Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 05/24/2011RECEIVED IN GITY MINUTES ""'t OFFICE __� LANDMARK COMMISSION D TE: BY. TIME: n MAY 24, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Christy Graham, Chairperson ■ Members Stacie Flood ■ John Kidwell ■ Scott Stillson ■ Steve Wood ■ Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner I I I ■ staff Leo Bethge, Planner II ■ GUESTS: James Wetherbee ■ Collin Johnson ■ ABSENT: Marilyn Carper ■ Members Cindy Cotton ■ Michael Koen ■ ® Andy Lee ■ Diane Thueson ■ Councilor Michael Smith, Council Liaison ■ Norman Standerfer, Director of Community Development ■ staff I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chairperson Graham opened the Landmark Commission meeting at 12:20 p.m. after obtaining quorum. In attendance were Mr. James Wetherbee, owner of 1300 Tilden, and his designer/builder, Mr. Collin Johnson. II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 29th & APRIL 26th, 2011 Chairperson Graham requested the Commission review both the April 25th and April 26°i meeting minutes. Ms. Flood motioned to approve the April 25th and April 261, 2011 Landmark Commission minutes as presented, motion seconded by Mr. Wood. Motion passed unanimously. 111. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW — 1300 TILDEN (Cabana, pool & flowerigarden building) Ms. Gagn6 introduced the applicant, Mr. James Wetherbee, owner of 1300 Tilden, and his designer/builder, Mr. Collin Johnson. She explained even though the proposed cabana, pool and flower /garden building (potting shed) will be located in the rear yard behind the fence, they will still be visible from three streets — 10th, Hayes and Avenue D. In order to be consistent, she felt this matter should be brought to the Landmark Commission for review and approval. Ms. Gagn6 signed -off for the ground work associated with the swimming pool since it will not be visible with the existing brick fence. She referred members to the plat and sketch for the proposed structures and uses for the site, along with discussing the landscape design sketch for the pool and cabana. Mr. Landmark Commission May 24, 2011 Page 1 Johnson stated the buildings will match the house brick, to be laid in a Flemish bond, and accented with stone. The cabana building will feature arches since it will be an open, except for the restroom. The roof, however, will not consist of the same green tile roof as the house. Mr. Johnson explained he will use a green standing steel seam roof which will create the same profile as the house roof. He agreed, as the designer, the cabana roof should match as closely as possible with the original house roof style. Mr. Kidwell questioned the height of the existing fence. Mr. Johnson stated the fence is 6 feet tall and will seem higher based on the elevation of the area. In comparison, the height of the cabana roof is planned at 15 feet. Mr. Wetherbee noted the rear fence line is slightly taller at 7 feet. Mr. Wood questioned the standing seam roof, if they had considered a composite slate roof. Mr. Johnson recommended the use of original materials, to complement the 1920s design and materials of copper and bronze, but noted the cost difference was astronomical. The new roofing system will comprise the same look - to include linear standing seams every 3 feet. He further stated the potting shed will also reflect the cabana roof, just at a smaller size of 8 feet x 12 feet. Ms. Gagn6 concluded that she appreciated working with Mr. Wetherbee and Mr. Johnson. The level of application detail and submittal of plans prior to the Commission's review was both helpful and very much appreciated. Mr. Kidwell motioned to approve the plan, as presented, by the applicant and designer/builder. Mr. Stillson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wetherbee thanked the Commission and explained he wanted to ensure the new construction matched the historic house. He stated his family really enjoys the house. IV. REVIEW, DISCUSS & COMMENT — SECTION 106 REVIEW — proposal to alter the antennalequipment mounted to the Attebury grain elevator to enable Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless technology Chairperson Graham reviewed the Section 106 request from the consultant to alter the antennas and equipment mounted on top of the Attebury grain elevator. Ms. Gagn6 stated the consultant, ® GSS, Inc. Integrated Environmental Solution, just returned her phone request for more information prior to this meeting. A company representative stated US Cellular will add two new antennas and replace one. In sum, there will be five antennas at a height of 8 feet tall. She stated, per the letter provided by GSS, the modifications are intended to enable Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless broadband technology. The modifications will be consistent with the antennas currently mounted on the grain elevator, with no significant visual impact to the structure, or to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Gagn6 stated the Attebury grain elevator is not designated as a historic structure, though the building has been in existence for decades. She asked if the Commission had any comments since she is required to follow up with the consultant. Mr. Stillson questioned if the ratio of the height of the structure will be consistent with the height of the antennas. Mr. Wood commented that is the case and part of the reason supporting a need for more comprehensive design guidelines — currently the Commission doesn't have authority to limit such antennas since then: are no limitations for ratios to building width. Ms. Flood questioned if these antennas were similar to the antennas on the Hamilton Building. Members discussed and agreed this was a similar situation. Mr. Wood motioned to approve the Section 106 Review for the location of two new antennas and one replacement on the Attebury grain elevators. Mr. Kidwell seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. UPDATE & DISCUSSION REGARDING CLG PROJECT — DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE, QUESTIONNAIRES, AND QUARTERLY REPORT SUBMITTAL Ms. Gagn6 provided copies of the grant quarterly update for THC reporting of progress with HHM, Inc. Meetings were held in February along with a public forum in April combined with a Landmark Commission meeting to obtain feedback from the public and conduct field work. As of May 23rd the Planning Division had received 36 completed design review questionnaires. The Commission discussed how they could obtain additional feedback by working with other organizations and Landmark Commission May 24, 2011 Page 2 committees through the city. Mr. Kidwell stressed the use of the city webpage to gain better responses. Ms. Gagn6 stated Ms. Payne from HHM has not contacted the Planning Division yet, so there is still time remaining to receive a few additional responses. Ms. Gagn6 discussed how the revised International Existing Building Code (IEBC) related to the revised design guidelines, i.e., ADA compliance and Building Codes. She stressed time is of the essence in this review since the matter goes to City Council on June 21t. The committee reviewing the proposed draft of the IEBC is considering retaining the date of 1936, or prior, when a house could be considered as "historic." She recommended additional information be incorporated into the draft of the energy code section to address window replacements in historic properties. She is currently in discussion with the city attorney in re- constructing a broad statement, as recommended by the Texas Historical Commission (THC), to address revisions to the proposed IEBC Code adoption as it relates to historic structures. This broad statement is from an excerpt of Chapter 34, from the 2000 version of the IBC, which states the following: "The provisions of this Code relating to the construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration, and movement of structures, and changes of occupancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings, where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard." Ms. Flood stated there is no review process for historic places nominated for the National Register, i.e., possibly the Morningside neighborhood. Mr. Stillson questioned how to define "distinct life safety hazard." Mr. Wood responded, by not jeopardizing the health and safety standards of the city (Fire Department/Building Code). Ms. Gagn6 stated she wanted to give Building Inspection latitude for building review, however, residents get caught in the middle between Landmark requirements and Code compliance, incorporating this statement from THC /IBC can "bridge" the Code gap on how to address historic buildings. Chairperson Graham stated a building, or district, needs to be nominated first — to be designated, such as with Depot Square. What's important here is downtown buildings still need to follow fire safety standards. Mr. Wood added historic buildings need to comply with the revised IEBC, based on the recommendation of the building official, and yet the question is how to address the needs of the design guidelines to better preserve historic buildings. Ms. Gagne discussed the future name of the design guidelines. Ms. Flood referenced the names of other cities that have adopted design guidelines. Mr. Wood stated property owners will need to comply with the local design guidelines, so it should be called that. Ms. Gagn6 requested clarification from the Commission for naming the report "City of Wichita Falls Design Guidelines' Members were in agreement. Ms. Flood addressed a concern, if a building is not designated as historic by a certain timeframe, it would defeat the purpose of the revised building code, such as the energy code as it relates to new windows. Ms. Gagn6 added that planning staff is not involved in re -writing the building code, though has raised concerns about adding a date to better address the inclusion of historic buildings, i.e., 1936 or prior, or if the building retains a national, state or local designation. Ms. Flood recommended a revised date of 1945 to include buildings constructed up to the end of the World War II era, prior to the start of home pre - fabrication, and/or national, state or local designations. She further mentioned The Secretary of the Interior standards state any building fifty years or older could be nominated. Ms. Gagn6 noted this may be an issue if the 50 -year clause is used since that date is 1961. The city attorney may not allow this since the majority of the city's housing stock was built prior to 1961. Mr. Stillson questioned the date of 1936, or prior, for the jurisdiction of the Landmark Commission. Mr. Wood stated that any building built after 1936, or 1945, would then need to comply with the revised IEBC, i.e., the revised energy code as it relates to the use of new windows. Mr. Wood continued, by noting he's concerned with how the building official, according to the broad THC statement, will define or override this statement In summary, Ms. Gagn6 stated the Commission recommended incorporating the date of 1945 while maintaining a clause "and/or if designated historic" rather than using the 50 -year historic timeframe. She will re -draft this Landmark Commission May 24, 2011 Page 3 0 r� statement and incorporate the 1945 date and forward to the city attorney and building official for the revised IEBC. She summarized the re- drafting of the THC statement, as she hoped to avoid another home owner getting caught up in the building code issue if opting to use local craftsman in order to retain the original aesthetics of a historic building. Members were in agreement that there needs to be a "clause" incorporated into the City's adopted Building Codes that authorizes the Chief Building Official latitude to interpret the various Codes for designated, historic structures — as long as no health/safety issues are violated. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Gagn6 discussed the Downtown Denton Rehabilitation Tips, noted in one of the hand -outs as additional rehab information. She stated there is no meeting in July, though another public forum will be scheduled for either late July or August. She recommended for the Landmark Commission to review the draft of the design guidelines and discuss at the June Landmark Commission meeting prior to the next public forum. She further asked the Commission if they had any pending projects of interest to submit for the FY 2012 grant application round. THC had requested 'Letters of Intent" from all CLG communities by July 31'd (such as revising the Preservation Plan - completed in 1982) if interested in applying for a grant. The historic resource inventory is used to identify buildings worth saving and the Wichita Falls plan is overdue for an update. THC recommends communities update their plans every 10 -15 years. Members were in agreement with requesting funds for a Preservation Plan update. Ms. Gagn6 provided a Texas Legislative update noting the House Appropriations Committee retained a basic level of funding for THC. The next step is to see if the Governor will also retain these same funding levels or a portion as part of the final state budget. r There were no updates from the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association. Ms. Gagn6 provided a copy of an article expressing the mission of Habitat for Humanity, as provided by Ms. Flood. The article is from The Forum Journal, a periodical the Wichita County Heritage Society receives. VII. ADJOURN Chairperson Graham stated the next regular meeting is scheduled for June 2e at 12:00 p.m. She adjourned the meeting at 1:28 p.m. 6A4*;� J.�4� Chairperson graham 4 -m7 Date Landmark Commission May 24, 2011 Page 4