Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 02/21/2002MINUTES ",J ("-(, .1<: LANDMARK COMMISSION February 21, 2002 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By P)(-- Time 31-50 PRESENT: Andi Holland, Chairperson ■ Members Jan Schaaf, Vice - Chairperson ■ Ken Birck ■ Loraine Blackwood ■ Michael Collins ■ Jim Newsom ■ Steve Seese ■ City Staff Karen Montgomery -Gagne ■ GUESTS: Shirley Craft, Executive Director, VISIONS Robin Anderson, Southland property owner Judith McGinnis, Southland Neighborhood Association Dawn Murer, Southland Neighborhood Association Cindy Saillant, Southland property owner Ken Dowdy ■ Doug James ■ Mike Koen ■ Arthur Bea Williams ■ Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Holland called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairperson asked if there were any changes to the January 17th meeting minutes. There being no changes, Mr. Birck introduced a motion to accept the minutes and Ms. Blackwood seconded. Motion passed unanimously — no discussion. III. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP — HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORD. ARTICLE II — SECTION 62 -36 The Chairperson referred members to the excerpt from the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which outlines the creation, composition, qualifications and compensation for Landmark Commission members. Ms. Holland brought forth an idea for potential consideration regarding representation on the Commission from the downtown association — VISIONS executive director. She added that VISIONS key focus on downtown revitalization efforts along with its promotion also includes the Depot Square Historic District. Mr. Newsom recalled discussions of Commission composition, etc. when the Ordinance was researched and updated during 2000. He stated that the number of `member -at- large' positions (4) was discussed and tentatively, as additional historic districts are designated by Council, this number of would be reduced accordingly. Landmark Commission February 21, 2002 Page 1 of 5 Ms. Holland stated that generally the City prefers to maintain an odd number of members on Boards and Commissions to avoid a tie vote /recommendation. Mr. Seese commented that the Commission members might choose to consider recommending a maximum number of members, ie. such as, `no more than twelve members.' Members discussed numerous ways to address the total membership numbers and recommended to amend both Section 62 -36 (a) and (b) with the general wording outlined below: Section 62 -36 (a) "There is created a landmark commission , of which members shall be a city resident, appointed by the city council." (b) "Landmark Commission members shall be as follows: of the .,;„o memhem, one (1) shall be a licensed real estate broker or appraiser, one (1) shall be a member of the planning and zoning commission, one (1) shall be a member of the Wichita County Heritage Society, one (1) shall be a member from each or any historic district that shall either own property or reside within the district; one (1) shall be the Executive Director of North Texas VISION Inc.; two (2) shall be licensed or have expertise in the field of architecture; and three (3) shall be members -at- large." Mr. Collins requested clarification regarding the expansion of membership — whether it was in total number or in level of expertise. Mr. Newsom responded it was the number of members that would potentially increase, ie. more members if the executive director VISIONS position is incorporated. He added that the current wording in the Ordinance does not allow for the executive director of VISIONS to be a member of the Commission. Ms. Holland stated that there should be a separate position for the downtown association representative not an overlap with the appointee who represents the Depot Square Historic District. Mr. Newsom concurred that having a representative related to downtown revitalization is not the same as a representative for the Depot Square. It is also important to maintain some member -at -large positions on the Commission because they provide diversity from the community. After discussing the potential for including additional representation to the Commission and tentative wording, Ms. Blackwood introduced a motion that the Historic Preservation Ordinance be revised to address Landmark Commission composition by adding a position for the Executive Director of North Texas VISION Inc. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Discussion regarding wording and phrasing followed and Mr. Newsom introduced an amended motion to make revisions to both Section 62 -36 (a) and (b) regarding membership and that the recommended revisions be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Mr. Collins seconded the amended motion. Motion passed unanimously. IV. UPDATES: a) Certified Local Government (CLG) Agreement with TX Historical Commission Ms. Montgomery-Gagne informed members that the City received the tentative C.L.G. agreement for the Mayor's signature in early February. The Mayor signed the agreements on February 61h and subsequently forwarded to Texas Historical Commission for final review and signature. She added that upon final sign off and receipt of the agreement, the City of Wichita Falls would be a Certified Local Government with the opportunity to apply for preservation planning grant funds and for training /conference assistance to assist Commission members to attend state seminars. Members were pleased that after 1 -2 years working on this process the City was very close to obtaining the C.L.G. status. b) City Council Review — Instructional Booklet for Nominating Landmarks/Historic Districts — March Stn Review Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the instructional booklet would be presented to Council at their March 5th meeting for comment and endorsement. The instructional booklet was not included in the February 19th Council packet in order to give them additional time to Landmark Commission February 21, 2002 Page 2 of 5 review the updated requirements and procedures noted in the booklet. She briefly highlighted that numerous Commission members requested in November during the discussions /review regarding historic district designation and the requirement of 70% commitment on behalf of the property owners to be reviewed and endorsed by the City Council. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that she would provide a report regarding Council's decision at the March meeting. Ms. Holland asked if it would be appropriate for Commission members to attend the March 5th meeting in support of the booklet. Planning staff encouraged any and all Commission members to attend the meeting in support or to speak on behalf of the agenda item. Staff informed members that this would be considered as a resolution — the Council meeting would commence at 8:30 a.m. c) Floral Heights Neighborhood — Request for District Application Forms Ms. Montgomery-Gagne informed the Commission members that Ms. Looney from the Floral Heights Neighborhood Association had requested nomination materials for designating the Floral Heights area. She noted that the Floral Heights application would probably include approximately 200 properties and generally include the areas from Buchanan west to Hayes Street and from 10th Street south to Avenue H. d) Signage — Depot Square & Downtown Ms. Craft provided a detailed overview on the signage subcommittee's activities for updated signage in the downtown and the historic district. She noted that sample sign designs were developed for review by the City and the VISIONS Board. Ms. Craft commented that there would be approximately 17 of the new signs placed at 11 locations within the Depot Square Historic District. The proposed historic district logo would be placed on the end of the street signs with a forest green background and silver lettering while the logo portion would have reverse coloring. In addition to the traditional street/sign poles there are 3 signs proposed for placement at 7 1 8 1 and Ohio Street, which indicate people, are entering the Depot Square Historic District. The VISIONS Board unanimously approved to update the signage in both the downtown and historic district. Ms. Craft noted that she is working with Mr. John Burrus (City traffic superintendent) on the production and placement schedule. Ms. Craft informed the Commission that the City had recently completed the tree - planting program for 2002 with 41 new trees added to the downtown core. e) State Preservation Conference — April 2002 Ms. Holland reminded and encouraged everyone to attend the state preservation conference being held in Abilene during April. She will be attending with Heritage Society Board members. V. PRESENTATION from SOUTHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES Ms. Holland invited those people in attendance for the Southland application to discuss their concerns and talk with both the Commission members and staff. There were four people in attendance representing the Southland neighborhood association group. Ms. Murer indicated that originally the association wanted to take Commission members on a detailed tour of the Southland addition and highlight the seven types of bungalow represented within the proposed area for designation, key items to look for and analyze, along with special design review guidelines for bungalow neighborhoods. Ms. Murer outlined that the neighborhood association representatives were in attendance to answer questions from the Landmark Commission regarding the application. Landmark Commission February 21, 2002 Page 3 of 5 'Ms. Murer highlighted that the within the proposed area for historic designation there are two main bungalow types - bungalow and prairie /craftsman. Ms. Saillant questioned the rationale for having received only one reply form when two properties on McGregor are listed under her ownership. Planning staff indicated that they had used the Wichita County Appraisal District records for creating the mailing labels. An explanation letter /map and reply form were prepared and mailed for every property within the proposed district application. Some property owners with multiple properties would receive a form for each lot under their ownership. Mr. Anderson (1825 Pearl) also commented that he had not yet received a reply /survey form in the mail. Staff indicated that the majority of the letters were mailed on February 15th, however, some didn't go out until February 19th due to the President's Day holiday and no mail service. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that she would provide additional letters and reply forms for association representatives to distribute to property owners who didn't receive one in the mail. Ms. Saillant informed the Commission that in her area along McGregor, there are many property owners in favor of the historic designation and throughout the proposed area there are property owners actively rehabbing their properties. The neighborhood association representatives voiced a concern regarding the processing of the application since many property owners received a neighborhood newsletter 2% yrs prior noting that there was an application for historic designation. Ms. Holland addressed concerns noting that the staff member who first received the application in December 2001 was not expecting it at that time. She informed neighborhood representatives that the Commission had expended significant time, research and energy since the beginning of 2000 to update and simplify the entire historic application process. Planning staff noted that the majority of City applications and instruction /requirements used by Ms. Murer in developing the Southland application dated to the mid- 1980's and had never been thoroughly updated. Ms. Murer indicated a concern with the new requirements for historic district nominations, noting the requirements for a minimum of 70% of property owners to be in favor of designation. She explained that many communities only require 51 % commitment from property owners in an effort to save the proposed area. Mr. Newsom provided background information regarding the designation and expansion efforts with the Depot Square Historic District. He indicated that with the proposed expansion of the downtown historic district in 1999, there was a vocal group of property owners that came to the Landmark Commission and also to Council. As a result the expansion did not proceed, Mr. Newsom added that in the past the general understanding was a 100% commitment from property owners. Reducing the commitment to 51% may not work in favor for the designation of Southland. Discussion regarding the procedures and application requirements continued among Landmark Commission members and Southland neighbors. Ms. Craft asked if the application was now finalized with regard to boundaries, etc. Ms. Murer indicated that the application was complete based on their understanding as of December 4th when it was given to planning staff. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne informed the Commission that there were discrepancies regarding the application boundaries. Through the entire process the general boundaries were explained as 11th Street to Kell (but not including Kell) and Brook west to Harrison. Planning staff and Commission members interpreted the application to include everything inside those boundaries The application did not clearly outline that it was to include both sides of 11th and Harrison and only the west side of Brook Streets. Ms. Murer noted that if planning staff had any uncertainty regarding the application they should have contacted her to discuss the issues. She explained that on February 8th the application boundaries were discussed with planning staff and the area for consideration was expanded to also include the north side of 11th Street and the west side of Harrison. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne stated that she contacted Mr. Hebner, Southland Neighborhood Association president to obtain a final determination on the amended application boundaries. The Planning office was informed by the Neighborhood Association president that the application should include both sides of 11 th Street to Kell Boulevard, the west side of Brook to the east side of Harrison. Landmark Commission February 21, 2002 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Holland commented that the City Landmark Commission has never reviewed a district application as large as the Southland request for designation. Noting that phasing the 638 properties in 3 areas would be more expedient for both the neighborhood and the Commission. Ms. Holland noted that depending on the property owner responses sent back for review, if there are areas that end up having a large concentration of approvals, then that area will be reviewed by Landmarks and forwarded to Council for final determination. In the interim, it provides the Neighborhood Association addition time to work with property owners who are opposed or provided no response to the application. Ms. Murer asked if staff contacted other cities regarding how historic district applications are processed. Staff responded, noting, there are few examples of such large local residential districts designated all at one time within the State. However, staff would contact the TX Historical Commission to obtain potential examples (ie. San Antonio, Dallas, etc.). Mr. Newsom and staff encouraged the Neighborhood Association members to hand deliver flyers or information to help increase awareness. VI. DISCUSSION of SOUTHLAND ADDITION APPLICATION for HISTORIC DISTRICT NOMINATION Mr. Newsom introduced a motion that discussion of the Southland Addition Historic District Application be tabled until after the March 8th deadline for submittal of property owner commitment/interest in the historic designation. Ms. Blackwood seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. VII. ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March 28`h at Memorial Auditorium for 3:00 p.m. Andi Holland, Chairperson Date Landmark Commission February 21, 2002 Page 5 of 5