Landmark Commission Minutes - 05/22/2002M I N U T E S RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
LANDMARK COMMISSION
May 22, 2002
Date Ucl - C) 3� U
By Time I
PRESENT:
Andi Holland, Chairperson
■ Members
Jan Schaaf, Vice - Chairperson
■
Ken Birck
■
Loraine Blackwood
■
Michael Collins
■
Ken Dowdy
■
Douglas James
■
Mike Koen
■
Jim Newsom
■
Arthur Bea Williams
■ Council Liaison
Dave Clark, Director, Community Development ■ City Staff
Steve Seese, Planning Administrator ■
Karen Montgomery-Gagne ■
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairperson, Ms. Holland called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
II. REAPPOINTMENTS
The Chairperson requested nominations for the election of new officers for remainder of 2002 due to her
relocation out of state. Mr. Newsom nominated Ms. Jan Schaaf for Chairperson, which was seconded by
Mr. James. Mr. Collins motioned that nominations be closed seconded by Ms. Blackwood. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Newsom nominated Mr. Ken Dowdy for Vice - Chairperson, seconded by Ms. Blackwood. Mr. Collins
introduced a motion that nominations be closed and Mr. James seconded. Motion was passed
unanimously.
The Landmark Commission Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson for remainder of 2002 are Ms. Schaaf
and Mr. Dowdy, respectively.
III. APPROVAL OF APRIL MINUTES
Mr. Birck introduced a motion to accept the minutes as presented and Ms. Schaaf seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
IV. REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT SOUTHLAND PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 25th, 2002
Ms. Schaaf referred members to the meeting packet with the comments from both the Southland
property owners in attendance and the staff /consultant responses.
Mr. Clark indicated that he was generally pleased with the outcome of the public hearing and it provided
a good speaking opportunity for all property owners in attendance. He noted that Mr. Ron Emrich was a
good key expert on preservation and provided useful ideas. The public hearing helped develop some
needed conclusions regarding property owner opinion and issues. Ms. Schaaf concurred with Mr. Clark,
adding that she was quite pleased and surprised by the positive atmosphere and attitude of the public
Landmark Commission May 22, 2002 Page 1 of 3
Ar
hearing. Mr. Collins noted that there seemed to be fewer peoplein opposition that came out to express
their concerns than expected. Mr. Clark and Councilor Williams commented on the positive turnout from
City Council.
Mr. Clark outlined some information on the HOME Again housing rehabilitation program that was
implemented in the Southland area. Councilor Williams noted that there was strong interest in the overall
improvement of the neighborhood and desire that property values increase. Mr. James paralleled the
concerns for historic designation with the introduction of zoning. He noted that the zoning designation
provided protection from inappropriate development. Ms. Schaaf agreed, stating that many Southland
property owners believed the historic designation would take away their development rights rather than
provide long -term protection from inappropriate development adjacent to their property.
Discussion covered the topic of the interpretation 'non- response' properties. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne
commented that some cities may choose to designate non - response parcels because of the authority
vested in the legislation which allows municipal governments to designate historic resources with or
without property owner consent. She noted that most cities preferred to act with property owner consent.
Mr. Seese noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission interprets the non - response properties as a
'yes.' Neighborhood demographics were discussed also noting accommodations made for language
barriers.
Mr. Dowdy stated that there are numerous issues and questions arising from the Southland application
that need to either be addressed or considered prior to reviewing future district applications. Planning
staff noted that the instructional /procedural booklet (ie. outlines the requirements, fees and process of
applying for a historic designation) must be re- assessed in order to address key questions that have
developed with the Southland process including owner contact and fee requirements.
V. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
SOUTHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
Mr. Clark provided a staff recommendation (attached) that a more limited area be designated to include
properties fronting on 11th, Huff, and Elizabeth (map was provided). He further suggested thatthere be
individual guidelines for this area, which would include some accommodation for the allowance of various
exterior wall finish materials. He also explained the considerations for the development of this
recommendation. These included: 1) notation of the properties that were specifically mentioned in the
1982 Historic Preservation Survey and Plan for Wichita Falls, Texas; 2) Submitted documentation; 3)
Property owner response; 4) a '/Z day in the field reviewing and analyzing each street/properties within
the proposed application area. He also suggested that staff be authorized to approve minor design
review items.
Discussion took place concerning siding materials. Councilor Williams noted that in some cases,
textured aluminum siding, if installed properly could improve the exterior appearance of the structure.
Mr. Clark and Ms. Montgomery-Gagne noted that in their fieldwork numerous homes within Southland
already have fiberglass or aluminum siding — examples of these sites are outlined in the staff
recommendation
Planning staff referred members to a secondary option for recommendation that includes the first area in
addition to the area from Collins to McGregor and from Brook west to Van Buren. Ms. Montgomery-
Gagne explained the methodology for providing a secondary option: 1) numerous property owners along
McGregor and Pearl expressed strong interest in renovating their homes; and 2) strong turnout at the
public hearing from owners on Pearl and McGregor. In conjunction, the secondary area had a 21.3%
interest from property owners only 3.3% opposed and 75.4% were non - responsive. Mr. Collins
questioned why Option #2 did not extend from Van Buren to Harrison. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne noted
that responses from property owners didn't provide any clear -cut determination for designation.
Landmark Commission May 22, 2002 Page 2 of 3
i
The idea of neighborhood based design review guidelines was discussed. Consensus was achieved
concerning the value of this format. Councilor Williams and other members noted that people's fears
seemed to be reduced after the public hearing once they understood realistic guidelines would be
enforced. Mr. Dowdy indicated that most property owners appear to be scared of the design review
guidelines rather than the actual designation. Mr. Clark reiterated that the overall purpose of the
application was to improve the neighborhood.
Ms. Montgomery-Gagne explained the detailed process staff used to contact property owners in order to
obtain their opinion regarding the application. Two notifications (ie. initial for obtaining response forms
and flyer for public hearing) have been mailed to all property owners registered with the county appraisal
office. Processing costs have already been approximately $900 41,000 (excluding staff time), which was
not budgeted for 2002. Planning staff indicated that when the application was submitted, there was no
fee structure in place for historic district applications.
In an effort to solicit a higher response rate, staff provided representatives from the Neighborhood
Association (after the March 8th response deadline) with a listing of non - response property owners and
response forms for distribution. The detailed listing outlined secondary property addresses if the
property owner didn't reside at the physical location within Southland. Mr. Collins noted that it should be
the responsibility of the Neighborhood Association to go door -to -door to obtain additional responses. Mr.
James introduced a motion that prior to City Council's consideration and final review of the application
that the Neighbourhood Association representatives (as applicant) determine /survey the status of the
127 'non- response' land parcels within the recommended area. Mr. Koen seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously. The chairperson requested planning staff contact the Neighborhood Association
regarding the need for additional information prior to Council review.
Ms. Holland and Mr. Dowdy requested staff contact the two preservation specialists (Ron Emrich and
Marcel Quimby) to obtain sample design review guidelines for Dallas bungalow districts. All members in
favor of the development of individual area design review guidelines.
In order to facilitate a coordinated interpretation of the non - response property owners, a suggestion was
made to promote a joint City Council /Landmark Commission tour of the Southland area. This could
provide greater detail on the historic and architectural value of the area. Mr. Collins pointed out that
many properties are already deteriorating and that designation may be the only opportunity to
preserve /retain the homes. Mr. Clark indicated that he would contact the City Manager and Mayor to
discuss the option of scheduling a joint City Council and Landmark Commission meeting during June.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Holland inquired about the status of the Berry Brown House landmark and if planning staff forwarded
a letter to the owners regarding its exterior disrepair. Mr. Clark responded that the community
development staff and City are very limited with what can be done to alleviate the problem as there is no
specific authority to require routine maintenance. He noted that the structure is secure so there isn't a
safety /health hazard and the weeds /grass haven't become an issue to date. Mr. Clark indicated that
planning staff would forward a letter to the property owners of the house and request that the structure
be maintained.
VII. ADJOURN
Meeting was officially adjourned at 4:48 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday,
June 19th at the Memorial Auditorium for 3:00 p.m.
Jan Schaaf, Chairperson
Date
Landmark Commission May 22, 2002 Page 3 of 3