Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 12/09/2004w MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING — West Floral Heights Historic District Application December 9, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Schaaf, Chairperson ■ Ken Dowdy, Vice Chairperson ■ Ken Birck ■ Shirley Craft ■ Michael Collins ■ Doug James ■ Dianne Thueson ■ James Esther, Jr. ■ Council Liaison ABSENT: Drew Hayes ■ Planning Staff: Karen Montgomery-Gagn6 ■ Marty Odom ■ PUBLIC ATTENDEES: Councilor Linda Ammons Stacie Flood, Kell House Curator Jennifer Fashimpar, Exec. Dir., Wichita County Heritage Society Bobby Schaaf Carolyn Looney, past - president West Floral Heights Neigh. Assoc. Bill Looney, 1500 Hayes Susan & Richard Koch, 1605 Buchanan Andy Lee, 1410 Grant Karen Thomas, 1500 Grant Martha Mason, 1400 Tilden Carol Wagner, 1300 Buchanan Jim Carper, 1401 Grant Marilyn Ost, 1712 Buchanan Reagan & Cindy Cotton, 1508 Tilden Barry Hanks, 1615 Tilden Mrs. Scott Wooten, 1305 Buchanan John Scott, 1600 & 1601 Hayes Ed Hanvey, 1512 Hayes I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Ms. Karen Gagn6 called the public hearing to order at 7:06 p.m., thanked everyone for attending and introduced the Landmark Commission members, City Council Liaison - Councilor Esther along with guests. Staff outlined the format for the public hearing, consisting of two Landmark Commission — Public Hearing Minutes page 1 components: 1) an overview by planning staff explaining the process for historic preservation in Wichita Falls, followed by, 2) an opportunity for questions from the audience. The public hearing was an opportunity to provide information and obtain feedback from residents in the proposed application area. Staff indicated the Commission would not be making any recommendations on the application until their next scheduled meeting on Monday, December 13th at 3:00 pm in the Council Conference Room. Ms. Gagne reiterated that property owners within the proposed district still have the opportunity to 'Opt -Out' by filing a written notice with the Planning Division up until the day prior to City Council consideration of the application. II. PRESENTATION BY PLANNING STAFF Overview of Historic Preservation Documents Ms. Gagne explained that Wichita Falls historic preservation program maintains three key documents: 1) Historic Preservation Ordinance — revised September 2003 2) Nomination Procedures for Landmarks & Historic Districts, and 3) Design Review Guidelines & Procedures The Preservation Ordinance outlines the purpose for declaring historic landmarks and districts, the authority of the Landmark Commission, stipulates the process of review for exterior alterations to designated sites, authority of the local historic preservation officer, along with outlining basic design criteria. Staff highlighted the criteria that both Council and the Commission review when considering a designation for landmark or district status: a) Is it associated with significant historic events or development of the city or lives of persons significant in the past b) Embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics or specific type of craftsmanship c) As a neighborhood or district represents a significant or distinguishable area d) Possesses archaeological value or based on evidence is expected to yield info important to history e) Due to location, has become of value to a neighborhood community area or city or represents an aspect of community pride f) Is an existing or proposed for recognition as a national historic landmark or state historic landmark or proposed for entry into the National Register of Historic Places g) Possesses significance in history, architecture, archaeology or culture. The Nomination Procedures, updated by the Commission and City Council in 2003 essentially provide a 'how -to' manual for anyone interested in nominating either an individual landmark or district. The Design Review Guidelines, initially established by Council in 1978, provide a level of protection for historic resources designated as Wichita Falls Landmarks from inappropriate alterations and destruction. Ms. Gagne specifically indicated the Commission only reviews major exterior modifications to designated landmarks /districts prior to alteration. There are two categories of review — an administrative review conducted by planning staff for minor renovations /alterations and a formal review by the Commission for major alterations, new construction or demolitions. Routine maintenance and repair, interior alterations, paint color and fencing are exempt from any design review by the City. Staff indicated that copies of the Design Review Guidelines were • available after the meeting for additional information. All three documents are available on the City's website (www.cwftx.net) under the category 'Historic Preservation Information.' Landmark Commission — Public Hearing Minutes page 2 III. APPLICATION OVERVIEW Ms. Gagne explained that any person, consultant or neighborhood group is eligible to nominate an area for historic district status. The subject application was submitted by the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Association and was deemed complete by the Commission at their October 26th meeting. The application, as initially submitted, had 85.5% property owner consent (In Favor — 183; Opposed — 12; No Response — 19) along with the inclusion of black and white photos for all 214 properties, detailed architectural overviews for every property and research indicating why the applicants believed the area qualified for designation. Staff indicated that since the City mailed the required meeting notices (November 22nd) informing property owners of the pending public hearing, sixteen 'Opt -Out' letters were received. The application still meets the City's minimum 75% requirement of property -owner interest based on the signed response forms provided with the application. Staff and Commission members reviewed the proposed area and found 38 properties were considered 'non- contributing' based on either their age (built post 1954) or as a result of alterations to the extent the house no longer has architectural character. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Ms. Gagne finished the formal presentation and encouraged anyone in attendance to provide comments or questions for either the Commission members or staff. She requested residents state their name and address for the record. John Scott, 1600 & 1601 Hayes, stated that he has lived in the district for 32 years. He felt that overall the designation was not fair and the proposed district of over 200 homes was too large. He was concerned that potential buyers of property within the area would not have the right to oppose the designation as property reverts to the district when sold. Mr. Scott also stated that the Landmark Commission would have the authority to dictate style. Marylyn Ost, 1712 Buchanan, stated that she had moved from the Dallas area and purchased a home in this portion of the City because of the character of the neighborhood and that the neighbors felt this was a worthy cause. She hoped that with designation and the potential for renovation tax breaks, it would encourage others to improve their properties. Reagan Cotton, 1508 Tilden, mentioned visiting the King William historic district in San Antonio and noticing some properties in severe disrepair. He asked if property owners would be forced to do anything with the exterior of their properties. Ms. Gagne responded that property owners are not required to change anything — the City encourages all property owners to maintain their property. The City only gets involved when dilapidated property becomes an issue of health and safety. Susan Koch, 1605 Buchanan, stated that her family liked the character of the neighborhood and that they wanted to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. She stated that the neighborhood has worked on the application for four years. Two property owner surveys were conducted — one was completed almost three years ago prior to the new guidelines and the majority of property owners were in favor as they also were in the recent poll. A key reason she is interested in district designation is to help reduce the number of properties considered non- contributing in the future due to inappropriate alterations. Jim Carper, 1401 Grant St., stated that he moved into the area four years ago due to the location and because it was an older home. Many of the people moving into the neighborhood have chosen the area because they are interested in fixing the properties and appreciate their historic character. He stated that he was 100% in favor of the designation. Landmark Commission — Public Hearing Minutes page 3 Bill Looney, 1500 Hayes, indicated that Mr. John Scott had some misconceptions about the district process. He stated that they lived approximately six blocks from "gangland" and that this would be the only protection for the neighborhood to encourage stability. Mr. Looney was concerned that if the area is not designated it may deteriorate in the future with illicit activity. He also stated that the designation would not create a hardship and that values of property would go up long -term. Carolyn Looney stated that there were many advantages to living in a historic district. One of the advantages is the ability to apply for grants. Andy Lee stated that his family lived in the area for three generations and that he assisted in the preparation of the application. Mr. Lee thanked the Landmark Commission for their input and interest with the application and recognized neighbors that assisted with the preparation of the application. He outlined numerous examples of properties that have been enhanced in the downtown area (ie. Graphics Il, LaSalle Crossing, Toodles, etc.) as a result of having either a local or national historic designation. Mr. Lee also questioned the concept of a 'no- response' being counted as a no -vote and suggested that the City Council review that part of the Ordinance. John Scott stated that they have worked on the application for 3Y2 years and that people that voted yes did not understand what they were voting on and others that didn't respond just didn't care about the outcome. Susan Koch stated that numerous street captains personally mailed letters and response forms to the absentee property owners; response forms were included in the association newsletters that were distributed to every home within the application area. In addition, realtors that either owned or were selling property within the area were given information about the proposed application. Dianne Thueson addressed Mr. Lee's concerns about the 'Non- Response' numbers. She explained that the non - response being considered 'opposed' was a compromise between the Commission and City Council during the policy document revisions in 2003. She is aware that other cities consider a non - response as a yes vote however in Wichita Falls they are considered opposed. This interpretation may change in the future but in an effort to be fair to everyone, non - responses count as opposition. Michael Collins commented that the majority of the Commission did not choose the method used to calculate non - response votes — it was City Council that preferred they be classified as a negative response. Cindy Cotton, 1508 Tilden requested that the Commission continue the review process and recommend approval to City Council. She has lived in the neighborhood for many years and appreciates the uniqueness of the area. Staff thanked the residents for participating in the public hearing, and having no more comments from the audience invited Commission members to comment. Shirley Craft commended the neighborhood applicants and city staff for their efforts over the past few years with putting together such a thorough application. Douglas James noted that he heard some of the same arguments being used against historic designation as when Wichita Falls was implementing zoning. He stated that if the City had • zoning earlier many neighborhoods would still be intact today because commercial uses would not have been able to locate within established residential areas. Zoning provides a level of Landmark Commission — Public Hearing Minutes page 4 protection regarding adjacent land uses. People aren't willing to invest in an area when adjacent property uses may be subject to change without notice. i Jan Schaaf, Chairperson, echoed comments from Mr. James that property owners opposed to the application need to consider how neighbors could alter their property in a manner that may negatively impact their own enjoyment or value. The district designation provides a basic level of protection with the design review for major exterior alterations. She encouraged property owners to consider how the designation may benefit their property values rather than view the application as a negative. 0 Dianne Thueson commented that as a professional involved with other preservation projects, this was an excellent application prepared by volunteers. She indicated that it was probably more thorough than if submitted by professional consultants. She commended the applicants and neighbors for the high quality application - it was organized and amazingly detailed with architectural information and photos for all 214 properties. Ms. Thueson added that the West Floral Heights nomination was a textbook case of how to complete a historic district application. Michael Collins expressed appreciation for the applicants' dedication to meet all the procedural requirements associated with the application submittal. The Chairperson thanked everyone for participating in the public hearing and indicated that the Commission would be meeting on Monday December 13th to discuss the application. On behalf of the entire Commission, Ms. Schaaf expressed her appreciation for receiving such an impressive application. V. ADJOURN The public hearing was adjourned at 8:01 pm. L)ZVW fd�L� Schaaf, Cha' person ./3 4 ?o Date Landmark Commission — Public Hearing Minutes page 5