Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 05/22/2012RECEIVED IN MINUTES DATE: (a 2 lo� LANDMARK COMMISSION B TME :� May 22, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Christy Graham, Chairperson ■ Members Stacie Flood, Vice Chairperson ■ Marilyn Carper ■ John Kidwell ■ Scott Stillson ■ Steve Wood ■ Councilor Michael Smith ■ Council Liaison Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planning Administrator ■ staff Beau Morris, Intern ■ Diane Parker ■ GUESTS: Cindy Cotton, W FH Neighborhood Association President ■ Guests Ron Lawson, applicant 1715 Tilden ■ Mr. Wood ■ Dr. Norm Gonzales, applicant 126 Pembroke ■ Calvin Davis ■ Rick Belz ■ ABSENT: Michael Koen ■ Members Andy Lee ■ Dianne Thueson ■ I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chairperson Graham opened the Landmark Commission meeting at 12:07 p.m. Ms. Gagne welcomed and introduced the guests: property owner Mr. Ron Lawson, 1715 Tilden; Mr. Wood, contractor for Mr. Lawson; property owner Dr. Norm Gonzales, 126 Pembroke; Mr. Calvin Davis of Marathon Building Co., general contractor for Dr. Gonzales; and Mr. Rick Belz, representative for Builders Wholesale. II. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 27, 2012 Chairperson Graham requested the Commission review the minutes of the March 27, 2012 meeting. Mr. Wood made a motion to approve the March 27, 2012 Landmark Commission minutes as presented; seconded by Ms. Flood. The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes. Ill. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 126 PEMBROKE LANE PHASED WINDOW REPLACEMENT Ms. Gagne asked the Landmark Commission members to refer to Agenda III in the meeting packets, Application for Design Review at 126 Pembroke Lane, an overview of the request from Dr. Gonzales. She explained this property is situated in the Momingside National Historic District and is considered a contributing building to overall character of the district. Ms. Gagne distributed photographs of the home, a front view showing tinted plate glass storm panels which were added in the early 1980's. These panels are on all windows as an energy efficiency measure. The wood frame windows are original to the home. Ms. Gagner continued by stating Dr. Gonzales is proposing to have both the plate glass storms and windows removed and replaced. The first phase of the project is a kitchen remodel /renovation which triggers a design review with the replacement of the kitchen window. Ms. Gagne stated Dr. Gonzales is asking for approval from the Landmark Commission for the replacement window. He intends to use the same style of replacement window throughout the house over the next two to three years. Ms. Gagne asked Dr. Gonzales to provide the Landmark Commission with the details of his project. Dr. Gonzales thanked the Landmark Commission for their time in reviewing his application for design review. He stated he moved in this house in 21 years ago, 1991. This house was previously known as the Zilhmer House, built in 1927. The window design is 1- over -1 sash with top light divided into a pattern. He continued by stating the project consists of the kitchen renovation which necessitates replacement of the kitchen window; this replacement triggered the Design Review process. Mr. Calvin Davis, Marathon Construction Building Co., will perform the renovation with Mr. Rick Belz of Builders Wholesale providing the window materials. Dr. Gonzales further commented the window replacements throughout the house will improve the energy efficiency; the tinted panes installed in the 1980's will be removed making the house more aesthetically pleasing. The project will begin August 6, 2012. Dr. Gonzales stated the Landmark Commission's decision for this Design Review request is critical to his schedule since he will be out of state during the month of July and returning as Mr. Davis begins the project. Dr. Gonzales further commented next year the bathroom renovations and phased window replacement would begin. Councilor Smith asked Dr. Gonzales to follow -up by contacting the Landmark Commission with his success in reduction in electricity /gas bills after installation of the new windows. Mr. Belz stated he has been providing windows and doors to people in Dr. Gonzales' situation for over 30 years. Dr. Gonzales' home required more light inside and for the windows to be energy efficient. He offered Dr. Gonzales a double pane, %" glass overall with the cavity coated in low-e. Mr. Belz explained low -e glass is lined with silver which reflects heat in the summer and retains heat during the colder months. It does not stop the glare. He explained that dark glass was previously thought to be energy efficient but it has been found to attract heat. Inside the double panes of the low -e window is an argon gas which is a clear inert gas and makes the air [between the windows] heavy. When the heat comes to window, it is reflected and the gas remains at a constant temperature. The vinyl frame has a lifetime warranty and does not allow any heat or cold to transfer through the pane; the inside of the glass remains at room temperature. The current pattern in Dr. Gonzales' windows can be constructed and matched in the new windows. In addition, Mr. Belz noted there are three window colors available — white, tan and clay; he recommended clay to match the existing brick. From the street, the new windows' pattern will match the existing windows minus the 1/4" plated bronze exterior window glass. Mr. Belz continued by assuring the Landmark Commission these windows would add to the value of the house and not take away any historical value. Ms. Gagn6 asked Mr. Belz to explain the difference in materials used in the replacement windows as opposed to the original windows. Mr. Belz stated the original windows throughout the house are wood with a single pane of clear glass and an addition of the '/4" plated bronze exterior, storm window glass. The new window is solid vinyl with no wood components; the window trim will match the home. LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Davis stated he has been doing residential remodeling, including window replacements, for approximately 30 years. He stated, from his opinion, the sashes in the wooden window frames are in okay condition, but the frames that support the sashes are not repairable at this point. The proposed replacements windows will replicate the original appearance and be a maintenance free product. Once the window is caulked and installed, there is no painting. The bottom wooden sill is removed with the window sitting on the brick sill. Dr. Gonzales commented about the questionable feeling of living in a house where none of the windows could be opened. Mr. Wood asked if the exact layout of the existing window would be matched. Mr. Belz stated the pattern of the new windows would not be individual glass panes — there are two options: 1) the pattern can be interior between the two layers glass, or 2) on the exterior portion of the glass to give a simulated divided appearance. Chairperson Graham referred to the City's Design Review Guidelines which recommend aluminum windows rather than vinyl. She also stated she owns a designated historic building downtown and replaced the windows with aluminum windows. She recommended the muntins be on the outside of the glass, not between the glass as noted in the Guidelines to better replicate the original window appearance. Mr. Davis questioned the reasoning for requiring aluminum as opposed to vinyl when neither material resembles the original wooden window. Chairperson Graham stated the Dept. of Interior recommends aluminum. Mr. Davis explained aluminum windows cannot reach the energy efficiency of vinyl windows. Chairperson Graham stated she understood this dilemma. Councilor Smith asked if the requirement was a recommendation or a mandate. Mr. Belz noted the SDL bars on aluminum windows are vinyl. Ms. Flood, noted on page 56 of the Design Review Guidelines, vinyl is not an appropriate substitute material. She read "Although some substitute materials, such as extruded 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, configuration, profile, and finish. Vinyl is not an appropriate substitute. ° Councilor Smith stated these proposed vinyl windows would resemble the original wooden windows when viewed from the public right -of -way. He suggested the Landmark Commission consider the actual windows appearance when making their decision. Chairperson Graham asked if the vinyl windows would be tinted. Mr. Belz replied the low -e would allow light into the room; there would be two or three coats of low -e on the windows for energy savings. He asked if the Design Review Guidelines were current. Councilor Smith stated these Guidelines had been recently updated. Mr. Stillson asked if the Design Review Guidelines were requirements. Ms. Gagne explained they are not an ordinance; they were presented to and approved by City Council via resolution as guidelines. Mr. Stillson then asked if there was a variance procedure if the Landmark Commission did not feel the Guidelines would be appropriate for a particular house. Ms. Gagne replied there is not an actual variance process; if the applicant does not agree with a ruling made by the Landmark Commission, he could appeal by contacting the City Clerk's office within 30 days and appear before the City Council. Mr. Kidwell asked if the Landmark Commission allowed the vinyl windows, would that decision set a precedent. Mr. Stillson stated a decision to approve vinyl windows [for a specific residence] might cause problems in the future because it directly conflicts with the Guidelines. He further commented, by diverging from the Guidelines, the Commission would be obligated to approve a request for vinyl windows submitted by any other applicant in the historical districts or for an individual landmark building. Mr. Kidwell asked how the West Floral Heights Historic LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 3 District compared to the Momingside Historic District in strict adherence to the Guidelines. Ms. Flood stated the Momingside National Historic District is a national district and must abide by national rules — Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation which encourage repair AUL vs. replacement. Ms. Carper stated West Floral Heights is not a national district. Ms. Gagn6 noted the West Floral Heights Historic District (WFHHD) has a local City designation. However, as of 2012 the Texas Historical Commission's interpretation of the City's requirements as a Certified Local Government (CLG) community, the Design Guidelines apply to all exterior alterations in National, State and locally designated historic properties. Dr. Gonzales stated, "[he] was wondering bureaucratically what would be wrong, even if we did have a variance, to have enough flexibility to allow a variance for the house — I'm wondering what would be wrong with that flexibility for the next person." Mr. Stillson responded it would not be considered flexibility; a future applicant could make an equitable case saying the Gonzales' home has vinyl windows with the only reason being that it looked nice. He noted the Design Guidelines would then become ineffective and would be used only for regulating appearance not because they follow the Department of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Councilor Smith stated the question is which material is better for constructing windows which seems to be vinyl; he continued by stating the discussion at this meeting has been that the solution is vinyl as opposed to aluminum. He told the applicant he thought City Council would back the Landmark Commission in changing the Guidelines on this issue. Ms. Carper asked why vinyl was not appropriate; Councilor Smith agreed stating he also wanted to have that information. Mr. Stillson stated "I probably shouldn't say this but we all agreed to change the Design Guidelines and the current content." He added these Guidelines, after Landmarks approved them, were then adopted January 3rd, 2012 by City Council." Councilor Smith commented that rules are made to be broken. Ms. Carper stated if the Commission starts "breaking the rules" [Guidelines], why even have them to protect historic properties Mr. Wood stated the intent of this particular guideline (Chapter 413-6(h)) is for the homeowner to repair or rehabilitate the existing wooden windows. The option, if the windows are beyond repair which may be the case for Dr. Gonzales, is replacement with wood or with aluminum windows providing the style, muntin pattern, etc. is the same as the original windows. Mr. Wood added the guideline was not developed as aluminum vs. vinyl; it is the option between wood vs. aluminum. The specific guideline gives the homeowner the option, even though wood is preferred. Dr. Gonzales stated he wanted to refrain from installing wood windows because of the additional expense. Ms. Cotton agreed with the cost aspect. Mr. Wood noted the expense is one of the reasons aluminum windows were provided as an option or use of exterior storm windows. Councilor Smith asked if there was an appeal process for Dr. Gonzales. Ms. Gagn6 stated the only appeal process for a Landmark Commission ruling is to City Council. This situation exists because the Landmark Commission has the final determination on any design review case. Ms. Carper asked the applicanttcontractor what the objection was to aluminum windows. Mr. Davis stated aluminum windows are an inferior product. Mr. Belz explained the windows would be hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and they would sweat. Mr. Davis commented it was odd the Landmark Commission would recommend aluminum windows; the wood clad window is at the most expensive end of the spectrum with aluminum being the least costly. He stated it [Guidelines] did not make any sense to him and he would not recommend installing aluminum. Mr. Wood suggested tabling this request in order for staff to research this issue. By doing so, is staff would be able to research this matter then provide answers regarding the reason why aluminum are recommended and not vinyl for replacement windows. Mr. Wood commented the recommendation against vinyl might be based on older research and not referring to the current quality of vinyl windows. Mr. Kidwell asked if this proposed research would help the LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 4 Commission make a decision. Mr. Wood commented it might aid in providing an allowance for this and future requests. Mr. Kidwell remarked it might be delaying the progress for the applicant to wait on the research. Mr. Stillson stated aluminum is just one example; he read "...some substitute materials may be used for replacement windows...' vinyl was specifically excluded. He inquired if there were any other material, excluding aluminum and vinyl, which might be used. Mr. Belz stated there is a composite window which is more expensive but he did not feel it would be a quality window compared to the vinyl. Dr. Gonzales commented there will approximately 21 windows for replacement over the next 2- 3 years. He inquired about the reason vinyl was not acceptable. Ms. Carper stated this was a national recommendation and she would also like to know the reasoning behind the statement. Mr. Wood stated that information would be forthcoming after more research is done. Mr. Kidwell commented the Commission members would have a better understanding of the reasoning behind that statement [vinyl is not appropriate] once the research is completed. He added a decision regarding what would be appropriate for the applicant and future applicants could be determined. Dr. Gonzales commented that cost is a factor. Mr. Wood stated the costs will relate to the option utilized — if you want to own /live in a historic house it requires certain materials to maintain the integrity. Mr. Stillson made the suggestion to Dr. Gonzales that perhaps his contractor might research some alternative material [for windows] that would be in compliance with the Guidelines in the event vinyl windows were denied. This research might not slow down the start of his construction project. Dr. Gonzales stated he would not be available during the month of July. Mr. Stillson suggested appointing an agent to act on his behalf. It was agreed that by the next meeting scheduled for June 26 staff and the Commission would have a determination. Dr. Gonzales indicated he would be available. Chairperson Graham mentioned the Guidelines state (page 56) interior muntins are not permitted; they must be on the outside of the windows. She continued reading [Page 56, Item 6(f)] °False muntins inserted inside the glass are not permitted. Matching the profile of the original window requires the use of either true divided lites or dimensional muntins placed on the outside of the glass, along the spacers on the inside of the glass that are appropriate color, material, and thickness, so that the window appears to have its true divided lites even when viewed from an oblique angle." Mr. Belz commented he recently installed vinyl windows with interior dividers in the Kemp Center for the Arts, one of the most historical buildings in Wichita Falls.* Chairperson Graham asked if the new window would delay the kitchen renovation; Mr. Davis replied that yes, the backsplash in the kitchen and the configuration of the window placement will not be identical. The project cannot be finished until the window issue is resolved. Dr. Gonzales indicated the anticipated start date for the project is August e. He reiterated over the next two or three years the other windows in the house would also be replaced. Ms. Graham asked if the kitchen window currently matched the other windows in the house; Dr. Gonzales replied it did match. Dr. Gonzales asked about researching the material for the windows. Mr. Kidwell stated the Texas Historical Commission (THC) would be contacted to determine the reason vinyl is not recommended. The Commission members were in agreement about reviewing and researching both National and Texas regulations /policies and then be in a position to make a more informed Alk determination on Dr. Gonzales request. In addition, the Commission will determine whether the Guidelines need to be amended. LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 5 Ms. Carper made a motion to table the Design Review application for 126 Pembroke to review /research the vinyl issue and the type of window materials to be used in the Phased Window Replacement, 2012 — 2015. Mr. Stillson seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of tabling the application. Mr. Stillson suggested Dr. Gonzales visit with his contractor regarding alternative, substitute window materials (eg. composition, etc.) that would be in compliance with the Design Review Guidelines. * NOTE. Landmark Commission Chairperson, Vice - Chairperson and staff noted concerns with this comment. After the meeting adjourned, staff researched the issue with the Kemp Center for the Arts Director and with the City's Residential Plans Reviewer, Building Inspections Division. The Kemp Director stated they had work done on the windows during the building addition phase but had not installed replacement vinyl windows as indicated by Mr. Belz but rather aluminum storm windows keeping the original windows. No design review permission was obtained from the Commission nor did their architect (M. Koen — Landmark member) in the August 2009 application indicate window replacement or addition of storm windows as a component of the scope of work for the new building addition. IV. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 1715 TILDEN ROOF REPLACEMENT Chairperson Graham introduced this application and requested staff provide details of the design review proposal. Ms. Gagn6 introduced the applicant, Mr. Ron Lawson, 1715 Tilden, and his roofing contractor Mr. Wood. Ms. Gagne referred members to their meeting packets is illustrating the existing cedar shake roof on the house and composition roof on the rear accessory garage. Mr. Lawson is proposing to replace both roofs along with the decking materials due to damage sustained from water leaks on the house roof. The replacement shingles will be composition in a pattern intended to replicate the cedar shakes. Mr. Lawson informed staff /Commission members that his insurance company (State Farm) as of the renewal date for his homeowner policy in November 2012 would no longer insure the house if it still had wooden shingles. Ms. Gagn6 requested the applicant provide additional details regarding the roofing request. Mr. Lawson explained that his insurance adjuster noted this type of situation is becoming very common throughout Texas and the nation. Insurance companies simply won't continue coverage on residential structures with wooden shingles due to fire hazard. Mr. Wood explained the details for the proposed replacement shingles — laminate, standard 3 tab or type 4, heavy brown in an attempt to replicate the look of a new cedar shake roof. Mr. Wood raised a point for clarification - the wooden shingles on the house would be removed with new decking installed and the accessory garage roof is already composition? Mr. Wood stated yes, the rear garage roof was replaced prior to the District designation and it will be an in -kind replacement. Ms. Carper and Ms. Flood commented there very few cedar shake roofs in the WFH Historic District since most have been replaced with alternative materials. Mr. Lawson stated he doesn't use the fireplace during the winter for fear of fire with the wooden roof. Mr. Wood informed Commission members that if the cedar shake roof on the house could be replaced it would cost $18,000. Chairperson Graham noted that this is a bigger issue than just Wichita Falls. When she resided in Fort Worth many of the guidelines and deed restrictions for residential neighborhoods required replacement of cedar shake shingles. However, there were fires one summer during a windy day and they spread quickly from one house to another due to the dry wood roofs. She recommended allowing replacement with a composition roof for safety and to ensure the City's Design Guidelines were not in conflict with any state insurance legislation. Ms. Graham LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 6 conducted some additional research and noted the Texas Insurance Codes generally state that for neighborhoods in which guidelines state replacement with a wooden roof they are now void; she went on to note, if interpreted correctly, even deed restrictions requiring cedar shake replacement roofs, etc. would now be void for insurance reasons. Mr. Stillson stated the Guidelines, Page 53, 3(d) for Roofs; call for the use of original roofing material "...the replacement element shall match the original in design, profile, finish and texture. "but if this has been overruled by the State it should be addressed to avoid any inconsistency. Ms. Carper made a motion to approve the Design Review application for 1715 Tilden in West Floral Heights Historic District in order to allow the owner to replace the cedar shake shingles with laminate composition, 3 tab shingles in a Desert Tan color palette in order to replicate as much as possible the color and texture of a cedar shingle roof. Mr. Stillson seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval for the application. Ms. Flood was excused from the meeting to attend a prior work commitment. Mr. Lawson commented that he appreciated the work the Commission conducts and the design review process was an eye opener regarding the Commission's responsibilities. The West Floral Heights motto for the neighborhood is "Don't Buy the House, Buy the Neighborhood" This review process definitely gives a new meaning to the motto and he commended the Commission for their efforts. Commission Discussion Regarding Agenda Item III Chairperson Graham stated Dr. Gonzales had contacted her and had a 30 minute conversation at which time she informed him he must submit a design review application. Mr. Stillson stated both Dr. Gonzales and the contractor should have consulted the Design Review Guidelines ® because it is straight forward. Ms. Gagne commented that in the initial meeting with Dr. Gonzales she handed him the pertinent sections from the Design Review Guidelines regarding windows, additions, and renovations. She also emailed him the link to the Design Review Guidelines on the City website in addition to a copy of the application materials. Dr. Gonzales wanted staff to give permission for the windows over the telephone and she instructed him this alteration required a determination by the Landmark Commission. Ms. Carper commented the ideal situation would be wooden windows to be historically accurate on a contributing house. Ms. Gagne stated Dr. Gonzales indicated in the beginning that in his opinion wood was not an option. Chairperson Graham stated two years ago, this Commission approved for Johnny Combs to install aluminum windows in West Floral Heights. Mr. Stillson mentioned the Design Review Guidelines have since been updated and approved by the Landmark Commission and City Council. Mr. Wood asked about the origin of "no vinyl" statement. He recalled the National Department of the Interior Standards being general with a focus on preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of existing windows prior to considering replacement. Mr. Stillson commented the statement came from this Commission because we [the Commission] agreed on the rules. Chairperson Graham read from Design Review Guidelines the following excerpt from Section 6. Windows and Screens, b. °Retain and restore original windows, window surrounds, and screens unless deteriorated beyond repair. Refer to treatment recommendations for windows included in Appendix E to these design guidelines. ff Mr. Stillson stated these are called "guidelines" but if they are violated it is a Class C misdemeanor. They are not recommendations but essentially law via resolution of the City Council which the Landmark Commission must follow. This is not an internal operating book. is Chairperson Graham asked the Landmark Commission to refer to page 99, Wood #2 and #3 in their Design Review Guidelines. She read: LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 7 "2. Repair wood features as necessary, using accepted preservation techniques. This includes using epoxy, if possible, to repair deteriorated members, or replacing either missing or severely deteriorated wood elements with in -kind materials to match the historic element. 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 through the use of historic photographs. 3. For wood elements that cannot be effectively repaired using the methods stated above, or if the existing element is missing, in -kind replacement is appropriate." Chairperson Graham asked the Commission if in -kind replacement was the correct interpretation. Mr. Stillson asked if in -kind would contradict the vinyl statement. He then reminded the Commission the goal is preservation of the historical buildings not just energy efficiency or to create 'nice' homes. Chairperson Graham continued reading [page 100, #3 cont'd.]: "The replacement of historic elements must be as compatible as possible with the existing wooden elements. When existing examples are available, reproduction to match historic features is possible." It was asked of Chairperson Graham, if a reason was given to her to replace the windows with aluminum when she was renovating her downtown historic buildings. She stated the [Texas] Historical Commission did not like the aluminum windows and preferred wood; they did not match the Dept. of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The Dept. of Interior approved the aluminum windows but the technical dept. of the THC did not. The THC architectural reviewer for the tax credit projects wanted Chairperson Graham to install wooden, single pane windows. Is She stated it was not an option with the proximity of the railroad tracks. Chairperson Graham stated the decision was made to go with the Dept. of Interior's suggestion of aluminum windows. This action took place more than ten years ago and it is possible the Dept. of Interior has revised their standards. Ms. Gagn6 stated if an applicant wants to have a historically accurate building and apply for the historic rehabilitation IRS tax credits the standards are much more stringent, such as with the renovation of the Holt Hotel. Councilor Smith stated the Landmark Commission needs a confirmation from the Dept. of Interior that vinyl is unacceptable. The question was raised again why vinyl is not acceptable. Chairperson Graham noted this application is not for a historic commercial building and Dr. Gonzales is not applying for tax credits or federal assistance. Mr. Wood commented the vinyl of 20 years ago did not have the same endurance that the vinyl of today has. It was an inferior product when the Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation were developed. The vinyl window has become a popular replacement window; people use them all the time. Mr. Wood continued by stating they are commonplace but the question is whether the Department of the Interior or the State (THC) is now accepting them. If it is found the Landmark Commission can accept vinyl, then the Design Review Guidelines must be amended. Chairperson Graham stated there will be similar issues before the Landmark Commission in the future and as an appointed entity they must work through them by tabling decisions and conducting research for answers. LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 8 V. UPDATE & ASSIGNMENT OF LANDMARK NOMINATIONS (1300 BUCHANAN,1300 TILDEN & 2106 HIAWATHA) Ms. Gagne introduced and recognized the work prepared by our Planning intern Mr. Beau Moms. Mr. Morris has done research on 1300 Buchanan, 1300 Tilden and 2106 Hiawatha and worked with the property owners for the landmark nomination process. She anticipates having the nominations for those three properties at either the June or July 2012 meeting. These will be the first landmark nominations since 2007. These are contributing, significant properties with two being located in existing historic districts. Ms. Gagne noted the other properties on the Proposed Historic Properties for Local Landmark Nomination need to be assigned to Commission members as the Planning Division is still short staffed for the interim. She asked if Landmark Commission members would volunteer to assist with the historic sites project by working with the property owner regarding the nomination process. Interested volunteers were encouraged to contact Ms. Gagnd prior to the June meeting. Mr. Jack Murphy, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded favorably to the proposed list of parks and cemeteries for nomination. Ms. Gagne expressed concern for the possible nomination of Sacred Heart Catholic Church at Ninth /Holliday. A new billboard erected on their property creates a questionable issue. She informed the Commission of a June 19th meeting with Floral Heights United Methodist Church board to present the conceptlopportunity for landmark nomination. Ms. Gagn6 stated she was recently contacted by the WFISD Superintendent's secretary that the nomination process was on hold indefinitely. Dr. Kasanas, outgoing Superintendent, forwarded the paper work to the School Board members. Mr. Kevin Goldstein, School Board member, had discussed the potential nominations with Mr. Kevin Hugman, Assistant City Manager. Ms. Gagn6 contacted Mr. Goldstein to clarify information and address any concerns regarding ® issues of possible high school consolidations. He is hoping to work together with the City. Ms. Gagn6 updated the Commission regarding Midwestern State University. The President's secretary called regarding design review clarification while preparing the paperwork for the Board of Regents consideration of a landmark nomination for the Sikes House. She has not heard the results of the meeting. Ms. Gagn6 discussed the proposed residential houses. She asked for volunteers from the Landmark Commission if any of the homeowners were known by Commission members. Ms. Thueson or Ms. Flood have volunteered to work with Dr. Charles Olson's Fonville -Clark House, 2500 Ninth Street. Mr. Lee has agreed to help with John and Penny Denman's house, 2116 Hiawatha. Ms. Thueson volunteered to contact Charles and Kristin Warman's Moore House at 4 Crestway in Momingside District. Mr. Wood has volunteered to assist with John and Martha Mason's home at 1400 Tilden. Ms. Gagne has visited with Mr. Jerry Nabors regarding his home, the Stringer House at 2 Crestway. This house was one of the few homes remaining from a postcard featured in the Touring Wichita Falls History brochure. Ms. Gagn6 solicited Commission members to review the list of proposed properties in order to acquire volunteers to approach property owners with the importance of the nomination process. If the landmark Commission initiates the nomination, the $25 application fee would be waived. Ms. Carper asked what method was used to select the residential properties. Ms. Gagn6 stated the properties were selected from the Touring Wichita Falls History brochure. A concern was raised about property owners being inconvenienced by the public if their house received landmark status; Ms. Gagn6 stated designation was for prestige and historical protection. The property is recognized as having importance in the history of our community and the protection the designation affords. Mr. Stillson was excused from the meeting to return to work. LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 9 VI. UPDATE PRESERVATION MONTH TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION REGIONAL WORKSHOPS EASTLAND, TX EVENT Ak IV Ms. Gagne announced she attended one of the five one -day state -wide Texas Historical Commission's (THC) seminars held during Preservation Month. The annual conference was cancelled for 2012 as a result of legislative funding cuts to the State agency. Certified Local Government (CLG) staff is required to attend annual training. Ms. Gagn6 stated she distributed six Touring Wichita Falls History brochures; three people from the Tarrant County Historical Commission were very interested in it as well as the representative from the TX Forts Trail Region, who tours and promotes working with THC. The next step is having the properties listed in our brochure designated as landmarks. The brochure was well received and coordinated well with the program concerning the importance of CLG and obtaining grants for small communities. THC has undergone significant change due to legislative cutbacks and• provided a revised staff directory. Ms. Gagne provided the Landmark Commission members with a copy of the THC telephone list effective May, 2012. She said she would be contacting Mr. Adam Alsobrook, Regional Architectural Reviewer for North Central Texas region regarding the vinyl window issues. VII. OTHER BUSINESS a) West Floral Heights Historic District (WFHHD) — Monthly Report (Cindy Cotton) Ms. Cotton stated she has talked with Ms. Pat Hoffman, City Property Administrator, and Mr. Murphy to buy the land previously occupied by Buchanan Terrace to create a park. Ms. Carper mentioned Ms. Carolyn Looney, new Landmark Commission member representing WFHHD, is taking pictures of neighborhood parks for ideas. Ms. Cotton stated this would not be a public park and would be maintained by the neighborhood. Ms. Cotton announced a fall home tour was being scheduled for Oct. 13th to raise money to replace the stop signs with more historical signage matching the light poles around the perimeter of the District. The tour would be $15.00 per person or $25.00 per couple. Ms. Cotton also stated the curbs were being painted with the historic flower representing the District. Ms. Gagn6 stated Ms. Cotton resigned from the Landmark Commission as the neighborhood representative to take on the role as President of the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association, a position that was recently vacated. On May 1, 2012, City Council appointed Ms. Carolyn Looney as the West Floral Heights representative; she will be sworn in at the next meeting she attends. Ms. Cotton stated Mr. James Wetherbee had previously planned to remove the windows in his home at 1300 Tilden. She strongly discouraged the removal of the original glass windows even though Mr. Wetherbee wanted more energy efficient windows. Ms. Cotton had a serious conversation with him about keeping the original windows and Mr. Wetherbee opted to install storm windows thus preserving the historical integrity of the structure. Ms. Cotton thanked the Landmark Commission for listening to her even though she was never a voting member on the Commission. She appreciated the members considering her comments when making a decision. Ms. Cotton also complimented Ms. Gagnd for being a sounding board and a valuable advisor to the West Floral Heights neighborhood. LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 10 b) Design Review — Staff Authorized — Minor Alteration/Repairs: Ms. Gagn6 stated she's been very busy with the following administrative design review projects: is 4 Crestway — gas pressure test/repair gas leak 108 Pembroke — plumbing permit — replace water heater 1404 Hayes — roofing permit — replace composition roof with composition 1600 Hayes — sidewalk permit — replace 50ft sidewalk 1503 Hayes — mechanical permit — change out HVAC 1604 Grant - mechanical permit — change out HVAC 1411 Garfield — roofing permit- replace decking, exposed rafters & composition shingles 1505 Buchanan — called Ms. Cotton, then called Ms. Gagn6. She inspected the property finding a composition roof with the change being the turbine vents were removed and replaced with original style ridge line vents which would be more aesthetically fitting and appropriate for the historic district. The roofing permit was issued. c) Articles and Periodicals — The Medallion (Spring 2012) & Preservation (Spring 2012) Ms. Gagn6 stated all members should be receiving The Medallion by mail. If not, there is a link on the THC website with all the past issues in pdf as downloadable files. Preservation, the magazine, had an interesting article in the recent issue about Frank Lloyd Wright. She quoted a comment from the editor regarding lead certified and greening of historic buildings, dk is perhaps the defining issue of our time. Preservation is the central role to play in how we move forward. We have a message that developers and city council need to hear and we will keep saying it for as long as it takes. The -greenest building is almost always the one already built. Vlll. NEW BUSINESS CLG Grant: Ms. Gagn6 suggested discussing the CLG grant at the June Landmark Commission meeting. A letter of intent will need to be submitted by July in order to update the State (THC) on the estimated number of applications to be submitted later in the year and to help compile a budget. Final grant applications would be due the beginning of November for the 2013 CLG grant round. Farmer's Market Si4nage: Ms. Gagn6 stated the signage will be brought to the Landmark Commission in June, 2012 for a determination. City Council approved the management of the Farmer's Market to be transferred to Downtown Wichita Falls Development organization. They are requesting the signage be updated and changed. The Design Guidelines, Page 61, 10(f) regulations state, one sign per facade — one sign on Eighth Street and another on Ohio. Landscaping and updating have occurred to make the Market an attractive downtown venue. Ms. Gagn6 stated she believes the sign will be a smaller ground level sign. The days and times open for business were discussed. It was also mentioned the space is available for rental such as parties. Downtown Caiun Fest — May 19'": Ms. Gagn6 provided an update regarding the event stating Downtown Wichita Falls Dev't Inc. raised approximately $18,000 with 5,000 attendees from gate sales for continued downtown revitalization. It was a good draw for the downtown area, and the music was well received. MONTH Events in May/June: Ms. Gagne announced items of interest at the Museum of North Texas History would be: June 12 — Bob Wills Celebration June 23 — Horse Races in conjunction with the Jenny at Kickapoo Air Park June 24 — A Bit of History talking about the War of 1812 Sept. 8 — Stroll 'N Roll Oct. 13 — West Floral Heights Historic District Home Tour LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 11 �7 Next Landmark Commission Meeting: Chairperson Graham announced the next Landmark Commission meeting would be Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. 1600 Ohio/B&C Printing — Chairperson Requested Follow-up: Ms. Gagn6 stated she talked with Mr. Bob Mayfield who felt they were waiting on the City to tell them (tenant/owner) what to do about the graffiti. The last time Ms. Gagne spoke with THC was October 25, 2011 with Mr. Alsobmok about types of paint. It is the responsibility of the tenant or building owner to get bids for painting the wall not the City. The decision on the type and cost of restoration belongs to the tenant/building owner. The building owner acknowledges that he should invest some money in the proper removal of the graffiti. VI. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Christy Gral%m, Chairperson Date LANDMARK COMMISSION May 22, 2012 Page 12