Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 10/12/2006M I N U T E S CITY CLERK'S OFFICE LANDMARK COMMISSION Date - 3 -d�p October 12, 2006 By _ L Time MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Dowdy, Chairperson ■ Members Dianne Thueson, Vice - Chairperson ■ Cindy Cotton ■ Stacie Flood ■ Ron Fox ■ Christy Graham ■ Jan Schaaf ■ David A. Clark, Director ■ Staff Karen Montgomery -Gagne ■ GUESTS: Barry Levy, Public information officer Lita Watson, Wichita County Archivist ABSENT: Michael Collins ■ Pat Sullivan ■ Charles Elmore ■ Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dowdy called the meeting to order at 3:35pm and indicated the Commission recently had an architect (Mr. Ron Fox) appointed by City Council. Mr. Dowdy asked members to introduce themselves and state their affiliation with the Commission. Mr. Fox recited the City of Wichita Falls' Oath of Office and was officially sworn in as a member of the Landmark Commission. II. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF MAY MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dowdy called for review and approval of the May 31s' 2006 meeting minutes. Ms. Flood introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Ms. Schaaf seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. DISCUSSION of DESGIN REVIEW GUIDELINES — MURALS Mr. Dowdy and Ms. Graham provided an overview & update regarding the downtown mural project and people /organizations involved in the process. Initially, Councilor Elmore contacted Downtown Wichita Falls Development Inc. (DWFD) about the potential for a mural project in downtown area which received positive response. Councilor Elmore developed the idea of a public art contest to involve the entire community and organized a committee (Ms. Graham and Mr. Dowdy) to obtain the first downtown mural design that would be placed on the south wall of 701 Ohio Street. Ms. Graham explained that he outlined basic criteria for submissions (ie. scaled drawing, and incorporating the theme of bicycles and butterflies, etc.). Eighteen submissions were received for the mural contest, with the majority focusing on a combined bicycle & butterfly Landmark Commission October 12, 2006 page 1 theme. During this time, Councilor Elmore approached the DWFD Board to request their assistance. The DWFD Board supported the downtown mural project and funded the $500 for the winning submission. Mr. Dowdy raised the question — if a mural is located within the Depot Square Historic District does the Landmark Commission have the option to review the content, location and impact? Mr. Clark considered murals artwork not signage, no building permit is required and they aren't addressed in the Design Review Guidelines. Staff noted the closest guideline to address murals is under the Sign section, that states a "sign should not dominate the fagade of a building or streetscape." Members discussed murals vs. signage and issues relating to regulating content. Ms. Graham suggested the Commission send a letter to DWFD, Inc. indicating they would be reviewing the mural project submissions to determine appropriateness for the Depot Square Historic District. Mr. Dowdy suggested Ms. Gagne gather additional information on the subject and draft a letter for the Commission's review. Mr. Dowdy reiterated concerns with the mural project since no building permit is required — at what point is the process triggered to discover a proposed mural before it is already being painted on a building? Ms. Thueson echoed Mr. Dowdy's comments but noted it's not the Landmark Commission's role to regulate mural content. Mr. Dowdy stated that painting murals on previously unpainted masonry should not be permitted as it's an irreversible alteration. Mr. Fox commented that altering the exterior fagade of a building does have an impact as buildings are components of an entire District — it does impact the character of a designated District. Members requested this issue be tabled for discussion at the next Commission meeting. IV. DISCUSSION of DESIGN REVIEW —WEST FLORAL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD The Chairperson called upon Ms. Cindy Cotton to provide updates about recent design issues in the West Floral Heights Historic District. She informed Commission members of a situation that occurred on September 291h at 1501 Buchanan with a property owner proposing to install a vinyl fence in the front yard. Neighborhood residents contacted various City Departments to discuss the situation and according to the City Zoning Ordinance and Historic District Design Review Guidelines the proposed fence met basic criteria. Ms. Cotton and other Neighborhood Association members were concerned current Design Review Guidelines do not have provisions for reviewing fences and requested the Landmark Commission revise the documents to incorporate provisions for fencing. Mr. Clark stated the City doesn't issue permits for fences unless they are masonry or have masonry footers, so it would be very difficult to track whether fences were being installed in historic districts. Ms. Thueson commented the Neighborhood Association needs to research if homes in the area had fences historically to have a rationale why fences wouldn't be permitted in the front yard setback. Ms. Cotton stated the Association was concerned with chain link fences being placed in front yards which is not considered appropriate - they simply want to keep the original character of the neighborhood. The Commission and staff discussed the fencing situation and Mr. Clark commented the Neighborhood Design Committee could only 'recommend and advise' because the Zoning ordinance permits fencing in the front yard and the Design Guidelines don't directly address fencing. Mr. Dowdy stated the Commission doesn't have control over the 'use' of a property owners' front yard and having policies to regulate fencing of front yards doesn't alter people's `use' of the front yard setback (ie. children's playhouses, toys, parking,etc.) Ms. Schaaf added it would be difficult to enforce fencing guidelines in a residential historic district vs. a commercial district. Ms. Thueson shared some examples from Nantucket and Oakland — she explained there is a level of responsibility that lies with the Association — if you take on an `advisory' role then you must know what is considered appropriate. Ms. Schaaf suggested that the Association may be able to provide opinions and advice regarding fencing, etc. but if the property owner isn't receptive to the idea there are no backup policies. Landmark Commission October 12, 2006 page 2 • Ms. Cotton requested direction and assistance in obtaining the National Park Service application for nominating the West Floral Heights Historic District to the National Register along with the process of becoming a registered non - profit organization to apply for grant funds. Ms. Graham explained from her experience nominating the Depot Square District the official forms had to be ordered from the National Park Service. Staff indicated they could provide a copy of a successful application for reference purposes. Ms. Cotton indicated that the Association is in the process of applying for status as a non - profit entity [501(C )3]. Commission members encouraged Ms. Cotton to contact: 1) an accountant and /or an attorney (eg. Mr. Dennis Cannedy - accountant for Wichita Co. Heritage Society) with experience in setting up non - profit entities due to their complexity; and 2) Ms.Dee Decker, Non - Profit Management Center of Wichita Falls for application assistance. V. UPDATE & REVIEW CLG VIDEO PROJECT Mr. Barry Levy provided an overview of the video progress and showed the Commission members the beginning segment of the CLG Video — `Preserving Wichita Falls — The Future of Our Past.' He explained the process utilized to stage the opening of the video and how the remaining segments will fit together. Members asked questions regarding the historical details and components of the film. Mr. Levy commented that the video would be approximately 20 minutes in length. Ms. Thueson inquired about the educational curriculum guides? Staff noted with the project extension from the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the accompanying curriculum guides for WFISD & CityviewlSD would be completed after the video is finalized. Members discussed the video progress to -date and were pleased with the quality thus far and were looking forward to viewing the final product in two weeks. Mr. Dowdy and Ms. Thueson commented that they probably had sufficient film footage to a follow -up video relating historic preservation to heritage tourism. Staff requested members submit their CLG timesheets for project in -kind hours during the grant timeframe through September 30th so the final billing summary could be prepared and forwarded to the THC. Staff also requested members refer to the listing of film credits to ensure no entity or person who assisted with the heritage video project missed receiving recognition. Members submitted their revisions & an updated copy will be provided at the next meeting. VI. OTHER BUSINESS a) Roster update — Staff informed members that the Commission had three positions with terms ending in December 2006. These included: Ms. Jan Schaaf (realtor) at term limit; Ms. Dianne Thueson (at large) renewal; Ms. Stacie Flood (Wichita Co. Heritage Society) renewal; and Mr. Ron Fox (architect) renewal. All three members for 'renewal' consideration expressed an interest in continuing to serve on the Landmark Commission. b) Resource Materials /Updates — Staff referenced materials included with the meeting packets & a handout regarding the debate on 'recent history' with an 'inventory study' being conducted in Arlington to consider 1950's architecture. Mr. Clark informed members that the City will be considering a major update to the current downtown plan in conjunction with the City Comprehensive Plan process. The plan update will provide opportunities to consider the future of downtown, focal areas and design concepts. c) Next Meeting — October 26th, 2006 — 3:30 p.m. VII. ADBOURN The Cqm issjpn adjourned the formal meeting at 5:25 pm. Ken Landmark Commission October 12, 2006 to ?6 pG Date page 3