:55:27.400 Under appeal. 00:55:27.400 --> 00:55:28.400 I think it's under appeal. 00:55:28.400 --> 00:55:29.400 292. 00:55:29.400 --> 00:55:30.400 292. 00:55:30.400 --> 00:55:31.400 I thought the relief went through City Council. 00:55:31.400 --> 00:55:32.400 That's what's happened in the past. 00:55:32.400 --> 00:55:33.400 That's why I'm confused. 00:55:33.400 --> 00:55:34.400 So it depends on what process they're going under. 00:55:34.400 --> 00:55:35.400 There's kind of two options. 00:55:35.400 --> 00:55:36.400 So there can appeal your decision to City Council, but if they're requesting zoning relief, 00:55:36.400 --> 00:55:37.400 which would be either removing a landmark designation or asking to be removed from a 00:55:37.400 --> 00:55:38.400 historic district, that would require to start at the ZBA process and then move through 00:55:38.400 --> 00:55:39.400 that according link. 00:55:39.400 --> 00:55:40.400 I see. 00:55:40.400 --> 00:55:41.400 But in that sense, I think that's a good question. 00:55:41.400 --> 00:55:42.400 That's a good question. 00:55:42.400 --> 00:56:04.760 And that's specific to a landmark designation, but if there's a regulation that's included 00:56:04.760 --> 00:56:10.480 elsewhere, regulating historic properties, depending upon how it's structured, that in 00:56:10.480 --> 00:56:15.160 all likelihood that relief would have to go towards the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 00:56:15.160 --> 00:56:21.120 So because the examples that Marcella cited, when it deals with designation of a property 00:56:21.120 --> 00:56:25.760 or the district itself, she's correct because that's considered a rezoning action and HLC, 00:56:25.760 --> 00:56:31.480 or excuse me, a certificate of appropriateness for, I guess it's not a certificate of appropriateness. 00:56:31.480 --> 00:56:35.200 Just an action for designating a property is considered a zoning action. 00:56:35.200 --> 00:56:38.600 So hence why it starts here, then it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission, ultimately 00:56:38.600 --> 00:56:39.600 the City Council. 00:56:39.600 --> 00:56:45.200 But if there were some other provision that was written in the ordinance that is not tied 00:56:45.200 --> 00:56:53.160 to the rezoning of a property, like an overlay designation, then normally that relief is 00:56:53.160 --> 00:56:55.200 sent through the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 00:56:55.200 --> 00:57:00.480 And again, it depends upon where it's occurring and how it's written within the ordinance 00:57:00.480 --> 00:57:01.480 itself. 00:57:01.480 --> 00:57:09.480 So it comes down to where do we wordsmith and as we wordsmith, we need to think about 00:57:09.480 --> 00:57:11.520 if we want flexibility from that. 00:57:11.520 --> 00:57:16.440 So if we're trying to provide criteria for evaluating certificates of appropriateness 00:57:16.440 --> 00:57:21.920 and we want to set a guidelines, then like Skimmer, as you were case, when you asked 00:57:21.920 --> 00:57:26.520 the question about would we be better off having a guidelines document to be able to 00:57:26.520 --> 00:57:34.240 help us evaluate, yes, because that helps to give you some flexibility on the gray areas. 00:57:34.240 --> 00:57:41.140 Guidelines sound kind of good because I guess Lance, you brought up the problem with windows 00:57:41.140 --> 00:57:47.040 and doors and locks and things start to get a little on the fine points. 00:57:47.040 --> 00:57:50.040 Well, you want to be consistent with everybody. 00:57:50.040 --> 00:57:51.040 Well, that is a problem. 00:57:51.040 --> 00:57:52.040 Yeah. 00:57:52.040 --> 00:57:53.040 And we could try to hash that out in our guidelines. 00:57:53.040 --> 00:57:54.040 Yeah. 00:57:54.040 --> 00:57:55.040 I think you have a tough task. 00:57:55.040 --> 00:57:56.040 Right. 00:57:56.040 --> 00:57:57.040 You would agree. 00:57:57.040 --> 00:58:03.640 As far as guidelines, would that need to be adopted by ordinance in New York, could be 00:58:03.640 --> 00:58:06.920 something that the HLC. 00:58:06.920 --> 00:58:10.440 So I think it depends on what effect the HLC wants them to have. 00:58:10.440 --> 00:58:15.320 If they're kind of just a position statement of the HLC that exists to give guidance to 00:58:15.320 --> 00:58:19.640 Cameron, but not necessarily direction, then that would be, that could be adopted just 00:58:19.640 --> 00:58:20.640 by the HLC. 00:58:20.640 --> 00:58:24.720 If it's something that you want to have more force, like a criteria manual, that would 00:58:24.720 --> 00:58:27.480 need to go through the criteria manual process. 00:58:27.480 --> 00:58:29.280 And the city council. 00:58:29.280 --> 00:58:30.280 Yes. 00:58:30.280 --> 00:58:31.280 Correct. 00:58:31.280 --> 00:58:32.280 Which is ordinance. 00:58:32.280 --> 00:58:34.280 The HLC review says as well. 00:58:34.280 --> 00:58:35.280 Yes. 00:58:35.280 --> 00:58:36.280 They provide a recommendation. 00:58:36.280 --> 00:58:37.280 Yes. 00:58:37.280 --> 00:58:40.280 So go through HLC, then PNC and then on the city council. 00:58:40.280 --> 00:58:41.280 Okay. 00:58:41.280 --> 00:58:42.280 So. 00:58:42.280 --> 00:58:45.280 And we can talk about that further because especially if it's coming from the HLC, it 00:58:45.280 --> 00:58:47.280 may just be able to go from HLC to council. 00:58:47.280 --> 00:58:50.280 But if that was something, I mean, we can obviously research that. 00:58:50.280 --> 00:58:51.280 Yes. 00:58:51.280 --> 00:58:52.280 Yeah. 00:58:52.280 --> 00:58:54.280 We have to look into the specific process for like a historic criteria manual. 00:58:54.280 --> 00:58:58.280 But for other criteria manuals, they do go to PNC and then to council. 00:58:58.280 --> 00:59:05.280 I think guys are asking us to do that instead of having to go through all the... 00:59:05.280 --> 00:59:11.280 It does give residents an opportunity to come in and say, hey, mine's different because 00:59:11.280 --> 00:59:12.280 it does. 00:59:12.280 --> 00:59:15.280 And then it gives us a little way to be able to act on that. 00:59:15.280 --> 00:59:16.280 Here's my issue though. 00:59:16.280 --> 00:59:19.280 So, and maybe this is just me looking way too at this one thing. 00:59:19.280 --> 00:59:24.280 When I look at the powers and duties list of the historic landmark commission, it's a 00:59:24.280 --> 00:59:30.280 very specific itemized list of what the powers and duties of the HLC are. 00:59:30.280 --> 00:59:31.280 Where is that? 00:59:31.280 --> 00:59:32.280 First page. 00:59:32.280 --> 00:59:33.280 236. 00:59:33.280 --> 00:59:34.280 Yeah. 00:59:34.280 --> 00:59:41.280 And so I'm not sure if there's another place that gives authority outside of that. 00:59:41.280 --> 00:59:48.280 And if not, do we need to have the city council make some kind of amendment to provide authority 00:59:48.280 --> 00:59:52.280 to promulgate guidelines and those kinds of things? 00:59:52.280 --> 00:59:59.280 Because the way it's written, it's very specific and very limiting on what it is that we can 00:59:59.280 --> 01:00:02.280 even do here. 01:00:02.280 --> 01:00:07.280 And some of that may come from... 01:00:07.280 --> 01:00:08.280 Exactly. 01:00:08.280 --> 01:00:19.280 Besides not being clear on what things meant when written about our duties versus maybe 01:00:19.280 --> 01:00:24.280 about council or planning the zoning, what was it that you all were coming up against? 01:00:24.280 --> 01:00:25.280 The difficulty. 01:00:25.280 --> 01:00:26.280 It's been a bit... 01:00:26.280 --> 01:00:37.280 But if I remember correctly, it came down to, you know, when we first started talking about, 01:00:37.280 --> 01:00:43.280 because windows were such a hot topic, it was like, okay, what does the HLC have authority 01:00:43.280 --> 01:00:46.280 to even do on that? 01:00:46.280 --> 01:00:49.280 Because if we want to have a policy on that, where does that authority come from in the 01:00:49.280 --> 01:00:50.280 code and that sort of thing? 01:00:50.280 --> 01:00:59.280 And then the code was using words that I guess the instructions weren't and that caused some 01:00:59.280 --> 01:01:04.280 havoc because we were like, well, does this even apply? 01:01:04.280 --> 01:01:08.280 Because the one that really sticks out to me was improvement, which wasn't really well 01:01:08.280 --> 01:01:09.280 defined at all. 01:01:09.280 --> 01:01:10.280 Yeah. 01:01:10.280 --> 01:01:15.280 So I think just going back to when the ad hoc committee was created, city council specifically 01:01:15.280 --> 01:01:19.280 delegated authority for the improvements discussion. 01:01:19.280 --> 01:01:21.280 They also struggled with that. 01:01:21.280 --> 01:01:25.280 And I'd have to go back and watch the council meeting to get more information because it 01:01:25.280 --> 01:01:33.280 has been quite some time, but there was specific delegation to HLC to review kind of the components 01:01:33.280 --> 01:01:36.280 of the code that we're discussing. 01:01:36.280 --> 01:01:38.280 So I know improvements came up. 01:01:38.280 --> 01:01:45.280 Improvements, rehabilitation, specifically in regards to our tax incentives and our tax 01:01:45.280 --> 01:01:46.280 exemptions. 01:01:46.280 --> 01:01:52.280 So where those words are coming up in terms of what is considered rehabbing or maintenance 01:01:52.280 --> 01:01:54.280 and what's considered improvement. 01:01:54.280 --> 01:02:00.280 And so that's where city council was having issues in terms of understanding exactly what 01:02:00.280 --> 01:02:03.280 is an improvement, what is rehabilitation. 01:02:03.280 --> 01:02:08.280 And so that is the reason as to why the definitions ad hoc was created. 01:02:08.280 --> 01:02:15.280 But then once it was established, the subcommittee decided that we needed to look at subchapter 01:02:15.280 --> 01:02:23.280 two as a whole in regards to historic preservation and historic preservation procedures and the 01:02:23.280 --> 01:02:28.280 historic landmark commission and see if there needed to be any updates made based off our 01:02:28.280 --> 01:02:34.280 experiences in the past and having these discussions not only with applicants, but amongst yourselves. 01:02:34.280 --> 01:02:37.280 And I think going back to Keeson's specific question on where the authority lands, I think 01:02:37.280 --> 01:02:41.280 it comes from the implied review of the certificates of appropriateness. 01:02:41.280 --> 01:02:46.280 So because you are the entity who are reviewing those documents, if you want to create a standard 01:02:46.280 --> 01:02:50.280 for what that review looks like just among your group that you'd review annually or that 01:02:50.280 --> 01:02:55.280 you'd come up as a position statement to review bi-annually or every five years or something 01:02:55.280 --> 01:03:00.280 like that, you can decide as a group kind of what you want your guidelines to look like. 01:03:00.280 --> 01:03:05.280 But I think that would come from your power as the reviewers of the COA. 01:03:05.280 --> 01:03:12.280 So they would either need to be directly tied to the review process of the COA and the guidelines 01:03:12.280 --> 01:03:17.280 you'd use to make those decisions or it'd be related to this kind of separate discussion 01:03:17.280 --> 01:03:23.280 that council directed HLC to look at, which was the improvements and rehabilitation definitions. 01:03:23.280 --> 01:03:28.280 I think we had a discussion about how much money it actually was a year that you saved 01:03:28.280 --> 01:03:31.280 by getting the HLC historic landmark thing. 01:03:31.280 --> 01:03:35.280 It hardly, I think when you calculate, you did a calculation, didn't you? 01:03:35.280 --> 01:03:38.280 It was pretty small, as I recall. 01:03:38.280 --> 01:03:40.280 My husband said it was almost worth not doing. 01:03:40.280 --> 01:03:42.280 There was, I mean, it depends on where it is. 01:03:42.280 --> 01:03:48.280 There was a building downtown where it was going to save $20,000 or $30,000 a year. 01:03:48.280 --> 01:03:49.280 That's a lot. 01:03:49.280 --> 01:03:51.280 I mean, those are very high-value properties. 01:03:51.280 --> 01:03:56.280 Well, you know, my support value. 01:03:56.280 --> 01:04:01.280 And I think our discussion, too, was, you know, as a commission here, 01:04:01.280 --> 01:04:06.280 I think we want people to upkeep their properties. 01:04:06.280 --> 01:04:09.280 But are we giving them an incentive to be able to do it? 01:04:09.280 --> 01:04:13.280 Are we constantly standing back and saying no, no, no, no, no? 01:04:13.280 --> 01:04:17.280 Or what is, what's the give and take here? 01:04:17.280 --> 01:04:21.280 So if we had a set of guidelines that they would know ahead of time, 01:04:21.280 --> 01:04:26.280 because a lot of times people buy a property and then we want to blame a realtor. 01:04:26.280 --> 01:04:28.280 Oh, you should have told them it's a historic district. 01:04:28.280 --> 01:04:29.280 They didn't know that. 01:04:29.280 --> 01:04:31.280 And they have all these grand ideas. 01:04:31.280 --> 01:04:34.280 And then they come here and we say, we can't do it. 01:04:34.280 --> 01:04:37.280 But we really want you to upkeep your property. 01:04:37.280 --> 01:04:38.280 Yeah. 01:04:38.280 --> 01:04:41.280 And that reminds me, there was something I was thinking about at the time. 01:04:41.280 --> 01:04:45.280 And this was in the discussion of what kind of penalties there may or may not have been 01:04:45.280 --> 01:04:47.280 and how to enforce things. 01:04:47.280 --> 01:04:49.280 And I was trying to use the carrot. 01:04:49.280 --> 01:04:55.280 Instead, since we do have some say into who to give the tax benefits to 01:04:55.280 --> 01:05:00.280 and try to more formally figure out exactly how that should go. 01:05:00.280 --> 01:05:05.280 You know, if we could put more stringent requirements on that to say, you know, 01:05:05.280 --> 01:05:10.280 you haven't violated the historical board, you know, 01:05:10.280 --> 01:05:15.280 you haven't done any work without getting pre-approval with the COA first or something like that, 01:05:15.280 --> 01:05:18.280 at least some type of incentive to actually go through with it 01:05:18.280 --> 01:05:23.280 instead of using the stick method which is punishable in afterwards. 01:05:23.280 --> 01:05:28.280 Well, I mean, there's a lot of benefits for commercial entities, especially. 01:05:28.280 --> 01:05:30.280 I mean, they're excellent benefits. 01:05:30.280 --> 01:05:32.280 I think that should say some of the good buildings. 01:05:32.280 --> 01:05:34.280 I think they're lesser for homeowners. 01:05:34.280 --> 01:05:36.280 But I think a set of guidelines would help. 01:05:36.280 --> 01:05:38.280 If I didn't live in the historic district and I wasn't on this, 01:05:38.280 --> 01:05:43.280 I'm not sure I would know all of the rules and regulations before, you know, 01:05:43.280 --> 01:05:44.280 before you wanted to do something. 01:05:44.280 --> 01:05:49.280 Now, I don't know that I always know them because I think Tina gave me something new last time we met. 01:05:49.280 --> 01:05:51.280 Boundary changed, right? 01:05:51.280 --> 01:05:53.280 Between fence line and building. 01:05:53.280 --> 01:05:54.280 Oh, okay. 01:05:54.280 --> 01:05:55.280 Three feet. 01:05:55.280 --> 01:05:56.280 Yes. 01:05:56.280 --> 01:05:57.280 Larger. 01:05:57.280 --> 01:05:58.280 I was impressed. 01:05:58.280 --> 01:05:59.280 I was like, I was excited. 01:05:59.280 --> 01:06:04.280 And I think if we, as we go through this, leaving some openness for a change, 01:06:04.280 --> 01:06:11.280 is I think back when maybe I started on the HLC, solar panels weren't even a topic. 01:06:11.280 --> 01:06:12.280 Right. 01:06:12.280 --> 01:06:13.280 You know? 01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:16.280 And you look at how technology grows and what other things might be, 01:06:16.280 --> 01:06:18.280 and you don't want to just say this is it. 01:06:18.280 --> 01:06:24.280 So I think that's why the guidelines would be nice with leeway for changes. 01:06:24.280 --> 01:06:28.280 How many applications for solar panels are there even then? 01:06:28.280 --> 01:06:30.280 I've counted three. 01:06:30.280 --> 01:06:33.280 I'd say, yeah, about four or five, yeah. 01:06:33.280 --> 01:06:35.280 I can remember seeing three come through. 01:06:35.280 --> 01:06:37.280 I was saying this, I've been here almost two years, 01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:40.280 and this is the first time I've seen solar panels come through. 01:06:40.280 --> 01:06:42.280 I remember the first one was a pretty heated one. 01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:45.280 That was the house across the street that we talked about today. 01:06:45.280 --> 01:06:47.280 But it was a new house. 01:06:47.280 --> 01:06:48.280 But it's not a historical house? 01:06:48.280 --> 01:06:49.280 Oh, you just knew it? 01:06:49.280 --> 01:06:50.280 It was a new construction. 01:06:50.280 --> 01:06:51.280 Oh, because it's in the district. 01:06:51.280 --> 01:06:52.280 It's in the district, yeah. 01:06:52.280 --> 01:06:54.280 But I think it wasn't quite a district yet. 01:06:54.280 --> 01:06:56.280 I think it was still a... 01:06:56.280 --> 01:07:00.280 But I guess to get us back in terms of topic, 01:07:00.280 --> 01:07:05.280 I was just saying, what is the subcommittee, 01:07:05.280 --> 01:07:11.280 is this helpful conversation or do we need to have specific questions? 01:07:11.280 --> 01:07:15.280 Or I guess... 01:07:15.280 --> 01:07:21.280 I mean, I would like something a little bit more concrete in the code. 01:07:21.280 --> 01:07:24.280 I mean, if we're getting a wish list here, things take shape. 01:07:24.280 --> 01:07:29.280 City Council, something more concrete in the powers and duties 01:07:29.280 --> 01:07:34.280 that specifically says that we have the authority to establish guidelines 01:07:34.280 --> 01:07:40.280 or a policy statement or something regarding either definitions 01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:42.280 that aren't laid out in the code 01:07:42.280 --> 01:07:50.280 or policy for determination of different items. 01:07:50.280 --> 01:07:53.280 I'm not real crazy about the idea that we just had this implied authority 01:07:53.280 --> 01:07:54.280 because of the COA. 01:07:54.280 --> 01:07:56.280 It just kind of says, if it's not against the rules, 01:07:56.280 --> 01:08:03.280 you just kind of do whatever. 01:08:03.280 --> 01:08:07.280 Okay, I hope you kind of stick close to the Secretary of the Interior standards. 01:08:07.280 --> 01:08:08.280 At least they're somewhat defined. 01:08:08.280 --> 01:08:10.280 I mean, they're not great, but... 01:08:10.280 --> 01:08:13.280 I mean, they're kind of vague in many ways in a sense. 01:08:13.280 --> 01:08:14.280 I mean, there's some... 01:08:14.280 --> 01:08:18.280 There's some specificity to some of the aspects of the standards, 01:08:18.280 --> 01:08:20.280 but yes, it is just a guideline. 01:08:20.280 --> 01:08:23.280 It is recommendations. 01:08:23.280 --> 01:08:29.280 I think to call yourselves historic, you do need to keep those in the code. 01:08:29.280 --> 01:08:32.280 If you want to consider yourself a historic property 01:08:32.280 --> 01:08:35.280 or a historic district, National Park Service, 01:08:35.280 --> 01:08:41.280 they are what defines historic preservation and what is historic. 01:08:41.280 --> 01:08:45.280 So I think if we were to remove those at any sense in any way, 01:08:45.280 --> 01:08:49.280 I think we would do ourselves a disservice. 01:08:49.280 --> 01:08:52.280 So I do think those need to be kept in there, 01:08:52.280 --> 01:08:57.280 but I guess the way in which you are incorporating them into your review, 01:08:57.280 --> 01:09:03.280 that can change, but I do think we need to keep those in there. 01:09:03.280 --> 01:09:06.280 Can I ask a question, and that would be... 01:09:06.280 --> 01:09:11.280 So, Kacen, what I'm hearing from you is you would like some sort of statement 01:09:11.280 --> 01:09:16.280 in the DDC that basically acknowledges that the HLC has the authority 01:09:16.280 --> 01:09:22.280 to adopt additional guidelines as it deems appropriate for evaluating... 01:09:22.280 --> 01:09:25.280 As long as it doesn't conflict with the current code. 01:09:25.280 --> 01:09:29.280 So if we need to get more into the minutiae of it that maybe the code can't do, 01:09:29.280 --> 01:09:33.280 with a more flexible document that could be easily changed. 01:09:33.280 --> 01:09:35.280 So that was my thought process, is that... 01:09:35.280 --> 01:09:38.280 So you're looking for some sort of statement in the DDC that says the HLC 01:09:38.280 --> 01:09:45.280 has the authority to adopt guidelines as it deems appropriate for evaluating X. 01:09:45.280 --> 01:09:48.280 We can determine X, whether it's Certificates of Appropriateness, 01:09:48.280 --> 01:09:51.280 the Tax Exemption Program, or any other program. 01:09:51.280 --> 01:09:54.280 Demolition and designation. 01:09:54.280 --> 01:09:57.280 Right, but at least it gives you that statement that says we can go in 01:09:57.280 --> 01:09:59.280 and adopt these guidelines. 01:09:59.280 --> 01:10:04.280 And then the group works on the guidelines for the particular topic, right? 01:10:04.280 --> 01:10:07.280 And then we bring that back to the group for discussion to see, 01:10:07.280 --> 01:10:12.280 okay, if these guidelines that we put together for evaluating this particular aspect, 01:10:12.280 --> 01:10:15.280 if we feel like that meets our needs, great. 01:10:15.280 --> 01:10:17.280 If not, make the adjustments we need to. 01:10:17.280 --> 01:10:23.280 And if Marcella tells us it needs to go to council for formal adoption 01:10:23.280 --> 01:10:26.280 by resolution versus ordinance, we can work that process. 01:10:26.280 --> 01:10:29.280 But to me, that's, I think, what I'm hearing. 01:10:29.280 --> 01:10:31.280 Is that a good summarization? 01:10:31.280 --> 01:10:33.280 Yes, it absolutely is. 01:10:33.280 --> 01:10:37.280 Now, if there's already something in here that I haven't seen that kind of does that already, 01:10:37.280 --> 01:10:42.280 I'm just not real comfortable assuming that we have that power without seeing it. 01:10:42.280 --> 01:10:45.280 Well, so that's something that Cameron and Marcella can take with them. 01:10:45.280 --> 01:10:49.280 And so we can confirm, okay, does that language exist? 01:10:49.280 --> 01:10:51.280 And Ron might need your assistance also. 01:10:51.280 --> 01:10:54.280 But do we know if that language exists within the code? 01:10:54.280 --> 01:10:57.280 If not, what would be some suggestions that we would add to the code 01:10:57.280 --> 01:10:59.280 to be able to address that? 01:10:59.280 --> 01:11:04.280 Including, you know, including if the code is not specific to evaluating requests 01:11:04.280 --> 01:11:08.280 in accordance with the Secretary of Interior standards, pointing that out. 01:11:08.280 --> 01:11:12.280 Or if there's any other regulatory guideline documents that we use for evaluation, 01:11:12.280 --> 01:11:15.280 to me it's important to point those out. 01:11:15.280 --> 01:11:20.280 But at least that's the starting point where we can confirm what's within our DDC or not. 01:11:20.280 --> 01:11:26.280 Then we work on getting that statement or series of statements included in the code. 01:11:26.280 --> 01:11:29.280 Ron's our expert on processing those. 01:11:29.280 --> 01:11:34.280 But then to me it sounds really what the commission is needing is or finds beneficial is, 01:11:34.280 --> 01:11:38.280 let's work on when we get a window request, 01:11:38.280 --> 01:11:40.280 what are our guidelines for evaluating windows? 01:11:40.280 --> 01:11:44.280 What is the commission deemed more appropriate versus not? 01:11:44.280 --> 01:11:46.280 If we have another solar panel request come through, 01:11:46.280 --> 01:11:49.280 what is the commission deemed as appropriate for a detonate 01:11:49.280 --> 01:11:52.280 and being consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards? 01:11:52.280 --> 01:11:56.280 If we get a request for replacing doors on properties or roofs, 01:11:56.280 --> 01:12:01.280 you know, whatever those hot button items that we find are the ones that are more 01:12:01.280 --> 01:12:05.280 of a struggle as we evaluate and we feel like we need some additional parameters to meet, 01:12:05.280 --> 01:12:11.280 then I think it would be really good for the HLC to focus their efforts on those particular items. 01:12:11.280 --> 01:12:15.280 If it's the tax exemption program, if we feel like that needs assistance, 01:12:15.280 --> 01:12:17.280 then, you know, we can focus on that. 01:12:17.280 --> 01:12:21.280 But it's to me, it's whatever the commission feels like are the more challenging items 01:12:21.280 --> 01:12:26.280 where we need more guidance for evaluating it to maybe provide for some consistency 01:12:26.280 --> 01:12:30.280 as commissioners roll off and new ones come on, 01:12:30.280 --> 01:12:34.280 then I think, you know, you can create that framework document if you will. 01:12:34.280 --> 01:12:41.280 So if that's what you're looking for, I think we break this down in smaller pieces and address it that way. 01:12:41.280 --> 01:12:45.280 And if we run into an issue where it's like, oh, well, that's not intended consequence of this language, 01:12:45.280 --> 01:12:49.280 it's something that we don't have to go to the City Council for, 01:12:49.280 --> 01:12:56.280 well, we need to amend that, we've got an internal policy document that we can, you know, vote here and make changes to. 01:12:56.280 --> 01:13:01.280 Tina, I just wanted to make it clear, if it's an internal document that the board is issuing for itself, 01:13:01.280 --> 01:13:03.280 that doesn't have to go anywhere outside of this. 01:13:03.280 --> 01:13:06.280 If it's anything that is supposed to be... 01:13:06.280 --> 01:13:08.280 But do we need authority in order to make that? 01:13:08.280 --> 01:13:12.280 So if you're not comfortable with your implied authority, then yes. 01:13:12.280 --> 01:13:15.280 I was talking about this for a different issue, 01:13:15.280 --> 01:13:23.280 but I think we're on board from the city attorney's office with boards and commissions who want to make position statements. 01:13:23.280 --> 01:13:24.280 This is kind of a position statement. 01:13:24.280 --> 01:13:28.280 Here's our position on windows, and here's what we do when we review windows. 01:13:28.280 --> 01:13:35.280 If that's what we want to do, I think city attorney's office is comfortable that within the board's guidelines 01:13:35.280 --> 01:13:39.280 from our boards and commissions handbook and also the powers under the DVC, 01:13:39.280 --> 01:13:42.280 there is an ability for the board to do that. 01:13:42.280 --> 01:13:49.280 It would be an internal document that wouldn't have any kind of force outside of just your internal review process. 01:13:49.280 --> 01:13:56.280 But if that's the kind of document you're looking to create, then I think there is the ability to do so. 01:13:56.280 --> 01:14:00.280 For an example, if you wanted to write a position paper on enforcement, 01:14:00.280 --> 01:14:06.280 if you wanted to take this means we want to, you know, recommend enforcement, 01:14:06.280 --> 01:14:08.280 or in this situation, we don't recommend enforcement, 01:14:08.280 --> 01:14:14.280 I think that would be something that you as a body could do without additional direction. 01:14:14.280 --> 01:14:16.280 We would share this with the public. 01:14:16.280 --> 01:14:21.280 Oh, no, no, it would be, it can be shared publicly. It just wouldn't have any force. 01:14:21.280 --> 01:14:26.280 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. 01:14:26.280 --> 01:14:33.280 It would be a set of guidelines with consistent language in it that people would understand the different definitions, 01:14:33.280 --> 01:14:37.280 and then we would have certain protocols for certain things that we see on a regular basis. 01:14:37.280 --> 01:14:42.280 Maybe with the caveat that says for anything outside of these, 01:14:42.280 --> 01:14:50.280 then it would go back to that grid or discussion and maybe inclusion later in that guideline. 01:14:50.280 --> 01:14:53.280 I don't know if what we're talking about is that rigid. 01:14:53.280 --> 01:14:58.280 I don't think we would have a if this then that equals approval. 01:14:58.280 --> 01:15:02.280 How we would address windows, how we would address solar panels. 01:15:02.280 --> 01:15:05.280 So is that going to be included in that guideline or no? 01:15:05.280 --> 01:15:08.280 Yes, so that would be the document we're talking about. 01:15:08.280 --> 01:15:14.280 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 01:15:14.280 --> 01:15:18.280 if you provide these things, you're like automatically approved. 01:15:18.280 --> 01:15:22.280 I think there would still need to be discussion process. 01:15:22.280 --> 01:15:26.280 It's kind of similar to how the Secretary of Interior standards is set up. 01:15:26.280 --> 01:15:29.280 I mean, this HLC has looked at it, but basically they'll provide a scenario. 01:15:29.280 --> 01:15:35.280 They'll say if you're looking at solar panels and then they'll recommend a list of things like, Cameron shared tonight, 01:15:35.280 --> 01:15:38.280 things that are do's and things that are don'ts. 01:15:38.280 --> 01:15:43.280 But it's not saying if you do all the do's, you're definitely going to get approved. 01:15:43.280 --> 01:15:44.280 It's just saying. 01:15:44.280 --> 01:15:48.280 Yes, that's basically what I was saying and then the language is for the definitions. 01:15:48.280 --> 01:15:56.280 We've gone back and forth about what's, I forgot the terms we use. 01:15:56.280 --> 01:16:00.280 Reconstruction versus improvement. 01:16:00.280 --> 01:16:09.280 To have maybe something more detailed about what that could mean that not only the city council, 01:16:09.280 --> 01:16:14.280 the person submitting the certificate in this committee would be on one page about them. 01:16:14.280 --> 01:16:23.280 Right, which says that could be done in terms of if we were looking specifically in this instance for guidelines for the tax incentives, 01:16:23.280 --> 01:16:29.280 those would need to be defined in those guidelines so that that serves as kind of that guiding light for the HLC, 01:16:29.280 --> 01:16:32.280 as well as staff when they're doing that kind of review. 01:16:32.280 --> 01:16:41.280 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. 01:16:41.280 --> 01:16:46.280 But those would be kind of to help you guide you all in those gray areas. 01:16:46.280 --> 01:17:00.280 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. 01:17:00.280 --> 01:17:08.280 But then you also would have that kind of guideline of talking about different circumstances and we can talk about different examples. 01:17:08.280 --> 01:17:20.280 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. 01:17:20.280 --> 01:17:30.280 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, 01:17:30.280 --> 01:17:42.280 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. 01:17:42.280 --> 01:17:51.280 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. 01:17:51.280 --> 01:17:56.280 And then the formulation or drafting of those guidelines would then fall out. 01:17:56.280 --> 01:18:15.280 Yeah. The only thing that I would like to see if I wish list would be specific authority to further define undefined improvements. 01:18:15.280 --> 01:18:27.280 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. 01:18:27.280 --> 01:18:31.280 So those definitions be changes that would go into the DDC. 01:18:31.280 --> 01:18:46.280 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? 01:18:46.280 --> 01:19:01.280 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. 01:19:01.280 --> 01:19:16.280 For purposes of evaluating X, improvement shall consider including but not limited to. And then you can give some examples, right? 01:19:16.280 --> 01:19:31.280 And I purposely didn't come up with a specific example for that. Windows came to mind. 01:19:31.280 --> 01:19:38.280 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. 01:19:38.280 --> 01:19:58.280 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. 01:19:58.280 --> 01:20:09.280 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. 01:20:09.280 --> 01:20:17.280 Given, if you could just show an example of an application, I think some people have no clue what it should look like. 01:20:17.280 --> 01:20:26.280 The biggest benefit is it will help staff from being like, well, is this going to get through? See how they feel. 01:20:26.280 --> 01:20:32.280 Because with the guidelines being provided on the more challenging topics, it does hold you accountable. 01:20:32.280 --> 01:20:49.280 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. 01:20:49.280 --> 01:21:06.280 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. 01:21:06.280 --> 01:21:28.280 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. 01:21:28.280 --> 01:21:38.280 And so being able to update those documents accordingly to be able to address their changes in technology would be important to keep current. 01:21:38.280 --> 01:21:44.280 Now, Hardy board didn't used to be appropriate. 01:21:44.280 --> 01:22:07.280 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. 01:22:07.280 --> 01:22:15.280 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. 01:22:15.280 --> 01:22:38.280 Because the term improvement in the code is very broad. 01:22:38.280 --> 01:22:48.280 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. 01:22:48.280 --> 01:22:58.280 So that's why to me that term was so broad on that tax incentive there. 01:22:58.280 --> 01:23:08.280 We'll look at the code ordinances to and see what definitions because there's a, you know, there's a definition section. 01:23:08.280 --> 01:23:24.280 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. 01:23:24.280 --> 01:23:33.280 We're not trading for the property owner to come in and not know. Sure. Sure. 01:23:33.280 --> 01:23:43.280 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. 01:23:43.280 --> 01:23:57.280 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. 01:23:57.280 --> 01:24:07.280 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. 01:24:07.280 --> 01:24:18.280 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. 01:24:18.280 --> 01:24:30.280 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. 01:24:30.280 --> 01:24:44.280 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. 01:24:44.280 --> 01:24:54.280 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? 01:24:54.280 --> 01:25:05.280 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. 01:25:05.280 --> 01:25:22.280 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. 01:25:22.280 --> 01:25:27.280 So there are still parameters provided and it's consistent with the certified local government program. 01:25:27.280 --> 01:25:40.280 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. 01:25:40.280 --> 01:25:52.280 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. 01:25:52.280 --> 01:26:03.280 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. 01:26:03.280 --> 01:26:16.280 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. 01:26:16.280 --> 01:26:26.280 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. 01:26:26.280 --> 01:26:40.280 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? 01:26:40.280 --> 01:26:57.280 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. 01:26:57.280 --> 01:27:10.280 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. 01:27:10.280 --> 01:27:22.280 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. 01:27:22.280 --> 01:27:31.280 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. 01:27:31.280 --> 01:27:43.280 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. 01:27:43.280 --> 01:28:12.280 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. 01:28:12.280 --> 01:28:35.280 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. 01:28:35.280 --> 01:28:43.280 Just way more. But it's hard when you don't have the guidelines to go by. 01:28:43.280 --> 01:28:52.280 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. 01:28:52.280 --> 01:29:08.280 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 01:29:08.280 --> 01:29:24.280 turn about 75% of the difficulty with we want to keep you busy for what you guys want to hear. 01:29:24.280 --> 01:29:43.280 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. 01:29:43.280 --> 01:30:03.280 Thanks, Ron. 01:30:03.280 --> 01:30:20.280 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. 01:30:20.280 --> 01:30:31.280 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. 01:30:31.280 --> 01:30:43.280 Or just make a list, make lists. 01:30:43.280 --> 01:30:54.280 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. 01:30:54.280 --> 01:30:56.280 And that was where my list got very long. 01:30:56.280 --> 01:31:10.280 Okay, so I believe we discussed this back in September 12, 2022. So I shown this to you all 01:31:10.280 --> 01:31:24.280 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, 01:31:24.280 --> 01:31:48.280 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. 01:31:48.280 --> 01:32:03.280 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. 01:32:03.280 --> 01:32:20.280 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. 01:32:20.280 --> 01:32:31.280 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. 01:32:31.280 --> 01:32:40.280 So as you can see, we have thousands of properties that could be designated, we're just not doing that at the moment. 01:32:40.280 --> 01:32:56.280 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, 01:32:56.280 --> 01:33:11.280 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. 01:33:11.280 --> 01:33:28.280 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 01:33:28.280 --> 01:33:42.280 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, 01:33:42.280 --> 01:33:55.280 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. 01:33:55.280 --> 01:34:10.280 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. 01:34:10.280 --> 01:34:19.280 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. 01:34:19.280 --> 01:34:35.280 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. 01:34:35.280 --> 01:34:55.280 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. 01:34:55.280 --> 01:35:07.280 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. 01:35:07.280 --> 01:35:29.280 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. 01:35:29.280 --> 01:35:38.280 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. 01:35:38.280 --> 01:35:40.280 I have a question. 01:35:40.280 --> 01:36:01.280 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. 01:36:01.280 --> 01:36:14.280 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. 01:36:14.280 --> 01:36:27.280 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. 01:36:27.280 --> 01:36:49.280 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. 01:36:49.280 --> 01:36:57.280 They might be leaning more towards the national and state because they get more tax incentives there. 01:36:57.280 --> 01:37:22.280 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. 01:37:22.280 --> 01:37:27.280 Okay, I can say no, just generally. 01:37:27.280 --> 01:37:30.280 On behalf of UNT, you said. 01:37:30.280 --> 01:37:39.280 It raises an interesting point because normally from a land development zoning side of things, we cannot regulate the universities. 01:37:39.280 --> 01:37:59.280 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. 01:37:59.280 --> 01:38:01.280 Good press, perhaps. 01:38:01.280 --> 01:38:09.280 But I think that definitely under Marcella said she'd look into it. So, I'd be curious if there's anything under. 01:38:09.280 --> 01:38:14.280 Brother, I've never come across anything in relation to that. 01:38:14.280 --> 01:38:25.280 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. 01:38:25.280 --> 01:38:39.280 Interesting. One past president of UNT famously said, I have no responsibility to that neighborhood that he was ruining at all. 01:38:39.280 --> 01:38:53.280 My responsibility is solely to the Board of Trustees and Board of Regents and the school and to the legislature. 01:38:53.280 --> 01:39:01.280 And it didn't include dent and saying anything. 01:39:01.280 --> 01:39:04.280 I think your phrase that better. 01:39:04.280 --> 01:39:22.280 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, 01:39:22.280 --> 01:39:42.280 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. 01:39:42.280 --> 01:39:55.280 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? 01:39:55.280 --> 01:39:59.280 So, these are all highlighted as being the eligible properties. 01:39:59.280 --> 01:40:04.280 No, but on GIS, for the city GIS. When you go to DentonCad.com. 01:40:04.280 --> 01:40:15.280 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. 01:40:15.280 --> 01:40:32.280 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. 01:40:32.280 --> 01:40:43.280 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. 01:40:43.280 --> 01:40:58.280 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? 01:40:58.280 --> 01:41:03.280 How far back is it the age of the property or is it the age of the community around it? 01:41:03.280 --> 01:41:15.280 So, when these surveys were completed, these were taken into the context of the National Register, so the Secretary of the Interior's standards. 01:41:15.280 --> 01:41:23.280 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. 01:41:23.280 --> 01:41:32.280 So, the first survey on here is from 1996 and then our 2012 Bolivar and then Idiot's Hill, which was 2015. 01:41:32.280 --> 01:41:42.280 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? 01:41:42.280 --> 01:42:00.280 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. 01:42:00.280 --> 01:42:03.280 I don't think I've heard anybody call it Idiot's Hill in a long time. 01:42:03.280 --> 01:42:13.280 Well, I've heard it a lot. Oh good, that's good. I think it would be exciting to get some new houses on. 01:42:13.280 --> 01:42:17.280 Has anybody approached the city about wanting to become beyond? 01:42:17.280 --> 01:42:29.280 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. 01:42:29.280 --> 01:42:37.280 And they didn't feel that to be regulated to the extent that they would be, that they were being compensated. 01:42:37.280 --> 01:42:45.280 But they did want to restore their properties to, you know, a historic period. 01:42:45.280 --> 01:42:51.280 So, a lot of those people who came to me, the next direction I steered them in was state and federal. 01:42:51.280 --> 01:43:03.280 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. 01:43:03.280 --> 01:43:08.280 So, or I guess as much as image teeth per se. 01:43:08.280 --> 01:43:15.280 But the benefits are at least for businesses are much, much better for state or national. State and national. 01:43:15.280 --> 01:43:21.280 Yeah, we don't have enough. Yeah, we don't because for state and national, those are for income producing properties. 01:43:21.280 --> 01:43:29.280 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. 01:43:29.280 --> 01:43:42.280 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. 01:43:42.280 --> 01:43:48.280 I mean, I almost want to say that as a commission, we have to think about what we can, what the city can offer. 01:43:48.280 --> 01:43:53.280 Correct. So, that's something that we can discuss and, you know, put on the matrix or something that we can be discussed. 01:43:53.280 --> 01:44:03.280 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. 01:44:03.280 --> 01:44:19.280 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. 01:44:19.280 --> 01:44:34.280 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. 01:44:34.280 --> 01:44:43.280 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? 01:44:43.280 --> 01:44:54.280 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. 01:44:54.280 --> 01:44:59.280 It's very big in the business area. Very, very, you know, people spend a lot of money downtown. 01:44:59.280 --> 01:45:14.280 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. 01:45:14.280 --> 01:45:25.280 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. 01:45:25.280 --> 01:45:36.280 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. 01:45:36.280 --> 01:45:46.280 But you have a neighbor that is owned by CWU. I do that. I'm just wondering about some other structures. 01:45:46.280 --> 01:45:55.280 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. 01:45:55.280 --> 01:46:02.280 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. 01:46:02.280 --> 01:46:16.280 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. 01:46:16.280 --> 01:46:25.280 But thank you for that. I'll take that to GIS. 01:46:25.280 --> 01:46:35.280 I'm sorry. I'm just making notes to myself. All right. So any more discussion on 082A? 01:46:35.280 --> 01:46:50.280 Okay, we have a little bit more. HLC 22-093 Discussion Determine Opportunities for Public Outreach and Education by Historic Landmark Commission. 01:46:50.280 --> 01:47:03.280 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. 01:47:03.280 --> 01:47:16.280 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, 01:47:16.280 --> 01:47:30.280 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. 01:47:30.280 --> 01:47:53.280 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. 01:47:53.280 --> 01:48:09.280 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. 01:48:09.280 --> 01:48:24.280 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. 01:48:24.280 --> 01:48:31.280 You know, I'm going out to different functions and talking about 01:48:31.280 --> 01:48:47.280 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. 01:48:47.280 --> 01:49:03.280 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? 01:49:03.280 --> 01:49:18.280 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. 01:49:18.280 --> 01:49:30.280 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. 01:49:30.280 --> 01:49:34.280 I would suggest putting this in the matrix for next time. 01:49:34.280 --> 01:49:42.280 I kind of agree. 01:49:42.280 --> 01:49:49.280 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. 01:49:49.280 --> 01:50:01.280 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. 01:50:01.280 --> 01:50:23.280 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. 01:50:23.280 --> 01:50:40.280 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. 01:50:40.280 --> 01:50:55.280 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. 01:50:55.280 --> 01:51:09.280 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. 01:51:09.280 --> 01:51:23.280 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. 01:51:23.280 --> 01:51:32.280 And maybe you all can share some ideas or things that you've learned about over the last year being on the commission. 01:51:32.280 --> 01:51:46.280 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. 01:51:46.280 --> 01:52:00.280 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. 01:52:00.280 --> 01:52:09.280 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. 01:52:09.280 --> 01:52:22.280 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. 01:52:22.280 --> 01:52:34.280 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. 01:52:34.280 --> 01:52:49.280 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. 01:52:49.280 --> 01:52:57.280 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. 01:52:57.280 --> 01:53:13.280 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. 01:53:13.280 --> 01:53:21.280 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. 01:53:21.280 --> 01:53:31.280 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. 01:53:31.280 --> 01:53:45.280 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. 01:53:45.280 --> 01:53:52.280 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. 01:53:52.280 --> 01:53:56.280 Okay, so it's just a future request. Yes, yes. 01:53:56.280 --> 01:54:05.280 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. 01:54:05.280 --> 01:54:23.280 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. 01:54:23.280 --> 01:54:33.280 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. 01:54:33.280 --> 01:54:47.280 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. 01:54:47.280 --> 01:54:56.280 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. 01:54:56.280 --> 01:55:02.280 And can we add to that the fencing so that you guys would be able to have that on there in a sense? 01:55:02.280 --> 01:55:09.280 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. 01:55:09.280 --> 01:55:22.280 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. 01:55:22.280 --> 01:55:40.280 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. 01:55:40.280 --> 01:55:41.280 That was easy. 01:55:41.280 --> 01:55:44.280 We had a wave going. 01:55:44.280 --> 01:55:45.280 We'll start over there. 01:55:45.280 --> 01:55:51.280 Who's paying attention? 01:55:51.280 --> 01:56:03.280 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? 01:56:03.280 --> 01:56:08.280 I think we should move them under that discussion. You're my recommendation. 01:56:08.280 --> 01:56:21.280 Okay. 01:56:21.280 --> 01:56:26.280 Is there, we had two other items that were kind of being discussed during? 01:56:26.280 --> 01:56:38.280 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. 01:56:38.280 --> 01:56:54.280 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. 01:56:54.280 --> 01:56:56.280 I agree. 01:56:56.280 --> 01:56:58.280 And the benefits. 01:56:58.280 --> 01:57:00.280 We'll stop for a discussion right now. That's something to put at the top, right? 01:57:00.280 --> 01:57:03.280 Right, yeah. So this would be put as a request for a later decision. 01:57:03.280 --> 01:57:07.280 No, it would be a request to make a recommendation to city council because it would have to go before city council. 01:57:07.280 --> 01:57:10.280 Yes, it has to go before city council. 01:57:10.280 --> 01:57:17.280 I think we were talking to add on the matrix under the process for designation. I mean, what benefits? Oh, sorry. 01:57:17.280 --> 01:57:18.280 Sorry, we need a vote on that. 01:57:18.280 --> 01:57:20.280 Oh, we have to vote on that. Okay. 01:57:20.280 --> 01:57:23.280 Yeah, we have two people. 01:57:23.280 --> 01:57:25.280 Sorry, there's a lot going on. 01:57:25.280 --> 01:57:27.280 Well, it's getting tight. It's getting late. 01:57:27.280 --> 01:57:30.280 Yeah. 01:57:30.280 --> 01:57:33.280 Okay, so are we done on that one? We got it. Do you have that camera? 01:57:33.280 --> 01:57:38.280 Yes, yes, I do. Sorry. My brain is finally wearing out. 01:57:38.280 --> 01:57:50.280 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? 01:57:50.280 --> 01:58:01.280 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. 01:58:01.280 --> 01:58:06.280 But how can we get more people to come if we have nothing, if there's no benefit to them? 01:58:06.280 --> 01:58:10.280 So a discussion regarding incentives for historic property owners. 01:58:10.280 --> 01:58:21.280 Right, and mainly homeowners because commercial entities have a much bigger, you know, place to go than us. 01:58:21.280 --> 01:58:27.280 So do you want to include information from other similar situations? 01:58:27.280 --> 01:58:40.280 Yes, from other areas around the state. What do they do, like New Brunsworth or San Marcos or Grapevine or McKinney, San Antonio? 01:58:40.280 --> 01:58:46.280 Vote to have that added to their list. 01:58:46.280 --> 01:58:55.280 I have one other, but it's mainly I think to encourage just, I think it may be under education. 01:58:55.280 --> 01:59:08.280 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. 01:59:08.280 --> 01:59:27.280 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. 01:59:27.280 --> 01:59:29.280 So you're looking for the economic development. 01:59:29.280 --> 01:59:38.280 Yeah, how much does it bring to the city to have a historic district? So that would help increase the quantify it. 01:59:38.280 --> 01:59:44.280 I know that's hard or something, but I think it could have a real benefit. 01:59:44.280 --> 01:59:48.280 So he's a palooza. 01:59:48.280 --> 01:59:50.280 I'm done. I promise I'm done. 01:59:50.280 --> 01:59:52.280 Did you guys want to vote on that one? Yeah. 01:59:52.280 --> 02:00:10.280 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. 02:00:10.280 --> 02:00:23.280 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. 02:00:23.280 --> 02:00:29.280 As Cameron said, yes. 02:00:29.280 --> 02:00:35.280 So that was for us to talk about tonight, but no one, we didn't have anything, I think we've reached the end. 02:00:35.280 --> 02:00:40.280 It's like 738 and I'm a little gaga. Yeah. Okay. 02:00:40.280 --> 02:00:44.280 Is there anything else that we want to add? 02:00:44.280 --> 02:00:50.280 No. All right. Well, given that we have completed this, I don't have much of a point. 02:00:50.280 --> 02:00:59.280 And I'll make the motion after I ask the question. When did Roy go in the hospital and what do we all know? 02:00:59.280 --> 02:01:01.280 Monica? 02:01:01.280 --> 02:01:07.280 Or do you want to close up? Yes. Let's close the meeting first. Yes. 02:01:07.280 --> 02:01:09.280 He might be watching right now. 02:01:09.280 --> 02:01:13.280 We're on tape. All right. Thank you all. We've adjourned at 739.