Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 10/24/2002MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION October 24, 2002 PRESENT: Jan Schaaf, Chairperson Ken Dowdy, Vice - Chairperson Dianne Thueson Loraine Blackwood Michael Collins Mike Koen Steve Seese, Planning Administrator Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III GUESTS: Shirley Craft, Exec. Director VISIONS, Inc. Tim Hunter, Sheppard Air Force Base Lt. Francisco Costa, Sheppard Air Force Base Lin Purtle, Kemp Center for the Arts ABSENT: Ken Birck Douglas James Jim Newsom James Esther I. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. ,� 0 - ") �- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date I I - - C_�4 By fiL Time Y'36/�)v ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ City Staff ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Council Liaison II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST MINUTES Mr. Koen introduced a motion to accept the August 28th meeting minutes as presented and Ms. Blackwood seconded. Minutes approved unanimously as presented. III. INTRODUCTION & SWEARING -IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER(S) Ms. Schaaf introduced the Commission's newest member- Ms. Dianne Thueson. Mr. Seese sworn in Ms. Thueson who recited and signed the oath of office. Planning staff requested the Chairperson accept a change in the agenda in order to address Item Vl. VI. DISCUSSION OF MAINTENANCE FOR BUILDINGS WITHIN THE DEPOT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT - UPDATE FROM NORTH TEXAS VISIONS, INC. Ms. Craft thanked the Committee members for their input and suggestions regarding the issue of maintenance in the downtown historic district. She provided an update from discussions at the August meeting, noting that the discussion is timely with the new International Building codes being implemented. Ms Craft highlighted numerous issues (ie. security of structures, derelict buildings, crumbling foundations, absentee and multiple land owners) that have complicated the process of trying to improve the maintenance of buildings within the downtown. Ms Craft requested assistance from the City planning staff and the Landmark Commission in order to help rectify or solve these problems. Mr. Collins recommended two research avenues: a) looking at how other cities within the State or region are Landmark Commission - DRAFT MINUTES October 24, 2002 Page 1 of 5 addressing the issue of derelict downtown buildings; and b) necessity of obtaining broad base support from the Depot Square property owners prior to implementing maintenance guidelines. Mr. Seese commented that if maintenance requirements were developed for the Depot Square Historic District, and endorsed by Council, they may be retroactive with a time limitation for coming into compliance. Ms. Craft outlined key examples of problems with the buildings /vacant lots within the historic district, ie. Ohio Street - the lot between LaSalle Crossing and Somewhere In TimeAntique Mall is permanently barricaded from use as a parking lot due to a liability concern with the property owner, however the owner is also not willing to sell the property to adjacent land owners. The Chairperson asked how other cities have overcome this issue within their downtowns? Ms. Craft highlighted efforts in Nashville, TN, noting that the City implemented a 4 -year program that resulted in doubled taxes in the derelict downtown the first year, by the second year, property taxes were tripled ifthe buildings were still neglected. The downtown is now thriving due to a phased in series of penalties. Mr. Koen asked what the consequences are if property owners fail to pay their taxes in Wichita Falls and why not sell to an interested owner? Mr. Seese commented that when taxes are delinquent the properties often revert back to the City, which results in the City being liable for the property /buildings until they can be sold which is a long process. Ms. Craft noted that both NORTEX and the VISIONS Board are researching the current status on all properties located within the downtown area. Some property owners are unwilling to sell because they own 1/6 or 1/12 of a property or it's easier for them to hold the property anticipating that it will appreciate even in a neglected state. Mr. Dowdy suggested the creation of a neighborhood association for the Depot Square Historic District and to obtain the minimum 2/3 or 66% of property owners to agree to develop maintenance standards. Ms Craft stated that from discussions with property owners obtaining a 2/3 majority of the Depot Square owners would be attainable. Mr. Collins suggested looking at an addendum to the existing Preservation Ordinance and strengthening requirements for derelict properties, ie. 'tax dis- incentives' for neglected properties. Ms. Thueson commented that it may work as 'tax incentives' are usually the benefit for being included in a commercial historic district. Ms. Craft asked city staff which types of businesses are permitted in the Depot Historic District? Planning staff responded that without a historic overlay district in the Zoning Ordinance, there really are no use restrictions other than being in the Central Business District Zone, which is generally limited or general commercial. Ms. Thueson outlined an example of Port Arthur, which is similar in population to Wichita Falls and was extremely debilitated downtown but now is economically stable. Ms. Thueson questioned to what extent Wichita Falls downtown buildings are in derelict condition? Ms. Craft estimated approximately 40% of buildings in downtown would be considered derelict. Mr. Seese recommended Ms. Craft and the VISIONS Board concentrate their research efforts on cities within Texas. Mr. Collins suggested contacting the National Trust office in Fort Worth for assistance and focus in narrowing research communities. Ms. Craft indicated that she would continue research and viable options for resolving the issue of building neglect in the downtown. IV. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION of DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — KELL AIR FIELD TERMINAL BUILDING #2130 — RENOVATIONS The chairperson recognized the two guests in attendance to outline the proposed renovation plans for the Kell Air Field Terminal Building located on Motor Pool Road at Sheppard Air Force Base. Mr. Tim Hunter, Cultural Resources Manager provided an overview of the proposed project, development stages, and provided additional architect drawings for committee review. He highlighted some minor changes from the application. The earliest drawing obtained for the structure, covered the period from 1928 through 1948 that showed a covered roof access, which was noted for removal. The roof access will now be maintained. In addition, the building has two varying window styles. The new, replacement windows will be wooden frame /sill and match the style on the original portion of the building— the main terminal. Mr. Hunter noted that an addition is proposed for the southern end of the building and will allow additional internal meeting /conference rooms for govern ment/m i I itary and local officials. Mr. Hunter noted that he'd contacted Mr. Ralph Harvey for archival material and stated that the Landmark Commission — DRAFT MINUTES October 24, 2002 Page 2 of 5 renovations /restorations will replicate the building architecture of the 1930's— the earliest documented timeframe. Commission members inquired about the project cost and Mr. Hunter noted that the total restoration costs will be approximately $1 to $1.5 million, of which the new addition is estimated at $750,000. Mr. Hunter noted that the building will be available for civilian use and not restricted to military/air force personnel. The tentative timeline for the project completion and ribbon cutting ceremony is June 2003. Lt. Costa and Mr. Hunter indicated that the paperwork and application are being prepared for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Texas Historical Commission for final approval. Mr. Dowdy inquired about THC's historic involvement with the project. Mr. Hunter stated that THC's been involved since 1990's and had previously permitted the proposed window update. At this time, state approval will be necessary for the remaining renovations. Mr. Hunter noted that the THC historical architectural committee approved the design for the window replacement, which is estimated at $80,000. Mr. Collins questioned if there was a more detailed photographic record of the building. Mr. Hunter noted that pre -World War II photos exist but they are limited to crowds of people or rows of airmen in front of the terminal building that blocked the view of the exterior building. The Chairperson thanked both representatives for the thorough presentation and exciting project. Both Commission members and planning staff were pleased to see such a significant renovation project proposed for a locally designated landmark building. Mr. Koen introduced a motion to approve the design review application as presented for the renovations at the Kell Air Field Terminal Building, pending review and clearance by the Texas Historical Commission and subsequent revisions. Ms. Schaaf seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. It was agreed that all such revisions would be provided to the Commission via planning staff. Planning staff will forward a Certificate of Approval for the proposed design renovations to the applicant. Planning staff requested to move forward in the agenda to Other Business to address an emergency design review application at the Kemp Center for the Arts. Mr. Dowdyintroduced a motion to accept that the agenda be amended to review the Kemp project under Other Business. Ms. Blackwood seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: Other — Design Review - Kemp Center for the Arts Ms. Lin Purtle from the Kemp Center for the Arts outlined the request for design review approval for a pump house in the rear yard, south corner of the grounds. She noted that the Commission had previously toured the facility and approved the sculpture garden /landscape plans. The proposed pump house structure will mirror the architectural style of the Kemp and will be approximately 8' x 10' with a small enclosed area for the pump and it's maintenance. The first component of the sculpture garden is the fishpond and the brick, garden pathway. Ms. Purtle informed the Commission that the pump for the fishpond was much larger than anticipated and landscaping will not be sufficient to screen the mechanism. Ms. Purtle provided architectural sketches of the Kemp grounds noting the location of the pathways, pond and pump house building and a detailed view of the pump house structure. Mr. Seese and the Chairperson requested clarification regarding the orientation of the columns— front or rear of the structure. Ms. Purtle noted the front of the pump house would face the fishpond and have four columns. She added that the building will be similar to a miniature summer cottage and be utilized for pump maintenance and storage of equipment for the pump and pond. Mr. Koen introduced a motion to approve the proposed pump house building and it's location on the grounds of the Kemp Center for the Arts. Mr. Collins seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Seese noted that this pump building project would require, at a minimum, a building permit from the Building Inspection office and possibly additional permits for electrical or mechanical. V. UPDATE FROM THE SOUTHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON RECENT ACTIVITY WITH THE SOUTHLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATION Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the planning office received an email from Dawn Murer and Lisa Worley stating that they were the Southland Historic District project coordinators. She explained that it Landmark Commission - DRAFT MINUTES October 24, 2002 Page 3 of 5 was staff's understanding and the Commission's that the application was prepared by Ms. Murer on behalf of the Southland Neighborhood Association. The Association was a key player in order for the application process and review to be completed. Mr. Dowdy commented that there are definite issues with the application and who the main contact is for information, etc. considering Ms. Murer no longer resides within the Southland area. The Chairperson referenced the letter from Mayor Altman regarding the Instructional Booklet, which references the need for a clear contact/applicant for district applications, etc. Ms. Thueson as a new member questioned who actually submitted the application. Mr. Dowdy noted the original application was signed by Ms. Murer. Ms. Thueson stated that it should not be an issue regarding a contact for the application since the Neighborhood Association must still approve the application for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Dowdy noted a concern when the key contact for an application is not a property owner or eligible to be part of the neighborhood design review committee. Ms. Blackwood commented that in a previous Commission meeting in the spring, she recalled Ms. Murer and representatives from the Association attending the meeting and stating that the Association would be the local contact for the application. The Chairperson informed Ms. Thueson that the Landmark Commission and planning staff would like to see the Southland neighborhood or a portion of it receive historic district designation but in order for that to happen crucial information is still missing. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne reiterated that information continues to be sent to the designated Neighborhood Association President— Mr. Jeffrey Hebner. She indicated that two letters have been sent (May and July) outlining that the Commission requires additional information regarding the 'non- response' parcels within the neighborhood. In addition, planning staff both called and forwarded a letter inviting Mr. Hebner and the Southland Association representatives to the October meeting to provide an update on recent activity in obtaining needed property owner information. Planning staff indicated that they would contact either Mr. Hebner and /or Ms. Judith McGinnis to clarify the local contact for the application. Ms. Thueson commented that the existing, downtown commercial historic district really builds on itself with involvement from the merchants. A residential historic district is much different and there really is no comparison. Ms. Thueson commented that the Southland Neighborhood Association should inform the Landmark Commission who the main contact is for the application. Mr. Collins noted that there are issues with Southland's application and with the email message from Ms. Murer. He added that it is important to work through the neighborhood association and maintain a local contact. UPDATE & DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW OF THE REVISED INSTRUCTIONAL BOOKLET FOR NOMINATING LANDMARKS & HISTORIC DISTRICTS Discussion among Commission members continued regarding the Instructional Booklet revisions /comments received by Mayor Altman. Ms. Thueson shared some of her experience in creating residential historic districts in Fargo, North Dakota. She added that the City of Fargo developed a short, concise 3- paragraph ordinance to address neighborhood associations, and that her preservation group acted as a liaison between the City and the neighborhood association. Commission members requested that Ms. Thueson obtain reference materials from Fargo regarding their residential district process for review and consideration. Mr. Seese noted that currently the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance nor the Zoning Ordinance address neighborhood associations, formation, etc. At this time property deed restrictions are the only avenue for recourse regarding home owners /neighborhood association activities. Mr. Seese noted that the planning division would discuss this issue with the legal department prior to the next meeting. Ms. Thueson, as a preservationist and based on past experience in other communities, was concerned that the City /Commission would require a neighborhood association to be in existence prior to submitting an application for district designation. She stated that the language was too restrictive, and should be reworded as "...should one exist...." Mr. Collins noted that City Council was more concerned with property ownership and support for the designation not necessarily the existence of or the issue with the neighborhood association as the applicant. Ms. Thueson outlined various scenarios regarding the submittal of a district application by an association vs. an individual applicant. She hypothesized that if the Heritage Society researched and prepared a district application for Country Club and submitted it for review. The Heritage Society as the applicant Landmark Commission — DRAFT MINUTES October 24, 2002 Page 4 of 5 would be responsible for meeting all requirements not the Country Club residents /neighborhood association. Mr. Dowdy was concerned that split associations— if an agency or consultant prepares and submits the district application and a neighborhood association forms and opposes the designation— will result in serious issues. The Chairperson stated that many of the issues that developed with the Southland application were because the applicant did not meet the requirements — whether individual and /or the neighborhood association. It was planning staff that proceeded to notify the property owners of the proposed district application, re- notify for a public hearing and work in conjunction with the Southland Neighborhood Association. Mr. Dowdy agreed with the Chairperson and that the Mayor's comments were appropriate - a neighborhood association should be defined, however, not in the district designation guidelines — a separate ordinance or revision to the preservation ordinance is more appropriate. Ms. Thueson agreed that the notification to the property owners for a district application is the responsibility of the applicant — whether that is an individual, non - profit agency, consultant or neighborhood association. Mr. Collins and commission members discussed the importance of the Instructional Booklet in assisting other neighborhood associations or applicants working on district submittals, such as Floral Heights. Planning staff noted that the Floral Heights Neighborhood Association is very active, consists of a small area (approx. 190 -200 properties) and they had block captains to assist with obtaining signatures of consent/interest for each area within the proposed district. The application may even be submitted to the City by January. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne stated that it is difficult to assist and provide direction for the Floral Heights group with a draft Instructional Booklet that keeps changing — the Association is doing every thing possible to ensure they follow City /Landmark requirements. Commission members requested clarification regarding the concerns with the Guidebook from the City Manager and Council. Mr. Dowdy and other commission members recommended changing the language on pages 6/7 of the Guidebook for district applications to state 'applicant' rather than `neighborhood association.' Ms. Thueson indicated that a key selling point for district designation is design review, which should be agreed upon by the property owners. Mr. Dowdy commented that the Commission was looking at developing administrative design review items along with the major items that are reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Thueson informed members that in Fargo, the minimum Secretary of the Interior standards were utilized as a clear distinction for review. Anytime a building or demolition permit was required design review approval was also necessary. Mr. Seese indicated that planning staff would develop a revised application Guidebook for discussion and 'work -up' at the November meeting based on comments from the Mayor and Commission members. Mr. Collins recommended that the Commission rely on the neighborhood association as the local contact for the Southland application. Ms. Thueson interjected that it is Ms. Murer's responsibility as the applicant to meet the application requirements. Mr. Dowdy and other members reiterated the need to send Ms. Murer a letter requesting clarification regarding her as the contact for the Southland application and that it also outline the discrepancies with the application. The Chairperson suggested that the Southland Neighborhood Association President be copied on the letter and request follow -up. Mr. Collins stated that the responsibility falls on the applicant to meet the minimum application requirements. Therefore it is important that the guidebook instructions for district applications are clearly outlined. VI. ADJOURN Meeting was officially adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Planning staff indicated they would contact Commission members regarding the November meeting date /time. Jan Schaaf, Chairperson Date Landmark Commission — DRAFT MINUTES October 24, 2002 Page 5 of 5