Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 03/28/2002i�l�� ►l�ji�►� LANDMARK COMMISSION March 28, 2002 RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By f"i.i Time PRESENT: Andi Holland, Chairperson ■ Members Jan Schaaf, Vice - Chairperson ■ Ken Birck • Loraine Blackwood • Michael Collins • Doug James • Mike Koen • Jim Newsom • Steve Seese ■ City Staff Karen Montgomery-Gagne ■ GUESTS: Shirley Craft, Executive Director, VISIONS Larry Karr, Owner, Original Casa Manana Lin Purtle, Wichita Falls Arts Council Michael Maloney, Architect, Kemp Center for the Arts Project John Hirschi, Wichita Falls Arts Council ABSENT: Ken Dowdy • Arthur Bea Williams ■ Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Holland called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairperson asked if there were any changes to the February 21 st meeting minutes. There being no changes, Mr. Koen introduced a motion to accept the minutes and Ms. Blackwood seconded. Motion passed unanimously — no discussion. III. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — ORIGINAL CASA MANANA — 609 8`h Street The Chairperson introduced the application and asked planning staff to outline the request for signage at Casa Manana. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the application was originally submitted to address a sign erected to an adjacent building facing the alley. She noted the application also requested approval to replace the 55 year -old lettering /design on the windows facing 8`h Street. Mr. Newsom asked Mr. Karr if the alley sign was permanent. Mr. Karr, the owner, indicated that the sign was canvas and it may be changed in the future for specials at the restaurant. He added that the alley sign was erected because the City's trees were blocking his business signage along 8`h Street. Mr. Karr stated that the sign was erected about 3 -4 months prior and he didn't realize approval from the Landmark Commission was required. Mr. Seese interjected that if the alley sign were approved by the Commission at this meeting it would apply only to the current sign, any future sign or design changes would require review. dmark Commission March 28, 2002 Ms. Holland referred members to the Design Review Guideline excerpt in the packet. She highlighted the first guideline for signage, noting, °A sign must be compatible with, and enhance the image of the district or site, and reflect its architectural and historical characteristics." Ms. Craft stated that in her opinion the alley sign did not detract from the district and was delighted that the owners also intended to repaint the 8th Street window signage. Mr. Koen noted that it was a good application of how a sign can be attached to a building and also adequately portray information. Mr. Seese added that if the Commission chose to approve the alley sign, that there should be a condition that if the sign should become faded or in disrepair that it be replaced. Mr. Koen introduced a motion to approve the window signage update and the alley sign with the condition that if the sign becomes faded or in disrepair is shall be replaced. Mr. James seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. IV. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — KEMP CENTER for the ARTS — 1300 Lamar Street The Chairperson introduced the application and requested planning staff outline the proposal for signage. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the Kemp Center for the Arts requested approval to place a marquee -type sign with a brick base at the main entrance to the building (Lamar and 13th Streets). This type of sign would announce various events at the Kemp. Ms. Purtle, project director, spoke on behalf of the application, referring members to the photos in the application, which showed a similar sign, for the First Methodist Church on Taft Boulevard. Mr. Koen asked if there were any final drawings for review. The architect, Mr. Michael Maloney stated that they did not have a final drawing at this time nor the exact dimensions. Mr. Newsom asked what color brick would be used for the sign base. Ms. Purtle stated the brick would match or be similar to that used on the Kemp and in the adjacent parking lot. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to approve the proposed sign and it's placement at the Kemp Center for the Arts. Mr. Koen seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. V. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — OLD CAFE — 612 7th Street . . Ms. Montgomery-Gagne provided some background information regarding this application for signage. The Old Cafe is a new business /restaurant that will be opening at the former site of the 'Cajun Chicken' restaurant. She noted that planning staff discovered the new signage and business site when reviewing another design review application on March 20`h. The application photos show a portable advertising sign on the adjacent vacant lot. Building inspection staff informed planning that the portable sign was removed from the site. There were no representatives for this application present at the meeting. Discussion began amongst members regarding lack of property owner /tenant knowledge and awareness of requirements for historic properties /districts. Mr. Koen questioned the reasoning for accepting applications when signage has already been erected or rehabilitation work complete. Mr. Seese and Mr. Clark stated that generally, many property owners and /or tenants do not even realize that there are design review guidelines for historic properties. Mr. Koen suggested that sign companies should already be knowledgeable regarding the City's signage requirements and design review guidelines. Ms. Craft stated the property was held by City Vending and that they were aware of the additional requirements with the historic district. Mr. James and Mr. Koen recommended that the sign companies should be notified via a letter regarding all signage regulations. Planning staff pointed out that usually the sign company is hired by business owner(s) to prepare the signage lettering; design, size and layout based on their specifications not according to what is allowed by the City regulations. Ultimately, the sign company works for the client not the City. Mr. Birck responded that if a letter were forwarded to all sign companies within the City, it would simply inform, educate and hopefully request their cooperation but not force them to meet any specific standards. Landmark Commission March 28, 2002 Ms. Holland and other members recommended looking into sending a letter to sign companies putting them on notice regarding guidelines relating to signage for historic /landmark properties. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to accept the signage for the Old Cafe. Mr. James seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. VI. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION — Dr. FANOUS Office —1411 9th Street Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the planning office has not received the application or accompanying paperwork for this item. Commission members recommended tabling this item until the April Commission meeting. VII. DISCUSSION . & RECOMMENDATION of LANDMARK COMMISSION COMPOSITION AMENDMENT (Historic Preservation Ord. Article II — Sec. 62- 36(a)(b) and 62 -38) The Chairperson referred members to the draft Council agenda item and planning staff explained the proposed alteration (quorum) from the February Commission meeting. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne explained that as the item was being prepared for Council's review, the Commission recommendation was to eliminate a set number of Commission members, which would change the wording for what constitutes a quorum of the membership. Planning staff developed draft language to address (Section 62 -38 Proceedings) this deficiency, the draft language states the following: "....A simple majority of the members shall constitute a quorum and an affirmative vote by a two - thirds majority of the members present shall be necessary to carry out any action of the commission....." Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to recommend the proposed revisions as outlined in the draft agenda item and Mr. Koen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. VIII. DISCUSSION of SOUTHLAND ADDITION APPLICATION for HISTORIC DISTRICT NOMINATION Mr. Clark discussed the Southland application with Commission members and recommended reviewing the mapped property owners' responses, touring the Southland properties and reviewing what is considered historic. He highlighted Huff Street as a key area for consideration with its unique variety of bungalows, noting that the final recommendation from the Commission will be based on "What should be preserved and maintained within the Southland neighborhood ?" Ms. Craft asked if the application would still be reviewed in phases. Mr. Clark indicated that it maybe useful to depart from the phases in order to determine what is worthy of preservation. The review is two -fold — review of areas with property owner interest along with determining areas worthy for protection. Mr. Koen, referring to the map of property owner interest, noted that the area from Baylor to Brook and from 111' to Elizabeth appeared to have strong support for designation. Ms. Schaaf asked if there was any obligation to contact those property owners opposed to the application. Mr. Clark and Mr. Seese noted that there would be a public hearing scheduled in the near future to allow property owners to comment on the application. Ms. Schaaf inquired about the impact of the historic designation for commercial properties. Mr. Clark commented that both the downtown district and the Monroe Street antique area have experienced a positive impact from historic status, he added that with the limited commercial zoned properties fronting Kell there would be no impact with the historic designation. Planning staff indicated that a public hearing would probably be scheduled for April 25th. Staff noted that they had contacted other preservation professionals in the North - Central TX region to request expertise or involvement for the public hearing. Two consultants — an architect and a preservation planner who work/assist with Preservation Dallas are interested in possibly helping answer questions at the public hearing /information session in mid - April. Staff noted that additional information would be forwarded to Commission members regarding the public hearing. IX. OTHER BUSINESS: a) City Council Review — Instructional Booklet for Nominating Landmarks/ Historic District — Tabled Landmark Commission March 28, 2002 Mr. Clark discussed Council's decision at their March 5th meeting to table the review of the Instructional Booklet until the April 2nd Council meeting. Mr. Clark further explained that the item was rescheduled for Council and encouraged Commission members to attend in support of the Instructional Booklet and /or to request that City Council form a special Committee to work with the Commission in reviewing requirements for nominating a historic district/landmark. Ms. Holland questioned why the item was originally tabled by City Council. Mr. Clark outlined key concerns regarding the requirements in the Instructional Booklet, such as cost of an application, the percent commitment from the proposed district, notification requirements, etc. He added that this was a unique situation in requesting Council endorsement of an Instructional Booklet vs. proposing an Ordinance. Planning staff informed Commission members that they had contacted other preservation professionals within the State and found the following: Fort Worth requires 66% commitment of property owners in designating a district, Bryan - College Station requires 75% and San Antonio requires 51%. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne stated there is significant variation throughout the State — the percent commitment from property owners for designating a historic district is dependent on the individual municipality and what that elected government believes is acceptable and appropriate for the community. The Chairperson and Mr. Clark informed Commission members of an incident that developed during the week in Southland at 1810 11'h Street, where the property owner was in the midst of preparing to have the front yard filled with concrete to allow front yard parking. Mr. Clark noted that the City attorney's interpretation of Sec. 62 -2 — Compliance from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, "....building code administrator shall regularly inspect the exterior of landmarks and any work on a landmark and landmarks with pending designation status to ensure compliance...." considers "pending designation" as the timeframe from when the Landmark Commission has rendered a recommendation to awaiting a final City Council determination not an application with pending review status as is the case with the Southland Historic District application. Mr. Clark added that unfortunately, the Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Divisions have no authority to cite a property without enforceable regulations or an ordinance that specifically pertains to the issue. In this situation, filling in front yards with concrete currently does not constitute an illegal offense. Planning staff pointed out that this situation brings up key questions during the landmark designation process, such as, notification prior to final submittal for affected property owners and when do design review requirements become effective for compliance. The Chairperson asked if additional changes to the Instructional Booklet might be developed prior to Council's final review at the April 2nd meeting. Mr. Clark indicated that the Commission might request that the agenda item be removed from Council's consideration. The Commission members requested an opinion from the City attorney, Mr. Bill Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan indicated that the Commission had three main options for addressing the Instructional Booklet, being: a) recommend necessary changes and forward to Council prior to Tuesday's meeting; b) request that the agenda item be withdrawn from review at this time for additional research, or c) request that a Council subcommittee be developed among the Council and Commission members to review the issue. Mr. James introduced a motion to request City Council remove the Instructional Booklet agenda item from the April 2 "d Council meeting. Mr. Koen seconded the motion. Motion was approved unanimously. b) Amended Landmark Commission Meeting Schedule Planning staff received a request that the Commission meeting date be amended from April through August in order to accommodate full member attendance at meetings. Commission members were in agreement with having meetings moved from the 3`d Thursday to the 3`d Wednesday of each month. Landmark Commission meetings will be held on the following dates for the next 5 months: April 17th, May 15th, June 19'h, July 17th and August 21s', 2002. Landmark Commission March 28, 2002 c) CLG Status The Chairperson and Planning staff were pleased to announce that the U.S. Department of the Interior approved the City's application for Certified Local Government Status as of March 20, 2002. Ms. Holland, Mr. James and Mr. Newsom indicated that upon receiving designation it was vital to begin applying for training funds for seminars, conferences and preservation activities within Wichita Falls. Staff indicated that they would contact the State CLG Coordinator to determine funding deadlines and application procedures. d) Discussion & Approval of Depot Square Street Signs Ms. Craft stated that as of March 29`h the City would begin painting the light poles in the Depot Historic District then work through the downtown area. She added that within 2 -3 weeks the 17 new silver and forest green historic district streets signs would be in place. In addition, there will be 3 brown signs (24" x 24 ") proposed for placement at 7 1 8 1 and Ohio Street, noting that people are entering the Depot Square Historic District. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to approve the new street signage and poles for the Depot Square Historic District. Ms. Blackwood seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. e) Wichita County Heritage Society — status of Berry Brown landmark home Ms. Holland informed Commission members that the Wichita County Heritage Society Board voted on March 27'h to forward a letter to the City and Landmark Commission regarding the state of the Berry Brown City landmark home located at 1400 Travis Street. The Commission members discussed concerns with the current state of the City's only remaining catalogue -mail- order home. Members noted issues with maintenance and upkeep of the structure and that there were questions about the building's future. The Chairperson and Ms. Schaaf asked planning staff for direction on this issue. Mr. Clark stated that the Landmark Commission could forward the property owners a letter outlining concerns with maintenance and upkeep /compliance. Ms. Schaaf introduced a motion that the property owners of the designated landmark (Berry Brown House) be notified that it is in need of repair. Mr. Birck seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. f) Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison Visit at Holt Hotel Mr. Clark invited all Commission members to a meeting at the Holt Hotel with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Wednesday, April 3`d from 2:45 to 3:30 p.m. He noted that the Senator was responsible for the project's Economic Development Incentive Grant for $500,000. Mr. Clark also provided members with an update on the progress of the Holt Hotel project. X. ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 17`h at Memorial Auditorium for 3:00 p.m. Andi Holland, Chairperson Landmark Commission March 28, 2002 Date