Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 04/01/1999MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION April 1, 1999 PRESENT: Lin Purtle, Chairperson ■ Members Susan Koch Jim Newsom ■ Loraine Blackwood ■ ■ Dorothy Rhone ■ Carrie Harlan ■ Jason Van Essen, Planner I ■ City Staff Steve Seese, Planning Administrator ■ ABSENT: Douglas James ■ Members Ron Fox ■ Karen Greiner ■ Johnny Burns, City Councilman ■Council Rep GUEST: Le Templer, Reporter, Times Record News I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Purtle at 3:35 p.m. II. DESIGN REVIEW - SIGN AT 616 SEVENTH STREET Mr. Van Essen reviewed the application by Mr. Jason Carlile to the Commission. Mr. Van Essen explained the applicant wants to alter the existing sign that was previously approved by the Commission. He wishes to remove the coffee cup attached to the top of the sign and paint over the existing lettering. His business is going to be name The Bear Necessities. Mr. Van Essen asked the Commission to refer to their copy of the application for the drawing of the existing sign and the proposed sign. Mr. Van Essen stated the applicant is planning on having T &T Signs do the work. Mr. Van Essen stated this is a slight modification of the existing sign. Ms. Rhone expressed concern that the applicant's proposed lettering is vinyl, which is not listed as acceptable materials in the ordnance. Mr. Van Essen replied the vinyl letters would look very similar to paint. Mr. Newsom agreed that vinyl letters would not appear any different than painted letters. Mr. Newsom stated the ordnance was concerned with the sign its self. Mr. Newsom made a motion approve the proposed sign change. Ms. Blackwood second the motion which passed unanimously. Landmark Commission 4 -1 -99 Page 1 of 4 III. DISCUSSION OF LIN PURTLE, JIM NEWSOM AND DOROTHY RHONE'S MEETING WITH DAVID TRACEY AND MATHIS, WEST, HUFFINES & COMPANY Ms. Purtle stated after Mr. Van Essen and I talked about the feed back we were getting from the article published in the newspaper after our last meeting we decided we needed to address it before the proposed expansion goes to City Council. Because, we do not want to get in a position where we are fighting a losing battle. If we lose this proposal we will set our selves back and have a hard time bringing this back up for years. I would rather we have a real sold case to present to Council and be able to know when we take it in it will be approved. Mr. Seese asked Mr. Van Essen what the percentages were from the surveys. Mr. Van Essen stated out of the people that responded 70.8% were in favor and 29.2% were opposed. If you include all owners surveyed 38.4% did not respond, 43.6% were in favor and 18.0% were opposed. Mr. Seese stated the point he was trying to make was there is no way we will make everybody happy. I think the Commission has done an excellent job trying to get feed back from the owners. Ms. Purtle stated she had enough concern over the situation that she feels we need to have a public meeting. We need to make an effort to address everyone's concerns. I think we should have had a public meeting before we voted. I do not think we felt that way at the time, but in hind sight I think it is what we should have done. Ms. Purtle stated she felt they needed to visit with the people that were negative before the public meeting to gage their level of opposition. Ms. Purtle state Mr. Newsom, Ms. Rhone and herself visited Mr. Tracey. He was very adamant about his position. We did not go in with the attitude that we were going to change his mind. But, with the attitude that we wanted to hear his concerns and convince him not to go out and try to persuade other owners to fight us. I felt like if he could give us a little time and let us have the public meeting that would be a better approach. I could tell by his conversations with Mr. Van Essen he was going to write some letters and try to persuade other owners to fight the Commission. Mr. Van Essen stated he requested the address list used to survey the owners so he could send letters to all them. Ms. Purlte stated he agreed not to send letters to the other owners. 'Ms. Purtle stated I hate to make a statement this negative, but his building has been changed and redone. It is in such shape that I do not know if it will ever be restored or ever could be. Mr. Newsom stated when it was constructed it was a very plan building and thought it was originally a brick box. Ms. Purtle stated from that stand point it is very hard to tell Mr. Tracey you must come to us when you want to anything to the exterior of your building. Mr. Van Essen stated you are aware that you are going to have the same situation with several other buildings that are in a more sensitive spot in the proposed district. Ms. Purtle stated this individual case was a hard sell because, it is hard to tell him he should be in the district when there is really nothing you can say about his building. Mr. Seese asked if his building was on the edge of the proposed boundaries. Mr. Van Essen replied yes. Ms. Purtle stated he is coming tot he meeting and he may or may not speak. Ms. Purtle stated next we went to visit Mr. Randy Holley, the property manager for Mathis, West, Huffines & Company. He said they are planning on tearing down the buildings in question sometime in the future. He said if we could give them a statement that they could tear down these properties when they wanted to they would not be opposed to the expansion. We explained to him we could not do that and I think he understood why. He was very agreeable. He let us know if there was no other opposition he felt they would not make an issue out of it because they want to be good citizens. Again that particular block is worthless as far as buildings of historical value to restore. I guess I think we are going to run into some problems when we get down to presenting this as a historic district for these reasons. I am not saying that I am against it, I am just saying these are some obvious questions that I do not know how to answer. Mr. Newsom stated Mr. Randy Holley said if it was in the historic district and they ever built anything, they would make it appropriate to the area. Mr. Seese asked Ms. Purtle why did we included that area in the first place. Ms. Purtle replied we looked at the enhancement area it seemed to Landmark Commission 4 -1 -99 Page 2 of 4 be the most logical area and that block happen to be in the middle of it. We want to include the backdoor theater for instance. Mr. Van Essen stated it would be a strait shot if these properties were included. Otherwise, we would have this big chunk missing. The question was depending on what they do it could have a negative impact on the rest of the district. That raises the question if this is a valid concern because if they would build it would not face the district. That is the point Ms. Purtle is making and her point is very valid. Ms. Purtle stated at this point we have made a decision to recommend the area that was the enhancement program area. We need to go into the public meeting with an open mind. We might get some people there that have a hard time understanding what we are trying to do. We may have to come back and look at the area again. I want this to be a success. I want us to go and be sure we can get this through and enlarge the district. We should not make an issue out of a block that is not necessarily historic and fail to expand the district. Mr. Seese stated he agreed with Ms. Purtle's point, using the enhancement boundaries as a base was a good idea, but that does not mean we have to stay with it. Ms. Purtle stated I am anticipating we are going to get more negative feed back than we think. Mr. Van Essen stated the public meeting will be a good way to gage it. Ms. Purtle agreed and stated we will have to look at the issue again after the meeting. Ms. Blackwood asked how the existing historic district was received when it was originally formed. Ms. Purtle asked the Commission to refer to their copy of the minutes from the City Council meeting when it was past. Ms. Purtle stated she found it interesting that there seemed to only be one person that objected to the district. But, as someone pointed out the historic district is not very big. Ms. Purtle stated she did not want to sound like she was backing down she just wants to be careful, because she wants this to happen. If it has to be a little bit smaller to make it happen then that is what we need to do. Mr. Newsom stated he agreed with Mr. Van Essen that after we have the public meeting we will have a clearer idea of where everyone stands and we can go from there. Ms. Rhone asked if anyone has had any response from the Council Members other than Johnny Burns. Mr. Seese stated they are aware you are looking at expanding the historic district, but does not know their positions. Mr. Seese reminded the Commission that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Ms. Rhone stated government makes laws and unfortunately those laws are not going to win the approval of all citizens. The people that govern must consider the overall picture. Ms. Purtle encouraged the Commission to take another look at the areas understudy before the public meeting. IV. DISCUSSION OF APRIL 15" MEETING WITH DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS Mr. Van Essen asked the Commission how they wanted to approach the public meeting. Ms. Purtle stated we need to know how to respond if someone asks us what happens when someone has a building like Mr. Tracey's and proposes to do something that is not keeping with the historical character but maybe keeping with what is there now. How do we make a determination. Mr. Seese stated take it from the opposite side, maybe it is not so much of an issue for him to maintain the historic character of his building but to keeping him from doing something that would be detrimental to the historic district. Mr. Van Essen stated the argument can be made that it is not to force someone in his situation to completely redo their building in a pristine, historically accurate manner but to keep something that flows with the rest of the historic district. Mr. Van Essen stated we do not have a clear picture of what Mr. Tracey wants to do and I don't think he knows what he wants to do. Ms. Purtle stated she is just trying to prepare us for questions that are going to be asked and someone needs to be able to answer them. Ms. Purtle stated Mr. Van Essen maybe the one that needs to answer that question. Mr. Van Essen stated he felt his previous comment was the way to answer that question. I think a lot of people's concerns are if I am in the historic district and I do anything to my building its got to be top of the line. It does not have to be that way. It has to fit in and not detract from the district and that is why you include buildings that may not be historic but happen to be in the historic district and Landmark commission 4-1 -99 Page 3 of 4 keep the continuity of the district: I know that most buildings in National Register of Historic Places historic districts are not considered pivotal to the district. Most of them are considered contributing. Meaning despite major alterations they are from the same era, have the same scale and flow with the rest of the district. In Mr. Tracey's case his building would be contributing. As long as he does something that continues its contributing nature then it is not an issue. Ms. Rhone asked what is the normal procedure for public meetings. Does it help to have handouts and a map. Mr. Seese stated generally you would have a map to give the people an opportunity to see the area. Mr Seese suggested Ms. Purtle give a brief introduction speech at the public meeting. Then turn it over to Mr. Van Essen to explain the ordnance and what is required of building owners in a historic district. Then open it up to questions and comments. Ms. Purtle asked if we have pictures of the area. Mr. Van Essen stated we have pictures of the area. But, they are several years old. It might be better to take new ones if we felt we need pictures. Ms. Purtle stated it might be a good idea to help people visualize the area. Mr. Van Essen responded the people that are going to be there own buildings and are very familiar with downtown. They are going to be aware of where there building is and are going to be familiar with the surrounding area. If we have a large map of the area I think most people will be able to figure out what they are looking at. Mr. Newsom stated it would be nice to have a small hand out of the area as well. Ms. Purtle asked if there was anything else we need to do. Mr. Van Essen stated he would have a large map and handout for the meeting, Ms. Purtle would give an introduction and he would discuss the ordnance it self. Then we will open it up to questions. Ms. Rhone encourage the others if they know any of the owners that are for the expansion to encourage them to attend the meeting. V. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Lin Purtl�,airperson Date Landmark Commission 4 -1 -99 Page 4 of 4