Landmark Commission Minutes - 10/18/2001MINUTES
LANDMARK COMMISSION
October 18, 2001
R?::CEIVIFD IN
CITY CLERK'S 0- -"F!CE
Date _ 10-9,q-0t
By PC
PRESENT:
Lin Purtle, Chairperson ■ Members
Loraine Blackwood ■
Ken Dowdy ■
Andi Holland ■
Doug James ■
Susan Koch ■
Steve Seese, Planning Administrator ■ City Staff
Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III IN
ABSENT:
Dick Bundy ■ Members
Jim Newsom ■
Jan Schaaf ■
Arthur Bea Williams ■ Council Liaison
GUESTS:
Shirley Craft, Downtown VISIONS Coordinator
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Purtle at 3:14 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairperson asked if there were any changes to the August 301h meeting minutes. Ms Koch
pointed out a change under Item V - Other Business, regarding the Downtown Building Tour.
"...The tickets are $15.00 that includes a guided tour of the buildings and lunch afterwards at the
Kemp Center..." She noted that lunch was set up at the Farmer's Market area — point of
clarification. Ms Koch introduced a motion to accept the minutes and Ms Blackwood seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
III. REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO THE TAX BENEFIT INCENTIVES FOR DESIGNATED
HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Ms Montgomery-Gagne and Mr. Seese referenced the changes developed by the Commission
members at the September meeting. Planning staff indicated that they contacted the legal
department for clarification on the ability to grant a historic tax incentive within an established TIF
district. In reference to the proposed ordinance language (Sec. 98 -127 (5) — Should the project
receive Tax Increment Finance (TIF) funds, no tax freeze as provided under this article shall be
permitted....) legal stated that, it is legally allowable to offer an individual tax incentive to a
qualifying historic property within a TIF District. In other words, if a property owner within the
Depot Square Historic District qualified for the historic tax incentives it would legally be allowable
to grant them the incentive even though it's within the TIF District. Ms Montgomery-Gagne
elaborated that although it is legally acceptable within Texas, there are policy ramifications for the
Landmark Commission October 18, 2001 Page 1 of 4
possible impacts related to requiring approval from the TIF Board and the other taxing entities that
are part of the TIF District (ie. WFISD and the County of Wichita). Staff noted that a council
communique was prepared to inform City Council that the Landmark Commission was in the
process of updating and revising the Historic Landmark Tax Freeze Ordinance, and the issues
relating to the overlap of the Depot Square Historic District and the TIF District.
Ms Holland and Ms Craft asked for clarification regarding the appropriate wording for item 5.
Planning staff suggested that it remain unchanged at this point as City Council has the final
determination on any proposed ordinance revisions. The proposed revisions, including a
distinction between commercial and residential, the length of time the tax incentives are permitted,
along with the issue of the TIF and downtown historic district will all require Council review either
through a Council committee or during regular Council session.
Ms Koch requested clarification on Sec. 98 -127, item (1(b)), which only references 'single- family
residences' not other types of residential structures, ie. duplexes. She added that in the
Southland and Floral Heights neighborhoods there are numerous duplexes and situations where
the owners live on one side and the other side is rented to tenants (ie. Dayton Street.) Mr. James
stated that the standard definition used in the banking industry for residential is 'one to four family
housing structure' and if it zoned commercial it is not considered residential. It was suggested
that the category be reworded to state 'single - family and duplex residences.' Ms Purtle and other
members recommended keeping the residential reference simply as 'single- family residence.'
Ms Holland introduced a motion to forward the proposed historic tax freeze ordinance revisions to
City Council for review and approval, which was seconded by Ms Koch. Motion passed
unanimously.
IV. FINAL UPDATES TO THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION FOR LANDMARK
NOMINATIONS
Ms Montgomery-Gagne referred members to the revised 'Accompanying Documentation'
materials that reflect the memberships recommendations from the September meeting. Planning
staff briefly highlighted the key changes, noting that the National Register standards were
reviewed and discussed and the membership determined that rather than applying very stringent
criteria used for National nominations the City should develop standards that echoed the
Department of the Interior's standards. Ms Koch commented that it was wise to modify the
National standards, as they are very stringent for local purposes.
Ms Koch indicated a concern under Sec. 4(b) Photographs, regarding the limitation of panoramic
views. The language states that "...photos must be at least 3 x 5 but not exceed 8 x 10" and a
panoramic photo is approximately 3 x 10. Ms Holland and Ms Purtle commented that the
Commission would accept any historic photo of the structure or streetscape if submitted with an
application. Ms Craft stated that the panoramic photos are able to show significant detail for
streetscape views and would be beneficial.
Ms Koch requested clarification regarding the idea of removing the category for historic 'site.' Ms
Holland addressed this item, noting that there was discussion at the September meeting
regarding what item would constitute a site and if there were any within Wichita Falls. Ms Koch
replied that a cemetery or a battlefield are good examples of historic sites and it was an important
category to keep in the criteria. Ms Koch and Mr. James provided a key example of the Memorial
Auditorium land or site was actually a historic battlefield. It was the 'site' of the last known
Comanche battle in 1874.
Under the District section of the criteria, Ms Koch stated that it is vital under 'Districts' to include
views of individual buildings and the language needs some statement that each building within a
Landmark Commission October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 4
district needs to appear in the historic records. She pointed out that the Morningside
neighborhood is a prime example of the necessity for individual photos within districts, since many
of the original non - contributing structures are now over 50 -years old and are considered
'contributing'- having those photos is key to the historic record. Mr. Dowdy agreed with Ms Koch
along with Ms Holland and Ms Purtle. Ms Purtle stated that somehow that key point was missed
with such a strong emphasis on developing an easy to understand and simplified document.
Members recommended that that the language should be revised to state the following, "Views of
all individual buildings are necessary, either as individual photos or as part of a streetscape.
Other views often reveal the architectural qualities of a district better than photographs of
individual buildings...."
Ms Holland introduced a motion to accept the changes to Section 4 — Accompanying
Documentation, which was seconded by Ms Blackwood. Motion passed unanimously.
V. DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC DISTRICT NOMINATION FORM 'B'
Ms Montgomery-Gagne began by thanking the Commission members for their hard work over the
past year to research, review and update the instructional manual for completing both landmark
and historic district nomination applications. However, prior to finalizing the manual a second
application form is required to specifically address the nomination of historic districts. Planning
staff researched other historic district applications (ie. Fort Wayne, IN; Chicago, IL; Amarillo, TX;
Milburn, IL; Boise, ID; Mesa, AR) and developed a draft historic district form for review.
Ms Montgomery-Gagne asked members to refer to their instructional manual, specifically pages 5,
9 and 13, which address district requirements. Ms Holland and Ms Koch indicated concerns with
the submittal of large district applications for review, considering residential district applications
are pending. Members agreed that it is important during the process of nomination that the
district applicants and/or neighborhood residents see progress in the review stages. Discussion
arose regarding how to address the submittal of a historic application, whether in stages or by
number of city blocks. It was determined that the instructional manual, page 5 - Procedures
would include a statement as follows, "For Historic Districts, the application will be reviewed in
phases as approved by the Landmark Commission...."
Ms Koch and Mr. Seese discussed Item 3 - Owner(s) of Property on the draft district nomination
form. Ms Purtle raised concerns regarding less than 100% agreement since in the past in the
downtown historic district the goal was 100% interest or else the non - consenting areas were
excluded from the district. Ms Holland and Ms Purtle agreed with the suggested 80%
commitment in order to be considered for district status. Ms Craft pointed out that within a given
neighborhood probably there is approximately 10% vacant and 10% rental property. Mr. James
suggested 70% may be a more realistic commitment. The membership agreed upon the
requirement of 70% of the property owners within the proposed district area must be in favor of
the designation before the application can be submitted. However, Ms Purtle and Ms Koch
suggested that upon completion of the Historic District application, it should be submitted to
Council for approval with regard to the percent commitment necessary for districts.
Ms Montgomery-Gagne referred members to the draft petition on pages 6 & 7 for review and
comment. The proposed language still requires the legal department's review. The petition was
developed in order to have some legal proof that once a property owner committed to being part
of a historic district nomination application they could not simply change their mind during the
review process (ie. during district nomination to City Council for final approval). Ms Purtle
suggested that the wording '...Neighborhood Historic District...' be removed. Ms Koch
recommended that the language be amended to state '...any plans for improvements or exterior
modifications to any property within the district other than ordinary repair...'
Landmark Commission October 18, 2001 Page 3 of 4
Ms Purtle recommended that on page 3, Item 8 — Significance (A(3)), should be revised to state
'...Area represents a historic event with significant effect upon society.' Ms Holland indicated that
the criteria for 'Significance' should mirror those used for the landmark nomination form. Ms
Montgomery-Gagne referred to the instruction manual, page 4, where the criteria categories
address: historical, cultural, architectural and engineering, archaeological and geographical
significance.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
1) Design Review Guidelines Update:
Ms Montgomery-Gagne indicated that this was the last landmark commission document to be
researched, reviewed and updated. Planning staff researched other municipalities' guidelines and
developed a revised guidebook for review. Ms Montgomery-Gagne asked members to compare
the existing guidelines with the revised draft and be prepared to discuss at the November meeting.
2) Heritage Society's Historic Downtown Buildings Tour — Oct. 13, 2001:
Ms Holland reported that the Heritage Society's Downtown Buildings Tour event was highly
successful with positive feedback from attendees. Approximately 325 people toured the downtown
buildings and Ms Holland noted many long -time Wichita Falls residents had never had the
opportunity to view the Federal courtroom's maple paneling, or see the former courtroom in the
County Courthouse or even knew that the ballroom in the Hamilton Building was once Mr.
Hamilton's office. She added that numerous people purchased tickets simply to see the inside of
the Holt Hotel.
Ms Koch and Mr. Dowdy both commented that it was an incredible educational opportunity along
with a great occasion to promote historic preservation and the downtown revitalization to residents
of Wichita Falls. Ms Holland added that there was an increased interest in membership to the
Heritage Society immediately following the event and the committee is looking at a fall historic
building tour next year. Ms Koch commented that a guided tour of historic churches for 2002 would
be of interest to many local residents.
3) Membership Renewal:
Mr. Seese informed Commission members that Mr. Dick Bundy submitted his letter of resignation
due to career commitments with the architectural firm. Mr. Michael Koen indicated willingness to
serve once appointed by City Council. Mr. Seese stated that unfortunately two Commission
members have reached their term limits as of December 31st. The Commission will need a
replacement member from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Ms Purtle and Mr. Newsom's
position changes from a member -at -large to a representative from the historic district based on
recent Historic Preservation Ordinance amendments during 2001. Mr. Seese noted that he'd
requested Ms Holland look at chairing the Landmark Commission upon Ms Purtle's term expiration.
4) Grand Reopening of the Kell House Museum —Oct. 18, 2001
Ms Holland invited everyone to attend the Kell House Museum reopening that same evening. The
evening features many interesting and unique musical instrument displays along with live music.
5) Wichita County Historical Museum Update:
Mr. James reported Wichita County Commissioners signed a 50 -year lease for the County
Historical Museum.
VII. ADJOURN
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, November 15th at 3:00 p.m. The Landmark
Commission was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
Lin Purtle, Chairperson
Date
Landmark Commission October 18, 2001 Page 4 of 4