Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 04/25/2011MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC FORUM FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES HARDY - HECK - MOORED INC. APRIL 25, 2011 IN MEMBERS PRESENT: RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Christy Graham, Chairperson S ■ Members Marilyn Carper !DATE - - - - - -- _ ■ Cindy Cotton BY: A TIME: - I' -3 f P '^^ ■ Stacie Flood ■ Andy Lee ■ Diane Thueson ■ Councilor Michael Smith, Council Liaison ■ Norman Standerfer, Director of Community Development ■ staff Karen Montgomery- Gagn6, Planner III ■ Leo Bethge, Planner II ■ ATTENDEES: Johnny Combs ■ Cadana Fitch ■ Jerry & Amy Hafley ■ Charles Harper ■ Susan Koch ■ Cynthia Laney, Downtown Wichita Falls Development, Inc. ■ Carolyn Looney ■ David Moore, Principal, HHM, Inc. ■ Emily Payne, Architectural Historian, HHM, Inc. ■ Marvin Policky ■ Rebecca Rosales ■ ABSENT: John Kidwell ■ Members Michael Koen ■ Scott Stillson ■ Steve Wood ■ Ms. Gagn6 opened the public forum at 5:35 p.m. She provided a brief introduction recognizing the Landmark Commission members, Councilor Michael Smith and city staff present, along with introducing Mr. David Moore, Principal, and Emily Payne, Architectural Historian, of Hardy- Heck - Moore, Inc., the consultants that will draft revisions to the City's Design Guidelines. She summarized the reason for the forum and why design guidelines are important — they protect the city's historic and architectural resources. The proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines will enhance peoples understanding. These guidelines will address exterior alterations to buildings that are visible from the public right of way, or Landmark Commission Design Guideline Public Forum Page 1 April 25, 2011 within a setting of a historic district. She further mentioned the loss of two important buildings in the city that were recently tom down -The Women's Place YWCA and the Priddy House. These two buildings were demolished because they were not designated. The owner of the Priddy House did not have proper resources to maintain or to salvage the building. The Place was tom down for the First Baptist parking lot. Mr. Moore provided a brief introduction - noting HHM came to hear from the public. HHM, Inc. has been in business for three decades, worked in fifty states, and inventoried 150,000 buildings. Ms. Payne provided a brief scope of the design guidelines. She stated HHM will address issues such as a re- analysis of the design guidelines, how to "reverse" poor alterations, landscaping features, building additions (residential and commercial), new construction in historic districts, other city design guidelines and tax incentives. Ms. Payne further added a quick presentation of topics that will be mentioned in the design guidelines, such as landscaping, lighting, exterior wall textures, foundations, porches, roofs and materials, windows, doors, garages, storefronts and signage. She stated HHM would be in Wichita Falls during the week taking pictures and gathering information. The draft document will be completed in August, and September the final document will be completed. She further stated HHM will provide a balance between the feedback from the public (based on the questionnaire and forum comments) and the standards setforth by the National Park Service. Funding for this project is through the Texas Historical Commission (THC) and city matching funds from the City of Wichita Falls, a Certified Local Government (CLG), meeting the eligibility to apply for project funds. HHM will follow the guidelines of THC, yet be flexible enough based on the issues expressed through the public forum and questionnaire. Graphics, such as illustrations, will be incorporated. Before conducting field work, HHM wanted to hear from the public of issues and concerns. The first issue Ms. Payne discussed with the existing guidelines was the use of metal roofs. Chairperson Graham raised the concern of maintaining the historic integrity, for example, of Spanish revival roofs. Ms. Carper stated that if the Landmark Commission received a request for a metal roof missing where it was not previously in place in a residential district it would be turned down. Ms. Thueson followed up, stating the Commission needs to know the minimum standards from the Section of the Interior. Ms. Payne noted HHM will state in the guidelines the minimum standards for rehabilitation. Ms. Thueson followed up, stating the city will not force a home owner to rebuild a porch, cupola or other architectural features. The public raised the issue of consistency. Commission members stated problems with no enforcement of the design guidelines. Ms. Susan Koch noted the changes to the documents in 2003 essentially removed any penalties for violating the design guidelines. Attendees asked what the consequences are if the Design Guidelines are not enforced. Ms. Payne stated these guidelines are not intended to be a Historic Preservation Ordinance but may lead to the Commission revising the ordinance. Ms. Carper reiterated the city ordinance and building codes are what need to be enforced first, and not just the recommendation of a Neighborhood Association, or even the Landmark Commission. Ms. Payne stated she will cross - reference other city guidelines and the building code for additional support, and to ensure consistency. Landmark Commission Design Guideline Public Forum Page 2 April 25, 2011 Another issue mentioned was fencing. Ms. Cotton mentioned there is no front yard fencing in the West Floral Heights District. This is an issue of concern for the neighborhood — particularly with rental properties. Fencing is not spelled -out in the current Design Guidelines and needs to be addressed. Chairperson Graham mentioned she wanted to restore a downtown building from the 1890's. She wants to use an affordable alternative for stone. She feels the design guidelines need to address the use of "like- materials" and the cost- effectiveness of using alternative materials. For example, using cast stone versus carved stone. Ms. Payne stated the guidelines can address the type and use of materials, in relation to using historic materials. Mr. Moore mentioned preservation of wood frame houses, such as using vinyl or hardy plank siding versus preservation of the original for historic accuracy - for the sake of good aesthetics. Ms. Carper stated home owners should maintain the original look. Attendees discussed this issue at length and agreed this is a fair compromise. As for windows — keep the fenestration the same. Ms. Cotton stated that the use of historic windows does not always meet city code. Home owners can't always afford custom built windows. Ms. Payne stated Building Inspection /Code Enforcement needs to review the Historic Preservation Ordinance, to see if there are any exemptions available. Ms. Gagn6 recalled a situation when a home owner wanted to use a custom window builder to replace one window. However, since the window did not have a manufactured certified energy code stamp it failed to meet the city's minimum building code requirements. This caused a problem for the homeowner and the Landmark Commisfon. Ms. Carper stated there needs to be something in the guidelines to address this situation. Mr. Standerfer, Community Development Director, recommended a "code solution" to go around the energy code for historic buildings, or a way to address the American Disabilities Act (ADA) for code compliance reasons. Chairperson Graham stated the guidelines need to separate commercial and institutional related buildings, from residential. The use of masonry is common for most commercial buildings. Ms. Payne also stated that buildings that are at or over fifty years of age can be nominated as historic, which now includes many additional buildings, such as those in Parker Square. "Recent" historic structures from the 1950s/1 960s may be overlooked. Chairperson Graham stated the guidelines need to also address how to properly fix failing masonry party walls that separate buildings in the downtown area. Mr. Lee added the same concern about failing party walls since these failures will affect the integrity of the fagade, and the status of contributing versus non - contributing buildings. In addition, new buildings (infill) being constructed in downtown, need to match the existing buildings, to aesthetically tie all buildings together. Ms. Thueson stated the revised guidelines should not use local examples of poor preservation. Ms. Payne stated they will use line drawings instead of actual photos of poor examples to ensure no one is offended. Landmark Commission Design Guideline Public Forum Page 3 April 25, 2011 El Mr. Moore stated he is not sure if the guidelines are the right tool to address many of these concems, as compared to using the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Gagn6 stated the guidelines will address consistency in design, and how the guidelines are applied. Ms. Carper stated there is nothing in the guidelines to address new construction. Based on this, Mr. Moore asked the public about city improvements, and if brick streets are important - if intersection improvements make any difference. Chairperson Graham stated that beautification of downtown is needed, to help in revitalizing the area. This needs to be looked into. Ms. Laney, Director, Downtown Wichita Falls Development, Inc., stated major work on infrastructure (utilities) for the three downtown intersections along 8t' Street was necessary to help with long term development. Mr. Moore further questioned institutional buildings, if they should have different guidelines. The public requested additional clarification. Some of the members of the Landmark Commission stated this category could include the state hospital, schools, churches, the Memorial Auditorium and federal buildings (post office). Ms. Gagn6 stated these public buildings are addressed in the brochure, to create an interest Ms. Thueson mentioned the preservation of the existing windows in the Memorial Auditorium. The City will be installing interior plate glass windows to improve energy efficiency. This will protect the existing windows and create a thermal barrier. Ms. Gagn6 further mentioned about accessibility for the disabled. ADA compliance was required by court order for the Kell House Museum which may also impact other designated landmarks. Ms. Payne, in summary, asked the attendees to respond by filling out the questionnaire, and providing a copy to their neighbors. Ms. Gagn6 added the questionnaire will also be accessible on the city's website. All responses need to be completed and returned no later than May 20th. Mr. Johnny Combs, a member of the public, asked about a follow -up meeting. Ms. Payne stated there will be a draft prepared and review process in working with Ms. Gagn6 and the Landmark Commission. She further stated this document will need to be presented to City Council for review and eventually for adoption either via resolution or ordinance. There will be additional opportunities for review before approval and enforcement. Ms. Gagn6 thanked Mr. Moore and Ms. Payne for their time and for hearing the concerns expressed by the public. The public forum ended at 6:50 p.m. Chairperson GVaham Date Landmark Commission Design Guideline Public Forum Page 4 April 25, 2011