Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 10/11/2007� MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION October 11, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Dowdy, Chairperson Cindy Cotton Stacie Flood Ron Fox Christy Graham Jan Schaaf Pat Sullivan Dianne Thueson CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date 42- Jl,*j 64 By SLT Time //: 00 ml Councilor Charles Elmore David A. Clark, Director, Community Development Karen Montgomery-Gagne John Rudisill, Applicant 1409 Garfield ABSENT: Michael Collins ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • Council Liaison • Staff ■ ■ U1�1� 'Jf G' 'il DU I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dowdy called the special Commission meeting to order at 4:05pm after a quorum of members was obtained. II. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW REGARDING SIDING — 1409 GARFIELD Chairperson Dowdy requested staff update the Commission regarding 1409 Garfield. Ms. Gagne explained the applicant, Mr. Rudisill, initially contacted Ms. Cotton and the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Design Committee and he was referred to the Landmark Commission with a request to cover the wooden clapboard exterior with siding. Staff met with Mr. Rudisill onsite to to look at the house and provide a design review application. Planning staff worked with the applicant, who was only in Wichita Falls for a limited timeframe to fix the house, and contacted Commission members to arrange a special called meeting to discuss the proposed alterations. Councilor Elmore questioned the type of replacement siding — metal, vinyl or aluminum? Mr. Rudisill stated he hadn't selected a style but would likely install vinyl since it can withstand hail. Councilor Elmore explained the various pros and cons of siding styles and added the lap siding in 3" width would be most similar to the existing materials. The applicant explained the house was in disrepair after the previous tenant and he was trying to improve the structure, make it more energy efficient with insulation to reduce the high utility bills. He noted sections of the wooden siding are rotten with patches of foam insulation to fill gaps visible from the interior and the home was repainted when he purchased it 2- 3years prior but it's flaking off. Chairperson Dowdy asked for comments from other Commission members before outlining his concerns. Mr. Fox questioned if the property was contributing to the District? Staff indicated 1409 Garfield was considered contributing to the District with original construction in 1926 with a later alteration to enclose a portion of the porch. The house to the north (1407) is covered in textured vinyl and was classified as non - contributing - there are numerous other houses in the Landmark Commission October 11, 2007 page 1 District that existed at the time of designation (2005) with vinyl /aluminum siding including 1501 07 Garfield, 1605 Buchanan, etc. Councilor Elmore asked about standards for historic materials. Mr. Dowdy referenced the Secretary of the Interior Standards, it states materials should not be replaced if possible but rather repaired. He provided copies of this information for Commission members prior to the meeting. Ms. Thueson commented, ideally according to the minimum Standards you try to identify what are original materials and replace them. If you know what is original to the structure it is not okay to replace it with other styles because you knew what was used from the beginning. She added this situation is a grey area. Mr. Fox asked if the applicant hired a contractor when the home was repainted. Mr. Rudisill stated a contractor was originally hired but then found out how much it would cost and he hired someone else to paint the house. He added he was trying to improve the house and didn't want it to be the ugliest home on the block. In 2005, Mr. Rudisill stated he spent tremendous money and time painting and repairing the exterior of the house and now only 2years later have to pay $2,000 for high quality paint and do the same process all over again is not feasible financially. Ms. Graham inquired about the front addition and the mismatching clapboard siding on the rear portion of the house. The applicant stated if he resided the house the style would be a uniform pattern without some pieces horizontal and others vertical. Ms. Thueson questioned if the architectural details visible in the photos and on a site visit would be retained. Mr. Rudisill questioned any significance or unique details on the house other than the scroll and area around the front vent. Ms. Graham questioned if the scrolls on the soffit would be covered? Mr. Rudisill stated yes and the scrolls around the windows are deteriorating, the windows will not be changed. Mr. Fox cautioned the applicant with the replacement process because if a free hand is given to siding contractors the entire exterior will be covered and no detail will remain, including the round oculus for the attic vent, the scrolls, etc. He added the exposed rafters are a unique design to the house and again questioned if a free hand or guidance would be given during the siding installation? Mr. Rudisill stated that the scrolls and scalloped rafters were in poor condition. Ms. Thueson raised a question for the Commission regarding their intent to hold to the minimum Standards set by the Secretary of the Interior. When the District was originally designated this wasn't done because some houses already covered with aluminum /vinyl siding shouldn't have been accepted as `contributing' to the character of the District. This is now an issue for the Commission to address because the District is in place and there's a mix of houses with aluminum /vinyl vs. wooden /asbestos siding — so how are the standards applied today. In the future any application for a district designation needs to be reviewed more thoroughly so contributing structures are only those that meet the minimum Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Clark stated he didn't completely agree with Ms. Thueson because the front of 1409 Garfield was redone years prior and not original. He believed the intent of City Council when the documents /policies were previously updated and at the point of designation, people who were interested in siding their homes could do that when the District was designated because homes existing with siding. Mr. Clark added the design elements must be maintained and in his opinion if the dentil, rafters (sides & front) and gables remained untouched and small band siding, horizontal style siding were added it would be acceptable. Mr. Rudisill reiterated the house is not energy efficient and holes are visible through sections of the walls — insulation is necessary. Mr. Dowdy commented on Ms. Thueson's statement that there are homes in the District considered contributing that never should have been placed on the list. He added any design review issue that arises in the District shouldn't result in the Secretary of the Interior Standards being watered down to fix the situation. He suggested the District needs to be re- addressed through reassessing which buildings are classified as contributing vs. non - contributing. Ms. Graham asked Mr. Dowdy & Ms. Thueson if this house should be non - contributing. Both Ms. Thueson and Mr. Dowdy agreed they wouldn't have placed 1409 Garfield as a contributing structure. Mr. Fox questioned their comment, noting bad design decisions years prior doesn't knock a property out of contributing status today. Ms. Thueson stated the addition makes the Landmark Commission October 11, 2007 page 2 house non - contributing. Mr. Dowdy used the Holt rehabilitation project as an example - its alterations in the 1950's with the exterior modifications are technically over 50years old but are not historically significant, however, the building is still worthy of a designation. A project can still be contributing but if the overall changes alter the total character it can knock a building off the contributing category. Mr. Dowdy said it is inappropriate to make a building 'appear' more detailed to create historic presence. Ms. Thueson explained the need to assess each house individually. Mr. Clark noted there have been many requests for siding over the years and Mr. Dowdy said in some cases it was considered appropriate. Commission members discussed design review issues relating to replacement siding and Chairperson Dowdy stated that the Commission must view each siding request on a case -by -case basis. Ms. Thueson explained from her experience with the National Trust, if the house is situated in a Nationally Designated District it would not be acceptable to cover it with vinyl /aluminum siding. Councilor Elmore said it is important that older houses are preserved in Wichita Falls and care should be taken to replace materials with similar materials — it was better to save a house than allow it to fall into disrepair. Mr. Fox and Ms. Graham referred to the paperwork Mr. Dowdy sent to Commission members, noting three conditions for consideration and in their opinion the project met two. Mr. Rudisill informed Commission members of 5 houses in close proximity with vinyl /aluminum siding and he was simply trying to. repair the exterior of his house but it is all based on economics. He said it's unreasonable to spend $30,000 on a house valued at $75,000 that already had a new roof and new interior. Mr. Rudisill re- emphasized he'd already been through the repair route and the exterior was still deteriorated wood and if it's repainted it won't prevent the wood from rotting and causing future damage to the interior with freezing pipes due to lack of insulation. Mr. Fox suggested using insulated siding to provide additional insulating benefit. Ms. Graham recommended the Commission make 1409 Garfield a non - contributing structure. Chairperson Dowdy stated that was not the solution — the onus is on the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association, the original applicant, to re- evaluate the District per the Secretary of the Interior Standards to develop a revised list of all contributing and non - contributing properties within the District. Ms. Cotton, Neighborhood representative to the Commission, stated she would have listed 1409 Garfield as a contributing structure. Mr. Rudisill asked if someone could define contributing and non - contributing. Ms. Cotton stated contributing properties are integral parts of the historic context and character of a historic district. Ms. Thueson commented the Board and Batten style was typically a 1970's/80's process which is probably general timeframe for the addition which does not contribute to the historic character of the house. Mr. Dowdy stated the addition had similar materials and details. Chairperson Dowdy called for a motion to address the application. Mr. Fox outlined a concern with allowing replacement siding because it may be installed over all the architectural details, including the columns, scrolls, rafters, oculus, etc. Contractors usually just want to finish a job; the owner has to ensure the details are not covered. Commission members asked Mr. Fox if he would accept vinyl siding if details were maintained. Mr. Fox indicated he would be in favor of siding within limits and had questions about the "OG" styled downspouts /gutters. Mr. Rudisill stated the downspouts /gutters would remain on the house and were limited to the south /front facades. Planning staff outlined the various options (approve, deny or approve with conditions) available for determining the application outcome. Mr. Fox introduced a motion to allow replacement vinyl siding with the following provisions: 1) that the scroll board, oculus, trim around the windows, exposed eaves /rafters be retained; 2) siding shall be a narrow, horizontal clapboard style siding; 3) corner board elements shall be retained but can be wrapped with siding; 4) O.G. gutters and round downspouts are to be retained; 5) wood frames on windows shall be retained; 6) frieze board molding shall be retained; and Landmark Commission October 11, 2007 page 3 7) gables shall retain the wider, clapboard style siding. Ms. Thueson seconded the motion with provisions. Mr. Fox amended the motion with two types of siding on the rear (wider siding on the gable vs. frieze board) be maintained as separate styles when covered with the new siding in the same profile. Ms. Flood seconded the amendment to the original motion. Members unanimously approved the original and amended motion. Chairperson Dowdy thanked Mr. Rudisill for attending the meeting and improving /reinvesting in the property. He added retention of the above mentioned architectural details will preserve unique character of 1409 Garfield and continue to add value to the West Floral Heights neighborhood. Mr. Rudisill when he could start the project and if there would be paperwork outlining the items not to be covered by siding. Ms. Gagne stated staff would have a letter prepared the next day outlining all the provisions. Mr. Rudisill stated the new siding would maintain uniformity in style (width and horizontal pattern) to replicate the wooden boards. III. OTHER BUSINESS a Progress Report - West Floral Heights District Update — Ms. Cotton indicated there's a lot of activity within the District and directing people for design review when necessary. b Other Business — Mr. Clark commented on the increasing level of activity in the West Floral Heights Historic District the decision reached by Commission for 1409 Garfield and stated it was very appropriate, he didn't believe City Council's intention was to limit people from being able to put siding on residential buildings. Ms. Graham and Ms. Cotton were still concerned with listing additional properties in West Floral Heights District as 'non- contributing' due to issues that may arise in the future (eg. property owners thinking design review isn't required for their properties and potential for inappropriate and unapproved alterations, etc.) Planning staff noted properties situated within the designated district will be subject to design review whether contributing or non - contributing. Mr. Dowdy commented he understood the concern from Commission members about potential interpretation among property owners of an inconsistent application of standards when design review is applied on a case -by -case basis, particularly if they don't understand the concept of contributing vs. non - contributing to the historic character. Ms. Thueson stated the standards applied to our districts may be viewed as substandard to other districts in the country. If the West Floral Heights neighborhood District were reviewed by an outside person following national standards, vinyl /aluminum siding is not considered acceptable to meet minimum standards. She added the point of a historic district is that it maintains its' historic value. Mr. Fox noted from some of his architect projects, the National Park Service has used vinyl in some limited circumstances. Ms. Thueson stated that it's changed in order to deal with the siding issue — the house could be repaired — it comes down to cost and time. Most homeowners aren't willing to spend the money to replace the wood siding, scrape and repaint an entire house. An example within the District (1401 Grant) is a 2 -story wooden house professionally repainted a few years ago and it's adhering well because it was done properly (investment of $30,000) with a special chemical mixed into the paint to seal the wood. Chairperson Dowdy noted setting up for future design review problems if the Commission maintains 'loosely' defined standards that are adhered to loosely. IV. ADJOURN The Commission adjourned the meeting at 5:38 pm. i Ken Dowdy, Chairperson Dat6 Landmark Commission October 11, 2007 page 4