The URL can be used to link to this page

Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/27/2011RECEIVED N ,2I7Y CI FRKLS Oi=FIG MINUTES / DATE; — 2 LANDMARK COMMISSION BY: TIME: SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Christy Graham, Chairperson ■ Members Marilyn Carper ■ Stacie Flood ■ John Kidwell ■ Michael Koen ■ Andy Lee ■ Scott Stillson ■ Diane Thueson ■ Steve Wood ■ Karen Montgomery- Gagnd, Interim Planning Supervisor ■ staff Leo Bethge, Planner II ■ Kristen Howcroft, Municipal Court Prosecutor ■ GUESTS: Holly Crampton, representing Berry Brown House ■ Marcia McCoy, representing Berry Brown House 11 ABSENT: Cindy Cotton ■ Members Councilor Michael Smith, Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chairperson Graham opened the Landmark Commission meeting at 12:08 p.m. Ms. Gagn6 introduced and welcomed Ms. Howcroft, Municipal Court Prosecutor, since she is assisting the Landmark Commission with the Design Guidelines project and future revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. All Commission members and staff provided a brief introduction. II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 2e AND AUGUST 23rd, 2011 Chairperson Graham requested the Commission review the June 2e and August 23'd meeting minutes. Mr. Koen motioned to approve the June 28, 2011 Landmark Commission minutes as presented, motion seconded by Mr. Lee. Motion passed unanimously to approve the June 28"' meeting minutes. Moreover, Ms. Thueson motioned to approve the August 23, 2011 Landmark Commission minutes as presented, motion seconded by Mr. Koen. Motion passed unanimously to approve the August 231d meeting minutes. III. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW — MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM —1300 7"' STREET Mr. Koen, project architect, presented the materials for the application - construction of a second handicap ramp at Memorial Auditorium and to fix the Seventh Street entry steps. The purpose of this project is to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He further discussed the location of two proposed ADA parking spaces planned in front of the Auditorium (Seventh Street). Aesthetically, the ramp's exterior brick will match the same brick color as the Auditorium. A clear aluminum guide rail is planned. The rail will not be painted or consist of dark Landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page t anodizing. Tall shrubbery is planned along the edge of the ramp to hinder the view of the ramp. A sidewalk will connect from the ramp to the main Auditorium sidewalk. A second proposal was considered to come straight out, but the first proposal to situate the ramp parallel to the building was preferred. Ms. Thueson inquired if anything will be removed from the building. Mr. Koen stated nothing will be removed. Ms. Flood asked if this project was reviewed by the Texas Historic Commission (THC). Mr. Koen stated the project was already approved by THC and they determined there would be no adverse effect. Staff explained the Memorial Auditorium does not have a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark (RTHL) designation. The project was delayed from the prior Landmark Commission meeting because with the use of federal CDBG funds it triggered the Section 106 THC review process. Mr. Lee motioned to approve the eject as outlined on the conceptual drawings, to locate a handicap ramp along the Seventh Street facade of the Memorial Auditorium and to aesthetically match the exterior brick and for improvements to the entry steps. Mr. Kidwell seconded the motion. Mr. Koen as project architect abstained from voting on this Item due to a conflict of interest. Motion passed unanimously. IV. DISCUSS, REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS The Landmark Commission started random discussion of the Design Guidelines followed by a more thorough discussion based on a page -per -page review. The first part of discussion centered on the use of photos and sketches. Ms. Gqign6 stated that Its best not to use First Baptist's photo for the Temple Front Buildings (Page 21) based on their recent history of building acquisition and demolition. Ms. Thueson stated Ms. Gagn6 and Mr. Bethge provided replacement photos, and that Hardy Heck and Moore (HHM) needed to replace several of the Design Guideline photos with these better replacement photos. She further stated the Design Guidelines are still not user - friendly even for Commission members. Ms. Thueson noted, in the future, another project would be to further refine the guidelines Into a series of fold -out brochures. This could be used as a reference handout for homeowners. Mr. Lee stated he is confused about the sketches. He recommended the use of some 1982 Depot Square design plan drawings for commercial facades, streetscapes, etc. Ms. Gagn6 indicated Planning has the plan on file and will scan and e-mail the drawings to the consultants as a sample. Chairperson Graham stated she is not happy with the current state of the sketches. She recommended removing the sketches, by sliding them out. The sketches could serve as a supplementary aid. Ms. Gagn6 stated she provided another copy of the Grapevine and Georgetown, TX design guidelines as a proper source of illustration and text. Ms. Flood stated the illustrations are simply sketched, and appear unfinished. Ms. Thueson stated HHM needs to come back to edit the sketches, though with time constraints the Design Guidelines, for these changes, would need Council to re- approve any modifications. She stated captioning is not enough without better illustrations — 'this is not what we asked for." Ms. Howcroft stated the text is the main importance since the sketches only serve as a visual example. Sketches cannot be enforced like the Design Guidelines or the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lee stated the sketches have the wrong focus. Mr. Wood stated we should use sketches from a different source since they're not the best to use. Another source might be able "to get the point across," such as illustrations from the National Trust or Department of the Interior. The following comments are based on a page- per -page review of the Design Guidelines: Cover - new logo; looks good but needs to be enlarged so the tag line is legible. Make same size as on page 2, keep completion date of September 2011 Landmark Comm ission September 27, 2011 Page 2 �i ai X A TeA I A/ rSUPA Divf m 10C Pg 112 — Table of Contents - After revisions are incorporated — ensure page references match sections Section 1 Pg 4 - Purpose & Goals — no changes Section 2 - Ign Review roc Pg 5 - Section B Design Review Application — 2" d line: Delete *isteris" -should read "City of Wichita Falls Planning Division" Pg 5/6 - Section B Add a paragraph — noted in the original revisions — new 2nd pars 'The City Landmark Commission aims for preservation and conservation of original architectural features rather than 'modernization' or 'updating' of older properties or imposing a false 'historic look' on newer properties. Each historic structure is a product of its time and the original design should be respected for its character." 3rd para — fix last line — "consideration and appointment to by the Landmark Commission." Please be the paragraph together with the table onto pg 6. Center the numbers in the second column of table as previously noted: The minimum number of recommended District Design Review Volunteers necessary to assist with design review ications correlates directly with the size of the historic district as outlined: Number of Properties Within Historic District Number of Required District Design Review Volunteers 50 or less properties 3 51 —150 properties 5 151 or more properties 7 Pg 6 — move Major Alterations to begin a new page & keep items together Pg 7 — Fix alignment for first bulleted section Pg 8 — Responsibilities of the Applicant Fix sentence —"The Historic Preservation Office." — change to Officer Pg 8 — Section C — Penalties for Violations Replace "...Historic Preservation Commission..." with Landmark Commission Pg 9 — Section D — Buildings and Building Regulations Exemptions for Historic Buildings Vi line — add Falls and delete Chief — should read as follows: (City of Wichita Falls Building Official) Landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page 3 Section 3 Pg 10 - Building Forms - catch rellsroncee to Property Type 2nd Para - 3rd line fix property type - building form - 3'd Para -1' line -1 s' word - replace property type with Building Form 0 line - replace property type with building form 5d' line - replace property type with building form e line - replace property type with building form Photos - Building Forms: Pet 14 - Bungalow Residence --replace photo #2 and #3 - use photos provided on CD Pg 20 - Two-Part Commercial Block Doors - add word may - "In addition to the storefront, two-part commercial block buildings may Include.. " Pg 21 - Temple Front Building Photo #1- Specifically stated NO PHOTOS OF 10 BAPTIST CHURCH- they demolish historic structures with no regard - should not be rewarded by being recognized in a preservation document. Photo #1- replace with another copy of Floral Heights Methodist Church Photo #2 - replace Kemp photo with the Lamar St. fagade - front of building - on CD Pg 27/28 - Section 3 - B Architectural Styles move the last paragraph "Architectural styles..." to Page 28 to keep paragraph together - entire page of extra space otherwise. Fix references to property type - find & replace with building style (18t Para; 2nd Para) Pg 36 - Gothic Revival - Chimneys: reword as follows: "Prominent brick chimneys, often on the front fagade, are a character-defining...." Pg 37 - Tudor Revival - Building Forms: add word: "On residential or Institutional examples, bungalow, L -plan, or irregular. Not typically found..." Pg 43 - Modems Photo labels — fix reference to Art Deco Style to Modeme Style Replace photo #2 with better example — Water Utilities Building Z Pg 46 - Landscape and Streetscape Features Photo - Side Setbacks - need to re -crop to zoom into the buildings being depicted or enlarge photo to see the necessary detail Pg 47 - Fences - revise text - add new sentence after 18` sentence: "For designated residential properties within the West Floral Heights Historic District, based on original patting restrictions, there shall be no fences added in the front yard setback ply Pg 48 - Photos - Street Trees - shift cropping to include more of the line of trees along the 2 city blocks or enlarge. Pg 49 - Section 4 - General Section A - General Landmark CommMion September 27, 2011 Page 4 id para/1d sentence - remove word a from parenthesis D 51 - Section B - Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings 1 sentence - reword - we want these requirements to apply to ALL designated historic properties: `The guidelines set forth below apply to individual historic landmarks and ALL buildings within historic districts." Murals - crftW Item to address. Address Isaias of murals wllth amended title its noted, 1. Exterior Walla/Murals - amend item g. - move last 2 sentences to new item h. as noted below - rename h. to I.: h. Do not add non- historic murals to masonry surfaces. When restoring historic murals or painted signs, paint should be water- permeable, as discussed in the treatment guidelines in Appendix E. Any proposed mural designitheme must be authorized by the Landmark Commission prior to consideration for placement on a building. Placement is contingent upon building fagade condition. Exterior wall murals are recommended for placement on a substrate and carefully attached to the fagade to avoid any long -term, surface damage and further deterioration. Pg 60 -10. Signage Ensure cross reference to Murals on pg 51: Add new item i. 1. For Murals - refer to Section B -1. Exterior Walla/Murals. Pg 61- Landscape and Streetscape Features Photo #1 - terrible - replace - use an appropriate photo from photo CD provided. Pg 62 - Section C - Addltlons to Contributing Buildings Item 2. Location and Height - fix font for item a. m Coment: Commission found revised wording confusing with reference to 30, 60, 90ft so prefer to leave it in relation to the proportion and scale of the org. building which is on a case -by -case review for appropriateness. - Reword Item a. iii. with the following: "The minimum setback between the original fagade and the addition shall be complimentary to the proportion and scale of the original building." Delete "... OFIVIRal buildiRg, shall be thlFly feet (30') !OF aR additle-nmgth ene eleFy, sl* teet (60') fGF aR addIVOR wlt-h twe- stories, aAd nIA8V !Sol (90') 99F A-A ad-d-WOR AAA* MG-ra- th&R WO steA " Pg 63 - DELETE sketch Item 2. b. ii. capitalize Zoning and Building Pg 65 and 66 and 71- FIX sketches - noted in original comments Commission members not pleased with rough sketches - they expected detailed drawings as noted In Grapevine & Georgetown's guidelines. We like the addition of the 'appropriatelnappropdate' labels but there was the expectation the 'sketches' would be drawings that clearly illustrate key concepts. No labeling with sketches as noted below. Is there the ability to pull basic drawings from the Internet for use in the document? Landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page 5 Commission members considered recommending n redonecprmiorrto Council submission. being addressed, but not the Ses original comments provides In Into August: Showing the photo examples is great gd without a photo label their useful is lost. The examples we pointed to — City of Grapevine & the City of Georgetown lees @noosed scanned swims him Grapevine) — list text/comments with the photos/sketches. Co need to see some text de understanding so willltthe public. Please Please providetsome0 Commission members have .%rrrr. ""ftry► ._1 N;L additional details and text to accompany the sketches as noted in the Grapevine example — specifically on pg 6o, pg 61, and pg 66 and pg 67• pg 66 — Sketches - Examples of Appropriate Additions to Conunercial Buildings Photo 82 — remove reference to 30ft — instead add "...In order to maintain an appropriate proportion and scale." pg 66 — Sketches - Examples of Appropriate Additions to Commercial Buildings photo #3 — remove reference to 9011t — instead add "...in order to maintain an appropriate proportion and scale." Pg 70 — E. New Construction In Historic Districts 1. d. — capitalize Zoning and Building pg 77 — capitalization — Half- Timbered: pg s0 - Appendix B Individual Historic Landmarks — revised CWF table — no changes Pg viewepot Square HD - p977/78 Please add a reference notation In superscript format in the table by the: ContrlbutingWon-ContHbutlng Status' with the following: All orooerties, whether contributing rnon-contributing are required to submit a design review application for any exterior - the additional wording can be placed below the main table ...rr.,rrarrowr. ��rrrrr.�r ••- or r wwrr..rr�r» CP ' � �pr�rrrr.ir � erw� yr+r- iwr�irr. rrfr.r.rr . rr .r .rr�rrirrrr r„Wir�...rrrr ,��rsa additional details and text to accompany the sketches as noted in the Grapevine example — specifically on pg 6o, pg 61, and pg 66 and pg 67• pg 66 — Sketches - Examples of Appropriate Additions to Conunercial Buildings Photo 82 — remove reference to 30ft — instead add "...In order to maintain an appropriate proportion and scale." pg 66 — Sketches - Examples of Appropriate Additions to Commercial Buildings photo #3 — remove reference to 9011t — instead add "...in order to maintain an appropriate proportion and scale." Pg 70 — E. New Construction In Historic Districts 1. d. — capitalize Zoning and Building pg 77 — capitalization — Half- Timbered: pg s0 - Appendix B Individual Historic Landmarks — revised CWF table — no changes Pg viewepot Square HD - p977/78 Please add a reference notation In superscript format in the table by the: ContrlbutingWon-ContHbutlng Status' with the following: All orooerties, whether contributing rnon-contributing are required to submit a design review application for any exterior - the additional wording can be placed below the main table Pg 84 - West Floral Heights Historic District — REMOVE TABLE— discussed among Commission members; too confusing for properly owners who may expect relaxed policies because their property is classified as 'non-contributing.' Having contributing/non held to the same regulations maintains consistency in treatment by the Commission and Historic Preservation Officer. The table is available at the City of Wichita Falls Planning Division if anyone has questions regarding classification. Pg 84 - Appendix C - Maps Map 1— Please remove Landmark noted at e & Indiana — there is no City landmark to my knowledge at this corner. 2) Previous map had labels for the 2 historic districts — they appear to have been removed? Please add these back to the map so the districts stand out otherwise at the 8.5 x 11 size they are lost. If necessary add a label In bold with an arrow pointing to district so it's visible. Pg 85 - Map 2 — Depot Square Map 1) Please fix title block — rename as follows: Detail of Depot Square Historic District Boundary Design Guidelines Wichita Falls, Texas 2) Correct spelling/reference for railroad: Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corporation 3) Remove shading on map for Landmark at SE corner of 8h & Indiana — not a landmark 4) Add shading on map for missed Landmark at 615 a Street 5) Please show boundary box in legend for Historic District Boundary Pg 86 - Map 3 — West Floral Heights Historic District 1) Please fix title block — rename as follows: Detail of West Floral Heights Historic District Boundary Design Guidelines Wichita Falls, Texas 2) Remove the landmarks noted within this District —there are none. The only explanation is sites from the historic tour brochure are highlighted — misleading. 3) Please show a boundary box in legend for Historic District Boundary 4) Please show a boundary box in legend for Properties Excluded from District (Sec. 62- 66(b)) (need some way to explain why there are holes in the district) Pg 100 —Appendix G: Additional Resources City of Wichita Falls Resources - rename Historic Preservation Office to Historic Preservation OfficerA andmark Commission Ms. Flood motioned to approve the Design Guidelines, subject to submittal of revisions by HHM, Inc., for review and adoption by the City Council. Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page 7 V. REVIEW OF COMMISSION ROSTER — TERM UPDATES & RENEWAL INTEREST Ms. Gagn6 explained the Commission Roster information in the meeting packet may not be up to date since it was provided by the City Clerk. She stated the Commission should ignore information, such as addresses/phone numbers that were not up to date as Planning maintains a more detailed roster and updates are sent to the Clerk's office. Ms. Gagn6 discussed potential re- appointment terms with the Commission. Mr. Wood stated he would like to be re- appointed for another term. Ms. Graham also stated she would like to be re- appointed for another term. However, Chairperson Graham's at the term limit and will expire at the end of the year. She has requested an extension since currently serving as the Commission Chairperson through April 2012. Mr. Lee replaced Mr. Newsom February of 2011. Ms. Cotton withdrew since she was a non - voting member, however, staff will contact her to confirm. Mr. Stillson's information was updated. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: a) West Floral Heights Historic District — Monthly Report Ms. Carper stated there was no new information to report for the month — work continues with placing sidewalk numbers. A WFH District Design Review Committee member (Amy Hafley) recently passed away. b) Pending Design Review Items: Ms. Gagn6 stated The Forum is moving ahead. The Council approved the easterly alley closure and granted an easement; however, if the utility easement needs to be opened for repair The Forum will need to replace the overhead canopy at their expense. 1400 Travis - Holly Crampton and Marcia McCoy discussed restoration measures for the Berry Brown House. Possibly at the next meeting they will provide an application for the restoration of the former residence. Ms. McCoy is creating a 14 "x17" water color painting of the house. Ms. McCoy passed around historic photos and information about the house, noting she needs additional time for the review of contractor bids to restore the house. She further stated, she would like to restore the house with decorative trim (gingerbread) based on the original design from the 18Ws. McCoy explained the historic detailing and colors of the interior. Ms. Crampton discussed the costs up to $42,000 to restore the exterior, and the costs to restore the porch, up to $30,000. Mr. Koen stated that he appreciates the work to improve the aesthetics of the building. Chairperson Graham recommended not to modify the porch beyond the characteristics of the original design. Ms. Thueson further added that an applicant/owner can't after the original style when it is clearly documented. Ms. McCoy noted the house is not a Sears or Montgomery Ward catalogue house as originally believed by many In the community. She is also studying the history of the neighborhood. Ms. Gagn6 checked her THC listing to find the Berry Brown House is not listed as a THC designated house, though is listed as a City Landmark. 1411 Garfield — City Building Inspection staff explained to the applicant exposed rafters can't be covered since Its part of the historic architectural design of the house and a metal roof would require discussion with Planning and Landmark Commission. Ms. Gagn6 spoke with the contractors and stated it was okay, however, to proceed with installation of a replacement composition roof. Chairperson Graham stated the Design Guidelines do not mention allowance for metal roofing. She does not recommend metal roofing - not appropriate for certain districtatindividual buildings. Ms. Howcroft stated there should be some flexibility in the Design Guidelines with the use of materials since technology of materials keeps evolving - to produce aesthetics that does not replicate, for example, a metallic finish. landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page s c) Articles do Periodicals Ms. Gagn6 discussed the September/October Preservation periodical, which includes several interesting preservation articles. d) Upcoming Meetings - City Council: October le — 8:30 am (pending receipt of final document from HHM, Inc. by September 29 Next Landmark Commission Meeting: October 25"' —12 pm V ADJOURN Chairperson Graham adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. Chairperson Graham Date Landmark Commission September 27, 2011 Page 9