WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:27.000 All right, I'm going to call the meeting to order it is June 12, 2023, it is 530 and we will stand for the pledge please, 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, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:35.000 And now we will pledge to the Texas flag. 00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:37.000 Without any words up there on the screen? 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:47.000 On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible. 00:00:47.000 --> 00:01:07.000 All right, thank you very much. Good to see everybody. All right, we are going to start with our first item on the agenda, which is HLC 23-0302, consider the approval of the May 18, 2023 minutes. 00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:24.000 It is the 8th, thank you, it is the 8th, 2023, for approval of the minutes, everyone get a chance to read them, they are kind of short. 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:29.000 Anyone want to make a motion? All right, let me move approval in a second. 00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:37.000 In a second, everyone raise your hand if approved. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:56.000 All righty, let's move to item 2B, COA 23-0004, and hold a public meeting and consider an application for a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the DIT and development code to 00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:11.000 rehabilitate the former carriage house at 722 West Oak Street, a local historic landmark property and recorded historic Texas landmark located in the Oak-Hickory Historic District. 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:17.000 This site is located on the northeast corner of West Hickory Street and Mount Avenue. 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:26.000 COA 23-0004, 722 West Oak Hickory, and Cameron is going to start us off. 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:28.000 Thank you, Chair. 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:34.000 So as stated, this is located on the northeast corner of West Oak Street and Mount Avenue, highlighted there in red. 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:37.000 The owners are Randy Hunt and Annetta Ramsey. 00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:40.000 It is a construction date of Serpent 1906. 00:02:40.000 --> 00:02:46.000 It is also known as the Crystal House, and it does have a former carriage house. 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:52.000 So just to give a little bit of background on the building's history and the property in general, it was constructed for Jim and Margaret Crystal. 00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:55.000 The builder/architect was Frank Kraft. 00:02:55.000 --> 00:03:05.000 The main resident itself has a Victorian Italianate style, and then the former carriage house does have that detail in both the Italianate and that craftsman style. 00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:13.000 Some of the defining features of that former carriage house, which we'll be focusing on tonight specifically, has that eave overhangs. 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:19.000 It has the multi-light windows and that pyramidal roof that you saw in that historic photo. 00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:26.000 And as stated, it is a local historic landmark and recorded Texas Historic Landmark property. 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:31.000 So the request itself is to the rehabilitation of the former carriage house. 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:37.000 The carriage house is located on that northern edge of the property along Mounts Avenue. 00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:43.000 The garage is not part of that recorded Texas Historic Landmark designation, so it didn't require a THC review. 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:45.000 Usually you get that letter. 00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:51.000 So it's just going in front of the HLC this evening. 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:54.000 So these are the current conditions of that property. 00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:05.000 You see that front south façade with the stairs, the north rear façade along Mounts Avenue, the west façade, or the Great Street west façade facing Mounts Avenue, 00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:10.000 and then the east façade, which is facing an existing garage. 00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:12.000 So these are the proposed elevation drawings. 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:15.000 I'm just showing the front elevation at this moment. 00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:19.000 The materials have a wooden clapboard siding. 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:23.000 It would be using antique and new wooden multi-light windows. 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:26.000 And it would have asphalt shingles and paint to match the main residence. 00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:39.000 So what I wanted to do on this front elevation is show you some of those principles that they're bringing back from the main façade and from that historic documentation you have from that historic tax photo. 00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:46.000 So they are introducing brackets, which will match that new or the current main residence. 00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:51.000 They will also bring back the multi-light windows that you see. 00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:56.000 It's a little hard. I feel like it might be a little pixelated up here, but it is in your backup packet. 00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:02.000 But there are multi-light windows here shown, and so they are reintroducing those again. 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:12.000 And they're bringing back that pyramidal style roof that is on the main residence, but also was seen on that 1946 tax photo. 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:20.000 The proposed elevation for the front south façade, as I stated, some of those little details, but also they're going to be bringing the original craftsman style door. 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:28.000 They were able to find that door, so they're reintroducing that where the current door is, they're bringing that back. 00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:35.000 So that will be nice to have some of that original craftsman style detailing that was on that former house or structure. 00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:43.000 In the rear and the north façade, they will be replacing the two windows on the ground floor that are centrally located. 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:48.000 They're going to be doing a faux carriage door. As I stated, it was a former carriage house. 00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:53.000 They're using it kind of as an educational piece as to what the structure was originally used for. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:57.000 Also have that faux carriage feature at the top there in the center. 00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:04.000 But the two windows right here and on the ground floor will be remaining. 00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:12.000 On the east façade, as that is the façade that is facing that existing garage, the two windows on the ground floor will be removed as well as this. 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:19.000 That's kind of related to the interior floor plan that they have, but this one window will be remaining. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:24.000 I haven't mentioned it yet, but this exterior stair will be removed. 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:33.000 Obviously, it wasn't original to the structure itself, and it will be placed in the interior of this rehabilitated structure. 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:39.000 On the west façade, this is facing Mount Street. All these windows will remain in place. 00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:46.000 The ground floor window will be replaced with a multi-light window as well. 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:53.000 This is the proposed roof plan, so that pyramidal roof scheme. 00:06:53.000 --> 00:07:03.000 Staff's analysis, I'm not going to go into tons of detail, but it was focused on the standards for rehabilitation. 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:13.000 It focused on seven of the ten standards, one through six, and then standard nine. 00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:21.000 Additionally, staff's analysis looked at DDC section 4.9.4C for that Oak-Hickory Historic District, 00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:29.000 focusing specifically on accessory buildings, architectural detail, façade materials, roof forms, windows, and doors. 00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:38.000 Staff is recommending approval of a certificate of appropriateness request for the rehabilitation of the former carriage house at 722 West Oak Street, 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:47.000 as it does meet that Secretary for Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and does comply with section 4.9.6C of the DDC. 00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:51.000 Any questions? 00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:54.000 Anyone have any questions for Karen? 00:07:54.000 --> 00:08:00.000 Wouldn't be a meeting if we didn't discuss windows. What does the antique and new windows mean? 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:06.000 So they are repurposing a lot of antique windows from salvaged buildings. 00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:13.000 So it has the original wavy glass, has the multi-lights already in place, so they'll be doing that. 00:08:13.000 --> 00:08:21.000 And if they aren't able to replace those windows, from my understanding they'll be using new wooden windows that do look historic in nature. 00:08:21.000 --> 00:08:28.000 And we do have the applicant here, if you do have any questions for him. 00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:34.000 I was just going to comment that it sounds like they really are trying to be sensitive to meeting those standards for rehabilitation. 00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:43.000 Staff obviously is comfortable with this. 00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:45.000 Are you ready for a motion? 00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:47.000 Do we need to hear from the applicant? 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:52.000 Do you all want to hear from the applicant, or do you feel like you can move forward and make a decision? 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:53.000 Anything you'd like to add? 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:54.000 Yeah. 00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:03.000 If so, if you don't mind coming up here, it's an issue. 00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:05.000 Cameron did a great job of doing it. 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:09.000 No, actually all of the windows will be antique. 00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:16.000 I found a seller in South Carolina and we just received the windows yesterday. 00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:25.000 So the main thing is that the roof that was on the building, the building burned in 1946. 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:31.000 So sometime around 1950 they put the gabled roof on it, and that is the roof style. 00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:34.000 I've been reading a lot about roof styles. 00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:38.000 It's the roof style that is the most vulnerable to wind. 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:45.000 And you may have read how much damage we found inside and how, like we've been told we can't go on the second floor. 00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:53.000 We're afraid that if the windows lose it would either implode or it would land in our neighbor's yard, which would not be good. 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:56.000 You don't know what to be worried about until you know. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:03.000 So we want to go back to the pyramidal style and we want to copy it as faithfully as we can. 00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:08.000 So it's going to be a lot more expensive, but I'm so excited. 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:15.000 And actually the faux door that we're putting on on the street side of the building, we actually found two doors. 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:20.000 So we opened up all the walls and found a lot of wood rot in there. 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:27.000 So we've had to replace some of the siding so that you couldn't walk through the outside walls. 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:31.000 But we actually found two doors. 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:37.000 So there was a door in the center that we have recreated and we've actually used antique windows at the top of it. 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:43.000 But it won't actually be a door. It will have hardware on it. It will look like you could open it, but you won't be able to. 00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:46.000 But that was the door that the carriage came out. 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:53.000 And then on the west side of the building there was another door for the horse to come out of. 00:10:53.000 --> 00:10:58.000 So we're not going to reproduce both doors because it's kind of a security issue. 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:01.000 We're trying to balance security. 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:05.000 So it has been apartments for over 50 years. 00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:12.000 And what happens with old buildings is that as people make repairs, they do them badly. 00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:16.000 And so we took out three dumpster loads of modern stuff. 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:26.000 But we were able to save quite a bit of beadboard, three-quarter inch, quarter-son of flooring that's an inch thick, or it's an inch wide. 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:36.000 And a lot of shiv-labs. So all of the walls of the interior will be either beadboard or shiv-labs. 00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:39.000 So we're very excited that it's going to look really old. 00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:42.000 And we found all of the old doors in the attic. 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:48.000 So they put water doors in and someone put their fist through a couple of them. 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:52.000 So we had to remove them, but we have antique doors. 00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:56.000 And so inside and out of them. Pretty cool. 00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:58.000 So we're very excited. 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:00.000 Well, thank you. Thank you for the detail, too. 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:04.000 Personally, this has nothing to do with the voter or anything. 00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:09.000 But personally, when you finish it, I'd love to see pictures or something because it sounds dreamy to me. 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:15.000 Come by. We're hoping to rent it. And we actually have people already. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:19.000 But yeah, come by. We would gladly show you around. 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:27.000 But we do happen to know a lot about the original builder, Jim Crystal, the owner of our house. 00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:29.000 And he was actually a cowboy. 00:12:29.000 --> 00:12:34.000 And he worked on the 4-6 Ranch with his uncle, Burt Bermit. 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:38.000 And so he was very particular about the carriage house. 00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:42.000 And he wanted it to be the same level of quality as the house. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:50.000 So it's heartbreaking that it's been treated so badly because it is a 116-year-old building. 00:12:50.000 --> 00:12:54.000 But I think we're going to get it back to a place where it will stand for 100 years. 00:12:54.000 --> 00:12:58.000 Nobody's going to think it's a garage apartment anymore. 00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:03.000 Thank you. Thanks for all the information. Thank you. 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:11.000 I move approval of COA 23-0004. 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:14.000 We have a motion by Lennie. Do we have a second for approval? 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:15.000 Yes, sir. 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:17.000 All right. And Lance, second. 00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:21.000 All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. 00:13:21.000 --> 00:13:25.000 Same for any names. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. 00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:30.000 Thank you. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:36.000 All right. Next piece on the agenda is a work session for HLC 23-002-7. 00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:42.000 Discussions determine the opportunities for designating the five historic black churches 00:13:42.000 --> 00:13:46.000 of the Southeast Denton neighborhood. 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:53.000 I keep trying to use the mic and I realize I'm not at PNZ right now or anything else. 00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:57.000 Okay. Here we go. 00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:01.000 So this was a previous matrix item, I believe it was back in April. 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:05.000 This was placed on the matrix on April 10th. 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:09.000 So bringing that back this evening. 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:15.000 So I just want to kind of run through a brief history of each of the historic black churches in Southeast Denton. 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:19.000 I'm not going to go into huge detail, but I just want to kind of give you a background. 00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:26.000 And then on the last slide, I do show that criteria and kind of talk about what those next steps would be. 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:31.000 So in Southeast Denton, we have five historic black churches. 00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:37.000 We have the St. Andrew Church of God in Christ, which is located at number one. 00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:39.000 We have Pleasant Grove Baptist Church. 00:14:39.000 --> 00:14:44.000 We have Mount Pilgrim Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:46.000 Number four is St. Emmanuel Baptist Church. 00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:53.000 And then lastly, we have the St. James African Methodist Episcopal Church. 00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:56.000 So the first church is St. Andrew Church of God in Christ. 00:14:56.000 --> 00:14:59.000 It's located at 608 Lake East Street. 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:04.000 Just some brief history, it was founded in 1922 by Bishop Fred L. Haynes. 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:11.000 Its services were first held in a tent once they were removed from Quaker Town. 00:15:11.000 --> 00:15:14.000 And then I thought it was really interesting. 00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:21.000 Within the last 100 years, they only have had six pastors for that church, which is pretty fabulous. 00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:26.000 Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, this is located at 105 South Wood Street. 00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:31.000 It was originally founded before 1878, no one knows the exact date. 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:34.000 It was originally located in Quaker Town as well. 00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:37.000 It is now Quaker Town Park. 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:40.000 It moved to Solomon Hill, addition in 1923. 00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:46.000 The current church was constructed in the early 1950s. 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:51.000 Staff did notice that there actually is a Denton Historic Landmark plaque. 00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:54.000 It's hidden right there on the side. 00:15:54.000 --> 00:15:56.000 I went out there this afternoon. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:15:59.000 It's not in any log sheets or anything. 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:01.000 It's not in any of my documentation. 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:05.000 From what I was able to find, it was implemented in 1991, 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:10.000 and I don't know if it was a historic narrative or an actual historic designation, 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:13.000 because I haven't been able to find an ordinance tied to it. 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:19.000 So I'm going to investigate further, but I wanted to let you all know that's where that is at. 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:26.000 In regards to Mount Pilgrim CME Church, that's located at 339 Robertson Street. 00:16:26.000 --> 00:16:29.000 It organized in 1880. 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:33.000 Its services were originally located on Hodge Love, 00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:36.000 which they believe was owned by George and Edwina Hodge, 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:41.000 and this is mid-block along Allen Street, so in that southeast Denton neighborhood. 00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:45.000 The first church was built originally at 337 Robertson Street, 00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:52.000 and the church that you see here in the photo was built in the early 2000s. 00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:57.000 St. Emmanuel Baptist Church is located at 509 Lakey Street. 00:16:57.000 --> 00:17:01.000 It was founded in August of 1906 and located on Sander Street, 00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:04.000 which is now part of Quaker Town Park. 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:08.000 It moved to its current location in 1923s. 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:14.000 The current church constructed was during the 1950s, so the one that's shown in the photo, 00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:23.000 and it did receive a State of Texas Historical Marker in 2006, which is pictured. 00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:29.000 And then lastly, we have the St. James AME Church, which is located at 608 Lakey Street. 00:17:29.000 --> 00:17:35.000 This was founded in 1875 by members of the Freedman Town, which later became Quaker Town. 00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:42.000 It was the first church of Quaker Town, or as we've been able to find out via research, 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:47.000 it is located at Oak and Crawford Streets since 1922. 00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:51.000 The current building that you see in the photo was constructed in 1962, 00:17:51.000 --> 00:17:58.000 and it also received a State of Texas Historical Marker in 1985. 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:09.000 So, as part of our historic landmark criteria, we do have the 13 options, or 13 criteria here. 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:16.000 As part of that property, the property must meet one or more of that 13 approval, 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:21.000 and each of that criteria that's chosen does have to have supporting documentation. 00:18:21.000 --> 00:18:25.000 I did link this here so that if you all want this presentation once I'm done, 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:28.000 I'm happy to send this out to you all. 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:33.000 But if the Commission is interested, this is mentioned in the AIS as well, 00:18:33.000 --> 00:18:37.000 but if the Commission is interested in pursuing these local designations, 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:43.000 the Commission will need to contact the various churches to assess their individual interests 00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:47.000 in pursuing local historic landmark designations. 00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:51.000 So I can take any questions, but this is open for discussion, it is a work session, 00:18:51.000 --> 00:18:58.000 so you all can ask questions, discuss amongst yourselves, and I will be here. 00:18:58.000 --> 00:18:59.000 Yes. 00:18:59.000 --> 00:19:00.000 Go ahead. 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:08.000 Has there been any interest from the Southeast End community at all in doing this? 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:14.000 So that is kind of going to be discussed in our next agenda item. 00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:21.000 I have not received any personal phone calls or emails from any members of the community 00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:23.000 stating that they are interested. 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:31.000 You know, if this is something that the Commission is interested, then it would have to be 00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:34.000 something that the Commission goes out and talks with those members of the community, 00:19:34.000 --> 00:19:39.000 or perhaps participates in the Southeast End area plan conversations 00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:44.000 and sees whether or not the community really wants to be involved if this is somebody of interest, 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:47.000 or if they're wanting to even maybe do state or national. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:50.000 You know, they do have those options as well. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:55.000 But no, I have not personally received any emails or phone calls. 00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:05.000 I just know that the whole question of repairs and things to the churches can be very costly. 00:20:05.000 --> 00:20:10.000 And most of those churches, certainly St. James, was just barely hanging on. 00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:18.000 They had to receive donations from other churches in order to be able to make the renovations 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:23.000 and salvage the church. 00:20:23.000 --> 00:20:25.000 I had wondered that. 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:27.000 I wondered if that had been a factor. 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:31.000 Well, and they wouldn't be able to benefit from any of the tax incentives either. 00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:34.000 That was my question. 00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:36.000 But did they not get donations? 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:43.000 I thought I read in here that there was a donation from these developers. 00:20:43.000 --> 00:20:47.000 They did get a donation. 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:55.000 Each of these churches did receive $10,000 from a community benefit agreement, 00:20:55.000 --> 00:21:03.000 but I don't know how that $10,000 is being used. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:09.000 So out of the five, three already have the designation. 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:16.000 So right now, as I stated, I still need to figure out what the Pleasant Grove designation necessarily is. 00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:22.000 It could be just a narrative or it could actually be the designation of the property as a landmark property. 00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:25.000 So I will let you all know once I'm able to determine that. 00:21:25.000 --> 00:21:29.000 Once I can find some documentation to support that, I'll let you all know. 00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:35.000 In regards to the St. Emmanuel Baptist and St. James, these are just informational markers. 00:21:35.000 --> 00:21:40.000 So these aren't actual recorded Texas historic landmark markers. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:44.000 So these are just informational markers. 00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:47.000 Yes. 00:21:47.000 --> 00:21:52.000 I think I wondered after reading that article in the Devin Rucker Chronicle about this, 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:56.000 is what would be the advantages to them? 00:21:56.000 --> 00:22:01.000 Frankly, I was hoping there would be one, but I did wonder about what sort of tax advantage they might gain. 00:22:01.000 --> 00:22:03.000 I don't know. 00:22:03.000 --> 00:22:08.000 So because they're a church, there's not a lot of tax advantages to it, unfortunately. 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:10.000 I assume not. 00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:18.000 But I do know that the National Parks did just come out with a grant related to specifically black churches. 00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:20.000 It's very new. 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:22.000 I don't have a ton of information on it. 00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:30.000 I'm happy to do additional research on that and send you all a memo of some sort. 00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:35.000 But that's the only thing I've heard of late that's come out. 00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:45.000 Besides that, it's more just the recognition from not only local, but having it at the state and national level. 00:22:45.000 --> 00:22:53.000 That's why a lot of people first pursue national, is because it really can be an economic driver. 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:58.000 It's all about the recognition. 00:22:58.000 --> 00:23:03.000 Would it not also prevent them from having to be moved again? 00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:05.000 Yes. 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:13.000 So at the local level, there would be that zoning, because it would be a zoning action that designates the property. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:21.000 There would be that demolition stay that you all would have to review it if there was going to be a demolition of any sort. 00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:26.000 It would be more tedious in trying to get that church to move in the future. 00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:28.000 That is correct. 00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:30.000 Unless they wanted to move. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:32.000 Yes, unless they wanted to move. 00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:38.000 It's a development, because it's why I understand the 50 grand that was divided among the five churches was coming from a developer. 00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:42.000 So there's some interest in that area, clearly. 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:46.000 That's my concern. 00:23:46.000 --> 00:23:51.000 So at the local level, it would provide a zoning protection or a zoning action. 00:23:51.000 --> 00:23:54.000 However, not at the state or national. 00:23:54.000 --> 00:23:56.000 So I just wanted to... 00:23:56.000 --> 00:23:59.000 And that's why I wanted to point that out, because we had that. 00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:03.000 Yes, no, thank you for doing that. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:10.000 My second question is, and you said that our commission here would have to go to them and speak to them about that. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:13.000 Are we to where we can talk to them about that? 00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:17.000 I'll hear from this person on the next piece. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:19.000 That's the next piece. 00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:27.000 Tina Fergens, Deputy Director of Development Services. 00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:34.000 The whole point of the conversation, this agenda item, is whether or not the commission is interested in working with the churches 00:24:34.000 --> 00:24:40.000 and seeing whether or not there's any interest on their part to pursue the local designation. 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:44.000 So to me, that type of conversation occurs here on this item. 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:48.000 The next agenda item was just regarding surveying properties within the southeast end of the area. 00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:51.000 So to me, that's a little bit of a separate conversation. 00:24:51.000 --> 00:24:58.000 But yeah, I mean, if there's any additional discussion with the commission about whether or not you all are interested in having further conversations 00:24:58.000 --> 00:25:02.000 with the five churches to see if there's any interest on their part. 00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:09.000 You all, as ambassadors for our historic preservation program, have the ability to reach out to these property owners, 00:25:09.000 --> 00:25:13.000 have that conversation with them regarding what you believe the benefits would be for them, 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:19.000 in addition to then what would be the regulatory aspect associated with it as well, the thing we'd have to work through. 00:25:19.000 --> 00:25:23.000 But that's why we're having this conversation tonight. 00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:49.000 So in talking about whether or not we want to talk to them, what summaries do we need to give them, and like this timeline for if they decided they want -- we talked to them, and they decided that they wanted to then -- what is our answer to them about how long of a time process is that? 00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:58.000 My thing is, if these developers have a different plan than what they're wanting -- 00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:05.000 So keep in mind, the churches themselves have the ultimate say as to what happens to them, especially if they own their property, right? 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:11.000 They own their buildings and their property. Ultimately, it's up to them, just like any property owner, what they choose to do with their property. 00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:21.000 So if a developer was to come calling and say, "Hey, we're interested in your property," they can tell them to, "No, we're not interested, and thank you for calling." 00:26:21.000 --> 00:26:26.000 Because ultimately, the churches of the property owner have the ultimate say as to what happens to their property, right? 00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:28.000 Because they own it. 00:26:28.000 --> 00:26:35.000 To me, I think, to address the first part of your question, we could help the commission with maybe giving some talking points for you, 00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:44.000 especially regarding what are the benefits of local designation, and then also talk about the timeframe for pursuing that local designation. 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:47.000 What would all be entailed associated with that? 00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:55.000 What kind of documentation we might need to receive to be able to assist them through processing their local designation request? 00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:01.000 How that goes through the Historic Landmark Commission, and then how that proceeds to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:09.000 We can help educate them on that aspect, right? But it's really helping them understand the benefits of pursuing that local designation. 00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:17.000 So we could help with some of the talking points for you all as you visit with members of each of the churches. 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:24.000 So that way, it helps have a consistent message going out, but anything procedural-wise, then you're more than welcome to have them. 00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:30.000 You can always say, "Look, talk to Cameron. Cameron knows all the specifics and details." 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:38.000 But because that's what she is here, it's to be a resource for the community as well. So she can help educate on that procedural side of things. 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:47.000 Well, it sounds like, though, Cameron, from what you just said earlier is that the advantage to the churches is not from a local or even a state, but from the national level. 00:27:47.000 --> 00:27:55.000 You said the National Park Service, which is not a local thing and it's not a state thing, so that the only grant funding then is only available through national. 00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:01.000 So that's really what, if I were one of the church members, that's what I'd be most interested in, to be honest. 00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:11.000 Well, at the national level, like I stated, I still need to do additional research, so they still might be required to have a local designation or a state. 00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:15.000 So once I do a little bit more research on that, I can provide more detail. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:26.000 But yes, right now, in terms of funding, if they want to do maybe maintenance or additional work or restoration or something, I'm assuming that's what the grant is for, 00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:32.000 but I'm not going to speak at a turn because I'm not sure until I do additional research. So that is all I know of now. 00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:42.000 But at the local level, as I stated, it is a zoning action. They do own their property, but it does have that property already as a designation. 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:51.000 So if they want to keep that property and stay in that building or in that area for the next hundred years, they have that zoning saying, 00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:59.000 "Hey, we are a historic church." And say if they wanted to, but they wanted to sell to another historic church, they would have that capability by having that. 00:28:59.000 --> 00:29:05.000 Does an eminent domain affect any of this? I mean, there is an eminent domain going on all over the place. 00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:12.000 So if you might, eminent domain is the legal proceeding, and that involves when governmental agencies are involved, right? 00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:21.000 So if the governmental agency was looking to purchase a property, then we just can't take someone's property. We have to provide compensation for our market value. 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:28.000 It's when we're in disagreement on what that value is, then when it goes through the legal proceedings of eminent domain. 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:36.000 And so that's something completely separate from what this is. This, I think, what we could do is as part of those talking points that Cameron provides, 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:42.000 maybe we do a little more research into that federal grant that's become available to see if there are some unique qualifying aspects, 00:29:42.000 --> 00:29:50.000 particularly if local designation is, because then that can be part of that conversation that the commission has with the individual property owners. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:59.000 So if that gives them an opportunity to have an additional level of funding available to them, then it's part of that education process, right? 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:03.000 Because they may not be aware of that funding source being available to them. 00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:14.000 And especially if it has the ability to help fund some significant improvements that the individual churches may be considering, then that's a potential significant benefit to them. 00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:36.000 Well, I'm wondering, so I'm sorry, if we could prepare maybe not more than two pages of what the designation would do for them, including the limitations if they got it. 00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:38.000 I'm happy to do that. 00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:46.000 Because they would have to know that. And if we could send that perhaps to the ministers in advance, 00:30:46.000 --> 00:31:01.000 because if we just call them up and cold and say we want to come and talk to you about this, I'd like them to already know the background, what we're talking about. 00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:12.000 And my concern is not so much in the domain or anything like that, but when something happens and the church needs repairs, 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:19.000 what are the limitations on the kind of repairs they can do once they get this designation? 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:35.000 Because they may want to take something that is the cheapest, easiest route and that may not be suitable. And they need to understand that before they make a decision. 00:31:35.000 --> 00:31:42.000 I was going to say, I can definitely share that in the packet, but I do want to share that with you all now just so that you all understand. 00:31:42.000 --> 00:31:53.000 If it is a recorded Texas Historic Landmark or it is a local landmark, it would be required to go in front of you all if it is more than ordinary maintenance. 00:31:53.000 --> 00:32:08.000 If it is them just fixing a light bulb or some of their lighting or changing a paint color or doing anything kind of of ordinary maintenance and upkeep, that would go directly to me for review. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:10.000 If that's only on exterior, not interior, is that correct? 00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:21.000 Correct. Yes. So interior, I don't have any jurisdiction over it, nor does the HLC. So they can do anything on the interior in terms of maintenance or updates or repairs. 00:32:21.000 --> 00:32:33.000 If it's on the exterior as a local or record Texas Historic Landmark past that ordinary maintenance, it would have to go one in front of Historic Landmark Commission as well as myself for review. 00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:37.000 But it would also have to go in front of the Texas Historical Commission. 00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:52.000 So say if they want to do a new addition, if they want to add an additional room in the rear, they would be required to go through the Texas Historical Commission if they record Texas Historic Landmark as well as myself and Historic Landmark Commission. 00:32:52.000 --> 00:33:02.000 If they were doing, if they only had a National Register Landmark designation, they would not be required to do any of that. 00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:24.000 So that's what people see as the perk of the National Register District. They can do whatever they want in terms of exterior, but with the knowledge of knowing if they do too many additions or changes to the exterior, that if it doesn't match that original architectural integrity, that they can be removed from the National Register. 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:27.000 Therefore, their plaque would be removed. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:43.000 So there is that kind of give and take. Could we include that in when he was proposing? Yes, I can definitely include all of this information, but I just wanted to share that with you all that also National Register does not have any demolition stays. 00:33:43.000 --> 00:33:51.000 So if someone wants to demo tomorrow, they can demo tomorrow. But at the state and the local level, they would not be able to demo tomorrow. 00:33:51.000 --> 00:34:04.000 And Linda's comment kind of points up, this is a little different situation than what we've dealt with before. Because some of these, frankly, they're really, it's really not about the physical structure. It's about the more intangible community that's been around since Reconstruction in all of these places. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:13.000 And so, you know, I don't know. I've been thinking about this and I don't know exactly how to place out for us. 00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:25.000 But wouldn't, wouldn't having the local designation be trying to protect the structure from the community? Yeah. So I mean, that seems kind of counterintuitive. 00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:52.000 I see it as a great recognition, though, of the neighborhoods. Right. I would love to, I would like to see it landmark, you know, I can see the downside to living in an old house, right? I'm with you. And I think with having those historic markers there on whatever, you know, from when the church began and all that, whatever those are. 00:34:52.000 --> 00:35:08.000 I think that we're doing an injustice to not bring it to them and say, here it is. Here's all the pros and cons. Let them decide what's best for them, what's not. We're bringing it to them on here's why. 00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:28.000 We think it's worth putting a historic marker here, whether it's local or state level. You already have this other one we want to add to it. Again, I think we bring it to them, let them decide. But my question with that is when you said that we need to go out and speak to them. 00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:50.000 And I'm okay with that. But I just want to know, is it possible that we can invite all of those those five at one time? Can we use a city building? If not, I'm sure one of them would probably allow us to use their building for that, where we can talk to them all at one time instead of having to do, I don't know if anyone has time to go individually. 00:35:50.000 --> 00:36:04.000 We can definitely do that. That's not a problem. So like to send the letter that you talked about and then set a date for a public meeting, I guess, if you will. 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:21.000 Yeah, it's probably be more like a town hall or some sort of group meeting. I was just saying, we can work through the legality aspects associated with that. If anything, we might have to do like a notice of possible quorum, especially if we think we may have a quorum of the Historic Landmark Commission. 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:36.000 But yeah, we could, with your help, we can do a public meeting. We can post it in our building, if we wanted, since that's when the Commission normally meets. But we could invite folks to come and hear what you all have to say. 00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:49.000 And collectively, we could put together a presentation and have the handout available for folks and then just open it up to Q&A and see what kind of questions representatives from the various churches may have. 00:36:49.000 --> 00:37:03.000 That's kind of what I'm thinking. I was thinking that if we prepared this information and provided it to the ministers at least at first, hopefully they would talk to whatever their governing board is within another church. 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:13.000 And we could tell them that we would propose a meeting to talk about this further if they were interested at all. 00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:35.000 There may be absolutely no interest if they are fearful of the cost of this because that's a real problem because St. James would not still exist if they had not had significant help from two other churches in town. 00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:43.000 And so, I mean, you can't count on that kind of help coming every time. 00:37:43.000 --> 00:38:09.000 I think in the two page packet, that would all be spelled out. So, literally all the pros and cons that I've already kind of discussed here, but it would be a comparison of local, state, now I've already kind of done that in general. 00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:22.000 I think we're not doing overlays anymore probably, but it almost would think, hey, would these five churches qualify for an overlay for the very thing that Lynnie is speaking about? 00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:24.000 Do you mean a conservation overlay? 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:43.000 A conservation. I just wondered if that's a possibility, if we would even entertain that. And the reason being is for the very costing, the things that we hold standard on, oh, you have to do this, this, and this, that it may not be that strict for an overlay like that. 00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:48.000 I just don't know if that's an option or not or if the commission would even consider that. 00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:58.000 So, I will just be honest with you all, that's definitely something that I've brought up to the team that's working out specifically with the Southeast Denton neighborhood on the area plan. 00:38:58.000 --> 00:39:07.000 I don't know if it's been discussed specifically with the consultant or the community as of yet, but that is something that has been mentioned. 00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:17.000 So, I just wanted to let you know that that could be a possibility. There are less restrictions, but it does usually come with those general design standards of some sort. 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:27.000 And it would be required to go through that COA process, but it's not as rigorous. It wouldn't have the state maybe tied to it, but that is an option. 00:39:27.000 --> 00:39:41.000 I'm not as worried as the COA process, especially when they can get an administrative COA. And I want them to know the difference of that, because that's not that cumbersome. 00:39:41.000 --> 00:39:58.000 One of the questions that may come up, is there a church or churches already have these, I guess, designations that they may decide they want to talk to about what's been their experience, what have been the pros and the cons, what? 00:39:58.000 --> 00:40:04.000 That has only been informational, really, about destruction. 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:15.000 Right, so we do not have any. So, before I discovered this plaque, mind you, there are no other designated churches within them. 00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:20.000 Because one of the members, I was talking to somebody, one of the members at First Christian Church thought they had a historical... 00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:23.000 They have a historical information sign. 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:25.000 Like, from the city? 00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:27.000 No, from the state. 00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:30.000 So, they have the state of Texas historical marker. 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:36.000 And there are some that are in historic districts that we've had to do COAs on. 00:40:36.000 --> 00:40:39.000 There are churches that they don't have historic designations. 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:42.000 Correct, correct. 00:40:42.000 --> 00:40:50.000 So, we don't have any churches that have individual landmark designations connected to them. 00:40:50.000 --> 00:41:03.000 As I stated, we do have this plaque. I need to do further information to see if it was just a narrative that was done, or if it's actual designation, as I have not been able to find any ordinance related to it. 00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:07.000 But I will let you all know once I'm able to determine that. 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:12.000 That is the only plaque that I've been able to find, though, related to one of our local churches. 00:41:12.000 --> 00:41:19.000 The rest are that state of Texas informational marker or historic marker. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:22.000 Well, the most recent one, this one, the... 00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:24.000 Yes, so we have this. 00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:29.000 One of them has only been recently built. It doesn't qualify for the 50 years. 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:32.000 This one, the Mount Pilgrim Church, doesn't qualify for that. 00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:35.000 The structure would not know. That's correct. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:44.000 So, I don't know. I didn't have a chance to go through all of the criteria. So, they still qualify for a historic landmark? 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:47.000 So, that's something we would have to run through. 00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:50.000 We should have done that before we talked to them, though, right? 00:41:50.000 --> 00:41:55.000 Right. Well, I would say there should be an idea of what the commission is hoping they will do, 00:41:55.000 --> 00:42:00.000 but this is also something that the community themselves should be reviewing and saying, 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:04.000 "Hey, I really do feel like we qualify for this," or, "I don't think we qualify for this." 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:10.000 This is not necessarily something that the commission or staff should be deciding for the community or those congregations. 00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:14.000 The congregation should be deciding that, and we can help them through that process. 00:42:14.000 --> 00:42:18.000 I mean, I'm feeling it, though. I think it's actually it. 00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:20.000 We haven't even looked at it at all. 00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:23.000 So, I didn't read this since I was all the way together. 00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:24.000 Exactly. 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:25.000 So, there are options. 00:42:25.000 --> 00:42:28.000 There are. There are. 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:36.000 Okay. So, then to summarize, then, what occurred is, and Marcella or Mia can type notes, or Lacy, so. 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:43.000 But to summarize, then we talk about no more than a two-page handout that has kind of some FAQs or talking points 00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:45.000 that we're able to assist the commission with. 00:42:45.000 --> 00:42:50.000 We also discussed hosting a town hall meeting, if there's any interest from any of the congregations 00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:54.000 that might be interested in learning more about the designation process 00:42:54.000 --> 00:42:58.000 and what's all entailed associated with it, the pros and cons associated with it. 00:42:58.000 --> 00:43:01.000 And then, was there a third item? 00:43:01.000 --> 00:43:03.000 I think it was just those two. 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:05.000 Oh, and I'm going to do additional grant research. 00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:07.000 Yes, additional grant research. That was the other item. 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:09.000 We've talked a lot. We've talked a lot. 00:43:09.000 --> 00:43:12.000 Okay. So, we'll do that additional grant research. 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:16.000 I was thinking also part of that, you know, if there are any quick available resources, 00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:21.000 maybe from the state where the churches might be able to benefit, we can include that as well. 00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:28.000 So, just in the event that there are some financial resources that the churches may be eligible to receiving, 00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:31.000 if they find some sort of designation, so. 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:32.000 Yes. 00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:33.000 Okay. 00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:36.000 Next question. How soon can we get it all done? 00:43:36.000 --> 00:43:38.000 I'm looking at everybody here. 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:41.000 How can we get it? How soon can we get this all done? 00:43:41.000 --> 00:43:48.000 I don't, I think we have to go really slowly because they have, you saw this. 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:59.000 They, the city is currently proposing to do a downtown plan that will go all the way. 00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:12.000 I think, I think it goes down Carroll Boulevard, goes to whatever that lumpy street is that comes through there. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:13.000 The eagle drive. 00:44:13.000 --> 00:44:14.000 Oh, yes, yes. 00:44:14.000 --> 00:44:16.000 It is a very lumpy street. 00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:19.000 It is a very lumpy street. 00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:20.000 Always. 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:21.000 But she said lumpy. 00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:22.000 Lumpy, lumpy. 00:44:22.000 --> 00:44:28.000 And it takes up part of southeast, I don't know exactly where their lines run there. 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:33.000 But I know it does take in a part of southeast end. 00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:39.000 And that's to be the envision, I think, on overlay district. 00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:49.000 So we're getting a little off posting, but happy to bring back an item at your next meeting where we can talk about some of our various area planning efforts that we have going on. 00:44:49.000 --> 00:44:51.000 Because downtown is going to be one of them. 00:44:51.000 --> 00:44:57.000 And I know there was an agenda item recently on council's agenda that I think has also caused some confusion with respect to potential expansion. 00:44:57.000 --> 00:44:58.000 Tourist district boundaries. 00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:01.000 So that's not really into this item discussion. 00:45:01.000 --> 00:45:03.000 So I want to caution us not getting off posting. 00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:08.000 But we can always bring back at your next meeting or add to the matrix, if you will. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:16.000 We can talk more about that downtown area plan and that downtown tourist district and also the southeast end area plan. 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:29.000 They will go like this in southeast end, the southeast end plan they want. 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:33.000 And then the overlay is a downtown plan. 00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:35.000 There are two different things, Lainey. 00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:39.000 I know there are two different things, but I know they go over each other. 00:45:39.000 --> 00:45:49.000 And that's why, again, to make sure we don't get off posting, so it is let us bring that back because I think there's some confusion out in the community. 00:45:49.000 --> 00:45:57.000 But let us bring that back and happy to have a conversation with the HLC so you all understand what are some of the other work that we're doing. 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:02.000 Some of what our economic development team had presented to council. 00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:05.000 I think it was at their previous two meetings ago. 00:46:05.000 --> 00:46:10.000 But happy to bring that back so we can have, so we're posted for that conversation. 00:46:10.000 --> 00:46:14.000 We can let you know all the different pieces that are happening right now. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:26.000 I don't, I think, from what I've heard tonight, I think everyone is in agreement for us to move forward with the historic designation to meeting the churches. 00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:35.000 If we can get that information, anyone else have any, did I get that wrong, anyone have any thoughts about it or? 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:46.000 I would just love more information, a little bit more about the church. 00:46:46.000 --> 00:46:47.000 Yes, absolutely. 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:54.000 I was about to say in regards to the timeline, I'm happy to bring that back in July and have it as a work session. 00:46:54.000 --> 00:47:00.000 You all get to see my two page packet that I've put together with all the information, the pros and cons. 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:05.000 We can confirm that is everything that we want on there or we can remove or add things. 00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:12.000 So we can have that discussion and I can send it out, you know, really the next day via letter. 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:13.000 Does that sound good? 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:20.000 Sounds good. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:32.000 Okay, item B, HFC 23-002A, discuss and determine the opportunity for a future historic resource survey of the Southeastern neighborhood. 00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:34.000 Okay, so I do not have a presentation. 00:47:34.000 --> 00:47:36.000 This is more of a discussion. 00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:49.000 If you all read the AIS packet, staff is recommending that a historic resources survey not be conducted at this time due to the fact that we are undergoing the Southeastern area plan right now. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:56.000 And there has not been any direction specifically from the community expressing interest that we know as of yet. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:47:59.000 There are still different events as we see from here. 00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:05.000 There are still other listening sessions that are happening, different conversations that are in motion. 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:11.000 So I would recommend that we table it at this time and bring it back at a later date if there is interest from the community. 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:13.000 But that is staff's recommendation. 00:48:13.000 --> 00:48:20.000 Okay, anyone have any questions on that? 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:22.000 We're going to move to item C. Thank you, Cameron. 00:48:22.000 --> 00:48:38.000 HLC 23-0025, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on the Historic Landmark Commission's request for local historic designation of eligible historic properties. 00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:41.000 Anyone have anything they would like to bring? 00:48:41.000 --> 00:48:44.000 I've already done mine, so. 00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:47.000 Where are we on that one? Are we going to talk about that one next? 00:48:47.000 --> 00:48:54.000 No, so that's basically I haven't been able to reach them because they get there at 4.30 in the morning. 00:48:54.000 --> 00:48:58.000 Yes, they do. And then they're gone. 00:48:58.000 --> 00:49:02.000 And I know they close over the July break. That's all I know is they take a week or two off. 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:17.000 Okay, so, but I think since we're putting together this packet, that might be how I can reach out to them saying, hey, I know Mary, Commissioner Anderson, has reached out to you and spoken to you briefly about designating your property. 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:27.000 You know, here, you know, this might be a great form that we put together specifically for Southeast, but that can be used for other properties that we have interest in designating. 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:32.000 But as of now, I've not been able to reach them. 00:49:32.000 --> 00:49:33.000 I know. 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:38.000 Actually, it's, you know, a little bit later in the morning is actually pretty easy to catch them. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:46.000 And before, between like 10 and about 11 or so, there's like a lull in their day, you know. 00:49:46.000 --> 00:49:50.000 Maybe I'll go get some baked goods for the department and take a little snack. 00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:54.000 Well, I mean, I'd better go at like 5.30 in the morning and get Erica. He's kind of busy at that time. 00:49:54.000 --> 00:49:58.000 Okay. 00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:01.000 He's much more receptive. Please, please go for Eric. 00:50:01.000 --> 00:50:03.000 Okay, noted. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:05.000 All right, thank you for that. 00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:08.000 Anyone else on this, on item C? 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:19.000 Well, let's move to item D, HLC 23-2024, hold the discussion regarding the Historic Landmark Commission project mix. 00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:25.000 So we've had this discussion as of now. 00:50:25.000 --> 00:50:33.000 We do have these three up here still, the quantifying the economic impact of preserving historic properties, 00:50:33.000 --> 00:50:38.000 the benefits, and then presentation of preliminary guidelines. 00:50:38.000 --> 00:50:43.000 In addition, we have these items for landmark consideration, 00:50:43.000 --> 00:50:49.000 which are these two walking toward historic districts and landmarks to review any current property maintenance that's needed, 00:50:49.000 --> 00:50:52.000 or discussion of potential updates to the demolition code. 00:50:52.000 --> 00:51:01.000 We are still seeing a lot of demolitions currently in the city of historic structures that maybe not are located in a historic district. 00:51:01.000 --> 00:51:03.000 So that is still up for consideration. 00:51:03.000 --> 00:51:09.000 I did talk to Legal, and they are still working on the TWU and UNT designation research, 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:12.000 but you should be receiving that within the next month. 00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:17.000 And then we have these additional work plan goals. 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:26.000 Is there anything additionally that you all want to add or that you really want to put at the forefront of the discussions coming up in the future? 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:37.000 We will be obviously adding to the request is to have that discussion of the two-page packet that will be sent out to the churches. 00:51:37.000 --> 00:51:39.000 But is there anything else? 00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:48.000 At some point, I would love an update of that Hickory garage issue. 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:51.000 I would love the economic impact. 00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:57.000 I think that would be a real mover for city council and city in general if we demonstrate that impact. 00:51:57.000 --> 00:52:01.000 And also how preserving impacts other cities. 00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:12.000 I think that like Plano and Great Vine and McKinney has been a real mover in places. 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:21.000 Commissioner McAdams, would you like for us to add a presentation on the area plan work that we are doing to the matrix? 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:24.000 I suppose that would be a good idea. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:27.000 Extra information is always good. 00:52:27.000 --> 00:52:30.000 Ignorance is never the answer. 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:40.000 I was going to say because we have two area plans that are currently underway and a third one that is going to be getting underway. 00:52:40.000 --> 00:53:00.000 Northeast Denton, I know has the Hartley Field and historic assets there and then we can also discuss the Southeast Denton plan that is underway and then also the downtown area plan update that will be kicking off here hopefully next month. 00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:13.000 When did you say you would have that two page document ready? 00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:32.000 The ministerial lines, which most of those churches are for, they are having a conference at the St. Andrew Church of God in Christ June 20-22 so I would be willing to drop off hard copies there if it is going to be ready by then. 00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:34.000 If not, then don't worry about it. 00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:35.000 That is too soon. 00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:36.000 That is next week. 00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:37.000 Is it next week? 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:39.000 This is the 12th so eight days from now. 00:53:39.000 --> 00:53:41.000 I don't think that will work. 00:53:41.000 --> 00:53:44.000 The camera works hard but I think that is kind of. 00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:47.000 She is going to be up at 4.30. 00:53:47.000 --> 00:54:04.000 To that point though, Commissioner Berry, if you are going to be in attendance, you could at least let them know that we are working on pulling some information together and that the Historic Landmarks Commission is going to be leading some conversation about potential designations related to the churches. 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:19.000 So at least you can get it on their radar and then that way we can come back in July with the information for the commission to make sure we pull together everything that you all are interested in receiving so we can make sure we have a good, productive conversation when we do the town hall. 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:28.000 I would suggest that when we send it out to the five churches because they need it in their hands to think about it before they talk to us. 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:34.000 But also send the group. 00:54:34.000 --> 00:54:35.000 Yes, okay. 00:54:35.000 --> 00:54:36.000 I can do that. 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:37.000 Ms. Colette? 00:54:37.000 --> 00:54:38.000 Yes. 00:54:38.000 --> 00:54:39.000 Okay. 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:40.000 I can do that. 00:54:40.000 --> 00:54:45.000 Would they mean this something? 00:54:45.000 --> 00:54:53.000 Well, I don't want to offend them by ignoring them on anything. 00:54:53.000 --> 00:54:58.000 Yes, in a very bad way. 00:54:58.000 --> 00:54:59.000 All right. 00:54:59.000 --> 00:55:08.000 Anyone else have anything else on the project matrix? 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:09.000 All right. 00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:10.000 There is nothing further. 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:12.000 We will find this adjourned. 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:13.000 Any motion? 00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:14.000 No. 00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:15.000 I don't believe I need any. 00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:16.000 No. 00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:17.000 No. 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:18.000 No. 00:55:18.000 --> 00:55:18.840 - I didn't. 00:55:18.840 --> 00:55:19.660 (laughing)