Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 05/16/2007i M I N U T E S RECEIVED IN LANDMARK COMMISSIC IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE May 16, 2007 Date Q `LE ©7 By Time MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Dowdy, Chairperson ■ Members Cindy Cotton ■ Ron Fox ■ Stacie Flood ■ Jan Schaaf ■ Pat Sullivan ■ Dianne Thueson ■ Councilor Charles Elmore ■ Council Liaison Karen Montgomery-Gagne ■ staff ABSENT: Michael Collins ■ Christy Graham ■ I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dowdy called the meeting to order at 3:35pm after a quorum of members was obtained. II. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF APRIL MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dowdy called for review and approval of the April 25th, 2007 meeting minutes. Ms. Thueson introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Ms. Schaaf seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION LANDMARK ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT — MURALS and MASONRY COATINGS Chairperson Dowdy requested staff update the Commission. Ms. Gagne referred members to a revised hand -out with suggestions /revisions incorporated from the April meeting. Members began discussing the draft text for mural signs. Councilor Elmore expressed concern with permitting only a qualified mural artist to paint murals. He noted the huge talent base in Wichita Falls within the arts community who are willing to volunteer to paint murals. Chairperson Dowdy agreed, perhaps the language could be revised to state "The approved mural shall be supervised and its placement directed by a qualified artist...." Members agreed with the revision. Mr. Fox requested clarification regarding d.(ii) and if the mural subject matter shall relate to versus is recommended? Ms. Thueson agreed the wording didn't quite capture the ideas discussed at the previous Commission meeting. She suggested it be reworded with, "The mural subject matter shall relate to and be compatible with the surrounding streetscape and character of the local historic district." Members discussed this alternate wording and were in favor. Ms. Thueson indicated a concern with the last sentence in section d.(iii) and asked Councilor Elmore if, in his opinion, City Council would have any concerns with the proposed wording? (If repairs are not conducted within the allotted timeframe, the City of Wichita Falls reserves the right Landmark Commission May 16, 2007 page 1 to repair or remove the mural at the owner's expense.) Councilor Elmore responded that the current Council is very interested in all City activities and projects. Chairperson Dowdy stated this clause would not result in additional expense incurred by the City because the mural would be removed at the owner's expense. He further added if the situation developed where a mural had reached the point of being considered an 'eyesore' in one of the historic districts — the Landmark Commission would certainly hear about the issue prior to letters being mailed to the property owner. Chairperson Dowdy asked if staff would obtain a legal opinion regarding item d.(iii) prior to submittal to City Council? Planning staff indicated all proposed ordinance amendments are reviewed by the City Legal Department to ensure they don't conflict with existing ordinances. Planning staff explained the reasoning for giving the building owner 90 -days to repair the mural. City Council has the ability for a hazardous /fire damaged structure to provide a 90 -day to 6 -month rehabilitation permit when good faith effort to rebuild the structure is exhibited by the owner. If a mural was deemed in poor condition, the property owner would actually have more than 90 -days for repairs because the Planning Division would mail a letter to the property owner advising him /her of the situation then provide 90 -days from that point for necessary repairs to be completed. Councilor Elmore stated in his experiences, if something is brought to a property owner's attention they generally will clean /fix -up the situation — although this isn't always the case. Mr. Fox raised the question of procedure when a mural is defaced with graffiti? Who's responsible for cleaning -up the building surface? Chairperson Dowdy stated graffiti is an on- going problem and no fault of the property owner. Ms. Sullivan asked if it was an obligation to obtain Commission approval to even cover up the graffiti? Both Ms. Thueson and Mr. Dowdy commented it's the property owner's option and /or decision to be able to paint over the graffiti or cover -up the mural. Ms. Thueson responded to Mr. Fox's question that someone explained the purpose for graffiti — it's essentially a challenge to someone else and if the graffiti is covered immediately it may resolve the problem versus if the graffiti is left on the building surface it sends a message that it doesn't matter, so they'll continue to mark that location. Chairperson Dowdy commented section d.(iii) repair for mural signs will have to provide sufficient time for a property owner to fix the mural problems that may arise prior to contacting Code Enforcement and issuance of a citation letter. Members discussed the revised masonry text amendments. Mr. Fox suggested adding to section (2)(i), "including reduce further deterioration" and "including but not limited to... " just prior to listing various types of damage to masonry Councilor Elmore questioned how you can reduce further deterioration. Chairperson Dowdy stated the ordinance amendment would not outline multiple methods for repair - that information is readily available from the National Trust Preservation Briefs research and will be outlined in the revised Design Review Guidelines. Chairperson Dowdy stated there is an issue regarding masonry versus coatings and raised the question to the Commission. Mr. Dowdy commented 'coatings' implies the text amendment would need to address all building materials not just masonry. Mr. Fox indicated his impression was masonry surfaces were the focus due to the proposed murals. Ms. Sullivan recalled the initial issue brought before the Commission related to murals and discussion migrated to concerns with painting murals on masonry surfaces. Chairperson Dowdy polled members — masonry coatings or maintenance of materials? Members agreed the focus should remain with masonry not all building materials. Ms. Thueson commented the Commission spent time discussing maintenance issues for historic building materials. Chairperson Dowdy noted concerns with the maintenance of landmarks or historic buildings because in 2003 the Preservation Ordinance was revised & updated, any reference to inspecting landmarks and the ability to address deteriorating buildings was removed. Chairperson Dowdy requested section (2) be amended to state "Masonry Coatings." Members discussed section (2)(iii) Previously Painted Masonry, Chairperson Dowdy commented low - pressure washing is acceptable for cleaning masonry but the text should be revised to state "Attempts to remove existing paint shall be approved by the Landmark Commission." Ms. Cotton Landmark Commission May 16, 2007 page 2 stated she could foresee concerns in West Floral Heights since people might not understand the reasoning for the requirement. To her knowledge, they were the only property owners who had Aft qr painted their brick home. However, the home had received extensive damage in a major fire and the paint used on the brick surface was specially prepared with compounds to protect the brick/mortar finish. Ms. Cotton informed members their monthly Association newsletter includes an article about the historic district, contact names & numbers for questions and information regarding when a design review application is necessary. Ms. Cotton indicated the Neighborhood Design Review Committee tries to educate residents regarding why the policies are in place. Ms. Thueson directed Ms. Cotton to the National Park Service worksheets, available online, which provide viable options for rehabilitation and restoration projects. Chairperson Dowdy inquired if the newsletter articles could become a series to cover a different design review element each month. Chairperson Dowdy requested the last sentence in section (2)(ii) Unpainted Masonry, be revised to state the following: "Any building within a City designated historic district or an individual landmark with previously unpainted masonry must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Commission prior to an application of any surface coating or treatment." Members were in agreement with this revision along with Mr. Fox's suggestion to maintain consistency in the wording with "...if situated in a City designated historic district or an individual landmark..." Mr. Fox suggested the Design Review Application be reviewed to consider incorporating masonry coating requirements. Members discussed this was an important suggestion and requested staff review the application. After additional discussion, Mr. Fox recommended revising the revision to section 2(iii), "...shall be described in a Design Review Application and subject to approval by the Landmark Commission. Methods used to remove existing paint are outlined in the City's Design Review Guidelines and the National Park Service Preservation Briefs." Planning staff requested feedback from members regarding section (2)(iv) Water Repellent/Waterproof Coatings and whether it was better suited in the Ordinance or Design Review Guidelines. Ms. Thueson suggested it remain in the Ordinance because it provides an opportunity to review the proposal before the coating is being added to the building exterior. Chairperson Dowdy agreed, it's appropriate to keep this section in the Ordinance as it directly addresses paint and moisture barriers. Members requested the reference item "Refer to the National Park Service Preservation Briefs which address all aspects of historic building repair, retrofit, rehabilitation and maintenance." Chairperson Dowdy inquired when the text amendments will be presented to City Council. Ms. Gagn6 stated the Ordinance amendments could be presented to City Council at their June 51h meeting. Members requested the proposed revisions to the Design Review Guidelines be ready for their review at the June Commission meeting. IV. OTHER BUSINESS a Update — Downtown Plan Ms. Gagn6 was pleased to report the combined Planning Services project for the Defense Diversification, Downtown Plan and Local Update was awarded by City Council at their May 15`h meeting to the consulting team of: Freese & Nichols and Associates/TIP Strategies /Dunkin, Sefko & Associates, Inc. and Dunkin, Sims, Stoffels, Inc. Chairperson Dowdy inquired about the items covered under the scope of services. Planning staff explained the purpose for each of the 3 components and how they will fit together to essentially provide the City with a Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gagn6 explained the process was complicated by the fact the City worked with the federal Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), Department of Defense to obtain a grant in the amount of $200,000 to assist with reducing the community's dependency on the Base and to pay for a portion of the project. However, all components included in the Scope of Services had to comply with OEA requirements which delayed the process. The Local Update includes key items that OEA was unwilling to cover in their Scope of Services and the Downtown Plan is funded in part through TIF Reinvestment Zone #1 Landmark Commission May 16, 2007 page 3 I C funds. The Plan process will include input from the community and an important implementation phase. b West Floral Heights District Update — Ms. Cotton Ms. Cotton indicated the West Floral Heights Association was planning to recognize Councilor Ammons for her involvement and assistance in the process of nominating their area for historic district designation. Councilor Elmore stated if the presentation would be at a City Council meeting, the Association needed to contact Mr. Leiker (City Manager) and the Hon. Lanham Lyne (Mayor). The Association is tentatively looking at the July 3rd Council meeting for the presentation for former Councilor Ammons. c Next Meeting — set for Thursday, June 14, 2007 V. ADJOURN The Commission djourned the meeting at 4:57 pm. Ken Dowdy, Chairperson dmark Commission May 16, 2007 4�11,(IlZw7 Date page 4