Nov 12, 2018 Historic Landmark Commission on 2018-11-12 5:30 PM

>> Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go ahead and call the regular meeting to order right now at 537 PM. Jerry is on his way, but if we can get a couple of things out of the way, then we can be on our way. Here we go. If you'll please stand for the pledges of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one, and indivisible. >> All right, if you'll please look at number two on our meeting agenda. And we're going to look for considering the approval of the 2019 Historic Landmark Commission calendar. Has everybody had a chance to look at the proposed calendar for 2019? I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. >> Madam Chair? >> Yes. >> Isn't our January meeting on Martin Luther King Day, the 14th of January? >> This is Veterans Day. >> This is Veterans Day. Are we all out? >> I'm out. >> King Day? I think I am as well, actually. >> So could we move it to the 21st? Is that an option? >> Is the 21st- >> Wrong? >> We're looking- >> Are you checking? >> MLK might be the 21st. >> MLK is the 21st. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, it's the 21st? >> Yes. >> Well then, cool. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. >> I think that is why we- >> I told her to shut up. >> He marked, we've marked it off, so. >> They have to count this one in March, but that's fine. >> How come the one in March is on the 4th? >> Because of spring break. >> Because of spring break. >> Spring break, and the other option is if you want to push it to the 18th. We just want it, we usually move things up. >> For a spring break, yeah. >> Mm-hm. >> April is the 8th. >> The 8th. >> [INAUDIBLE] [BLANK_AUDIO] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, any other questions? >> Sorry. >> Any other- >> So we're all good with this, I guess? >> Yeah. >> Any clarifications regarding the dates? Concerns? Ron? >> No, just, again, just reiterating if there are any questions. We can address them, or if not, we just want to get your direction moving forward. >> Okay, as I'm looking through, I want to just, because I think on the school calendar, that looks good for May. >> I mean, otherwise it looks very- >> When is it scheduled for May? >> Mm-hm, and I guess it wouldn't be scheduled on the 8th in July, because 4th of July weekend. >> The after, yes. >> Okay, all right. >> I move we approve the calendar as offered. >> The motion is made by Roy. >> Second. >> Excellent, it is seconded by Helen Bailey, about half a second. The fourth can if. >> Is there any discussion to be had? We've got a motion on the floor. Great, all those in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes have it. The motion is approved, five, six, no denials. All right, let's take a look at item B. Consider approval of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting minutes. And Ron, did you say that we could have- >> Yes. >> This executive decision to go ahead and approve the September meeting minutes as well? >> Yes, from the members that are present and majority, of course. >> Excellent, so has everybody had a chance to look over the September and October minutes, and should we do those as two separate agenda items or as one? >> Let's do them separate. >> All right, please take a look at the September 10th, 2018, meeting minutes. If you haven't had a chance to already. And if anybody would like to make a motion. Mary moves that we approve the minutes. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Does she have a second? >> I'll second. >> Kenneth, thank you for your second. Any discussion? Concerns? Great. Let's go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor of approving the September 10th minutes, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All in favor? All those opposed, please say nay. Great, no nays. The ayes have it, six ayes, no nays. Let's please take a look at the October 8th minutes. And if anybody has a motion to make, please do so. >> Move. >> Not everybody at once. >> I make motion to approve October 8th, 2018 minutes. >> Great, thank you so much for your motion, Kenneth. Does anybody have a second for Kenneth's motion for approval? Thank you, Mary Anderson, for your approval. For your second. Any clarifications, questions regarding the minutes? Great. All those in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed, please say nay. The motion is to approve the minutes for October the 8th, it passes with six, no denials. Let's go ahead and move on to agenda item 2C. We're going to take a look at the public, we're going to hold a public meeting and consider an amendment to a certificate of appropriateness. Let me clarify this. We have an amendment to a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 35.7.6.8A to install solar panels on the home located at 2212 West Oak Street. The home is located on the north side of West Oak between Bradley and Thomas Street in the West Oak Historic District. The presentation will be given by Roman McAllen. Welcome, Roman. >> Okay, hello everybody. >> Hello. >> So bear with me, I got a lot of slides on this one. So you know the house. This is a photograph under construction about three weeks ago, I think. The rehabilitation that you all approved a while back, as you see in your packet. It was November of 2017, I think, is when that work started. So I'm going to talk, we have two items about solar panels. And in fact, I thought to go through both of these slide presentations quickly, because I think the situation for both of them is similar. And then maybe you could come back and consider the items, because they really tie together very closely. So a couple notes from the Secretary of Interior's standards on solar panels. This is all from their language here. And so they say that solar panels that are installed that cannot be seen from the ground will generally meet the Secretary of Interior's standards. And then on the other hand, if installation negatively impacts the character of the district or the property, then they wouldn't meet the standards. But then, and I shouldn't have really changed the font. This is right out of their book. But what about that gray area between out of sight and obviously obtrusive installations? So although every project is different, this is their language as well. It must be evaluated on its own merit. The National Park Service has developed this guidance on how to apply the standards to the installation of solar panels. And then they have some examples in their book. And I need to step away just to really point out, I picked these three examples. This one here, this one is some solar panels installed here. And these are the different types of buildings. So on a cross-gabled structure, they mentioned that this is okay because it's minimized by the complexity of the side elevation. So this whole side elevations complexity, they felt that that didn't detract from the integrity of the structure. And then down here below, they also said the same thing. And I can't remember the facade that faces the street. I can't see him there, but I can't remember the project there. So we'll move to the next one, but there's some light there. Now in this situation here on a rear side porch, I really didn't need to put this in. Here's kind of the front elevation, and way back there, there's a side porch. And on the back of that side porch, you have, and that's just blatantly obvious, very far away from the front. And then here on a low-slope gable, and there's the low-slope gable roof. And you can kind of see those panels right there. So then they say these are minimally visible, and they're located on the south side. And then they have another image of it. So from this angle, the panels are more noticeable, yet the historic character of the building is not significantly diminished. And so you get a three-story old gable building. So that's what you get from the national standards. Well that's one part, let's say, of the national standards. Here's another booklet. They have lots of things out on this subject. And here, there's two pages, and they talk about different technology here. And I didn't really actually read through these. So this is one that's installing a low-profile solar device on historic buildings so that it is not visible or only minimally visible from the public right of way is recommended. And also installing it in a manner that does not damage the historic roofing material or negatively impact the building's historic character. And then installing them flat to reduce visibility work. So they were OK with this as sort of the rear of this commercial building near a ramp, I believe, a back door. So they were OK with that. Here's some on a flat surface. And here, the panels negatively impact, obviously, the front of that building. Some more examples. And so it says that this is interesting. Some cities have chosen to require that people exhaust all other efficiency methodologies prior to installing the solar panels. And I saw that mentioned a couple of times. So this refers to that. Consider on-site solar technology only after implementing all appropriate treatments to improve energy efficiency of the building, which often have greater life cycle cost benefits. Knowing the contractor on this building, he actually has probably put a lot more energy efficiency into this building than anyone else normally would have. Analyzing whether the technology can be successful and will benefit the building. Will it work? They're basically asking, will it work? And then minimal impact, looking for minimal impact again. And in locations that have been feasible. So no trees or something else blocking it. So given that, here's our site. And I wanted to just give it in scale. You know, the University of North Texas is down here. And Hickory and Oak, and this is the site that we're dealing with. These properties all have a pretty similar setback. And then when you get down here on this part of Oak, these structures, the one we toured last year was here, was demolished. So that's where we're dealing with. And just another coming a little closer to the site here, looking at it. And again, just a little closer, working up to the site in the situation that we have on this house. The drawing that the contractor submitted shows you that these solar panels would be mounted on this kind of low pitch porch that's on the front of the building and on this side addition, later addition to the building out here. And then some on the second floor facing west between these gables. So here's a 3D image of that. So there's the low pitch panels there. And then the panels on this side building. And then there's some you can't see here, so we can see them up here. So this is the front that you see from West Oak. And there are those side panels. So I wanted to give you a sense of what that feels like. Please watch this. I think this isn't critical here. This is the experience one has currently if you're driving one way westbound on Oak. As you approach this property, these photographs were taken at approximately eye level in what would be a car. I actually just walked down the street to do this. But there's the building off to the right. And although these trees are green today, you can imagine that they do lose their leaves and I have proof of that in another image. But the addition is back here. You would see these panels up there on that one accessory, on the addition. And this is as you pass the house. And if you're really getting right in front of the house, you'd be looking through in this area. So that side, the low pitch porch is right here. And then that addition is over there. And of course it's pretty hard to see back. Those additional panels would be up here. If you're a pedestrian and you looked hard, you would make them out. So there's the low pitch porch right there. So you'd end up with a little bit of a dark, probably a little extra line there, two to three or four inches above I guess the surface of that. This is going to be a standing seam roof, I believe, on that porch. So just reiterating, there's the satellite image sort of of this, sort of, because we were to granulate a Google Earth image, and then that's generally where you'd be looking at those panels to be installed. Now if you're -- this is a very close-up image of the building, and so those panels would be again above here on this part of the building, and then over there, you can kind of make out that roof, and that's right in front of the building. This is a winter image prior to renovation work. And I'm up obviously in the circular drive, and so those panels would be on the side over here, up here, and over there. Given this situation, this is the recommendation for approval for this addition. Now let me show you the next building before we get into discussion. Next building is closer to downtown, here, we're over here. And just coincidentally we had an application. This is the lovely home at 723 West Oak, and this building over here is where he's asking to put solar panels on. These pictures are from this morning. So again, coming down the street, this is not the house, it's up this driveway here, and the panels would be on the western face of this garage. And you again might be able, if you get in the right spot in your pedestrian, you might be able to see those panels here on the edge and a little bit further if you walked a little further along. But it's pretty difficult when you pass that building. Here's a better image. So you might be able to see them there. So do you have any questions for me about that, and so I'm recommending approval because to me overall, and by the way, I want to make sure it's clear, there is an email, a copy of an email you have from Patty Hayworth, who's here tonight, and she's opposed to these and you got the email there, please read it. And I understand there could be some opposition, but in my mind, there doesn't seem to be enough taking away from the building in its place nor the district given the situation for both houses. But we're talking about this one first. This one in its distance from the street is the real, you know, if this was right up on the street, it would be different, I think, because these panels would be a little closer. But this is, historically we know this house developed in stages and dramatically, dramatic alterations were made to this main structure around the turn of the century. And I hate to show you that image because, of course, it looks a lot better today. It has efficient windows on it and just an amazing amount of work has gone into this building. Any questions? I have a question, Roman. My question is about, I mean, if somebody, how do you get enough solar efficiency to make this worthwhile because none of these are facing, it seems, at the right angle to the right direction. And the only way to accomplish this may be to remove trees to get more sunlight, which worries me to know in because these are gorgeous trees you just showed. So I don't see how efficient at this angle you're going to get except maybe in the wintertime and facing west is not exactly the most best place for solar. I'm not an expert on those questions, Mary. I could hypothesize. I think the trees that are in the lawn are pretty far away from the building, especially on the front side. But the contractor is here and I'm sure he's very knowledgeable on the direction of it. And, Mary, you're correct. The south side is what you really want. And you also want them at a slight angle, not flat. Right. Exactly. To get the best efficiency out of a solar panel array. So I had the same question. So some of these are south-facing and some are not. Hold on. They're south-facing. Yeah, a little bit. But our question is not -- the question before us is not -- on the agenda is not whether or not they're efficient. The question is whether or not they detract from the historical property or character of the property. So I want to make sure that we're staying on track and considering what's actually before us. Thank you. Mr. Drake. Yes. I just wanted to make sure we have called item C, I believe, to -- on the agenda. We haven't actually called item D on the agenda, but it sounds like some of our discussion has incorporated item D discussion as well. You know, and I think that maybe partially because parts of the presentation went into item D also. I think that you could probably hear them both simultaneously if you call them both, as far as under the Texas Open Meetings Act. Otherwise, we should probably focus on C first, then call item D, and then have our discussion on that. Thank you. Since we are on item C, I would like for us to remain on item C, please. Thank you. Yes, Angie. So on the solar panels, on this little porch here, are they going to stay flat? Are these going to be ones that are able to move? Because I've seen them where they can adjust for -- to be able to get the energy. So are they going to stay flat or are they going to be adjustable? I think the contractor should answer that, I'm not sure. Any other questions for Roman? Mary. I saw you say early on with the first slides, just show me the -- make sure we had the wording correctly. Uh-huh. What it is. So you got this one. Let's keep going back. I think it was like the second or third slide. Okay. You got these different roof types. No, it was -- this is here, right here. This is the first one, I guess. So solar panels, seeing that's not true, at least for this one, negatively impacts the historic character of the students, and then there's the gray area. So it doesn't actually say what negatively impacts the historic character. It doesn't define that. So when we're looking at the photos, can you go forward two photos? Can you go forward two more? Keep going. Okay. Go back. Two. Thank you. I wanted to -- one more. I wanted to point out that it does say not recommended is installing a solar device that is not reversible. That means that recommended would be something that is reversible, because it would not impact the actual integrity of the structure over time. So just -- and if we're looking at this, we are seeing actual awnings on the right-of-way that are seen that are solar panels. That's not -- well, that's the back entrance. That's what I'm saying. Right. That's not the front. Go back one. Secondary location. Right. And then to the back. Go back one more. I don't know where you want to go. There's only two pages that look like this. There's the houses side by side, that one, where the white -- because we've seen this before when we had solar panels brought up about a year ago. We have that low profile on the White House that is seen from the right-of-way as well. You mentioned -- I think it's important to point out, and I did in my presentation, that several years ago there was a property in the West Oak Historic District that wanted solar panels, and it was denied by the Landmark Commission, and that applicant went to -- City Council. Yeah, went to City Council. But before he did that, he went to every member of the West Oak Historic District, and they signed -- West Oak. Yeah, West Oak. And they signed a petition. I don't know if -- I think it was everybody. I doubt it. Almost got them all. It was a large number. But they all were in favor of it, and those panels are on that structure today on the west side of the second floor, kind of where these would be. Right. But they are definitely visible from the right-of-way. I have one other question. Yes, Angie. Thank you. No, go ahead. He had his hand up first. Oh. Well, I'm just -- for the point of order here, Roman, these standards that are listed as sort of federal recommendations and standards and all, are they actually incorporated into our code, or are they examples of how -- that may be instructive into how others view this issue? It's a very good question. That's the latter point is true, because our ordinance, as pointed out in your staff report, we have criteria for denial. That's our criteria for denial. We have not adopted the United States Secretary of Interior's standards as required. And there's a caveat to that, except in one place, Belle Avenue Conservation District adopted -- they're in there as an appendix, so it doesn't say what they're there for, but their guidelines are in that. Now, going forward, as soon as we get the DDC code done, we will be utilizing them as a guide, I believe. Their guidance for our decision -- they won't be any stronger then than they are now. They're a tool for making decisions. So the point being that -- just so there's no misunderstanding, these are not a standard, and there's no binding impact on this. I believe staff's bringing them forward as potentially instructive in guiding you through your decision. Okay. Thank you. Angie. Okay. Do you have a question? I do. A lot of times you mentioned how far off the road the structure is. And I'm just wondering, in these standards, I didn't see anything that addressed that. It actually just said -- and that's what I wanted to clarify -- there was nothing that said how far off of a right-of-way or that visually that you could see it. And so that's my question, is there anything in those standards, because I'd hate to do it based on where a structure is located and not for someone else because of where it's located. So here at the very up front, they talk about cannot be seen from the ground, where you're standing there. So there's that reference there. And then in each of these descriptions, they talk about a little bit of -- it's visible, but it's not a bad problem, like this one here, minimal -- or, no, I'm sorry, this bottom one, which I can't quite read, is -- I can't even see. The front of the King's Daughter's home, the solar panels are installed on the facade that faces the street. So the question is, it is relevant to where, you know, you could see it. In the case of this building, the main thing to think of in my mind is just that distance. Does it take away from the historic character of this house from right there? And you could imagine in the winter soon, you know, you'll see that -- there's that little pitch out there. Out over there, you're going to see a few panels. And you're not really going to be able to see these. It's going to look like a little thickness to the porch line, which -- and then, of course, those up there, you're not going to see at all unless you're walking and you maybe even have to come up in the lawn here to get to it. It really appears to me -- and if you get up right up in front of the building, now if you're even standing right there, your prominent features are this gable, the height of this gable, these dormers, this roof, this porch. There's a lot of integrity all in there, and you're not going to have a panel. Here you won't see those panels, but barely be able to visualize them above that. And then these are -- you would see maybe the first two or three, I think those maybe four or however many panels can be used on that side. So given that scene -- and here's a little further out, but here, again, I'm halfway up in the yard at least to get that view of it. Rowan, I have a question. Would it make any difference to the staff if the ones that are on the east side of the house that face the street were moved to the garage, which is not -- it's brand new, right? It has no -- I'm not sure, but that could be a possibility. Trees may block it. Again, I think -- But facing east is worse because that's -- I mean, that's the direction all the traffic comes from. I'm sorry. Facing due south. No, I think he means move. So there's an addition here, a garage, that's been built here, and so Roy is suggesting could the panels be moved to this side out here? To the new addition. I see. Well, I didn't know if it would matter. That was my question, probably for -- We can ask the contractor that, who should have more knowledge in that. May I have only one other question? The guidelines suggested that you should have something that is not permanent or removable or something. What in the world would be permanent anyway on a solar thing? I'm just kind of dumb, but I have no clue. I would think it'd have to do with if you have to be destructive in order to install them. If the brackets are such that it's destroying part of the original building -- roof, I guess, I could imagine that that would be a problem. And if they come back -- say they decide after 10 years they want to put on new, do they have to come back -- they get destroyed by a hail storm, will they come back again? No. You replace like with like. If it's been approved already and they're replacing like with like, then they do not come back. But is like a solar panel or is like the same solar panel look or could it be any other horrible-looking solar panel, for example? A year from now it gets destroyed and they're going to replace it with something that's totally -- If they replace it with something different, then it would have to come back before either through -- it would have to be approved. It might be -- it would probably be administratively improved unless it was really a different thing. Like extremely different. Because it would be maintenance if it was just like a broken -- like a broken anything else, a broken window or air-conditioning unit. Or a roof. If your roof gets destroyed by hail damage and you're not changing what kind of roof you're putting on there, that's administrative approval. All right. Any other questions for Roman? Okay. Here we go. So let's go ahead and open this up for the public portion of the meeting. Do we want to go ahead -- Dan, would you like to come up and speak to this? Yes. Thank you. You know the drill. Did you give us your address and your name? Thank you. Hi, Dan. Thanks for coming. I appreciate it. Sure. I'm Dan Fetty. I live at 2708 Glenwood here in Denton. Welcome, Dan. Thank you. Do you want me to start? Please. Okay. When we examined the possibility of putting this -- presenting it to you, we looked at all sorts of considerations. We did consider putting it on the garage. The trees on the west side of the garage are very tall, would really defeat the purpose of putting solar panels on at all. Okay. There are no such trees on the east side of the house that would obstruct sunshine having a favorable effect on the panels there. Please notice where we did not propose to put them, and that is on the high-pitched south-facing roof plane in between those front-facing dormers there, because we were trying to minimize the appearance of something unusual on historic structure. Okay. The ones there on the front porch, while it is ideal to have them on a pitch that is equal to the latitude, typically about 34 degrees here, it's not necessary. There's plenty of installations out there that are producing very well on flat roofs. So we have a slight pitch. It's probably maybe a 7-degree pitch, something like that, on the south and east-facing sides of that wraparound porch. The ones on the west side of the house, granted, they're not going to start producing until about, oh, noontime, and after that they will produce more than a south-facing roof array would produce, because they're going to get more direct sunlight from that point. So they're not going to be producing in the morning, but they're going to be producing more in the afternoon. So again, we tried to position them in a way that would have a minimal effect on the appearance of the house. Thank you, Dan. Okay. Members of the board, do you have any questions? Yes, Angie. So my question earlier, so they're not going to be flat, a 7-degree pitch on the front? They'll be mounted flush with the angle of the roof in every instance. There are brackets that lift it up in the neighborhood of 3 inches, but they would be mounted to that surface at the angle of the roof, at the angle of the roof pitch. Okay. So you're saying that roof pitch is 7 degrees? Probably. Somewhere in there. I think it's like a 1 and 12 pitch, one rise vertically for every 12 feet, horizontal. And then they would not move from that? No, they're not adjustable. They don't track the sunlight. They're fixed. Okay. Thank you. Good question, Angie. Absolutely. Dan, did you all plan these yourselves, or did you have any consultations done with the company? We had our photovoltaic installer, but I've used many times, out there several times to get to look at where the shade was, to look at how much space was available. There has to be a particular amount of area around the proposed panels for people to walk on, like for fire code and such things as that. And yeah, he is the one that participated in this array we're presenting to you. Great. So he helped you figure out what would create the maximum efficiency, and that was? We're avoiding that. Okay. The south-facing roof plane, as you've pointed out, would provide the maximum benefit, and we're avoiding that. Okay. For the reason I mentioned. Right. Okay. Mary? I guess I had a question of why not something that would be like a solar roof? When this came up in the past in other areas, they sell solar shingles. No, not yet. They don't. Tesla had them on the market. They were trying to promote them locally, and they pulled their representative from the state of Texas, for whatever reason. And they're not as efficient, and they're very expensive. And that's the kind of thing that would require the house almost to be disassembled to change them out. The panels are something that mount on ... These panels are something that mount on top of the roof. And are not going to damage the structure of the house? They will not. No. Right. They're going to ... It's probably ... The shingles will last longer under those panels than the ones adjoining them, adjacent to them. I don't know. Right. My roof probably doesn't have panels, but I could just see all the leaves getting jammed into that, and damaging the roof even faster leaves are my bane. Okay. My other question for you is, why not, having heard some of this discussion in the past in various places, why not consider alternatives like panels in the back, or wind turbines, or something else that would be pretty much as efficient. They have some really cute little turbines. Panels in the back would be facing north? No, facing south, but in the backyard facing up. It's a big enough lot that you could move it down to the back. Well, we're not showing you a site plan on this house. There's no room in the back of this lot for such an array, and there's brimful of trees. Back of this lot ... Facing south, there's brimful of trees? I'm sorry. On the north side of the house, which would be the rear of the house, there's maybe 12 feet separating the back of the house from the back property line. It's heavily, heavily treed. I can show you that. Okay. I have another question. Yes. Let's see. Is the yard on the front? Yeah, the way ... Right. The lot line. ... the planning made them cut this lot up. I don't know. Thank you, Ken. It was ... I don't have any ... It's a 21 up to 21. 2212. I mean, it really ... There's not much back there. No. I've walked the property before. There's not a big open space behind the house between the back of the house, the smaller, very well treed lot that there is, and the ... Do you see? Yeah. I can see the trees now. Mm-hmm. So the lot line is ... The lot line is really short. It's just like right ... Right. And there's another house back there that ... I mean, that's beneath that tree canopy almost. Angie? Yes. I have one other question. Something that Roman shared with us earlier with those guidelines was that some of them weren't approving the solar technology unless they've made other attempts for efficiency. Would you mind sharing what you've done in the home so far for efficiency? Sure. Sure. We are using a special foam. The inside of the wall frame on houses built that long ago, it was typical to put the sheathing on the inside surface of the studs. We have shiplap sheathing throughout the original part of the house. What were ... When you pulled the wall covering off, in some places it was ... In a few places it was wallpaper. Mostly it was sheetrock that had been laid over the top of that shiplap over time. We've removed that, repaired, or we're in the process of repairing any damage on the original interior sheathing to wire the house, rewire it, we're going to have to poke holes in that sheathing all around. We're also going to poke holes in that sheathing all around between the studs and use a specially made foam, injectable foam insulation for applications like this, for retrofits that allow that foam to get in the wall cavity by means of that small hole that you've cut in the sheathing. We're going to cover all those holes at the end of the job with a new 3/8 inch layer of sheetrock. Walls and sloping ceilings in the house will be insulated with a foam material that actually has a higher R value than sprayed polyurethane foam. That's top of the line there. The flat ceiling area, what little flat ceiling area there is above the sloping ceilings on the top floor is going to get R-48, R-49 of blown in insulation above it. The new walls on the back of the house, or rather, the walls on the back of the house were walls that occurred through many additions to the house. None of those had solid sheathing on the inside. Removing the wall covering there, it was just sheetrock. We're exposing all the wall cavities in the back of the house. We will spray that with sprayed polyurethane foam. We'll spray the underside of the roof deck on the back side of the house with sprayed polyurethane foam. We're using a kind of a radiant barrier synthetic underlayment under the shingles for a little bit more reflection of sunlight coming into the house. We're foaming under the floor everywhere, so we'll use LED lights wherever we can. We'll use Energy Star appliances wherever we can. We're using very high quality air conditionings. The energy efficiency stuff, that's my wheelhouse, so we're doing all of that that I typically do. One of the things that I built for this customer was a home measuring up to the zero energy ready home program that the Department of Energy conducts. Were you able to do anything with the windows for efficiency? Yes. We're putting new windows in all around. The windows on the front of the house are as close to the appearance of the original windows as we could make. They're double pane windows with a very good solar heat rating and a very good U-value, which is inverse of R-value. It just means well insulated double pane windows. Are they wood? Wood windows throughout, yes. That was part of the -- I wasn't here for that, so that was it. Right. I just wondered. Do you have plumbing fixtures in your town? Well we're also going to do a gray water, where we're going to try to do a gray water system on that. That would be the second gray water system in the city of Ninton. Wow. The first one's across the street on Alamo Place. We're not using water sense. We're not trying deliberately to use water sense plumbing fixtures, but the same low flow stuff that you have to do for Energy Star rating for the water. Thank you so much, Dan. Angie, does that satisfy the question? It does. Thank you. Awesome. Any other questions for Dan? Dan, thank you for the work that you've done. Good. Thanks. I appreciate your coming and visiting with us tonight. All right. While we still have the floor open for the public portion of the meeting, is there anybody else from the public who would like to come and speak regarding this agenda item? Come on up Ms. Patty Hayworth. Patty you know the drill. I know the drill. Please give us your name and your address. Patty Hayworth, 1506 Allen Park Road, Denton. Thank you. Anything that has been presented about these panels not being viewable has been contingent on those trees being there, and the issue is not viewable with or without trees. It's viewable, and we cannot count on those trees always being there. They could be struck by lightning. They could burn in a fire. All sorts of things can happen to trees. So I think as we look at this, we need to look at, is it, can you see it? And if the trees aren't there, the answer is yes. These solar panels can be seen. In terms of the Secretary of the Interior's standards and whether we are held to those or not, we are a certified local government, the city is, and as such, are we not held to the Secretary of the Interior's standards as a CLG? Think about that. Ground-mounted solar panels, I have not heard these mentioned. These are something to consider. There is lots of land on this site. It is not all covered by trees. There can be options here where the owner can still have his solar panels, but they won't be up on the structure. And we also need to think about the fact that allowing solar panels on the front of a historic structure or a contributing structure or structure in a historic district sets a precedent. It isn't just about this house. It sets a precedent for the next person who comes and says, well, you let that house have solar panels on the front, and they say, well, but it is really set back from the street. It doesn't matter. It is on the front of the house. So you need to think about how that vote, how this decision will affect homeowners in the future. So for all these reasons, I ask that you deny these solar panels as proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Patty. If there's anybody else from the public who would like to speak regarding this agenda item at this time, you're welcome to come forward. There is not. I'm going to go ahead and close the public portion of the meeting. There's already been some discussion regarding this agenda item if you feel like it is best to discuss now. We can certainly do so before we have a motion on the floor. I would like to discuss. Sure. Angie? So I'm going to tell you, I don't know on this, and I'm going to tell you with living in a home in the historic district, my bills are crazy. And we've tried to do all of the efficient things that we can, and so I can see where people want to do this to help to maintain a historic home, to be able to live there. I mean, financially, it takes a toll. We all know that, the upkeep. I'm torn with where it is. I really wish they could locate it somewhere else, but I understand wanting to do that, and I hate to be the police on it, but we can actually help people want to be in these historic homes. So the one thing I do know is I don't think how far back on a lot should matter. I think if it's visible, it's visible, and I don't think we should take -- that's my thought. We should not sit that president's at all. I think that could come back to bite us. But really, I would like to hear more discussion, because I'm at a toss-up, because I'm for efficiencies. Helen? So I have a few comments on thoughts. First off, I'm honestly not sure that I think there's another good option for where they could go. We would want them on the south-facing roofs, and there's two of them, one on the garage, one on the house. We wouldn't want them there, and they haven't put them there, so that's good. Out on the site, if we were to ask them to put them on a pole on the site, then we run into the example, a similar example to the one that was shown in the documents that Roman had, if you can bring that one up, which is in fact, I believe, more detracting than where they -- It was denied, yeah. Yes, it was one of those examples of what not to do, where they're actually in front of the house, freestanding. So not sure that's necessarily an option I would recommend. I would say that quite a bit of thought has been put into where they've located them. They have not picked what would be the most -- there you go, that top right image there. They have not picked the most beneficial from a solar gain standpoint, the locations. They picked the locations that have put some thought into the aesthetics of the site. I also think it's commendable to take these sustainable efforts, partly from your perspective as a homeowner, you know, helping with the bills, but also just for the good of the planet, and so I think that's a good thing. Those are just some thoughts I have. I'd like to also say that I do remember when the solar panel issue came up before, and this is not our first rodeo with the solar panels, and there was a lot of neighbor -- I remember a lot of neighborhood support for -- especially in the West Oak District for the solar panels, and I think you also have to consider if it did go into appeals, would the council probably deny or accept it, and we have in the past seen that the energy efficiency of Denton and the community as a whole takes a large -- it's a big precedent. I understand not wanting to set a precedent, and I think I even said this last time, I wish that if the West Oak District does not mind solar panels in the right of way, they would add it to their ordinance, but we're not there right now, and I do think that we have to take all of these things into consideration. I agree that they've done a really good job being as considerate as they can be regarding the aesthetics of the solar panels, making them as minimally distracting as possible, and we do already have solar panels on the right of way on another house, not far from this, in the same district. Does anybody else have something to add? Mary? Well, I was on the rodeo last time around, it faced west, the one down the way. It was a new house, brand new. This is probably the second oldest house on Oak and probably one of the top five oldest houses in Denton, so that weighs heavily on my mind, and I do worry about setting a precedent. I'm concerned about cost to run a house. I live on Oak Street, but you know what, my highest electric bill has never been more than $400, and I run the air conditioners like mad, and I have an old house that doesn't have all the insulation. I just have lath, you know, an old plaster. I think that that's not a concern for me. Sustainability, yes, I love that term, but sustainability for who? As a scientist, I will tell you, we're just pawning off the dirt on some poor little kid in South America digging this up. It does not sustain that poor child who will probably get cancer from all the horrible chemicals he digs up, so please, that's not an excitement for me. That it goes on to council is not an excitement for me. I think this is a fabulous save. I love this house, I have loved it from the day I moved into Denton. I sort of wish we could divide this up and improve part of the panels and not the rest. The only ones that bother me are the ones on the new addition. The flat ones don't bother, the ones that are almost flat are almost not visible on the front. The ones on the side don't bother me. It's the ones on the new addition, I don't know what it's called, I don't know where it is. They are the ones that could easily be seen, and I think that they've done such a thoughtful job, if those went away, I would be so happy. Because then again, if they don't go away, I'm going to put on solar panels on the front of my house because I face south too. And everybody else will do that, and I'm not convinced that all of West Oak Historic District signed up for this. A lot of students who live there may have signed up for it, or renters may have signed up for it, but I'm not sure the owners signed up for it. Just saying, this has been a bone of contention, oh, we went out and got a petition, but those aren't necessarily owners of the property. So I am up on a fence because I love this house. I like the idea of saving personally money. I am not excited about sustainability from the point of view of panels. The chemicals are pretty hard to get, and the appeals are not of importance. This is the second oldest house on the street, I'm pretty sure, apart from the house across from my cockpit. Roy or Kenneth, do you have any considerations that you'd like to share at this time? I'm in agreement with Mary about the placement of them. The flat ones don't bother me on the porches or anything like that. I guess my question would be, would we not get the same energy rating or the same usage of energy if we got rid of those four or five panels that would face the front? I mean, that's something to consider. Roy? Yeah, my only concern, the panels that are on the east wing facing south, if they could somehow, the farthest to the right could somehow go on the upper part facing west, I think you wouldn't see any of these solar panels, very little of it. That's my only comment, is I might have looked at the feasibility of that. That's it. Okay. Is there any more discussion that you would like to have? Chair, can I make a comment? Yes. Roman. I just, with all due respect, I think with respect to the standards, Patty brought up the, as a certified local government, the city of Denton must apply the standards. As far as I understand it, as a certified local government, there is a lot that's required and namely it's that we have a preservation ordinance, that we have a preservation officer and there's a pretty long, there's a long list of requirements, but that we specifically apply the standards, as far as I know, that is not a requirement. But even if we did, I think going back to this first slide and just, does the installation negatively impact the character of the property or I guess it's somewhere in the district and I just don't see how, if you're looking at it, the character of this specific building and the way that you see it and its architectural integrity and then the district as a whole. That's why I recommended the approval. But going back to Commissioner Anderson, Mary's concern, if I'm not mistaken, the petition that was signed was everyone in the district and I don't think those were students. I know because the fellow who did that is an attorney and he's very diligent and I remember he offered to show that to me, so I'm pretty sure that he worked very hard. He's an attorney. It took a long time. He spent a lot of time to go and get those so that when he went to city council, he had the whole district. So when you create a district, there's a lot of those people right in that neighborhood. So those two points I wanted to make, well, I'll do respect. Thank you. When I was at that meeting, he did not agree that they were all owners. I remember asking that question very specifically. Okay. There's no more discuss. I think we're ready to hear a motion. Chair, if I can offer some suggestions. Absolutely. The options that are offered to the commission is that there is an approval subject to conditions. So if the motion includes a condition that can be provided as well. Okay. If I can add on to that, I know that there were some questions that were asked about would the panels be flat and you got the answer that they would match the roof pitch. You might want to incorporate that into your requirement if that's what you intend because it's not specific from the application itself. Okay. I think it's a complicated motion. I don't know. I move we approve COA 18-0001 as offered. Okay. Does Roy have a second? I second it. Thank you, Kenneth, for your second. All right. We have a motion on the table. If you would like to discuss this any further, this is an opportunity. Any questions regarding how the motion is made? Okay. If not, we can go ahead and take a vote. Can I ask a question at this point? Absolutely, Roy. Okay. So where does this if we vote and it's approved? That's pretty obvious where it goes. If we vote and it's denied, then they start the process over again? Or is this a point where we talk about, okay, well, how do you take this and approve subject to conditions because I could friendly change my motion to include that, I believe. You can deny with condition -- so you can deny with approval to resubmit within a smaller amount of time. You can also approve with conditions. So if you say with the condition that the panels match the pitch of the roof and don't exceed so many inches off of the roof line, you can do that. Or that aren't on the east side wing. You could say that as well. However, I would be cautious to do that if the solar studies show that they're trying to maximize potential by not putting them on the south side, which would be where they can maximize the potential of the solar panels. I do believe he said that the west side was actually better after 12 noon. That's what he said. Afternoon he got more sunlight than he got from the south-facing windows. Chair? Yes, Ron. Chair, if you can just clarify for me, if the motion that's on the table does not get the votes, that does not deny the application or does it? If it does not get the votes, then it is either open for another motion or denies it. I assume you were asked a question of me rather than the chair. Yes, chair. If the -- Where's Jerry? I'm sorry. You said Jerry. I thought you said chair. Me too. I was like, I think that's more of a Jerry question. If that motion does not pass, then you turn the motion around and ask it the other way around or make a different motion or what have you, but you need to ask for a motion that carries through. So we can vote on this one now. All right. Right now we have a motion made by Roy, seconded by Kenneth to approve the COA as is. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. That is Roy, Kenneth. Please show with a raise of hands, Roy, Kenneth, Helen, Alyssa, for approval. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. And that is Mary and Angie to deny. The ayes have it. Thank you. Let's go. Mr. Fetti. Dan, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you. Sorry. D also? No, we did not. That was separate. No. D is a separate motion. But, I mean, Mr. Fetti, I didn't know if he was the contractor or -- No, he's not the contractor for that. Jerry, just for point of clarification, Jerry, this is a commission of nine. Does four carry? That's my question. What is a quorum for this vote? Five. I did not bring my -- I'm not sure that we made the quorum for the vote, by the way, but that's fine. I think you probably did. I will have to refer back to my code. Can we take a five-minute recess? We absolutely can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Somebody better find out. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to call this meeting back to order. Jerry is back. Thank you, Mr. Drake. He's done. We are ready to hear your answer. All right. Fortunately, the question is very clearly and definitively answered in the Denson Development Code, Section 35.4.3.1, Operational Procedures. It says, "The Historic Landmark Commission shall meet its office necessary to dispose of the business. Five members present shall constitute a quorum for transaction of business, and all issues shall be decided by a majority of those members present and voting, except that in those instances where only a quorum of five is present at a meeting, all issues shall be decided by at least four affirmative votes." That's the relevant part. So we got it. The motion passes. Yes. Thank you so much. Dan, thank you so much for running back. We appreciate your resiliency. It is freezing. All right. So sticking with the theme of the night, solar panels, let's move on to agenda item 2D, to hold a public meeting and consider an application for certificate of appropriateness in accordance with the Section 35.7.6.8.8 to install solar panels on the garage located at 723 West Oak Street. The address is located on the south side of West Oak between Denton Street and Mounts Avenue. All right. And does this have an additional presentation, Roman? No, it doesn't. Okay. Can you do me a favor? Can you pull up the pictures specific -- yep, that's what I wanted to see and the one that I believe is right before it as you're driving up, okay? So I start out with a couple of straight shots of the building here. Wonderful. And, you know, really, there's a -- if you make a pie shape between -- if you were the panel and you're looking at it, when is the public going to see you? You know, somewhere over here to somewhere over here, you're going to see -- there's like a 30-foot or maybe it's 40-foot wide window where you would see. So now you're coming up the street. You wouldn't see those panels here or there. You probably still wouldn't see the panel. You might start to see the edge of the panel. The profile? You would see the little edge there, the black, dark edge, and then -- well, and you would again see it some more as you went across. So that's what they're asking for there. Thank you so much, Roman. On an accessory, you know, dwelling. It's not necessarily the main dwelling and that's why I'd again recommend -- to me, when I think about the standards, you know, there's all those famous sayings, you know something when you see it, whatever those things are, and -- but, you know, you know something when you see it if it was, you know, really affecting this overall experience of this structure. Okay. Can I ask you a question? Roy, absolutely. Yes, sorry. Thank you. The picture that included with our material shows that the panels are on the east-facing roof line of the garage. Oh, did I get -- oh, my goodness. Did you get your directions wrong? It sure is on the east side. Let me redo that PowerPoint for you real quick. Let's step back. Well, there -- it's not that much difference. There it is, except it is -- You see a lot more on there. You see a lot more. Yeah, you see a lot more. You drive up. There. There's your window. So it is different. As long as West Oak remains one way westbound, I'm sorry, I'm just holding this there. I would just like to say, at the moment that the -- hold on. Yeah, because there's the street up here. There's the house. Yeah, because there's the house. So it's on the other -- Maybe they're going to recharge the battery on the Airstream. Which brings up a question. Why are they on that side? Well, it doesn't say in the -- oh, I'm looking at the wrong one. Well, and I, unfortunately, don't have the contractor here or the owner here for that. I did make them aware of the meeting as a partial model. There is a site plan in the back up, sheet PV-2. That's what they're looking at. Yeah. And then the -- It shows the proposal. Uh-huh. It sure is. Okay. I will say that wouldn't change -- you know, believe it or not, for me, that just wouldn't change my recommendation. Y'all have to, of course, make your decision, but I still wouldn't feel it would be worry of a -- I mean, it doesn't -- oh, I see, right, it does face east. Uh-huh. Can you go to the overall site -- the Google or Shutter, probably? Yeah, sure. Let's see. We'll go down over here. 723. Yes, that is on the east, but with a little panel on the west is what it looks like. I mean, if you're looking at the site plan, yes. Yeah, I am. I just can't believe they put it there. I mean, if that's what its maximum efficiency -- But then I'm less than -- I'm much less excited if it faces east, because you can see it coming down oak, if that's true. Show me your picture, Ron. It's not. Uh-huh. Yeah. West is fine. I have no problem facing west. I'd be excited. You know, the -- in that context, though, and just thinking about will -- I don't often think this way, but will West Oak always be one way? I mean, to me, it's kind of half a dozen one-way, six the other in 50 years or whatever. Didn't they move to one way in the 1960s, maybe? When did they move to one-way streets, because they were not always? They talk about periodically about going back to the two-way, but I just keep -- I mean, maybe slow down with traffic. Oh, by the way, if you're driving down oak, our friends over here would chip out, there's some media every so often to get you going 50. Oh. Yeah. If you're thinking of denying it, then maybe we could table it until I give them an opportunity to respond, just letting you know that that could happen, too. I still really just -- I don't have a problem with it. Driving up, it's not what you're looking at. Would it be less visible? Perhaps if you had it towards the rear. There's 12 bays of panels here if you omitted the six closest to the street and had six on either side of the roof toward the rear. If I'm looking at this picture, I don't know that removing six at the front is going to make that big of a difference if you're standing at this specific angle. However, that being said, as someone who -- and I've said it before, I'll say it again. I love walking in this neighborhood. I walk and run in this neighborhood all the time. I'm never looking at auxiliary structures, very rarely. You know, even walking by, your focus is on the main portion of the house and the houses around it. And, again, does it change the historical character of the home having a small panel present? A panel on the garage. No, this one is just all on the garage. That's what I'm saying. It's not on the main house. It's not on the part closest to the street. I mean, I'm glad I don't look across the street, but that's somebody else to look at. I don't think I'd like to look at it every day. But if you face it west, I don't know how you'd ever see it. My question is -- my preference would be to continue the item because my question for the builder is, why isn't it on the west? Because if it's as good for him as the east -- I doubt that they would put it on the east side in the proposal if it could have been on the west side because it is less visible by the west. Could be a tree issue here. These are real tall. I'm not sure of that lot. Could be it. It would be interesting to see if he could maximize it, like Jerry was saying, put half on each side so you get the full orbit. But we don't have -- If we approve it on just to put the solar panels on the garage and we don't specify a side, does that not open it up for it to allow him? What I'm saying is, does it matter to us which side it's really on? That's a good question. Can we just say on the garage? I mean, the COA, as I read it, says to install solar panels on the garage. That's what it says. Now, that also comes with the site plan, but if you want to approve it on the garage and give them room to put it on either the east or the west with Roman's approval or the HBO's administrative approval, we can do that. I don't see why it would matter. We just approve one facing the street so who cares? Are we ready for a motion? The only thing is, as far as having the site plan there, I think you would have to make it clear that the motion is disregarding the site plan in the application and just saying that the approval is on the garage, if that's what your intention is. On either the east or the west. So you could clarify that in a motion. Does anybody else have any discussion? I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. All right. We approve item COA18-0009 to install solar panels on the garage located at 723 West Oak Street and that we discard the site plan and that it could go by staff, whether it's on the east or west side. Disregard the site plan. Where it's depicted on the roof, there are some technical standards on the site plan that you might want to incorporate. Right. On which side of the roof. Disregard the site plan on which side of the roof it is to be installed, but to still go by the specifications. Okay. Thank you so much for your motion, Angie. Does she have a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Helen, for your second. Is there any other discussion to be had now that we have a motion on the floor? If we're ready to take a vote, I'm ready to call for one. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Please show me with a raise of your hands. Thank you. Mary, Angie, Kenneth, Helen, and Alyssa all approve. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. Roy? Denied. That is a five-to-one vote. The ayes have it. Thank you all for your votes. All right. Roy, I know that you have another meeting that it is very important for you to attend. If you need to do so now and catch up on any of the roles and responsibilities with Roman at a later date, you are welcome to go. Thank you so much. All right, Ron, the next agenda item is all you, sir, discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Historic Landmark Commission. I'm going to defer that to Roman. Maybe we should have started with this. Okay. Yeah, maybe. All right. Let me see if I can get through it. That's not the presentation, Roman. Oh, we're doing the -- We're not on DDC, Roman. Come on. Where are we, sir? There we go. We're on the HLC presentation. Oh, yes. Responsibilities of the HLC. Thank you, Ron. You did tell me. We're ready for that. Yeah. And I'm -- we're going to have to start ordering dinner around here, Ron. We're keeping people late. I don't know. We did that before. I don't remember when we first met. We had to because we had, like, four-hour-long meetings. Since I've been here, we had them pretty short. Well, I'll try to speak quickly. Issues not on the agenda. You've been here. You've been here. Right. Thank you. I'm sorry. We have two new members and three members who are more familiar. So this is going to look familiar to most of you. So I just stripped this down to the basics. Tonight we did supply a Manuel's binder of the historic landmark commission. That's actually supposed to be a manual. And I still don't know if I would have spelled it right, even if I had noticed it, but didn't know it looked weird. So we have that. And in there, the current code responsibilities in the landmark commission are in there. But if you really synthesize it down, nine members, two years staggered, meets once a month or as necessary, meetings may be called by the chair or by a simple majority of the landmark commission to address something, the HLC makes recommendations on certificates of appropriateness that are not ordinary maintenance or minor exterior alterations. The in general, the code has some fancy language that says the historic landmark commission shall thoroughly familiarize itself with building structures, sites, districts, areas, and lands within the city, which may be eligible for designation as historic landmarks. I synthesize that down to look out for the historic resources in Denton. That's the bottom line. Establish criteria for determination of local landmarks and for approving C of A's. And then there's these reasons that these are the codified reasons to deny a certificate of appropriateness. And they're still similar to the standards. The exterior architectural features of the landmark should not be negatively affected, the district as a whole, and the future preservation of that landmark. The only place that we reference this is just coincidental to our conversation tonight, the Secretary of Interior's standards were codified as part of an appendix to the creation of the Bell Avenue Conservation District. So the preservation ordinance in the city of Denton's have been moving closer and closer to the national standard. We didn't ever mention them, and then we mentioned them in the last district that was created. And when the code that Ron is going to talk about later is adopted, there we actually specify that the standards should be a guiding principle of decisions. So there's sort of been this evolution. Finally, there's an article here, I don't need to bring it up, and there's a city lab article I found on solar panels, and it talks about what you experienced here in these discussions. That it's not an easy question to answer, but I like the quote in that article, and it was that the author had written about both preservationists and environmentalists, and that they should be careful in asserting their rights and remedies, lest the public lose confidence in the cause. And that's important as we try to protect our national registered district, as we try to create new districts, as we create local landmarks. We have to keep that big picture is what I always advocate for. But the booklet has several sections in there, the all of historic resource survey properties are listed, the historic preservation ordinance as written is there, and so you can always go to that. And then those will have to bring you an updated one soon when you get to what Ron is going to talk to you about. Any questions about that? Okay, that's all I have on that. Thank you, Roman. Any questions? Great. We can move on. Madam Chair, we're going to go out of order. I actually request that the next item, which is the training video, that we postpone that to the next meeting. Absolutely. We are working on updating that and want to make sure that we present the most updated version of that video. Since there are some new members not present, it would probably be best that we wait until they are present. I agree. We should postpone that and move it to the next. So the next item on the agenda is an update to the DDC update status. I wanted to make sure that the HLC was given an opportunity to at least know what's going on with the DDC update. It's a big effort that affects obviously this commission as well as other commissions that are working as far as development is concerned in the city. Just real quick, the agenda that I will cover briefly is where we are, what the purpose is of where we are, some of the policy decisions that a committee made up of three council members and three planning zoning commissioners have been considering as part of this DDC update. A real quick summary of the subchapters that are moving forward as well as how we've been reaching out to the community in regards to the draft zoning map and then what our next steps are in regards to the next draft as well as when we are scheduled to take it to the planning zoning commission and city council. The purpose is just to meet the vision of the DemPlan 2030, really is to develop and look into making sure we have responsible and quality development throughout the city. We've got a list of common themes but really just to be more customer friendly and also protect our neighborhoods as well. So we started this effort back in June of 2017. We've held numerous public open houses. We again have been meeting with the development code review community. This is the DCRC held public open houses soon after that as well when we first published our public draft and then since then we've been meeting with a number of stakeholders and other meetings as well with the neighborhoods and attending a lot of the community market as well to get the word out. So the committee has been meeting on a various number of topics. This is just a summary of the high level ones that they've considered, looking at allowed lane uses, basically very development oriented with regards to what proposed uses are permitted, how big and what their dimensional standards are. We also have been discussing ESA, environmental sensitive areas, the development review process and of course the zoning map and zoning districts which is a big part of the development code. The subchapters that we are proposing to have with the new draft are of the following. We currently have 24 subchapters in the current development code and you can see we're narrowing that down to eight which is quite an effort. Most of that is going to go into, most of the current subchapters is going to go to subchapter six which is the development standards, basically taking all the different subchapters and putting them into that proposed subchapter. So total 24 now and we're going to bring it down to eight. Subchapter one is really just your general provisions that contains your purpose, your applicability, the enforcement and just really how we're going to transition from one code to the other. So again general provisions. Chapter two is your administrative and procedures. This big change here is there's going to be a table with all the types of application which includes COAs and this will have a better presentation as far as how things proceed through the development review process. So this is an important chapter. Again it talks about how things are processed through the city. Chapter three is our zoning districts. This will include the zoning districts that are being proposed. We currently have 28 zoning districts. Don't have a map here with me but as you can imagine there's a number of zoning districts that we either don't use our duplications of other zoning districts or try to clean it up. We're going from 24, I'm sorry 28 down to 14 so almost half. That can be a little scary because it is a change of what we currently have but we feel that it is something that we need to do in order to better serve the community. In this zoning or this subchapter there is a purpose statement for each zoning district as well as the dimensional standards that are associated with each zoning district. These are the zoning district in green being proposed. As you can see the middle column here is what we currently have. There's a lot more like I said roughly 28 and we're going to go down to 14. The residential we didn't want to change much with regards to residential. The zoning as you see here is just really changing its name. For example NR1 will be R1, NR2 will be R2. Where you'll see more changes are the ones that are being combined. The DR1, DR2, RCR1, RCR2 are now going to be referred to or proposed to be referred to as R7. The other big changes the DCN and DCG combined to MD and so on and so forth that you see on this table. So before I leave this table do you all have any questions so far on the zoning districts? Downtown compatibility area is the area surrounding the downtown. Basically the core is what we refer to as our downtown implementation area. Parkway to the north, Carroll, Exposition and Scripture is your core. Everything surrounding that area is what we call the compatibility area. >> And is there any delineation for like up to four dwelling units is that like duplexes and quads are all in it? >> That is more or less the density dwelling use per acre so I felt-- >> So delineation between the male and between those types, okay. >> Right. The uses are presented in each zone. I felt to mention this is actually our future lane use designation that's in our DIN plan 2030. These are a little bit higher elevated, you know, looking into the city, I'd say at 35,000. The zoning is really what's on the ground. So this just gives the city guidance on what sort of development should occur. So we go from rural all the way down to industrial in this spectrum. And so the zoning is matched that as well from really low intensity to more intensity with the ICG. Well we're all-- what actually transfers over is the zoning districts that is being proposed. You've got rural residential all the way down to high or heavy industrial that you see here. So really trying to keep it really simple. >> Dwelling unit? >> Dwelling unit. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> In that particular case, it's the unit itself, the door that opens to the unit and that can include multiple bedrooms. So living space, kitchen, and those four, say four or three or four, right, those constitute as a unit. Subchapter four is the overlay districts and that is where you'll see the historic districts that Roman has referred to and which we know actually exists. The Oak-- Hickory, the Bell Avenue as well as the West Oak Historic Districts. So these will carry over to the new proposed code. I know that Roman has also made some changes to the administrative, more of a cleanup. Those also will be carried forward. Those proposed changes came to the HLC. Geez, how long ago was that? >> A year. >> Over a year ago, we decided to not go straight to amending the code and wanted to wait till this code was being considered so we're just carrying all those proposed changes that Roman shared with the commission as part of this DDC update. >> Okay, so one of the-- a year ago, the downtown area lost a large part of one side of the prominent square which was a part of not just the proposed changes to the downtown area but to help make sure that whatever goes there next does have to follow in that character. Is there any-- I guess that I-- in some way, I feel like while that land hasn't been-- it hasn't changed hands in ownership or anything like that to my knowledge, I just wonder if there's any urgency in getting that portion of it. >> Thank you for asking that question. There is a downtown design standard that is-- and you heard from Scott McDonald. That is actually going to be moving forward sooner than later. They will not-- that portion of that proposed design standards is actually moving to the planning zoning commission city council before this development code update. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> That's what I wanted to know. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> That's-- >> I have only-- that's great. I'm-- >> Yes. >> Mary. >> Have the overlays changed in their character in between the two data? >> No, they're just going to be-- they're just carried over to the new code, proposed code. >> And given the-- I have a major concern on SROs. >> Right. >> Single residence occupancy. >> Single residency occupancy. The current new student housing plan for Denton or when they finally decide they're not coming to campus and turn into the transient buildings, I am not happy with all the SROs. >> No. Thanks for bringing that up. That is also a very high topic issue that we are dealing with the Oak Gateway Steering Committee. We are also-- we also have discussed it with the Development Code Review Committee. We are proposing or we are having a work session with city council on December 4th regarding this matter. Staff has some recommendations but that too is a very important issue that we need to address and if and when we have direction, it will be folded into this code update. Use regulations, this basically tells us where uses are permitted in each zoning district and if there are any specific standards that apply to each use. Again, very more elaborate number of uses are being proposed to kind of cover those that are not currently listed in the DDC. Again, what we're trying to do is trying to make sure that we address all the issues that we've had in the past through this code update and this is one of those zoning district or subchapters that will include some of those additional changes. Chapter 6, as I mentioned earlier, will now include all of this areas here or all these topics here. These that in the current code are currently separate subchapters. Now that we are looking at consolidating, they will be part of one subchapter and that will be under development standards. Chapter 7 deals with subdivision regulations, your platting, your development dedication, that sort of thing is under this subchapter. And then chapter 8 is your definitions, contains all of the definitions which to some is not as important, but it's really the most important thing, because in order to know what type of uses are you looking at or certain definition, this plays a very key role in how we review applications. Okay, so moving out of subchapters, the zoning map is a big part of this update as well, and we've done our -- we've been doing a lot of public outreach. There are approximately 30,000 plus property addresses that we know of per the Den County Appraisal District, and each of these property owners have been notified through a postcard and will be notified when we enter the public hearing process through a letter. So we are doing our best to make sure we try to get their attention as soon as possible so that when we get to the public hearing, there are no surprises, so postcards, mailers, all of that is going to be done. Again, email blast, any other social media that we can do to get the word out we have. There is a dedicated website. I encourage you all, if you haven't already done so, denco 2030.com has a lot of the proposed subchapters as well as the zoning map in that website, and again, all the other press releases and newspapers that we try to do our best to get the information out. Again, the dedicated website, all of what is being proposed is under this website as well as the zoning map, and that is something that we are very passionate -- are dedicated on keeping updated, so as soon as you get a chance, please look at that. There will be an updated draft coming up in November this month, so right now, what is there is a public draft. We are going to be coming forward with a consolidated draft, which is just another draft where we've taken comments from the committee, we've taken comments from the citizens, and we're consolidating those into one draft, which incorporates all of those comments. We also have an opportunity to receive input through the comment cards. These comment cards can be submitted in a hard copy or submitted through the website as well. So what's next? November 9th, which was last Friday, we provided the consultants, our consultants, a markup version of the staff draft. What they are going to provide us in two weeks, November 21st, is a consolidated draft as well as a draft updated zoning map, which we will publish online. So again, November 21st, denco2030.com, if you have time, please look at that. We will continue to have stakeholder meetings throughout January -- through January, that is, from December and January. Hopefully we'll start having open houses January, February, and then public hearing in the following month, which is February and then March to city council. The next few slides are just slides showing where we've been, what committees we've presented to as well as neighborhood committees or neighborhood neighborhoods that we've presented to. And you can see we're right here with the HLC. We'll be presenting to planning zoning commission on Wednesday and then also meeting with other stakeholders throughout the next coming months, again, December and January. Our goal is to get here with the planning zoning commission and city council. Those dates are still to be determined, but we're looking at early March for consideration. That concludes my presentation. Just really want to give you all an update of what's going on with the DDC rewrite. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ron. I know that's a massive undertaking. All right. We can take a look at the historic landmark commission project matrix. Very little changes since our last meeting. I have a note there at the bottom just to the item for the painting of the mural. The applicant, Eric, appealed that to city council. It'll be on an upcoming agenda. I think it's -- it might be the 27th, but if you want a detail on that, I can email it to you. That's just a note. I was asked to let you know that. For the most part, the rest, that's kind of in line -- I think we had -- I'll definitely be more diligent -- a lot of these items, I usually used to spend my weekends working on stuff up here, which you know I spent my weekends on the road to last year. So I'll be tackling these, eliminate this stuff. We get some new stuff on here. Awesome. The other thing I wanted to ask before you is -- pardon my ignorance, but what happens in an appeal to city council? They can override this? Is that true? That's true. It's just a basic -- I think it's -- their decision is to appeal -- I mean to -- Right. To uphold our decision or to override it. I was actually wondering why you hadn't painted it yet because I just drove by it today. It still looks horrific. That's just my editorial. Sure. No, I -- That's cool. As far as I know -- As far as I know -- And I still like it. That's just straight up and down. I love it. I love all of it. I'll live right next to it. That's okay. My husband and I disagree. He and I have an argument about it. All right. Okay. In the future, you don't have to wait for the end of a meeting. If you have a concern, please call or email and tell me what to look at. So will we be notified of the final decision by council after that's made on that? Yes. If you'd like to come to the meeting, too. Let me pinpoint. I think it's November 27th, if that's the meeting date, but we've been pushing things forward. It was important that you approve the minutes here. We think we would have already gone, but we needed to be able to say here's what the final decision was. Great. Cool. Well, if there is nothing else, then we can go ahead and call this meeting to a close. You don't have to move. See you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Get out of here.