Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 03/28/2023 LANDMARK COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2023 MEMBERS PRESENT: Michele Derr ■ Chairwoman John Dickinson ■ Member Christy Graham ■ Member Andy Lee • Member Nadine McKown ■ Vice-Chairwoman Noros Martin • P&Z Liaison Marcela Medellin I Member Janet Ponder Smith • Member Monica Aguon, Assistant City Attorney • City Staff Terry Floyd, Development Services Director • City Staff Chris Horgen, Public Information Officer ■ City Staff Karen Montgomery-Gagne, Principal Planner/HPO ■ City Staff ABSENT: Joel Hartmangruber • Member Tim Brewer ■ Council Liaison GUESTS: Whitni Stone Simmons • 1501 Tilden Jase King ■ 1300 Tilden James Wetherbee ■ 1300 Tilden Rhonda Wetherbee ■ 1300 Tilden Melissa Monteiro • 1409 Tilden Richard Moore ■ Home Depot Sean Donovan ■ Home Depot Scott Todd ■ 1401 Garfield Kim Tigrett • Pres.WFHNA I. Call to Order, Introductions and Welcome Chairwoman Michele Derr called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Derr had Commission members, staff and guests, introduce themselves. II. Action Item: Election of Landmark Commission 2023 Chairperson & Vice- Chairperson Mr. John Dickinson nominated Ms. Michele Derr for Chairperson. Ms. Nadine McKown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. Ms. Derr nominated Ms. McKown for Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Andy Lee seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. i Landmark Commission 2 March 28, 2023 III. Review & Approval of Minutes from: November 22"d 2022 Chairwoman Derr called for review and approval of the November 22nd 2022 Landmark Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the minutes, Ms. Marcela Medellin seconded the motion. Minutes were unanimously approved 8-0. Regular Agenda IV. Action Item: Design Review — 1501 Tilden Street: West Floral Heights Historic District (Residential) Request Various Exterior Alterations: 1) Windows — Replace with Alternative Materials: O 9 Windows Replaced Void of Permits o Stop Work Order Issued December 2022 2) Doors — Replace with Alternative Design & Materials: • 2 Doors Replaced Void of Permits • Stop Work Order Issued December 2022 Ms. Karen Montgomery-Gagne presented the case and stated the homeowner was in attendance and that the contractor was expected soon. Ms. Gagne advised this was brought before the Commission to consider a request to authorize prior alterations with removal of 9 wood windows, 1 single door, and 1 door with 2-sidelites, void of permitting approval. Ms. Gagne stated this was brought to staff attention in December from a call of concern about work being performed without a permit. The subject property is located at the corner of Avenue E and Tilden. The property is a 3-story brick, contributing structure in the Neo- Classical style, constructed in 1920. The structure is symmetrical with a full-height entry porch with a flat-roof in Greek Revival detail; classical columns with Ionic capitals. Ms. Gagne further detailed the structure having side-gabled, shingle tiled, roof with boxed eave; moderate overhang with modillions beneath and rounded arch roof dormers with 6 light windows. The single and paired, double-hung, sash windows have a vertical emphasis, 5 over 1; 6 over 1; 9 over 9 and 12 over 12. The entry features a larger door with sidelights and elaborate surround. The 2nd story features narrow double doors with a wrought iron balcony. The side wings feature a porte co•chere on north side and single-story sunroom on south side. Displaying photos for the Commission, Ms. Gagne advised the structure, in 2013 was virtually unchanged other than paint and a missing shutter from the nomination photo previously shown from 2004. Inventory photos from 2019 show some changes. Ms. Gagne stated in 2017 there was authorization approved by the Landmark Commission to replace the tile roof. Some of the unauthorized changes at that time by the previous owner (2018/19) were dormer windows replaced with 2 over 2 pattern and other windows to the rear-side and upper story. A photo was displayed showing the Tilden Avenue façade that is highly visible from the public right-of-way. The main windows and doors, believed to be original, appear intact and are 6 over 1 on the 2nd story, 5 over 1 on the 1st story and 9 over 9 and 12 over 12 on the sunroom. The front entry door is a single hung door with side-lights. Landmark Commission 3 March 28,2023 Staff stated a stop-work order was issued on December 19th, 2022. Staff worked with the contractor and homeowner on that same day providing a design review application to the contractor, requesting it be completed and turned in by the first week of January 2023 so the request could be heard at the January 24th Landmark meeting. The owners retained the removed windows, door and side-lights and have allowed staff to view the condition of those materials. In order to have an unbiased review and comment on the condition of the materials, staff asked one of the Commission's architects and one of the craftsmen to review. Commission members are appointed by City Council and have taken a sworn oath of office to uphold regulations, laws and requirements of the City of Wichita Falls and the State of Texas. Staff felt it was key to work with the architects and craftsman on the Landmark Commission. On February 101h, 2023 staff and the two Commission members, with the approval of the homeowners, met on-site to view the condition of the removed windows and doors. Ms. Gagne advised their detailed reports were given in the staff report. Photos taken by Building Inspections on December 19th, 2022, when the stop-work order was issued, were displayed showing in detail, the work in progress. Photos showed the original leaded glass front door and paired sidelights removed and replaced with double doors with 2 x 3 window panels without building permits or design review authorization for the alterations. Also removed were the original windows, constructed of wood with exterior muntins and double-hung. Photos of the replacement windows were displayed to the Commission showing the replacement vinyl window inserts that were installed with an alternate pattern 4 over 1 instead of original 5 over 1 style; simulated divided lights and single hung. The owners indicated the replacement windows were installed for improved energy efficiency, conservation and security. The owners stated since December there had been significant energy savings and at one point the original front door would not stay latched. Ms. Gagne advised the concern of staff was that the replacement window pattern configuration and design materials are not the same as what was removed. For a contributing structure, the design guidelines require matching replacements. The Building Code Inspector working with staff on this case did advise there was an exemption from the energy code (Building Code—Sec. 101.4.2—Historic Buildings) for buildings and structures that are designated as historic properties under our local and state designation. This gives additional authority to the Chief Building Official for interpretation of the energy code when it comes to restoration and rehab of existing windows that if they were manufactured the way they came out of the house today, they would not meet minimum energy code standards, but because it is a designated historic district, it allows for the option to restore the windows and reinstall them in the structure. The assessment from the Landmark architect and craftsman that viewed the original removed windows was a determination the windows could be repaired; deglazed and repainted then re-installed. Noting it was not the end of the useful life of the wood windows. Ms. Gagne stated the Secretary of the Interior Standards for wood on historical structures, which are the basic parameters the design guidelines were based on, was that replacement elements must match the design and detailing of the original or historic feature as closely • as possible, and they must be replicated using similar elements at the site as a template or Landmark Commission 4 March 28,2023 through the use of historic photographs. The Landmark Design Guidelines for windows build upon that statement (pages 56-57): b. Retain & restore original windows, window surrounds, and screens unless deteriorated beyond repair. c. Storm windows may provide increased energy efficiency without damaging historic windows. d. If original windows or screens deteriorated beyond repair, replacement windows shall maintain the same size, profile, configuration, finish and details as the original windows. f. False muntins inserted inside the glass are not permitted; true divided lites or dimensional muntins on outside of glass and spacers inside glass provide appearance of true divided lites. Ms. Gagne stated the concern was the replacement windows material (vinyl), style, finish and visual qualities did not reflect materials removed and were a change in architectural style thus potentially creating a non-contributing structure. Staff believed the replacement inserts do not follow the Sec. of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and the Wichita Falls Design Review Guidelines for windows. The sunroom window appearance does not match the materials, configuration or finishes of the previous windows which noticeably change the depth of reveal, muntin configuration, and the reflectivity. It is not recommended to alter windows or features which are important in defining historic character of a building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Ms. Gagne advised she would be moving forward to discuss the previously installed replacement doors located on the front and side entries of the structure. The original front entry door was a single wood door with leaded glass and leaded glass full sidelights that were replaced with fiberglass double glazed doors with 6 window panels in each. The original front door's right plane is warped about '/2 inch from top to bottom. The assessment from the Commission's architect and craftsman were if the bottom portion of the door were replaced; rebuilt, it would be very difficult to remove the warping without continued long- term issues. The sidelights however, were deemed to have options for restoration & reinstallation. Staff believed the main issue with the replacement is size, proportion and style — completely different from original which impacts overall architectural character of the building. When looking at the Sec. of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation this is what is found: #2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. #6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The Wichita Falls Design Guidelines for doors states (page 58): a. Do not enlarge, move, or enclose original door openings. May be appropriate to restore original door openings that have been enclosed. Landmark Commission 5 March 28, 2023 b. Retain original doors, door surrounds, sidelights, and transoms, unless deteriorated beyond repair. c. If a replacement door, door surround, sidelight, or transom is necessary, the style, materials, and finish of the replacement shall reflect the style and period of the building. Ms. Gagne stated there was another door replaced that was located on the north side under the porte co•chere and was visible from Avenue E. This replacement door does meet the style and design more closely of the original because it was a single door. The window pattern is slightly different and it was textured/frosted glass but is more in keeping with the previous door style. The last door for discussion, which is not subject to design guidelines, however, was provided as an example. The door was located on the sunroom rear patio and was not visible from the right-of-way but clearly visible during the homeowner approved site visit in the rear yard. Ms. Gagne advised the sequence of treatments would be to first try and repair the building elements as much as possible. If that were not an option, replacement was deemed as the last and final option. Chairwoman Derr asked if the Commission had any questions or comments. Ms. Janel Ponder-Smith asked if there was any attempt to retain the side-lights and rebuild the front door or have another door built to match the original so that side-lights could be retained. Ms. Gagne stated she would defer that question to the owner and/or contractor, however, there are other options available depending on what preference the owner was seeking. Noting the architect and craftsman determined the side-lights could be restored and reinstalled. Mr. John Dickinson asked if it was correct there initially was no building permit. Ms. Gagne stated that was correct, all alterations were void of any permitting. If permits had been applied for, the address would have been flagged as historic in the building inspection's database and staff would have been able to work with the homeowner/contractor to try and address replacement material, design, what the guidelines would allow and what would be recommended prior to any installation. The owner, Ms. Whitni Stone Simmons, stated it was her understanding, unfortunately, that the contractor had obtained permits and all replacements approved. She stated she sent a picture of the front door she originally wanted to the contractor and was told that was denied because it was an arched door. Ms. Marcela Medellin stated unfortunately in this situation the design was just too different for it to be approved. The style is very different, the windows in the front are starting to get there, but was there a reason why you changed the configuration on the sunroom windows when you could have also kept them the same. The front door is completely different and would not approve that. Ms. Stone Simmons stated from a cost standpoint to refurbish the original front door along with the safety issues they were having plus the utility bills it was cheaper to replace the front door. Ms. Medellin stated she understood the cost and having energy efficiency and that the owners are close, however, the windows for example, the muntins are on the inside of the vinyl and there were other options the owner could have • selected. Landmark Commission 6 March 28,2023 Mr. Dickinson stated the re-glazing on the original windows with storm windows over them would have accomplished energy efficiency. Ms. Stone Simmons stated her husband leaned over to pick up a soccer ball and leaned against a rear original window and it shattered, that was the condition of the windows. Ms. Simmons stated some of the windows had been replaced with something other than glass and were very uneven; the windows were all different and not in good shape. Mr. Terry Floyd, Director of Development Services reminded the public that if they wished to address the Commission they would need to come up to the podium to speak. Mr. Andy Lee stated that many of those homes built in 1920/1925, the front door was the key element of the architectural style. Mr. Lee stated the door and the side-lights were a featured element and set the tone for the structure and believed it changed everything with the replacement doors. Mr. Lee stated the fact that permits were not obtained is concerning because at the time it would have given the Commission a chance to comment on replacement doors and would have saved time and money and that issue should be taken up with the contractor. Mr. Lee stated he was opposed to the replacement front door and asked if they had since obtained permits. Ms. Gagne stated permits had been applied for, however, they were on hold until the case was reviewed by Landmarks as the materials and design allowed had to be addressed prior to a permit being issued. Ms. Smith stated she would like to separate the request into different parts since there were multiple styles of windows and doors replaced. Ms. Smith made a motion to separate the design review into four different parts; 1)front door; 2) sunroom windows; 3) 1st story Tilden Avenue windows; and 4) side porte-cochere door. Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Ms. Derr asked if there was any public comment on the separation of the design review. Mr. Aldana, Aldana Construction, who is the contractor for 1501 Tilden Avenue apologized to the Commission for showing up late and stated the replacement windows on the 1st story floor were the same windows that had been replaced on the second story by prior contractor. Ms. Gagne noted those prior replacement windows had no design review approval or staff review. Chairwoman Derr asked Mr. Aldana if he had any comments on the motion to separate the design review, Mr. Aldana stated he did not. Chairwoman Derr called for a vote, the motion passed unanimously 8-0. Chairwoman Derr stated the discussion would start with the front door and side-lights and stated it did not adhere to the design review standards and did not match the style of the house. Mr. Lee stated he agreed and the door and side-lights were a key feature on the structure. Ms. Medellin stated she agreed and would like to see it replaced with the same 3-part configuration and that the replacement did not match on any level and completely changed the face of the structure. Ms. Derr asked if the Commission had any further comment on the front door. Ms. Smith stated she again would like to ask the question to the homeowner, if they had any other contractors look at the front door and side-lights to see if they could have been restored and reinstalled prior to installing the unauthorized replacement door. Mr. Aldana stated the door was not salvageable. Ms. Gagne again asked, for anyone addressing the Commission to please come to the podium so they could be heard. Mr. Aldana stated when they removed the original doors parts were breaking and that is why they replaced it. He stated he wished they could have fixed it but he was not a wood craftsman and could not replace it piece-by-piece and replacing the entire door was the cheapest option. Ms. Smith stated there were craftsmen in Wichita Falls that could 0 have repaired the door. Mr. Aldana stated they didn't look for a craftsman. Ms. Medellin Landmark Commission 7 March 28, 2023 stated she understood things happen when taking out certain elements of a historical home, however, there are other doors that could have been purchased to replace the original door and side-lights that would have matched in character. Mr. Aldana stated when he started the project he went to the city to find out if a permit was needed, if this was in the historic district and was told by the lady at the counter it was not in the historical district so he did not obtain a permit. Mr. Aldana stated he didn't start work on that day because they had ordered the doors and the windows and started a month later. He stated he again asked if the lady at the counter was sure he did not need a permit and she advised him he did not that it was not in the historical area and as long as he wasn't changing the size of the existing window opening he did not need a permit. Ms. Smith stated in the photos you can see where framing was done. Mr. Aldana stated it was not new framing, he only replaced the trim around it to cover the old frame. The trim was so the new door, which was slightly smaller would fit. Ms. Smith stated if the new door was smaller then he did change the opening size which was not allowed. Mr. Aldana stated that was incorrect the trim was just until they could get an inset that would fit the new door. Mr. Noros Martin asked what authority the Commission had, if the homeowner did not comply with the decision the Commission agreed on. Chairwoman Derr stated, as the Commission, they were charged with following the guidelines the City of Wichita Falls sets forth on making the changes. Ms. Gagne stated there is also Chapter 62 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Wichita Falls, which is the Historic Preservation section. Mr. Martin asked what the guidelines were for this issue. Ms. Gagne stated, the preservation ordinance has basic parameters that are then applied through the design guidelines, which when originally created and prepared as part of a joint City and Texas Historical Commission funded grant program were endorsed by the City Council. The design guidelines are in place to carry out the provisions of Chapter 62, the preservation ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Martin stated that it would seem the current door did not meet the historic guidelines, was that correct. Ms. Gagne stated in the current configuration, they did not. Chairwoman Derr asked if there were anymore comments from the Commission, or comments from the public. With no further comments Chairwoman Derr called for a motion. Mr. Martin made a Motion to deny the replacement front doors as installed as they do not meet the City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4, Item 7. Mr. Lee stated he would advise the owner to retain the original glass, restore the side-lights and keep the same size. Ms. Medellin stated restoring the original would be best however, if not possible, find something of the same character. Mr. Dickinson stated there are door shops in Wichita Falls that you can take the original pieces to and they will salvage the glass, side-lights and anything else that can be used and make a new unit utilizing the original glass. The Ms. Stone Simmons stated the original door has sat out in the elements for 3 months now and is not salvageable. She stated she would be willing to find a replacement door the Commission would approve to replace it, but the cost to have those doors built was insane. She stated she was not going to use the old doors, that she would find new doors the Commission would approve. Mr. Dickinson and Ms. Smith both stated they were not telling her she had to use the original doors, but rather the glass from the original doors could be salvaged and the door shop could make her a new door using the salvaged pieces. Ms. Christy Graham stated she believed the owner could get new doors and side-lights that matched the same size as the original and have the new glass removed and replaced with the original glass that way the door would be energy efficient and still have the style and character with the original glass. Landmark Commission 8 March 28, 2023 Ms. Smith stated given the condition of the original door being out in the elements she would like to have the owner find a new door with side-lights that is comparable to the original and fit the original opening and have those specs brought in before the Commission for approval. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Martin revised his motion to state denial of the replacement front doors as installed as they do not meet the City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4, Item 7 — Doors and submit a new application for a single front door with side lites that maintain the same configuration and design as original. The motion was seconded by Ms. Smith. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. Chairwoman Derr asked if the Commission had any discussion on the second item of the sunroom windows. Ms. Medellin asked if the original windows in the sunroom were operational and she was advised they were not operable. Chairwoman Derr stated the first issue was that the replacement windows were vinyl and those are not an acceptable option that they would need to be wooden or aluminum clad wood windows. Mr. Dickinson stated secondly, the muntins also were on the inside of the windows and those would need to be located on the outside. The third issue is the replacement windows were not the same configuration of 9 over 9 windows. Ms. Graham stated she didn't believe the sunroom windows had to be 9 over 9 since the sunroom would have been added on to the original structure and was newer. Ms. Graham stated she believed the homeowner was trying to match the windows on the front of the home to the ones on the sunroom. Chairwoman Derr asked if the sunroom was an addition or original to the structure. Ms. Stone Simmons stated the sunroom was added on after the home was built and that she was indeed trying to match all the windows to be the same configuration. The question was asked if muntins could be added to the outside of the replacement windows. Ms. Smith asked if just the muntins were vinyl or if the entire window was vinyl. Mr. Aldana stated the entire window was vinyl. A question from the public was asked if you couldn't tell by looking if the window was wood, vinyl or wood clad aluminum what the difference would be because these homes are not energy efficient. Ms. Smith stated vinyl does not withstand the heat and that they must adhere to the design guidelines set forth by the City of Wichita Falls. Ms. Gagne stated a 70/80-year-old-growth wood window is of better quality than a vinyl window that has been newly produced. Obviously, maintenance is needed over time and some repair but it is still a better quality made of wood window and is also a state standard. The citizen asked how energy efficient that old window would be. Ms. Medellin stated they are energy efficient and the seals can be replaced to keep them efficient. Mr. Dickinson stated there are also replacement issues with new vinyl windows as they do not have the perfect fit. He noted there are many things you can do to improve the energy efficiency of a wooden window and even send your windows to a wood-workshop. There are many things that have to be researched when you own a historic home. The citizen stated the historic homeowners want to comply with the design standards but it is too costly and the City doesn't offer financial assistance for those standards and they should rather than slapping those homeowners on the hand. Chairwoman Derr said that is the purpose of coming before the Landmark Commission with a design review. This case was actually coming in reverse, typically the Commission will review what the homeowner is wanting to do before the work is started and approve or disapprove as well as give alternative options for replacements • before they are purchased. Chairwoman Derr explained the guidelines state, "...although Landmark Commission 9 March 28, 2023 some substitute materials, such as aluminum, may be used for replacement windows, the appearance of the window from the public right-of-way shall closely resemble the original in size and configuration, profile and finish. Vinyl is not an appropriate substitute material." Mr. Dickinson stated that when he was talking about having windows and doors restored or custom built, that anyone could visit Ms. Gagne's office and she had all the information they would need. A citizen asked what the difference would be in their electric bill. Mr. Dickinson stated a correctly built wood window would be as energy efficient as a new window. The citizen asked at what cost. Ms. Smith stated there are also interior storm windows that can be installed that do not change the look of the exterior at all. Ms. Gagne stated storm windows are highly encouraged in the design guidelines. Chairwoman Derr asked if there were any further discussion from the Commission or the public and once again reminded if anyone wished to comment they would need to come to the podium. Ms. Kim Tigrett, President of the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association, stated currently there was no homeowner's association, however, there was a neighborhood association and the neighbors get together to help each other. She invited homeowners of the district to attend the next meeting, April 4th, 2023, which would be held at her residence on 1301 Grant Street. She stated there was a member that knew how to work on old wood doors and windows and had worked on historical homes in San Francisco. She would give his contact information to them after conclusion of the meeting. Mr. Dickinson stated he didn't want a homeowner to spend more money than they needed to, however, the Commission is in place to uphold the design guidelines. Chairwoman Derr asked if there was a motion. Mr. Martin made a motion to deny the installed sunroom windows as they do not meet the requirements (City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4, Item 6 —Windows and Screens) for replacement windows as they need to be replaced with wood, aluminum or aluminum clad wood, exterior muntins and a 9 over 9 configuration. Ms, Graham seconded the motion. Scott Todd, 1401 Garfield, stated he believed the owner should be able to keep in continuity with the front of the home and replace with 5 over 1 configuration in the sunroom. Ms. Graham removed her previous motion and Mr. Martin amended his motion to state denial of the installed sunroom windows as they do not meet the requirements (City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4, Item 6 —Windows and Screens) for replacement windows as they need to be replaced with wood, aluminum or aluminum clad wood, exterior muntins and a 5 over 1 configuration. Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Chairwoman Derr called for a vote with the motion passing 8-0. Chairwoman Derr proceeded to the third item of the 1st story windows facing Tilden Avenue. Ms. Chairwoman clarified they are the main windows on the home. Chairwoman Derr stated the summary was the same discussion had on the sunroom windows and they did not meet guidelines. Chairwoman Derr asked if there was any further comment from the Commission. With nothing more from the Commission, Chairwoman Derr asked if there were any comments from the public. Ms. Stone Simmons stated the replacement windows on the bottom floor matched the windows on the 2ndstory that had been replaced by a previous owner (2018/19) without design review approval and if they would have to be replaced. Ms. Simmons also asked if she would have to replace the windows in the rear of the home as well. Ms. Medellin stated the previous windows were wood and the replacements were not. Ms. Smith stated the replacement windows in question are only those visible from the right-of-way. Ms. Gagne stated the Commission does hold the current homeowner accountable for actions of previous homeowners. Ms. Stone Simmons stated Landmark Commission 10 March 28, 2023 the 3 windows in the rear along with the windows in the front were all vinyl, so why was it okay for those in the rear to stay and the ones in the front to have to be replaced. Ms. Smith stated because the rear windows were replaced by a previous owner they could not make her as the current homeowner accountable to replace them, only the windows she replaced as the current homeowner were in question. Ms. Stone Simmons asked if she should have just denied their calls and then would she have been able to keep the replacement windows she had because that is what the previous homeowner had done. Chairwoman Derr stated if they were replaced in the future, the homeowner would have to replace with approved windows. Chairwoman Derr stated if there were no more comments she would hear a motion. Ms. Medellin made a motion to deny the installed replacement windows (City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4, Item 6 — Windows and Screens) and replace with an appropriate material with exterior muntins and same configuration of 5 over 1. Ms. Smith seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. Chairwoman Derr stated the last item was the side port-cochere door. Ms. Gagne displayed photos or the original door and the replacement door. Ms. Smith asked Ms. Gagne what the visibility was for that door. The door is visible, however, Ms. Gagne stated it was limited depending if there were vehicles in the porte-cochere and shrubbery because it has a side-curved driveway from Avenue E. Ms. Medellin asked if it was a fiberglass door and if so was that acceptable material. Chairwoman Derr stated yes it was fiberglass and acceptable. Ms. Graham asked for the Commission to view page 61 of the packet book to view what the visibility is from Avenue E. Mr. Lee said he questioned how much visibility the door would have as well as the security risk of the old door. Ms. Gagne stated in the past the Commission has allowed fiberglass materials on the side and secondary facades. Ms. Smith made a motion to accept the replacement side porte-cochere door as installed based on limited visibility from the public right of way (Ave E/Tilden) and similar size/materials as removed door. Chairwoman Derr asked if there was any public discussion. With no discussion Ms. McKown seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0, V. Action Item: Design Review — 1409 Tilden Avenue: West Floral Heights Historic District Request for Solar Panel Installation: Residence — Main Structure: • Option 1 — Request to Install 21 Roof Panels: O 9 West Slope (Facing Tilden) O 12 East Slope (Facing Alley) • Alternate Option — Residence + Detached Garage (21 panels) Ms. Gagne presented the case and stated the owner Ms. Melissa Montero, presented staff with a design review application after working with Fastrac Energy Services of Houston, Texas. The home is in the Colonial Revival style, constructed in 1919 and at one time was a contributing structure, however, with current structures on the property is in non- contributing. Ms. Gagne noted, even with non-contributing structures, it was the goal to move the structure towards contributing. Key features include; side-gabled, 1 story symmetrical façade; full-width porch under main roof; doric columns; and altered, aluminum siding and new windows before the district was designated by City Council. • Landmark Commission 11 March 28, 2023 Inventory photos shown from 2019 reflect repairs authorized by the Commission in December of 2011 include the authorization to allow brick structural support for front porch (not painted); replace windows, replace front door panel with Craftsman style insert; replace front porch columns in-kind; repair concrete porch steps and concrete driveway repair and new egress for detached garage. Staff noted at some point (between 2013 and 2019) the detached garage door was either changed or painted white with a new window panel; there is no record of design review for this alteration. The first proposal included 21 solar panels on the main structure, the house roof. The alternate proposal suggested panels on the rear roof slope facing the alley and on the front detached garage. Current photos show the home virtually unchanged since 2019 and how the solar panels would be visible from Tilden with panels placed on the west roof slope of the house and south facing roof slope of the detached garage. Photos taken from the rear alley show the primary structure east roof slope is clearly visible above the fence line from the public right-of-way. The proposed solar panels on the rear side of the roof will also have direct visibility from the alley. Ms. Gagne displayed the overview from Fastrac Energy showing the proposed 21 solar panels; 9 on primary roof slope directly facing Tilden and 12 on rear/east roof slope facing the alley. Staff advised the Commission this configuration would set a precedent in the historic district with solar panels proposed on the main structure and on the roof slope facing the street if approved. In addition, the east roof slope placement will have visibility from the rear alley. Ms. Gagne stated the Commission has previously approved solar panels only on secondary structures with limited visibility. The alternate proposal shows 12 panels on the main structure (rear facing alley slope) and 9 panels on the front detached garage that has high visibility. Ms. Gagne again stated allowing solar panels to be placed on the main structure and with direct visibility on the front detached garage would set a precedent in the District and impact the historic character not only for 1409 Tilden but the 1400 block and entire West Floral Heights Historic District. Ms. Gagne gave a brief overview of other cities solar panel placement best practices and noted the design guidelines for the City of Wichita Falls. Ms. Medellin asked in the second option, was there a reason why the panels were pushed to the front of the detached garage verses the rear. Ms. Gagne stated that was the alternate plan submitted by the energy company to ensure an option was approved. The Commission discussed both options and the concerns with highly visible panels. The homeowner, Ms. Monteiro, stated where the panels would be placed, they would be visible and she wasn't sure the integrity of the roof would sustain the added weight of the panels. She also noted she was not happy with the fact she may have to significantly prune very old trees for the panels to be successful and was surprised to learn this company had an "F" rating which she feels they would not fix any problem and had no issues with them denying the panels. Ms. Smith made a motion to deny both options based on setting a precedent in the historic district as the solar panels would have direct visibility from the primary public right of way (Tilden) which is not in compliance with City's Design Review Guidelines [Sec. 4 - Item 5 (energy efficiency) and 9 (mechanical equipment). Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Chairwoman Derr asked if there were any public comments. Mr. Todd stated the Commission needed to really look at what they are doing, that energy prices are going up and they have to make provisions for historical home owners. Mr. Todd continued to note Landmark Commission 12 March 28, 2023 his high utility bills and the cost of maintaining a historical home. Assistant City Attorney, Monica Aguon, reminded the Commission of the motion of the floor. Chairwoman Derr called for a vote, motion passed 7 in favor; 1 opposed. VI. Action Item: Design Review — 1300 Tilden Avenue — The Langford House: Wichita Falls Landmark #29 & West Floral Heights Historic District Request Replacement Tile Roofing & Repairs: • Replace Existing Tile with Ludowici Tile • Replace Felt Underlay Materials • Replace Copper Flashing • Repair Dormers & Trim Pieces Ms. Gagne presented the case and stated this property had a pivotal structure as it was located at the entrance of West Floral Heights Historic District, had distinct architectural features and occupied an entire city block. Ms. Gagne stated the proposal was to replace the entire Ludowici tile roof on the main structure and the detached, 2-story garage apartment along 10th Street. The structure is located in the 1300 Block of Tilden Avenue, constructed in the Neoclassical style in 1922 and was a contributing, character defining property in historic district. The structure is also a City of Wichita Falls Landmark #29, known as, The Langford House. The original Ludowici tile roof is a prominent, character defining feature; proposed for replacement due to age/weathering/storm damage (hail impact). Some of the key features included: a façade dominated by full-height, partial-width porch; roof supported by classical columns with Corinthian capitals; symmetrical balanced windows and center door; 2 1/2 story; brick with wood and stone trim (keystone lintel, sills and quoins at corners; garlands, hands, etc.); hipped roof; entry porch features a classical pediment with exaggerated modillions and gabled roof above; roof dormers with segmented pedimented roof; multi-pane double-hung sash windows in single and triples (6 over 1; 12 over 1); side extensions: south — 2 story; north — 2 story porte-cochere; and low balustrade around a platform porch (stone). Inventory and current photos displayed to the Commission show tile roof and dormer conditions. Staff stated the 101-year-old roof had outlasted the 75-year lifetime warranty, noting the overall roofing damage after several hail storms, age and weathering was visible from an aerial photo from Restore Masters. The contractor, Restore Masters, would be replacing the historic Ludowici tile roof, copper flashing, trim pieces, and wood decking materials with Ludowici vintage green tile and new trim components. Mr. Jase King, with Restore Masters stated he had previously met with the Commission last year on an approved design review at 1400 Tilden Avenue and wanted to provide photos of that project for examples of what goes on for a historic project of this magnitude. Mr. Martin asked what the replacement tiles would be made of, Mr. King stated they are handmade, fired clay tile. Ms. Smith asked if the texture of the new tiles would match the original, Mr. King stated they would. Mr. Martin clarified work had not been done prior to design review approval. Staff stated no work initiated. Chairwoman Derr asked if there were any other comments from the public. Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the replacement of the Ludowici tile roof, felt underlay materials, wood decking (as needed), Landmark Commission 13 March 28,2023 new copper flashing, gutters and dormer caps along with the rear roof section (flat portion) will be TPO with removal and replacement of the termination bar and repair of the overlay. Mr. Martin seconded the motion which was approved as presented based on compliance with City's Design Review Guidelines Sect 4. - Item 3 (Roofs); Motion passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. VII. Action Item: Design Review — 1612 Grant Street: West Floral Heights Historic District Request for Solar Panel Installation: • Request to Install 35 Panels on Flat Roof Sections of the Main Structure: 0 9 Panels on the North Wing (Over Porte-Cochere) 0 26 Panels on the South Wing Ms. Gagne presented the case and stated she was not certain if the homeowner and/or contractor were present, but the contractor would be Davis Electric. Staff stated this was another key contributing structure located on the corner of Avenue G and Grant Street. The home was built in 1925 in the Prairie style with Craftsman details. Key features of the structure include; two-story brick —American Foursquare; low pitched, hipped pantile roof; 3 chimneys; symmetrical facade with recessed wings; north forms two-story porte-cochere; exposed roof rafters under wide, overhanging eaves; flat-roofed one-story entry porch with decorative iron railing, exposed rafters and decorative brackets at corners; supported by square, brick columns and tapered Doric columns; and double-hung sash windows (9 over 9 or 9 over 1) with stone sills. Ms. Gagne displayed inventory photos showing the structure virtually unchanged over the decades. Also shown were two portions of flat-roof, proposed for solar panel placement which is not supposed to have direct or oblique visibility. Ms. Gagne stated the proposed addition of solar panels to the south wing, 2nd story flat roof, would result in minimal visibility from the public right of way. Photos showing panels similar to those proposed and method for attachment to the house roof where displayed. Based on City Design Review Standards, the goal would be for zero visibility from the public right of way (Grant & Ave G) with either a direct or oblique view. Ms. Gagne stated the current proposal for 1612 Grant involved installation on the main structure primary roof. However, because of the flat 2nd story roof sections, it's anticipated the proposed panels will not be visible from either Grant or Ave G. Ms. Gagne did note that allowing solar panels on a main structure sets a precedent in West Floral Heights Historic District and that consideration must be given for impacts on historic character in surrounding blocks. Mr. Dickinson asked if this project would require a building permit and staff advised it would. Mr. Dickinson stated when obtaining the building permit the contractor would be required to provide detailed site plans showing the panel slope so there should be opportunity to verify no visibility. Ms. Gagne stated staff would be reviewing those plans as that is a concern with the slight angle of the panels. Chairwoman Derr and Ms. Medellin both agreed they didn't believe there would be any visibility. Mr. Martin stated he understood there was a need for solar energy, however, he thought the solar panels were not pleasant to observe on a home. Mr. Dickinson agreed with Mr. Martin and stated this was a chance to work with the homeowner and still meet design guidelines. Ms. Medellin pointed out there was an accessory structure they could have placed some panels on. Chairwoman Derr pointed out • that roof had a slight slope and the panels would be visible on it and wasn't near large Landmark Commission 14 March 28,2023 enough to fit all panels. Ms. Smith asked what material the roof was made of and if there were tiles that would have to be removed. Ms. Gagne stated it was a TPO roof. Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the placement of solar panels only on the main structure's sections of 2nd story flat roof. Motion to allow the request for placement of 35 solar panels, 9 north wing and 26 on south wing only on the flat roof sections with no visibility from Grant and Ave G. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion that passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. VIII Action item: Design Review — 1416 Hayes Street: West Floral Heights Historic District Request for Various Exterior Alterations: 1) Windows — Replace with Alternate Materials • 10 Windows (Vinyl) Replaced Void of Permits • Installed January 2023 2) Front Door— Replace with Alternate Design & Materials • Steel Door; No Window Panel; Storm Door • Stop-Work Order Issued March 2023 Ms. Gagne presented the case and stated the property was located on the northwest corner of Hayes Street and Avenue E intersection and was a contributing structure to the West Floral Heights Historic District. Staff was alerted to work being done without design review approvals and permits. The 1 1/2 story brick home was constructed in 1925 in the Craftsman style with key features including; a brick chimney; hipped roof with wide, overhanging eaves with exposed roof rafters; clipped front gable with decorative beams form small covered entry hoot; clipped front gable roof dormer with shingles and series of 4 double hung sash windows 6 over 6; double-hung, sash windows (6 over 1; and 6 over 6) single, paired or tripled; two front entries; 1 more prominent with 8 small, square lights in top of door with distinctive glazing; and wrought iron screen doors which were added at a later date. Ms. Gagne displayed inventory photos from 2019 showing a screen door that had been added to the primary entry door, with former windows and doors still intact. When city staff was alerted to window installation being conducted by Home Depot the installation was essentially completed with no permits or design review obtained. There were 10 windows replaced on east and south facades with direct visibility from Hayes/Avenue E. The replacement windows were vinyl double-hung, with simulated divided lites. Reflectivity/glare is visible from replacement windows. The replacement windows are the same size as the original windows. The replaced windows were single-pane, sash windows. Post WWII, it appears original windows were replaced with standard size wood sash units and sometime later, were replaced, wrapped with aluminum and mill-finish aluminum storm windows installed A replacement front door was in the installation process on March 7th 2023, when Building Inspections issued a stop-work order. Photos of the original and replacement windows were shown side-by-side. As a point of comparison for the missing ground floor windows, the roof dormer windows, which were still intact, were double hung, 6 over 6 and appeared to be wood and possibly original. The removed ground floor windows may have been replaced at some point, with aluminum and built-up framing to match the original openings with aluminum storm windows. Landmark Commission 15 March 28,2023 Ms. Gagne stated the removed front door had 8-lites of beveled glass and appeared original based on design and unique size (43.5 x 85.75 inches). The proposed replacement door is a JELD-WEN steel single door unit with no glazing. The owner is also requesting a full- view-window storm door. The style, materials and design do not fit the Craftsman architectural style or meet the minimum design review guidelines. The replacement door is not a Craftsman design and impacts overall architectural character of the building. The design guidelines specify that, "Solid steel or hollow-wood doors are not appropriate for main entries for landmarks or historic districts designated to date". Ms. Gagne advised the staffs concern was the replacement material, style and overall appearance do not reflect the architectural style of original door potentially creating a non-contributing structure. The Commission had discussions on the removed windows and whether they were original windows or windows that had been replaced by another homeowner. Mr. Rick Moore from Home Depot briefly spoke to the Commission that he was unaware the structure was in a historical district. Ms. Graham stated she understood the special ordered steel door was for security purposes, however, the replacement door is not Craftsman style and does not meet design standards. Ms. Smith asked if the removed door was wood. The owner was not present and Mr. Moore and Ms. Gagne surmised the door was likely wood but were not aware of the location of the door post removal. Chairwoman Derr stated she would recommend a door that matched the Craftsman style. Chairwoman Derr asked if there were any comments from the public or anything further from the Commission. Mr. Martin made a motion to deny the solid steel door and recommend either repair original wood door or replace with either a wood or fiberglass door that matches the same architectural style. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. Ms. Graham made a motion to deny the windows as installed with vinyl which do not meet the City's Design Review Guidelines Sec. 4— Item 6—Windows and Screens. The windows need to be replaced with either wood, aluminum or aluminum clad materials, any color, muntins on the exterior and 6 over 6 configuration, with the middle single window (Hayes facade) being 8 over 8 configuration. Ms. McKown seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. IX. Other Business: a) Monthly Reports Depot Square: Ms. Derr gave the following updates: • Apr. 6th —Art Walk begins and is the 1st Thursday of each month through Oct. • Apr. 22nd — Cajun Fest • Now — Apr. 15th — Wichita Theater— Wizard of Oz • Apr. 21st —Wichita Theater — James Taylor Tribute West Floral Heights: • Ms. Smith had no updates Landmark Commission 16 March 28, 2023 b) Commission Procedural Items: • Online - Open Meetings Act & Public Information Act Training; Release of 8 Information Form c) Updates: • NPS Listing — Indiana Ave. Historic District • THC Real Places Conference & CLG Annual Report • Preservation Month 2023 — THC Marker Refurbishment Phase II Project • Preservation TX — North Central Regional Summit d) Derelict Historic Properties Update: 502 Ohio; 1400 Travis (Berry Brown landmark) e) Articles/Periodicals/Trainings: • Nat'l Trust: Preservation —Winter 2023 issue • THC —The Medallion — Fall 2022 issue • NAPC - CAMP Training — Ft Worth — Sat. April 15 f) Design Review — Staff Authorized — Minor Alteration/Repairs: • 1705 Tilden —WFHHD — composition roof • 1701 Tilden —WFHHD — interior bathroom remodel/stop work order • 1311 Tilden —WFHHD — foundation repair • 1307 Tilden —WFHHD — foundation repair • 1717 Grant —WFHHD — electrical panel replacement rear building X. Adjourn Next regularly scheduled meeting April 25, 2023 — 12 p.m. 11 Meeting adjourned at 2:41 p.m. Michele Derr, Chairperson Date