Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/28/2000V1. � F1ClGVw nv MINUTES Date LANDMARK COMMISSION - g Time Q :I DESIGN REVIEW & ORDINANCE GUIDELINE S September 28, 2000 PRESENT: Susan Koch 13 Members Jim Newsom o Lorraine Blackwood Cl Dorothy Rhone Cl Doug James Cl Andi Holland o Steve Seese, Planning Administrator 0 City Staff Dave Clark, Community Development Director o Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III o ABSENT: Lin Purtle, Chairperson Dick Bundy, Member GUESTS: None I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr. Dave Clark at 3:40 p.m. II. DISCUSSION OF THE AUGUST 3RD DESIGN REVIEW & ORDINANCE GUIDELINE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Planning staff provided extra copies of the August 3rd meeting minutes for the subcommittee members to review. The minutes were already presented to commission members at the August 24th Landmarks Commission meeting. No formal motion was taken regarding the minutes. III. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF LANDMARK COMMISSION ORDINANCE Discussion regarding the Landmark Commission Ordinance continued from the August 3rd meeting. Mr. Clark introduced Section 2- 160.7.4 — Part 3 — design criteria for (a) Signs and asked the members if there were any issues or concerns regarding this portion of the Ordinance. The Commission members were in general agreement that the "sign" portion of the Ordinance was still appropriate. Part (b) — Sidewalks and curbs - raised some discussion regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Jim Newsom and Ms. Susan Koch asked if sidewalks and curbs were already addressed within the City Code? Mr. Steve Seese responded that indeed the City did address sidewalks in more detail under the City Code and the requirements Design Review & Ordinance Guideline Subcommittee Meeting Minutes — Sept. 28, 2000 1 were more stringent than required by ADA as they followed the Texas standards for building sidewalks and curbs appropriate for people with physical impairments. Part (c) — Parking and loading requirements had no items for amendment. Mr. Clark presented Division 5 — Landmark Commission — Section 2 -160.6 — Purpose and declaration of policy for discussion. There were no concerns regarding this portion of the Ordinance, as it was similar to the purposes outlined under Section 2- 160 -7.1. The following Section 2- 160.7.5 — Appeals — invoked some discussion regarding the current appeal process. Mr. Clark indicated that any appeals to decision(s) made by the Landmark Commission are technically via City Council. Ms. Koch and Mr. Newsom agreed that leaving the appeal section of the Ordinance as it currently reads is sufficient for citizens to understand their right to appeal a decision. Section 2- 160.7.6 — Compliance - outlines the process for ensuring a designated landmark or structures /property within a designated historic district are maintained in adequate condition. Mr. Newsom presented an idea to the staff and Subcommittee members that in the hypothetical case of a Landmark designated residential neighborhood, the first regulatory body or line of complaint for a compliance issue should be the neighborhood association prior to involving the City Departments and Code Enforcement. Mr. Clark outlined a specific portion of the Ordinance, "...In the event work is performed without or contrary to the provisions of this division, the building and code administrator or his designate shall immediately stop any work... ". The Code Enforcement/inspection division is required to uphold and /or enforce these City Ordinances. Mr. Clark stated that he wasn't quite sure how a Neighborhood Association could be the first line of complaint if the Code Enforcement staff is required to address complaints regarding ordinance violations. Both Mr. Seese and Mr. Clark stated that the Ordinance currently reads "...Should the landmark's structural soundness and exterior preservation begin to deteriorate from neglect, the building and code administrator shall notify the landmark commission and proper action taken." It would be difficult for a Neighborhood Association to enforce any improvements or regulations when they have no power to uphold the City Ordinances. Mr. Seese provided an example of structural decline with the Holt Hotel cornices falling off and the Code Enforcement office secured the structure since it was a threat to public safety. A member asked why the owner was held responsible for maintaining the structure and paying for maintenance costs? Mr. Clark responded that the building is owned by an out -of -state developer who has essentially abandoned the property. Mr. Clark explained that it is a serious issue when the City orders a property to be secured because of dangerous circumstances, that is not something that any Neighborhood Association would be able to address. In addition, Mr. Clark informed the subcommittee members that the City has not taken the approach of forcing people to paint their buildings, etc. Ms. Dorothy Rhone commented about similar issues being discussed with the Clean Community Commission and why many European communities don't have problems with trash, litter and lack of concern regarding building upkeep and maintenance. She added that it hasn't been easy for some of those European communities but over time they have obviously been successful in getting people to understand the value of "community." Mr. Clark made a key point when he informed the members that they do indeed have control over signage and design standards but not maintenance which is a very difficult area to enforce even for City officials. The Code Enforcement office can order a building to be secured because Design Review & Ordinance Guideline Subcommittee Meeting Minutes — Sept. 28, 2000 2 it is a threat to human safety but limited authority to force buildings to be maintained. The office can also enforce weed control and trash clean up — no maintenance refers to the fact that the Code staff can not force a property owner to fix broken shutters or re -point the brick etc. Ms. Koch's solution was to allow Code Enforcement to amend the regulations so they can enforce structure maintenance. Mr. Newsom asked staff if landmark properties are "flagged" by the Building Inspection department whenever a permit is requested. Mr. Seese and Mr. Clark responded that the landmark properties are supposed to be coded within the computer system so staff is aware of their special status. However, a major downfall with the current Ordinance is that there are no penalties for violation(s). Therefore, there are no 'teeth' within the Ordinance to require maintenance of a landmark or historic property. There was general agreement that the Landmark Ordinance should enforce the same penalties as listed in the City Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion in favor of including penalties within the Landmarks Ordinance. These penalties would be similar to those outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance as outlined within the meeting minutes. Mr. Douglas James seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The following item shall now be included within the Landmark Ordinance: Section 2- 160.7.6.1 — Enforcement, Legal Procedure and Penalties '7t shall be the duty of the City Manager, through the proper departments, to enforce this ordinance. Any person who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Ordinance "shag be guilty of a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $40.00, nor more than $200.00. The imposition of one penalty for any violations shall not excuse the violation nor permit it to continue, and each day that the violation is maintained shall constitute a separate offense. The application of such penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. " IV. OTHER BUSINESS a) Kemp -Kell Depot Courtyard Design Plans: Mr. Clark indicated that Ms. Andi Holland had recently submitted a design plan on behalf of the Wichita Falls Heritage Society for the Kemp -Kell Depot Courtyard — "Pocket Park ". The parking lot and fencing portion of the project was discussed and approved by the Landmark Commission at the June 2000 meeting held at the Kemp -Kell Depot Building. Ms. Holland explained the details of the design plan outlining the various species of trees, shrubs and ground cover to be planted. The entire landscaped area will be surrounded with brown pressed concrete pavers. Mr. Clark asked subcommittee members if they had any comments regarding the design plan as it would be forwarded to the TIF Board for final review prior to awarding the final portion of the funds. Mr. Newsom introduced a motion to accept the design plans for the Kemp -Kell Depot's "Pocket Park ". Ms. Blackwood seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. b) items for Discussion from Minutes of August 3rd: Ms. Montgomery-Gagne mentioned that there were still some unresolved items from the previous subcommittee meeting minutes. In particular, the issue of membership composition was still undecided. Ms. Koch outlined a hypothetical scenario where the City had established Design Review & Ordinance Guideline Subcommittee Meeting Minutes — Sept. 28, 2000 3 numerous historic districts and there were now 15 -18 various districts throughout the City — how would membership representation be addressed on a Board with that many districts? To provide some clarification, Ms. Montgomery-Gagne read the following section from the August 3 I meeting minutes: "(1) Of the nine (9) members, 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) member from each or any historic district (person shall either own property or reside within), two (2) shall be licensed architects, and three (3) shall be members at large." Mr. Newsom recalled that the membership composition section of the Ordinance was revised in order to address an issue that arose during a Landmark Commission meeting in fall 1999. Some local citizens had raised the issue of why there were no representatives on the Commission who resided within the Historic Depot District. The members discussed the new wording and generally agreed that it would address the issue of having at least one member from each or any historic district. Ms. Koch believed that the membership on the Commission should at all times remain at a maximum of 9 (nine) members. Ms. Rhone echoed her opinion, indicating that it is difficult to obtain a quorum of members with a large committee. Mr. Clark suggested that the membership should remain as noted in the August P meeting minutes and if issues arise at a later date, the number of members 'at large' can be amended by Council. Another issue of discussion was the need for a Historic Preservation "Officer (HPO). The meeting minutes read: "Mr. Seese indicated that the HPO, if appointed, could probably be a member of the commission or an existing City staff person. It was generally agreed that the issue of an HPO required further discussion since it would require additional City resources should staff become the HPO." Ms. Holland indicated that the HPO was item mentioned by the State Historical officials and in order to obtain CLG Status it would be important to have a third party person designated for this position. It was generally agreed that if an HPO position were created it would be an existing City staff member. Mr. Clark asked for opinions regarding the Commission's involvement with regulating color for landmarks and structures within the designated Historic Depot District. A general poll of the members found that all 6 (six) members in attendance were in favor of regulating color, in particular, for compatibility with the area. A question was raised regarding what site plans can regulate — permanent or removable structures. Mr. Newsom informed the members that in the real estate industry anything attached to the ground is considered a permanent fixture /item. Ms. Koch indicated that she recalled that the Secretary of the Interior had standards that addressed this issue — permanence vs. reversibility. Ms. Koch believed it was important to include the site not just the structure situated on the property. Ms. Koch indicated that she would look up the Secretary of the Interior's standards and forward them to the planning staff for review and inclusion with the revised Landmark Ordinance. The members agreed with general consensus these Federal standards would resolve the issue regarding what is considered a permanent vs. removable structure. Mr. Clark and Mr. Seese indicated that staff would prepare the Landmark Ordinance with all proposed revisions for the next regularly scheduled Landmark Commission meeting in October and then to Council in November. Design Review & Ordinance Guideline Subcommittee Meeting Minutes — Sept. 28, 2000 4 Mr. Clark informed the members that the City Council had recently approved the Landmark designation for the property at 3100 Hamilton Blvd., commonly known as the "White House." It is the 24th locally designated landmark within Wichita Falls. Mr. Clark stated that the property owners are in the midst of arranging for a formal plaque presentation, which may present an opportunity to encourage other historic mansion owners in the vicinity to apply for Landmark status. V. ADJOURN It was agreed that further meetings should be held to review and update the Design Review Guidelines along with the Application. Mr. Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Lin Purtle, Chairperson Date Design Review & Ordinance Guideline Subcommittee Meeting Minutes — Sept. 28, 2000 5