Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/01/2004a • MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION September 1, 2004 PRESENT: Jan Schaaf, Chairperson Ken Dowdy, Vice Chairperson Ken Birck Shirley Craft Ralph Gibson Drew Hayes Dianne Thueson David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III GUESTS: Ken Humpert, partner, Marchman Building Jim Glasgow, partner, Marchman Building Conrad Staley, Staley, Baker, Monson Architects Gary Baker, Staley, Baker, Monson Architects Monty Monson, Staley, Baker, Monson Architects ABSENT: Michael Collins Doug James James Esther, Jr. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By Time OD I. & II. CALL TO ORDER & REVIEW & APPROVAL OF MINUTES ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ City Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Council Liaison The Chairperson called for discussion and comments on the April meeting minutes. Commission members briefly reviewed the minutes and Mr. Dowdy motioned to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Gibson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. DISCUSSION & REVIEW LANDMARK DESIGNATION REMOVAL Planning staff provided a brief overview of the request for design review at the Marchman building, located at 925 Lamar Street. An enclosed stair tower is being added on the northern side of the building with a second stair tower under construction above the southern end (adjacent to 10th Street). Staff referred Commission members to photos of the site alterations and design review application included with the meeting packets. Mr. Humpert and Mr. Glasgow, partners with the project, stated, in their opinion, drivit would be a suitable building material for this project since other buildings in the downtown Landmark Commission September 1, 2004 Page 1 of 5 core have utilized the same surface materials and it will be tinted to blend in with the existing brick facade. Mr. Humpert provided photos of other buildings in the downtown that were covered with the same drivit material. He indicated that at this time, the project partners are unable financially to cover the stair towers with masonry materials. The project architects (Staley, Baker, Monson) stated that there are two key issues — timing and financial constraints with having to change the plans and utilize a masonry surface. The renovation project has a strict timeline with tenants set to move in before the end of September. Mr. Staley stated that when their firm began working on the renovation project they were not aware the Marchman building was a City landmark. Mr. Baker and Mr. Staley both commented that if their firm was unaware of the City's Design Review Guidelines for working on historic buildings, then probably the other architectural firms in Wichita Falls are not aware of the requirements. Mr. Dowdy commented that the Holt project had to address similar issues with the addition of a secondary stair tower to provide alternate means of egress to conform with the City Fire & Building Code requirements. However, the Holt addition is being covered with brick materials. He suggested that traditional stucco was permitted in the guidelines and also met Texas Historical Commission (THC) standards. The architects responded that in this part of Texas there tend to be problems associated with traditional stucco, including cracking, leaks, mold infiltration, etc. Ms. Thueson responded that the issue was not a question of material or quality it is an issue with the age of the proposed materials and the process. She indicated that this new drivit process is approximately 20 -30 years too recent to be recognized as an acceptable material on designated historic structures. Mr. Clark commented that there were a number of processes in place — the existing building was not currently being renovated as a 'historic rehabilitation.' The key question for discussion is whether the Landmark Commission will accept drivit as a suitable siding material or whether the building should be dedesignated. Mr. Clark informed the project partners that the building is still eligible for the 10% federal tax credit due to it's age and recommended that they pursue this option. Mr. Dowdy requested a breakdown in the cost comparison between traditional brick vs. drivit. The architects responded that by utilizing a brick veneer it would cost approximately $50,000 whereas installing drivit will cost $33,000. In addition, the height of the stair tower impacts the brick mason's fees. The architects stated that if they had known earlier in the rehabilitation process that the building was a designated landmark they would have tried to utilize other options for the surface material. Ms. Thueson and Ms. Craft commented that they didn't want to discourage people from renovating buildings downtown. However, Ms. Thueson stated that the design review guidelines are just the minimum standards in place to help maintain the historic architecture and character. The guidelines endorsed by City Council in September 2003 are based on the national historic rehabilitation standards set out by the Secretary of the Interior in their Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitatinq Historic Buildings. After discussion, Ms. Thueson introduced a motion that the Landmark Commission recommends dedesignation of The Marchman Building at 925 Lamar from the City • Landmark. Mr. Birck seconded the motion. The Chairperson called for a vote - six members voted in favor and one member abstained from the vote. Ms. Craft commented that as the former Downtown Coordinator she was in a difficult position to vote on the Landmark Commission September 1, 2004 Page 2 of 5 issue. She, on behalf of the Commission commended the property owners for their efforts in turning a former derelict building into a useful site in the downtown. Ms. Craft stated that the recommendation to dedesignate doesn't hurt the owner's endeavors but it is unfortunate whenever any building is removed from landmark status. Mr. Humpert noted that he and the other building partners were disappointed that the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) boundaries were not recommended for amendment at the May TIF Board meeting. He stated that there is a need for some type of incentive to assist people willing to rehabilitate older buildings downtown. TIF funds might have been able to cover the cost for the brick veneer on the stair tower. Commission members discussed whether another form of recognition might be considered regarding the historic significance of a site. A building itself may not be of an architectural character to require design review. It was suggested that the building owners contact the Wichita County Historical Commission to apply for a Texas Historical Marker that would outline the historic events that once occurred at the Marchman Hotel in the 1920- 1940s. The Chairperson thanked the building owners and architects for their attendance and continued development in the downtown. Planning staff were directed to forward informational packets to each architectural firm in Wichita Falls explaining the City's design review guidelines, include a listing of all locally designated historic sites /buildings /districts and a copy of the guidelines for their reference. IV. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF FINAL DEPOT SQUARE SIGN DESIGN Planning staff presented the two final sign designs (previously emailed to all members) for Commission consideration. After discussion, the Commission reached an agreement on the design preference with Option #1 — Depot Square National Historic District. Mr. Dowdy introduced a motion that the preferred sign design be presented to the VISIONS Executive Director for input and approval. Mr. James seconded the motion. Ms. Thueson and Mr. Gibson commented that the language on the signs should send a clear message to all visitors, residents, etc. Ms. Thueson added that Commission members, staff and preservationists understand the meaning of stating the Depot District is a 'National Register Listing' but the average person may not realize the significance. Staff will forward the final sign design (Depot Square National Historic District) to Ms. Crump with VISIONS for their Board's approval. Upon VISIONS approval, staff will work with Mr. Beauchamp, Traffic Superintendent, to have the signs produced and installed. Ms. Thueson, on behalf of the entire Commission, acknowledged and thanked Mr. Hayes for his continued work on the signage project. V. UPDATE & DISCUSSION OF CLG GRANT APPLICATION RESULTS (Heritage Video Project) Planning staff informed the Commission that the CLG grant application was ranked tenth of the seventeen submitted. Ms. Gagne added that in a conversation with THC staff, the • City should receive a letter in late September outlining the grant was ranked and will be forwarded to the National Park Service for final determination. It may be November before we officially know if the funding is approved. However, THC staff encouraged us to Landmark Commission September 1, 2004 Page 3 of 5 is continue researching and gathering materials for the rroject anticipating that it will be approved. Staff tentatively scheduled September 30t at 3:00 pm for a work session on the heritage video project. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Report on the THC Historic Preservation Conference Ms. Gagne indicated that the conference in Fort Worth had some very informative sessions and was an excellent opportunity to discuss the draft CLG grant with THC's CLG Program Director. She referred members to their packets, which included copies of four conference session handouts. One resource of particular interest was the Historic Resources List - a useful guide for preservation resources. The 2005 annual conference is scheduled for Austin. b) Report on the WCHS Preservation Awards — May 2004 Ms. Gagne thanked the Commission members who were able to attend this event, noting that it was held in the renovated Marchman building lobby. Mr. Gibson and Ms. Craft both commented that the event was both well attended and well organized. Some of the awards of interest included: The City of Wichita Falls for the Memorial Auditorium; Mr. Roby Christie for historic rehab of the Texoma Cycling building on Wichita St.; Mr. Jim Newsom (former Landmark Commission member) rehabilitation of residence on Elizabeth St. (Southland). Ms. Gagne informed members that a special award was presented to recognize four key individuals that turned the Holt project into a reality — Mr. Dave Clark, Mr. Jim Johnson, Ms. Gayla Morris and Ms. Ann Smith. Without the intervention and volunteer efforts from these individuals the Holt rehabilitation project may never have happened. c) Administrative Design Review — First United Methodist Church Staff received a request to review minor building modifications in order to address subsurface water leaking into the basement. The project area was situated on the western (Travis) side between the main building and the handicapped ramp entrance. The architects proposed to remove one non - original, plate -glass window, the associated light well and re- direct a drainpipe so water moves away from the building. Staff met with architects on -site and later issued a certificate of appropriateness based on the 'administrative review' option in the Design Review Guidelines. The certificate noted a stipulation, that if possible, the window opening be filled -in with salvaged brick from the light well to match the existing brick fagade. d) Report — THC Annual Central Texas Workshop — Abilene Planning staff stated that this event was comparable to the event hosted by Wichita Falls last year at the Kemp Center. Ms. Gagne commented that they were very pleased with the attendance at the Wichita Falls event (118 registrants) after seeing the Abilene workshop had approximately 65- 70 participants. Overall there were good work sessions, an opportunity to meet with Abilene planning staff and discuss planning issues, and meet with THC staff and other participants, a tour provided of historic rehabs in downtown and new 'Frontier Texas' Museum. In conjunction, Ms. Hartman, WCHS Executive Director, Ms. Broussard, WCHS assistant and Ms. Gagne arranged to meet with John Dugan, Develop Abilene- Downtown Programs during the afternoon for an overview tour of 4 key rehab projects — The Wooten Bldg, The Windsor Hotel, Windsor Building, Depot Building, etc. Landmark Commission September 1, 2004 Page 4 of 5 e) Progress Report — Holt Hotel Project Mr. Clark indicated that the progress was very evident with the majority of windows on the Eighth Street fagade installed. As of late August, the stud walls were in place on all floors and dry wall was anticipated for installation by mid - September. Commission members inquired about the status of the Buchanan Terrace apartments and Mr. Clark provided an update. fl Progress Report — West Floral Heights Historic District Application Planning staff commented that they attended the July neighborhood association meeting and answered questions regarding the nomination process of a historic district. The association anticipates having approximately 87% of property owners' support for the proposed nomination area of 200 properties. Planning staff stated that they had encouraged the West Floral Heights group to continue working on the other elements of the application (ie. description of the area, historical significance, map of area proposed for nomination, etc.) in order to submit a 'complete' nomination. Ms. Gagne anticipated receiving the association's application packet in early October with a Landmark Commission public hearing scheduled for mid - November. g) WCHS Historic Sites /Tour Brochure Project Planning staff informed the Commission that they are working with the Heritage Society to update the historic sites tour brochure that was previously developed in the mid -80's. The brochure will include all city, state, nationally designated sites /buildings and historic marker sites on maps for the City of Wichita Falls, Burkburnett, Iowa Park and Electra. Ms. Craft commented that the older, existing brochure is an excellent resource that is still utilized the by various agencies (ie. Wichita Falls Visitors & Convention Bureau, etc.) but was definitely in need of updating. If any Commission members would like to assist with this project they may contact the WCHS. d4 h) American Bungalow Article /TRNews Editorial Planning staff indicated that the fall issue of American Bungalow featured a story about Wichita Falls and as a follow -up, the local Times Record Newspaper had an editorial regarding preservation in our community. The American Bungalow article was written by Dawn Murer and Lisa Worley featuring bungalows in Southland addition. The Chairperson asked members if they had read the follow -up editorial and requested their comments. Numerous members indicated a frustration with the editorial and how it portrayed a negative view of the preservation efforts in Wichita Falls. The general consensus of the Commission was the editorial required a response from members. Ms. Craft introduced a motion that planning staff prepare a response, on behalf of the Commission, to the editor of the Times Record Newspaper. Ms. Thueson seconded the motion. The Commission members voted unanimously to support this motion. i) CLG Annual Report Ms. Gagne informed the Commission that each year CLG designated communities are required to submit an annual report outlining preservation activities. This year's report is due in mid - September. Staff submitted a mid -year report to THC in April that outlined Commission and staff preservation activities from July 2003 - January 2004. VII. ADJOURN The Landmark Commission was adjourned at 4:25 pm. Next meeting tentatively scheduled from September 30th to begin work on the CLG Heritage Video project. 4 �G' • Schaaf, Chairp r'son Da e If Landmark Commission September 1, 2004 Page 5 of 5