Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 07/26/2007MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Dowdy, Chairperson Cindy Cotton Stacie Flood Ron Fox Jan Schaaf Pat Sullivan Dianne Thueson Karen Montgomery-Gagne ABSENT: Michael Collins Christy Graham Councilor Charles Elmore MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION July 26, 2007 RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date _ 1/Z 1/0 �� I By Time ■ Members ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Staff ■ ■ ■ Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dowdy called the meeting to order at 3:40pm after a quorum of members was obtained. II. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF JUNE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dowdy called for review and approval of the June, 14th, 2007 meeting minutes. Ms. Thueson introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Ms. Schaaf seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CARPORT ISSUES — 1405 HAYES Chairperson Dowdy introduced this item and requested staff outline the situation. Staff referred members to the photos of 1405 Hayes Street in their meeting packets. Planning staff were informed on July 12th of a carport that was erected on a lot within the West Floral Heights Historic District. Ms. Gagne explained they contacted Building Inspection and Code Enforcement to research the carport and visited the site. The carport was constructed without obtaining a building permit and the support posts are located on the lot line resulting in a setback violation. The City has not reviewed the carport for Design Review approval nor has the West Floral Heights Review Committee. Staff was informed the carport was built by the homeowner close to the timeframe when the neighborhood was under consideration for District status by City Council in early 2005. Commission members discussed the situation, Ms. Thueson commented that the Commission isn't in a position to issue a recommendation at the meeting based on lack of information from the applicant. Chairperson Dowdy stated the Ordinance outlines a process for Design Review and everyone is required to follow the same process — either a staff or full Commission review with a completed application form. Ms. Cotton, the West Floral Heights Commission member requested that City address issue rather than the neighborhood design committee. Ms. Sullivan stated the City would surely be involved when City ordinances were violated. Landmark Commission July 26, 2007 page 1 ( t, Ms. Thueson introduced a motion to respond to the City recommending the owner submit an application for design review when he's ready based on standard design review procedures. Ms. ® Schaaf seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Fox recommended talking with the Chief Building Official (Mr. Teague) indicating the Commission's recommendation and requesting he forward this information to the property owner. He added the role of the Landmark Commission is not to design plans but to review the applicant's design plans & approve, disapprove or recommend with conditions. Ms. Cotton stated they are trying to educate property owners in the W.F. Heights District with articles in the monthly Association newsletter along with contact information if residents have any questions. Ms. Sullivan asked if there were porte- cocheres in the neighborhood. Ms. Cotton responded that there are few carports but many porte - cocheres in the District. Staff indicated that carports are still permitted in the historic district because they existed when the District was designated by Council in January 2005. Chairperson Dowdy commented on the significance of the situation with two points: 1) The current design review guidelines don't specifically address carports or porte - cocheres; and 2) The Landmark Commission needs to incorporate 'teeth' back into the Design Guidelines to address similar situations that arise periodically. Ms. Thueson commented the last time the Guidelines were updated it was in the midst of developing the historic district policies and there were many concerns about the City's authority to review historic properties. She added many communities develop books outlining what is considered appropriate design, etc. in their historic districts and it is very helpful for property owners. Members were in general agreement that now is a good time to consider moving forward with revisions to the existing Design Review Guidelines booklet. Ms. Cotton questioned whether a tin or steel roof would be appropriate in the District. Ms. Thueson and Chairperson Dowdy both commented that a tin /steel roof is not an appropriate replacement material in the West Floral Heights historic district. Members discussed roofing materials and staff commented they usually address roofing requests via staff review and work with Building Inspection to discuss the proposed work with the contractor. If a roof is being replaced it must maintain the same pitch and the materials must be same as those being removed. Ms. Thueson noticed the before photo (circa winter 2004) had a chimney that's been removed. It was evident the property owner had made improvements to the house that enhanced the property. However, members were in agreement that some of the modifications /improvements required design review via the Landmark Commission. Staff indicated the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the property owner via a letter from the Building Inspection Division. IV. DISCUSSION DRAFT AMENDMENTS to CITY DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES ADDRESSING CRITERIA for MURALS, MASONRY COATINGS, CARPORTS, and defining CONTRIBUTING /NON- CONTRIBUTING STATUS within HISTORIC DISTRICTS Staff referred Commission members to information in their meeting packets that included the City's requirements for constructing a carport along with sample design policies from other cities covering carports, garages and porte cocheres. Planning staff also included reference material defining a contributing property versus a non - contributing. Members discussed the current process to address carports. Staff indicated that the only times carport requests involve the Planning Division are: a) when a carport is proposed for the front yard setback (between house & street) a conditional use permit is required and property owners within 200ft of the property receive notification and it's reviewed by the P & Z Commission; and b) when a new carport is proposed in a City historic district/landmark design review is necessary. If these two conditions are not triggered, the Planning Division is not involved with the carport process — permits must be obtained from the Building Inspection Division. Landmark Commission July 26, 2007 page 2 Mr. Fox inquired if the City P & Z Commission could incorporate language into the Zoning Ordinance stating "....in a City Historic District or individual Landmark a design review application is required for this carport." He added when he is conducting projects in other cities the Zoning Ordinance is the first stop for research — most are available on -line and they also include reference for review issues relating to historic districts. Mr. Dowdy stated it is important that somewhere in the carport requirements the property is red - flagged so we don't end up with an carport that doesn't fit the District. Staff indicated that many cities address historic districts differently than Wichita Falls. Their Zoning Ordinance may address and include basic principles for development in a historic district because they are part of a "Historic Overlay District." Ms. Thueson asked why the P & Z Commission couldn't amend the Zoning Ordinance to consider adding a statement about carport regulations so people are aware in the very beginning what is required. Ms. Cotton commented that she would prepare an article for the West Floral Heights Neighborhood Assoc. newsletter about the City's carport requirements to help inform & education the District residents. Mr. Dowdy stated he'd discuss the issue of adding carport requirements to the City Zoning Ordinance at the August P & Z Commission meeting. Ms. Gagne indicated she'd mention this information to other planning staff that are involved the Commission. Members commented that if nothing is mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance about the Historic Districts and additional design requirements the general public isn't aware that additional design regulations also apply. Chairperson Dowdy requested the amended Design Guidelines also address 'other building materials' rather than just addressing masonry related materials. Commission members were in general agreement of updating the entire Guidelines rather than specific sections. Ms. Gagn6 indicated it would be useful for people trying to understand the existing Guidelines if they were updated with more specific information that covered additional items and included photo examples from Wichita Falls of preferred and non - preferred methods. Ms. Thueson questioned the format for the revised /updated Design Guidelines? Ms. Gagne stated that she found some examples from San Antonio, Galveston and Granbury that were more detailed than necessary for Wichita Falls but would be a potential resource for document format. Members discussed options and Chairperson Dowdy suggested that the entire Commission continue to work together on the Guideline update process until as a collective group basic decisions on format, items for review & inclusion in the table of contents, etc. have reached a consensus. Commission members were in agreement with Mr. Dowdy that subcommittees will be formed at a later date. In conjunction, Chairperson Dowdy suggested the Guideline update as an opportunity to address historically designated properties that are now considered in severe disrepair and are in danger of loosing their historic and /or structural integrity due to lack of maintenance. Members discussed the Berry Brown landmark as an example of a building that would fit this category. The Commission discussed any potential for attempts to address the lack of upkeep /maintenance for fear of arson or loosing its City Landmark status. Ms. Cotton commented the property owner resided in West Floral Heights and she would try to discuss the subject with her prior to the next Commission meeting. The Commission requested input from Mr. Clark, Director of Community Development regarding potential ideas or suggestions about the current plight of the building. Ms. Sullivan inquired if the Wichita County Heritage Society (WCHS) still had an interest in the Berry Brown site. Ms. Flood indicated WCHS just finished a search process for another preservation project and Board members ranked the Berry Brown house in their top 3 or 5 for a potential project. However, the organization moved forward with another project at 801 Ohio. Ms. Thueson commented the heritage survives if the Berry Brown house survives and if the house isn't saved long term the historical significance is lost forever. V. OTHER BUSINESS a Resource Materials — Referred to information in the meeting packets. Landmark Commission July 26, 2007 page b West Floral Heights District Update — Ms. Cotton Ms. Cotton provided an update on 1400 Buchanan, noting the majority of Commission approved exterior modifications were completed (windows, roof, and carport). She explained the West Floral Heights Association tries to include educational articles in monthly newsletters within the District but with recent issues, they may need to look at other options to try to ensure people understand the design review process before beginning rehabilitation or building projects. c Next Meeting — Thursday, September 20, 2007 Ms. Thueson requested each member research and bring information regarding an item they believe should be updated or included in the Design Review Guideline update for the September meeting. She also suggested that books from other communities are a great resource to consider how to simply layout the basic design requirements. Ms. Sullivan encouraged Commission members to participate in Downtown Wichita Falls Development, Inc.'s 15 Wine & Shrimp Festival on September 15'h at the Farmer's Market. VI. ADJ URN The Com issi n adjourned the meeting at 5:10 pm. I/ZO b Ken blowdy, airperson Date Landmark Commission July 26, 2007 page 4