Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 11/21/2002MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION November 21, 2002 PRESENT: Jan Schaaf, Chairperson Ken Dowdy, Vice - Chairperson Ken Birck Douglas James Jim Newsom Dianne Thueson David Clark, Dir. Community Development Steve Seese, Planning Administrator Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III GUESTS: None ABSENT: Loraine Blackwood Michael Collins Mike Koen James Esther I. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST MINUTES Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to accept the October 24th James seconded. Minutes approved unanimously as presented. RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date �i " ds ✓ D By Time to Ooh ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ City Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Council Liaison meeting minutes as presented and Mr. III. UPDATE, REVISIOINS & DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REVISED INSTRUCTIONAL BOOKLET FOR NOMINATING LANDMARKS & HISTORIC DISTRICTS The Chairperson introduced this item, planning staff briefly explained the general changes incorporated into the Instructional Booklet and that it would be very useful to have the booklet from the October meeting available for reference. Ms. Gagne noted that in an effort to further simplify and organize the instructions, the Accompanying Documentation Section was re- arranged. Currently, the Instructional Booklet has three key sections at the beginning that outline all policies and requirements for submitting either a district or individual landmark application followed by the appendices which consist of the landmark and district applications, continuation sheets and property owner consent form. The Commission members and planning staff began at pg 5 of the Instructional Booklet and proceeded to discuss, review and revise the updated format and contents. Under Section 3 — Application Procedures, pg 6 (2) — Mr. Newsom was concerned with the timing for the City sending out notices "...no later than 45- days..." and recommended that it be revised to the following "...45 days prior to the date scheduled for a hearing..." Item discussed amongst Commission members and staff and agreed to change along with the removal of "...Property owners shall be given 30 days to respond to the Notice of Intent for Historic District Designation..." Mr. Dowdy and Ms. Thueson discussed the potential for utilizing the Reply Form rather than the Petition /Consent Form in order to obtain property owner feedback for district nominations. Ms. Thueson noted that the Reply Form provided more options for property owners in determining their interest in being part of a district application. She recommended a 2 -part Appendix D by modifying the existing Reply Forms that the City mailed regarding the Southland D R A F T Landmark Commission November 21, 2002 Page 1 of 4 application and that the applicant use the Petition /Consent Form as a final tally of property owner interest regarding the district application. Ms. Thueson and Ms. Schaaf commented that by using the existing Appendix D — Property Owner Consent Form, it implies that all the signatures gathered by the applicant or association on the form is in favor of the application. Ms. Thueson expanded on the Reply Form idea, noting that for every property owner there would also be a corresponding Reply Form that would be submitted with the District application. The Commission members in attendance agreed with the proposed recommendation to simplify the process. Mr. James commented that the Reply Forms would be quite useful in the application process because there is space for comments and one of three options — "In Favor ", "Opposed" or "No Opinion- which will be considered in favor." Landmark Commission members agreed that all references to the Petition Form should be replaced with a "Property Owner Response Form." Mr. Birck inquired how City Council would interpret a "Non- Response" as either a yes or a no for the application? Mr. Clark and Ms. Schaaf responded that staff and the Commission do not have an answer from Council at this time regarding "non- response" property owners. Mr. Seese commented that in reference to property re- zonings /conditional use applications, notifications are mailed to property owners within 200ft of the affected property and Council interprets those "non responses" as 'not opposed." Mr. Clark stated that from discussions with City Council members there is a distinction between actual number of people in favor of the application and the "assumed" in favor via a non - response. He added Council may opt for a different interpretation for historic preservation responses because it affects individual and personal property vs. the situation with a rezoning, where property owners provide a response regarding a development proposal at a separate location - it may be a completely different interpretation. Mr. Newsom commented that no matter what minimum percentage of commitment (ie. 51%, 66 %, 75 %, etc.) is required when submitting a district application, there may still be a vocal minority of opponents that actively try to sway the decision of City Council. Mr. James agreed with the statement, adding that at some point in the process of trying to develop a clear district nomination process the Landmark Commission needs to obtain City Council's interpretation regarding the 'consent/opposed /implied consent' for district applications. Ms. Gagne provided an update on the activity with the Floral Heights Association's district application for approximately 192 properties — noting that the Association was very active in obtaining property owner input/consent for the district nomination and they have tried over the past 10 months to follow all of the Landmark Commission's procedural requirements and guidelines amidst ever - changing and revised policies. Ms. Gagne added that planning staff is in a difficult position in trying to provide direction and assistance to the residents of Floral Heights and the Association since the Instructional Booklet continues to be revised — it doesn't provide consistency which is key to the process. Mr. James and Mr. Newsom stated that the upcoming district application from the Floral Heights group is completely different than that of Southland. The Floral Heights property owners see the value in obtaining historic designation and are actively involved with the application process (ie. appointment of block captains, etc.) The Chairperson stated that if this procedural process for nominating districts were in place earlier when the Southland application was submitted there would not be the problems and issues facing the Commission. Mr. James and Mr. Dowdy commented that the Landmark Commission and planning staff have tried to work with the Southland Association and Ms. Murer, the applicant in order to move the application forward to City Council for consideration but pertinent information is still missing that Council will require prior to making a final determination of historic status. Mr. Dowdy referenced the Mayor's correspondence regarding the 66% minimum property owner commitment for a historic district nomination and how that was addressed. Mr. Clark stated that staff would explain the research and background methodology that went into implementing the 66% requirement. The information will also be outlined in a detailed Council communiqu6. The Commission recommended to remove item 3(g) on page 6 as the timing was not an issue since the applicant is responsible for obtaining the 66% commitment level prior to submitting the district application. Mr. James stated that in order for the Landmark Commission to move the Southland D R A F T Landmark Commission November 21, 2002 Page 2 of 4 application forward, the Commission needs to have local leadership from within the neighborhood association to obtain the interest necessary to form a historic district. Mr. Clark added that at this point, if the Southland applicant and /or the neighborhood association were able to generate the necessary interest from property owners in the proposed district area, the planning division would still accept the update application and not require additional fees. Mr. Dowdy indicated a concern regarding pg. 7 Sec. B — Individual Landmark Designation (2g) the revised language — noting "design regulations" rather than design guidelines. Ms. Thueson outlined that if the term 'regulation' is utilized it will require significant detail and explanation for each design standard. She noted that implementing a generalized set of design guidelines would simplify the process. Mr. Clark commented that he understood both viewpoints regarding 'regulation' vs. 'guideline' but that in either situation if a design review case were ever appealed to the courts the Commission's review process and determination would have to be proven. Commission members discussed the issue and determined that the wording should be amended to state "design guidelines" which allow for the implementation of more generic policies. Mr. Dowdy recommended some revisions to the application flow chart on pg 8. Planning staff pointed out that numerous changes were incorporated to the flow chart to address the Mayor's concerns regarding timeframes, appeal of an application and city council actions. Mr. Dowdy and Ms. Schaaf suggested removing the text box regarding "LC Reviews Tabled Nomination" as it was redundant. Mr. Dowdy suggested reworking the existing text boxes (ie. recommend, table or deny) to indicate actions taken for a tabled application. Commission members were in agreement. Planning staff outlined the revisions to the text box regarding the appeal process — "30 day Appeal Process for the Application to Council..." Mr. James and Mr. Dowdy questioned how the appeal process would involve the Commission. Mr. Clark stated that there is an appeal option available regarding any Landmark Commission determination (ie. Landmark/Historic District Application and /or Design Review Applications). Mr. Seese commented that there is only a 10 -day window for appealing a rezoning application. Mr. Newsom questioned the appeal timeframes for other Commissions, such as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning staff indicated that they would review the standard timeframe for an appeal process with the City Clerk's office. [NOTE: Research with the City Cleric's office and planning staff determined that the Historic Preservation Ord. (Chapter 62 -6 Appeal) addresses any appeal of the Landmark Commission. "Any person who is aggrieved by a ruling or action of the landmark commission under this chapter may, within 30 days after the ruling, appeal to the city council by filing written notice with the city clerk." The flowchart was revised to state a 30 -day appeal process for any Landmark Commission action /ruling.] Planning staff outlined revisions to Section 4 — which now includes the Accompanying Documentation procedures for submitting photographs, maps, and the physical description of the building, site or district. Staff proceeded to request the Commission's opinion regarding sample district photos submitted by the Floral Heights Association. All Commission members were in agreement that photos should be labeled in pencil with the property address. In addition, members requested that two basic photo requirements from the Photoaraph Guidelines For National Register Nominations be incorporated into the Accompanying Documentation section. Mr. Dowdy questioned the reasoning for removing the former Sec. 3 and 4 from the historic district requirements which outline the requirements for design review subcommittee, etc. Mr. Seese indicated he removed the preservation liaison and district design standards committee requirements based on concerns outlined in the Mayor's letter, discussions with Mr. Clark and the conclusion that having the staff and Commission develop a generic set of design standards which may be tailored to either residential or commercial districts may be a simpler process. Mr. Dowdy expressed concern with removing the local, neighborhood input for design standards since, upon designation, they will be subject to the policies. Ms. Thueson agreed with Mr. Seese's comments — there are issues that will arise in the future by having the neighborhood association as a component of a design review committee. She noted it would be more appropriate having a group (ie. an architect, a preservationist, a realtor, etc.) of people appointed from the community with expertise in the field for reviewing design applications. Ms. Thueson recommended maintaining a standard set of design review guidelines (ie. Secretary of the D R A F T Landmark Commission November 21, 2002 Page 3 of 4 Interior Design Standards) which are appropriate for all districts and individual landmarks. Mr. Dowdy and Mr. Newsom explained that the Instructional Booklet was revised and amended after the Southland public hearing in April based on advice from preservationists from Dallas that had established a successful program for the development of neighborhood focused design review guidelines. Mr. Newsom added that if the Commission develops /updates the existing design review guidelines with a standard /generic outline, historic neighborhoods would have the opportunity to customize the guidelines for their historic district at a later time. Mr. Clark suggested that it was important to separate requirements for design review applications from the process of applying to designate either a landmark or historic district. Ms. Thueson agreed, design review information should not be explained in the Instructional Booklet as it is focused on the process of nominating historic properties /districts. Commission members were in agreement with the removal of the design review committee references in the Instructional Booklet. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to recommend the adoption of the guidebook — Instructions For Completing Wichita Falls Landmark & Historic District Nomination Forms. Mr. Dowdy seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: Other a) Landmark Commission Membership — Re- appointments Mr. Clark informed the Commission three members were up for reappointment in December — Mr. Dowdy, Mr. James and Mr. Newsom. Both Mr. Dowdy and Mr. James indicated interest in serving on the Commission for another term. Unfortunately, Mr. Newsom is at his term limit. b) The Medallion — Discussed key articles in the November /December Medallion. c) Issue at 1714 Elizabeth - Mr. Newsom informed the Commission of a realtor auction at 1714 Elizabeth on November 29th and suggested that as it was in the recommended Southland district area planning staff should contact the realtor. Planning staff indicated they would contact the realtor and provide background information regarding the City's landmark program, historic tax freeze information, etc. Mr. Seese requested that Mr. Newsom conduct a title search for some specific landmark and Depot Square Historic District properties to ensure that the designation is still recorded at the County. Mr. Newsom and Ms. Schaaf suggested that historic designations should be included for all MLS realtor listings. d) Discussion of Photo Requirements Planning staff passed around photos submitted by Flora their district application in order to obtain comments Commission. Both staff and Commission members w photographs as they will be a key resource in the fut submitted for approval. I Heights Association as examples for and suggestions from the Landmark ere impressed with the detail of the ure if design review applications are Ms. Thueson recommended that photos for the District applications be taken from the street, with a straight view directly toward the building /site in order to capture everything visible from the `streetscape.' Commission members generally agreed that, if building /site is mid -block — 1 photo should be sufficient and for corner property, 2 photos — one taken from either street to capture the key elements for future reference. V. ADJOURN Meeting was officially adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Planning staff indicated they would contact Commission members regarding the December meeting date /time. Jan Schaaf, Chairperson Date D R A F T Landmark Commission November 21, 2002 Page 4 of 4