Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/20/2007.CA MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Dowdy, Chairperson Cindy Cotton Stacie Flood Ron Fox Christy Graham Pat Sullivan Dianne Thueson MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION September 20, 2007 CLERK'S OFFICE Date ;-/, Jh-64 0 V By � � Time 60 Councilor Charles Elmore David A. Clark, Director, Community Development Karen Montgomery-Gagne ABSENT: Michael Collins Jan Schaaf ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • Council Liaison • Staff ■ ■ ■ I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dowdy called the meeting to order at 3:12pm after a quorum of members was obtained. II. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF JUNE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dowdy called for review and approval of the July 26th, 2007 meeting minutes. Ms. Flood introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW REGARDING CARPORT —1405 HAYES Chairperson Dowdy requested staff update the Commission regarding 1405 Hayes. Ms. Gagne explained the existing carport was installed prior to any design review and without permits from the Building Inspection Division. The issue was initially discussed at the July meeting with a Commission recommendation requesting the Building Inspection office contact the property owner (Mr. Cowman) indicating a design review application would be required before Commission members would issue a determination of appropriateness. Both Planning and Building Inspection staff worked with Mr. Cowman to explain the design review process and a permit could not be issued until the Commission had reviewed the carport. Subsequently, Mr. Cowman submitted a design review application mid - September for the carport to be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cowman indicated he started numerous renovations around the time of District designation and didn't realize that a homeowner required a building permit to conduct work on their own house. He stated he built the carport and ensured that it was not within the front yard setback so a conditional use permit was not an issue. Staff commented when the sidewalk was replaced and permits were pulled for the work no permits were on file for the carport construction. Mr. Cowman further stated that over the course of 1- 2years he'd spent close to $18,000 in improvements and Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 1 the Association President at that time (Mr. James Wetherbee) congratulated him for the work on the carport. The owner implied no one from the neighborhood informed him that design review approval was required. Mr. Cowman added Best Electric was hired to install the light in the carport almost 1 year + 1 month ago. He added the carport and light were built to deter vandals because his vehicles were broken into in the driveway and the insurance papers stolen. Chairperson Dowdy asked staff the date of District designation. Staff responded City Council designated West Floral Heights Historic District in January 2005. Mr. Cowman asked when the property owner forms were signed - staff indicated their form was signed June 15, 2004. Ms. Cowman stated they are being singled -out, considering the amount of work done to improve the property and yet no one else in the block has improved their properties. Both Chairperson Dowdy and Ms. Cotton replied no one is singling out 1405 Hayes to pick on people — the Commission and Neighborhood Review Committee only review exterior modifications and certain modifications to the buildings trigger design review. Mr. Cowman stated when the District was designated they never received any literature and didn't attend any neighborhood meetings so had no idea what was going to be required after the District was created. Mr. Cowman added they only knew about the proposal to designate the area because in 2004 he was doing yard work and a neighbor approached them with the petition to create the Historic District. Ms. Sullivan questioned the District liaison (Ms. Cotton) if the information dissemination had changed? Ms. Cotton said the neighborhood association prepares a monthly newsletter and conducts monthly meetings to try and educate the residents about the Design Review Guidelines and what triggers the review process. Mr. Cowman stated he drove through the neighborhood and found work being done by contractors and didn't see any permits posted. Ms. Cotton responded many people don't post permits in their windows because they don't realize it's a requirement. Mr. Clark interjected the City is more concerned about a building permit being obtained rather than placing the permit in a visible location. When inspectors are in the field and see work being done, they can call the office and check to see if a permit was purchased. He added that at this point, the process needs to move on and determine how the situation can be resolved. Ms. Cotton referenced an email message sent to Commission members with concerns from the Neighborhood group and she also reiterated the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association is different than the Historic District. Mr. Fox questioned the distance alterations were from the property line and if the fascia would be altered. Mr. Cowman stated Mr. Manuel Soto from Building Inspection came to the property and worked with him to determine what needed to be altered. He added City Code allows for 2ft overhang from the setback. Mr. Dowdy stated carport posts must be 3ft inside the property line and there is allowance for 1ft overhang from posts. Mr. Clark questioned Commission members if they had design issues with the carport and does it meet with their criteria for what is considered appropriate in the District? Mr. Fox commented if the columns are required by City Code to be moved then the edge should be altered at the same time, otherwise the design can remain the same. Ms. Graham stated aesthetically she had no problems with the carport design but concerned about the precedent it may set in the District. Ms. Sullivan commented the carport design was not historical but well built. She added she was hesitant to make this case an example for the District and recommended the carport be changed to comply with all City Codes and move on. Mr. Cowman informed the Commission he'd spoken with neighbors in the 1400 block of Hayes and no one had any issues with the carport and didn't understand why it was a problem with the City. Ms. Graham stated education within the District is critical so property owners understand when design review is required. Ms. Cotton stated the Association could send a letter to all District property owners explaining the design review process. Staff commented the Planning Division could send an annual letter informing District owners of the design review requirements. Commission members were in agreement with staff conducting an annual mailing so property owners are on notice regarding the policies within the District. Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 2 Ms. Graham congratulated the Cowman's on their improvements to the property /house. Chairperson Dowdy called for more discussion, stating if the carport was constructed at the time of District designation in January 2005 — it is now 18 months after designation — that is adequate time for the neighborhood to understand the review requirements. Mr. Dowdy added the City sent paperwork to each property address within the nominated area explaining exterior changes would require review "...improvements or modifications..." and it was outlined in the property owner petition /signature page. Councilor Elmore questioned Commission members regarding the issues with the current carport. Mr. Cowman stated he was still confused about the regulations because carports are still being built and approved — some go through design review and others don't. Chairperson Dowdy stated traditionally, the project doesn't exist and property owners request Design review for proposed construction. The Commission or City staff under administrative authority, review the project based on Secretary of the Interior Standards and he referred to information emailed to Commission members, the Standards state what is important - keeping similar design but not mimicking original construction, it needs to be aesthetically compatible with similar materials and proportions, etc. Mr. Dowdy conducted a field survey and found a number of carports in West Floral Heights and on Hayes Street very much in character with the house and others that were not; in this case the carport design does not fit the character of the house and he suggested the roof should be pitched and not a flat metal roof. Councilor Elmore questioned if Mr. Dowdy would alter the support posts. Mr. Dowdy stated there isn't sufficient space for appropriately designed columns. Councilor Elmore stated he didn't find the carport offensive but if trying to tie the design to the house, the posts and trim should be painted to match the house. Mr. Cowman stated the trim color is khaki and with black shutters on the house the posts were painted black to match. Mr. Dowdy reminded the Commission we don't dictate color to anyone. Mr. Cowman stated this was a mixed income neighborhood ranging from large double lots and 2 -story homes to small bungalow houses. His original plan involved getting bids from contractors to add another story to the house but the lowest bid was $160,000 and the house wasn't worth that kind of investment so the project had to stay within budget. Mr. Dowdy requested Mr. Fox's input on the matter. Mr. Fox stated it was unfortunate the way things turned out but he was concerned if you forgive one you are bound to forgive the next situation. He was inclined to allow the carport based on some mitigating factors, including the owner's sincere effort to do exterior work in keeping with the neighborhood, the care taken to locate the carport and improvements to the house. Ms. Sullivan questioned the applicant, if the neighbor to the north (blue house) had any problems with the carport encroachment. Mr. Cowman responded the neighbor to the north had no issues with the carport and a previous owner built a sunroom years prior on the Cowman's property. Ms. Thueson inquired how the carport had electricity. Mr. Cowman said an electrical wire from the house via a conduit feeds an outdoor electric plug. Ms. Thueson added it was unfortunate this issue wasn't flagged in the beginning but since the owner didn't obtain a building permit it was missed until this summer but not entirely sure the reason for the review. Mr. Fox introduced a motion to bring discussion to a close and vote on the carport, seconded by Ms. Sullivan. Chairperson Dowdy introduced an amended motion to approve the existing carport located at 1405 Hayes Street with the condition that it be altered as required by the City of Wichita Falls Building Code to ensure the carport and setback are in compliance with all City Codes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Graham and all Commission members voted in favor — the motion passed. Mr. Cowman thanked everyone for working with him to resolve the situation. Chairperson Dowdy had one question for the Cowmans — would you sign the nomination petition for the District knowing what you know now? Mr. Cowman responded he would not agree to the nomination petition today he sees benefit from the Association's work raising money for street lights but other than that he still sees people in his block moving in and out of the neighborhood so it hasn't necessarily brought stability. He added concerns maintenance is not occurring as needed Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 3 because people can't afford the changes which affects the value of the area. Mr. Dowdy stated property owners can do many things to their houses that don't add a lot of cost to a project may not even require design review. He hated to think people were of the opinion because they lived in the Historic District it resulted in increased costs. The Commission does not require anyone to invest or spend money on their property, the design guidelines provide a basic framework in the event a property owner chooses to alter the exterior of their buildings and provisions for basic maintenance and repair. IV. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW — 900 BLUFF STREET, KELL HOUSE MUSEUM — ACCESSIBILITY RAMP Staff referred Commission members to the design review application and architects' report in their meeting packets which provided an overview of the request for an exterior accessibility ramp. Ms. Flood, Kell House curator, provided a brief overview of the request and the 3 designs outlined in the Volz & Associates, Inc. Report. Councilor Elmore questioned if the report was to address a wheelchair ramp and Chairperson Dowdy requested additional information to provide background on the issue. Ms. Flood responded she was not able to discuss reasons why this was being presented to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Clark stated it's not an issue why they are requesting design approval but if the proposal is appropriate and fits with the historic building. Mr. Dowdy stated he was under the impression that historic buildings had a requirement to attempt to make them more accessible. Mr. Fox questioned if the alterations are put into place, to what extent does it allow access to the building? Ms. Flood stated it would allow access to the 1St floor of the museum. However, it is a historic building. Mr. Fox inquired about the difference in the 3 design options outlined in the architect's report. Staff and Commission members reviewed each of the three options and cost estimates, which included: 1) concrete ramp with molded steel decorative handles($28,055); 2) concrete ramp with steel pipe hand rails($21,972); or 3) wood ramp with wood handrails($18,558). Members discussed option #2 would look similar to the 10th Street entrance at the U.S. Federal Bldg. /Post Office which detracts from the building. Ms. Thueson commented the cost estimates for the various options seemed very high and questioned why estimates were obtained from a firm in Austin. Ms. Flood stated a local firm would be used and local cost estimates obtained prior to bidding any proposed work. Mr. Fox commented from a historic review perspective, he would be in favor of the steel pipe handrail due to cost but it would detract from the building; wooden rails - insufficient information to make a decision at this time and maintenance would be an issue and the real preference would be the decorative steel rails being closer to the historical context in the absence of more detailed information. Commission members again discussed the cost estimates for the project being very expensive. Ms. Sullivan commented on page 23 of the Report, the architects outline the availability of tax credits for the project and funding sources. Ms. Cotton corrected Ms. Sullivan, noting the funding source list was simply a chronological list of funds received /obtained for Museum operations. Ms. Graham stated if a grant to offset the cost can't be obtained, the Wichita County Heritage Society should consider other estimates or options. Chairperson Dowdy asked what exactly the Commission was reviewing and the selection of an architectural firm from Austin. Ms. Flood reiterated she was not at liberty to state at this time due to a pending case. Mr. Clark asked the Commission which option they'd consider for the handicapped railing /ramp. Mr. Dowdy stated he didn't want to select a 'period' style but rather go with a nondescript style better suited to the building's character. At this point, there isn't sufficient detail in the drawings (cross- sections) to determine a suitable railing. Ms. Cotton raised the issue, if the Commission selects a very intricate, expensive design as a requirement for the project will any funds be provided to help reduce costs? Chairperson Dowdy stated this wasn't the business at hand. Ms. Graham commented the wooden railing would be similar to the front porch spindles and less Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 4 expensive. Chairperson Dowdy noted the Texas Historical Commission would suggest not matching the addition because otherwise it must match exactly. Ms. Sullivan stated the Report had ADA issues with the front porch railings and there are long -term costs with maintaining wood. Mr. Fox stated the Kell House Museum staff would need to indicate what is considered a cost effective solution (ie. concrete vs. wood). Ms. Sullivan noted long -term, wood can be a costly material due to maintenance issues. Ms. Thueson stated ultimately the Kell House Board should present to the Commission their preferred option for consideration rather than Landmarks selecting the best option based on very limited information. Mr. Clark interjected, it appeared Commission members understood the need for a handicapped accessible ramp but the ultimate issue related to concerns with the design and style. He added the design should be simplistic. Ms. Thueson stated the ramp should not be visible from the street (91h /Bluff) and the chosen option needs to be well thought -out particularly if concrete is utilized because it is costly and permanent once poured in place. Ms. Graham recommended a motion considering the significance of installing a handicapped ramp /railing on a historic building the request for design review be sent back to the Kell House Museum Board, requesting the Board select a design option and then submit one recommended design to the Landmark Commission for final review and consideration. Mr. Fox seconded the motion. All members voted with the exception of Ms. Flood who abstained due to conflict of interest. Motion passed unanimously. The Commission recommended obtaining local bids to determine a more realistic cost. Ms. Sullivan recommended Kell House Board members look at the Kemp Center's handicapped accessible ramp as a well- designed example. V. UPDATE & OVERVIEW — DESIGN ITEMS: 6167 th Street — O.B.'s Shop fagade alterations Staff informed members of a new business at 616 7th Street (former Toodles bldg) in the Depot Square Historic District. Staff met with the business owner and explained any alteration to the exterior of the building required design review from the Landmark Commission. Ms. Graham and Ms. Sullivan commented they looked at the building and the exterior changes detract from the downtown and look horrible. Ms. Thueson had issue with the security bars being installed on the exterior of the glass windows. Mr. Dowdy asked if the security bars could be placed on the interior. Ms. Thueson stated the Commission has no authority regarding interior modifications. Ms. Sullivan noted the colored flag banner could be removed but the burglar /security bars were offensive and should be removed. Councilor Elmore added in the Downtown Plan kick -off meeting people mentioned the perception of security being a problem downtown. The bars on the exterior of the windows help perpetuate this perception and if someone wanted to break the glass it could still be done. Ms. Graham had no problem with using the existing sign and simply changing the lettering but the flag banner should be removed in the future. Ms. Thueson agreed it was better to reuse the existing sign but the flags were not in character with the historic district. Ms. Graham stated staff needed to revisit the business owner and explain why the bars need to be removed. Mr. Clark stated this building was part of the City's former fagade easement program developed in the mid- 1990's to encourage property owners' to improve their buildings therefore recorded deed restrictions were put into place for any fagade project that received financial assistance. Chairperson Dowdy stated the installation of bars on the building fagade was an inappropriate alteration. Ms. Thueson introduced a motion the exterior placement of the security bars on the windows and door were not in keeping with the design guidelines and violated a 20 -year Fagade Enhancement agreement with the City. Changes to the sign were approved as the original sign design was retained with only basic lettering replaced and the flag banners on the awning need to be removed and any future exterior modifications would require Landmark Commission review. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission members discussed a timeframe for Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 5 the applicant to comply the design provisions and they unanimously agreed the security bars must be removed within 30 -days from the receipt of the Commission's letter. Chairperson Dowdy questioned if the owner /tenant chooses to do nothing after receiving the City's letter. Mr. Clark responded if nothing occurs to rectify the situation, staff will deal with the problem. Staff will mail a letter outlining the Commission's requirements to both the property owner and tenant. 701 Ohio Street — Gidget's Sandwich Shop signage Staff met with the business owner to discuss recent signage changes. Planning staff explained there was a miscommunication between the property owner and staff when discussing design review requirements, specifically on exterior modifications to the building. Alterations to the lettering /design on the sign pole would require either Landmark Commission or staff administrative review. The meeting packet included a photo of the new lettering /logo. Ms. Graham commented their business had doubled in the time since moving to a more visible location and she had no issue with the amended sign. Ms. Thueson questioned if it was necessary for the Commission's review since the sign pole /shape were not altered just the lettering which could be addressed administratively. Staff noted it was brought before the Commission as a matter of information /awareness. Ms. Graham motioned the basic signage was acceptable and any future exterior modifications would require prior Landmark Commission design review. Mr. Fox seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5307 th Street — Adventure Advertising Signage Planning staff conducted an administrative review for signage associated with a new tenant at LaSalle Crossing - 530 7 1 Street (Ohio /71h Street). The signage will be added to the glass windows in either the form of a decal or removable paint. Mr. Fox commented paint on glass using exterior paint can be difficult to remove without damaging the glass surface. During staff's review, the design provision of one sign per street fagade was included in the letter to the applicant. Ms. Thueson agreed the sign painting or decal on glass was temporary in nature and resulted in no long -term alterations to the building. Members discussed the signage issue and endorsed staff's administrative review letter. VI. DISCUSSION & DEVELOPMENT of a PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK for UPDATING the CITY'S DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES Chairperson Dowdy discussed progress with the revisions to the existing Design Review guidelines and a tentative timeline for getting them completed. Mr. Clark stated this was a busy time for planning staff with multiple on -going projects during fall 2007. Mr. Dowdy asked if the projects were long -term or when the Commission could resume work in the Guidelines. Mr. Clark stated the Comprehensive Plan update is a major focus along with the U.S. Army Reserve Redevelopment Plan, gearing up for Census 2010 and TIF projects. Ms. Thueson stated the current Design Review Guidelines need to be reviewed and revised to address new items not specifically outlined in the current policies. Members discussed some key items that should be incorporated to the Guidelines, including signage, additions, carports, painting masonry and other building materials, murals, etc. Mr. Clark noted the previous update took significant staff time and research with information presented to the Commission for final determination and he requested the project wait 3 -4 months before its put back on the agenda. Ms. Thueson stated during the interim Commission members can each work on a list of items that need to be researched in addition to work already conducted by staff. She referenced a book ' Rehab Right' from Oakland, California noting it was developed for design review but provided very simple, line drawings and examples of appropriate ways to design most items associated with bungalows. Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 6 VII. OTHER BUSINESS a Resource Materials — Referred to information in the meeting packets. b Wichita County Heritage Society Project — Staff highlighted the WCHS had begun working on 801 Ohio (8th /Ohio) as their next preservation project. This site was the 1St post office in Wichita Falls. To date the roof has been stabilized to reduce continued deterioration and Tax Increment Financing funds were allocated by City Council to assist with the project. Mr. Fox questioned if the project, when complete, would house the WCHS offices. Mr. Clark stated the offices would remain in the Carriage house on the Kell Museum property and this building would be sold after restoration. Staff noted the Executive Director for WCHS was mailed a letter outlining any additional alterations to the building will require plans and design review by the Landmark Commission. c West Floral Heights District Update — Ms. Cotton Ms. Cotton indicated people from the 1500 block of Garfield have requested information to begin the nomination process as an addition to the West Floral Heights District. Staff provided background information and copies of the property owner response form that must be completed by each property owner in the nomination area. Ms. Gagne referred to the meeting packet map and said there were some questions regarding the application fee. The West Floral Heights District had approximately 200 properties and paid a base fee along with an individual lot fee when they submitted nomination materials in 2004. Staff asked Commission members if a small District addition (12 lots) required both the base fee ($100) plus a per property fee ($5.00). Ms. Thueson and Mr. Fox were in agreement the application costs would include the base fee plus the individual property fee because the processing costs are still the same whether it's a small or large addition to the District. All Commission members were in agreement with the fee schedule for the Garfield nomination. d Other Business — Mr. Clark updated the Commission about the City's Comprehensive Plan update via a Defense Diversification Plan, Downtown Plan and a minor local update to the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and the City's Land Use /Zoning Districts. The City hired a consulting team consisting of TIP Strategies (Austin); Freese & Nichols, Inc. (Fort Worth) and Dunkin, Sefko and Associates, Inc. The timeframe for this project is completion by March 2008 with on -site research, interviews and fact gathering during fall 2007. He encouraged Commission members to visit the City's website to complete the questionnaire provided by the consultants regarding Wichita Falls. Mr. Clark invited the Commission to a Downtown Plan public forum in conjunction with Downtown Wichita Falls Development Inc.'s annual membership meeting on October gth at the Kemp Center to provide input regarding the future of downtown. e Next Meeting Staff will follow -up with Commission members for a date in October. VIII. ADJOURN The Chairperson called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Thueson introduced a motion to adjourn seconded by Ms. Sullivan. The Commission adjourned the meeting at 5:25 pm. Ken Ddky, C "airperson J 1 Date Landmark Commission September 20, 2007 page 7