Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 04/21/2026 LANDMARK COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2026 MEMBERS PRESENT: Christy Graham ■Chairperson Joel Hartmangruber •Vice-Chair John Dickinson ■Member JD Dixon ■ Member Bill Enlow •Member Dr. Dawn Ferrell, Maj. Gen. (retired) •Member Janel Ponder Smith • Member Lisa Stephens-Musick • Member John Yates ■ Member Whitney Flack • Council Liaison Karen Montgomery-Gagne, Principal Planner/HPO ■ City Staff Angela Lu, Senior Assistant City Attorney • City Staff Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant ■ City Staff GUESTS: John & Shameka Melton ■Applicants ( I. Call to Order, Introductions and Welcome: Chairperson Christy Graham called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. Ms. Graham made introductions of Commission members, and guests attending. Staff welcomed and introduced new Commission member Ms. Lisa Stephens-Musick. II. Review &Approval of Minutes: Chairperson Graham asked the board if there was a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2026, meeting, and Ms. Janel Ponder-Smith motioned to approve the minutes, Mr. Johns Yates seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 8-0*. *Mr. Hartmangruber was not present for Agenda Item II. III. Action Item: Design Review Case — 1309 Buchanan Request authorization for major exterior improvements ranging from restoration to replacement of 13 various elements, to include: siding replacement; porch restoration/redesign; porch column repairs/removal; gable restoration; front door replacement/reconfigure front entry to face Buchanan instead of Ave D; window restoration and replacement; chimney repair; add new privacy fence (rear yard); wood shutter replacement; replace missing wood planter box; awning replacement (canvas instead of metal); and replace concrete walkway. (West Floral Heights HD) Ms. Karen Montgomery-Gagne presented the case and provided slides showing the property and the house with archive pictures over the last twenty-six years. She mentioned the new owners, the Melton's, have worked with Carol Rudd, Wichita Co. Archivist, and Landmark Commission 2 April 21, 2026 traced the title to 1920. The home is Craftsman architecture, with typical elements including a low pitch roof, front gable with the porch as a critical element having five columns, two in the front and two in the back, with an additional taller column to the side of the main entry. In addition, staff pointed out the area by the foundation, typically skirted with wood or brick, and the windows that were typically wood/double hung. She noted the exposed roof beams, and the rafter tails being a typical Craftsman feature. The roof rafter tail style, near the back of the house, was changed to a curved design as opposed to the angled points on the original portion of the house. This is one of the items the Melton's want to rectify. The Melton's have taken out all the window air conditioning units that were on almost every façade except the front, because those windows were not advantageous for the alignment. They want to install a full central HVAC system, although that is not part of the request of the Landmark Commission (interior alterations exempt). If the Commission allows the owners to change fencing in the rear yard, that will take the planned new HVAC unit out of view from Buchanan and Ave D. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne noted a recent case in Jan. 2025 at this property by prior owners for a garage demolition, where the garage was pulled down and already on the ground when staff were notified. City staff couldn't issue a stop work order because the garage was down, so it put the board in a very difficult position for demolition approval because the structure was already altered void of permitting. The current proposal from new owners seeks to rectify some of those past situations of inappropriate alteration, and address long-term neglect, and lack of maintenance. Just to note, the property has changed ownership five times since 2013. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne showed an Al generated depiction of what the Melton's are wanting to accomplish with the front entrance area of the house, and informed the board the new owners are striving to preserve, restore, rehab and then, where necessary the final option of reconstruct/recreate missing elements, all while respecting the Department of the Interior, Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation and following local design guidelines. Staff showed slides of different areas where work will be done, including windows with temporary plywood where AC units had been removed. Staff completed presenting the thirteen items and Chairperson Graham stated she would like to introduce a motion to review each of the 13 items separately and to also vote on them separately. Ms. Janel Ponder Smith seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to a vote, and it passed unanimously 9-0. Chairperson Graham asked if there was anything the applicants would like to add. Mr. Melton expressed his appreciation to the board and stated that he and his wife want to return the house back to its original historic and architectural glory. 1) Siding - repair wood; replace if deteriorated beyond repair, same materials, width, profile, design Staff explained the percentage of replacement versus repair is unknown until contractors are able to look at sanding the existing wood siding on all facades, and/or power wash to strip off layers of paint and assess the condition of the wood. Staff showed different Landmark Commission 3 April 21, 2026 aspects of the siding in the porch area and pointed out in a picture there used to be a door opening (underneath the covered porch) that had been filled-in. Owners have indicated they will not be reopening the former door location, since that was done so many decades ago and it would impact interior configuration. They are asking to replace the wood siding, with the same type of wood material, profile, width and texturing, so that the former opening is not visible from the outside. The Wichita Falls Design Guidelines recommend; a) Retain original facades of the building that are visible from the public right-of-way. b) Do not add architectural features that weren't present originally. c) Try to repair damaged exterior wall materials to the greatest extent possible. Replace only those sections deteriorated beyond repair. Public Comment & Commission Discussion: If replacement is needed or in areas of missing siding, John Dickinson said he believes siding similar to the original is readily available at Builders Lumber. It can be ordered if it's not in stock. Chairperson Graham stated that it is obvious the exterior facade materials need replacement in areas as there is some rotten wood, and where the door was removed under the porch was a bit of an eyesore. Chairperson Graham introduced a motion authorizing wood siding repair and in areas determined to be too deteriorated or areas missing siding, replacement wood siding with the same profile, width, pattern and layout f to the original wood siding will be utilized. Mr. JD Dixon seconded the motion. The motion was taken to vote, and it passed unanimously 9-0. At this point, City Attorney,Angela Lu reminded the Chairperson to include public comment and suggested that since there were 13 items to be voted on, that it might be more efficient to ask for public comment* now, for anyone to speak if they wish regarding any of the 13 items. Chairperson Graham asked if anyone from the public would like to make a comment, there were no additional comments from the public. *Note — the only ones in attendance at this meeting were Board members, staff and the applicants. No one additional member from the public was in attendance. 2) Porch — restoration The board were shown pictures of the porch and the critical corner to the structure. The column at the southwest corner of the porch had such significant damage there was a hole large enough you could put your hand through with numerous missing bricks. Staff explained the owner's initial Al generated conceptual drawing showed the porch reoriented, columns removed and front entry relocation. That is not the intent and they want to focus on restoring the original porch in its current configuration and materials. Additional archive photos were shown, and the board saw brick skirting that used to be along the foundation, which is something the owners intend to replace. They may try to salvage some of the old bricks, and if they can't, they will have to order brick as close as a match to the original brick from the 1920's. The railings and woodwork will need to be L Landmark Commission 4 April 21, 2026 sanded, stripped and then assessed if it can be utilized or if it will need to be replaced. The upper portions of the columns were shown, and whether replaced or repaired, they will retain the exact same design style. Public Comment & Commission Discussion: The porch railing was discussed with clarification requested from Janel Ponder-Smith on new railings. Mr. Melton stated they will not be adding a wraparound porch railing, because there is already an existing railing. Though the current railing is not secured, and its loose so they will simply secure the existing rail. He noted wording was a mistake on their part. Mr. John Dickinson said as long as they keep the same number of elements, and in the same configuration using the same type of materials, it would be appropriate, if it is kept within those guidelines. He then made a motion authorizing porch preservation and restoration to include repairing areas with wood rot, securing the existing porch railings to the brick columns for improved safety and maintaining the same design. Mr. Bill Enlow seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, and it was approved unanimously 8-0*. *Mr. Hartmangruber unexpectedly had to leave for an emergency, so the votes tallied were different due to his departure. 3) Porch Column - repair and repaint (previously painted brick/wood components) There are five columns which the owners will be retaining, one of them will need serious attention. Some major masonry work on one column and work on some of the other columns. Wichita Falls Design Guideline recommendations for porches: a) Restore b) Repair damaged elements. c) Replacement, if necessary, only if the elements cannot be repaired. d) Maintain, repair original decorative roof elements Public Comment & Commission Discussion: Mr. JD Dixon asked if the columns would be repainted and if they would be painted after the masonry was repaired. Mr. Melton said they were planning on removing the paint, which will then be repainted. There was additional discussion between the owners and the board members regarding the paint on the bricks, and power washing the bricks to remove the old paint. Power washing the bricks may cause more harm to the building, and Mr. Melton said they will investigate the best method as they move forward to remove the paint without harming the brick so they can repaint. If the painters say the best approach would be just to paint over the existing painted brick, then they will consider. John Dickinson noted guidelines that when it comes to masonry, if brick has already been painted, it's acceptable to repaint. He added, if brick has not been painted, you should not paint it. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne discussed some preservation briefs that can be downloaded from the National Park Service website that address masonry and brickwork, and appropriate/not appropriate methods to use when cleaning and repair/painting. Landmark Commission 5 April 21, 2026 Chairperson Graham asked if there was a motion to approve the design review for the porch column repairs. Mr. JD Dixon introduced a motion authorizing the brick porch column preservation and restoration using the gentlest methods recommended by the National Park Service Preservation Briefs for masonry materials. Ms. Lisa Stephens- Musick seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, and it was approved 7-0*. *Dr. Dawn Ferrell had a scheduled meeting and excused herself thus reflecting in the total number of votes. 4) Gable Restoration — restore Public Comment & Commission Discussion: The Al image was discussed with how the actual gable would look. The owners would not use stained wood, as shown in the Al picture, but instead paint as the wood may be too damaged to look appropriate with stain. It was noted, the original request will need to be updated to reflect the gable will be painted, not stained. Ms. Ponder-Smith made a motion authorizing restoration and repair of deteriorated wood components and the wood material will be repainted not stained. Mr. Dixon seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 5) Roof Rafter Tail/Trim Work - repair and/or replace where deteriorated beyond repair Ms. Montgomery-Gagne spoke more about the irregular rafter tails (angular on main house; rear addition curved) and damage to the roof trim elements due to lack of maintenance. The Melton's will not be changing any shape or slope of the roof, it won't be touched as replaced in 2018, only trim work and decorative defining features will be repaired and/or replaced depending on level of damage/wood rot. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: Board members discussed at length whether the two rafter tail styles should remain as they are, including the curved rafter tail design on the addition. Since the exact date of the addition is not known, it could also be considered to have some historic significance since it was post-World War II. Additional discussion, Commission members asked the owner's preference. Mr. & Mrs. Melton had mixed opinions on rafter tail design. JD Dixon suggested the final replacement design (angular vs curved) be owner's preference. Mr. Dickinson made the motion authorizing the repair and replacement, where necessary, of the roof rafter tails/trim work, as a Craftsman character defining feature. It was determined as 'owner's preference' regarding the design of the rear addition rafter tails as they were an alternate curved style and did not match the design of the original roof rafter tails which were more angular. Mr. Bill Enlow seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 6) Front Door Replacement (non-original) - wood Craftsman-style door (6 lite upper panel; dentil molding and lower 2-panel design) One of the other key elements in a home is the front entry door. This case is interesting because the house faces Buchanan, but the main entry faces the side street, Avenue D. Landmark Commission 6 April 21, 2026 One of the sample door options will result in a Craftsman architectural style door which is more fitting for the house style. Photos of a door that is being considered to replace the existing door were in the Commission's packet. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne spoke about the door that had been enclosed, which will not be restored mainly because of the way the house was redesigned on the interior and it would result in significant redesign in order to incorporate. Since the front door is not original, the owners are trying to select an option that fits the architectural style of the home and enhances the character/value. Public Comment & Commission Discussion: Mr. Melton said the example of the new door was from Builder's Lumber and noted that the store gave him an image of a generic door. Mr. Melton wants a door that looks like the image provided to the Commission but with addition of dentil molding. Chairperson Graham made a motion approving replacement of the non-original front door as a Craftsman style wood door with a 6 lite upper panel, dentil molding and lower 2 panel style. Mr. Dixon seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, and it was approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0. 7) Windows - repair/restore to the extent possible; significant damage, replace those deemed 'non-repairable.' Windows are the eyes and soul of a building; if they are changed or sizing altered to something inappropriate, it impacts the building forever. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne showed photos of the condition of the original windows. Most of the windows have been covered by drywall on the interior with glass panes painted on the exterior or covered with Styrofoam. As mentioned earlier, a lot of the windows had AC units so there is significant damage to the windows along with a lack of maintenance. The owners will try to utilize a paired set of windows from the former rear wall which became on interior wall after the rear addition was constructed. The original windows were left as part of the interior wall. The owners are working with a contractor and/or craftsman to reach this goal. If the windows are beyond repair, they will look at wood replacement windows, while still matching the original proportions, design and placement. They will also maintain the same detailing with the 4 over 1 or 3 over 1 panes. They hope to repair a number of windows, but there are broken panes that will need to be replaced and sections of wood rot. The board was shown additional photos of the current windows and noted the following recommendations from the design guidelines: a)Try not to enlarge your window openings; utilize the same window openings. b) Don't enclose windows. c) Retain and restore original windows and the surrounds and components and screens to the extent that's possible. d) Match profile of original window; dimensional muntins on outside of glass. e)Acceptable replacement materials would be wood, aluminum, or aluminum clad wood. Vinyl is not an appropriate substitute material. Staff noted if windows deemed deteriorated beyond repair, the owners could look at using storm windows, or if they have to go with replacement to make sure they have the Landmark Commission 7 April 21, 2026 dimensional muntin's, so the windows, when looking at an angle, will appear as if they have individual panes of glass with the spacers between the glass. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: Mr. Melton explained to the board if replacement is necessary, he would like to get windows that are time period correct, to make sure they fit with the Craftsman style house. They want to clean up the windows as best they can and repair the broken windows. Owners intend to reuse an interior window (formerly exterior wall) if it will fit and it measures correctly to an existing double window opening. If they need to replace the windows, they will go to Builders Lumber and have them custom ordered to the exact size and design as they are now. (4 over 1, or 3 over 1) and made of wood. The use of storm windows was discussed and it was decided that storm windows will not preserve the original look of the house, so the storm window reference to install storm windows in the application will be stricken from the request. Ms. Ponder-Smith made a motion authorizing window restoration/repair and if windows are determined to be deteriorated beyond repair, replacement with custom sized wood- framed windows matching original proportions, design and placement (3 or 4 over 1). Mr. Enlow seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, it was approved with a vote of 7-0. 8) Chimney - repair mortar, remain unpainted (brick not previously painted) The chimney is on the north façade, so it faces the vacant lot. Owners will need to have C mortar work completed and coordinate with their contractor/mason where it abuts the wood siding to ensure it does not continue to pull away from the house. The owners were thinking of power washing, assessing and then repairing the mortar. They are currently divided on whether they want to retain the chimney with the original brick that has not been painted or to paint the non-painted masonry so it would be similar color as the restored wood siding. Public Comment & Commission Discussion: Some of the board members discussed that it looks like the brick has not been painted, and they feel it would be going against the guidelines to paint brick that has never been painted. Mr. Dickinson made a motion allowing for chimney/mortar repair but not to paint the original unpainted red chimney bricks. Ms. Ponder-Smith seconded the motion. The board members talked about the mortar restoration and whether it should be painted. Mr. Dixon pointed out a photograph on page 32 of the Commission packet that there was a precedent on the property where brick had previously been painted (porch columns). Mr. Enlow asked who wanted the chimney brick painted. Mrs. Melton stated she wanted it painted so the mortar repairs would not be visible. Mr. Dixon added a lot depends on the mortar composition and how it ages whether it will blend in with the original mortar. Mr. Dickinson noted, the chimney was original brick and never previously painted, the owners could have it professionally cleaned, new mortar and it would reduce the visibility of repairs. Landmark Commission 8 April 21, 2026 Chairperson Graham took the motion to a vote, and the vote was split 5-2, with Bill Enlow and JD Dixon on record as opposed. 9) New Construction - Cedar, wide plank horizontal 8ft privacy fence in rear yard The Melton's are looking at adding an 8-foot cedar privacy fence, and they want to use the horizontal style for the boards. The fence will follow the same footprint as the original chain-link 4-foot fence, which starts at the back line of the building. One of the design guidelines for fences that the West Floral Heights neighborhood had incorporated was that there be no new front yard fences, so the owners are adhering to the guidelines. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne pointed out the Commission has reviewed similar requests for rear yard privacy fencing, particularly for 8ft fences along rear, alley property lines. The owners are concerned with the property on Buchanan being the eastern edge of the historic district of ensuring a separation point from the commercial district activity along Kemp to the start of their historic district. The 8ft fence option provides both safety and security. Public Comment & Commission Discussion: Some board members commented the horizontal boards would look too modern against the Craftsman house. Chairperson Graham stated there is already a horizontal style privacy fence within the district. Council Liaison Flack noted that horizontal fencing doesn't always hold up as well as standard fencing. Mr. Melton appreciated the comments and explained they have installed a horizontal style fence where they currently reside and incorporated additional support posts to address potential sagging. Mr. Dixon said that being on the back portion of the property, he doesn't believe the new fence will have an impact on the historic character of the property and has no reservations about it. Mr. Dixon said in terms of standards, it is fully reversible; meaning that they can come in, take the fence down, and the building would still exist with the historic character intact. Mr. Dixon made the motion authorizing new construction for a cedar-wide plank horizontal style 8ft privacy fence in the rear yard as it can be reversible and being limited to the rear yard (behind rear building footprint) should have low impact on the overall historic character. Chairperson Graham seconded the motion which passed unanimously 7-0. 10) Wood Shutters - preserve/restore to the extent possible; repaint green; replacement only as final option There are two shutters on the front façade facing Buchanan that flank the group of windows. The goal is to strip these and assess whether they can be repaired. The secondary option is replacement. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne showed the board pictures of sample replacement shutters with a top, center and bottom rail. She pointed out the original shutters had a unique decorative feature at the top, which is very common in Craftsman design but there is no center bar. Wichita Falls Design Guidelines for shutters: a) Decorative features for windows, including shutters, are character-defying elements. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: Mr. Melton explained they would like to keep existing shutters, strip the paint and repaint. They included the option to replace the shutters in case there was something wrong/damaged discovered after removing the layers of paint. Landmark Commission 9 April 21, 2026 Ms. Ponder Smith motioned to approve repairing the original Buchanan façade shutters. However, if it's discovered the original shutters are beyond restoration, the replacement shall be as close a match in design, style, size (18-in x 63-in) and materials based on the sample louvered wood exterior shutters. Mr. Dixon seconded the motion. The motion was taken to vote, and it was unanimously approved 7-0. 11) Planter Box - replace missing wood elements; replicate wood brackets (4) using the design of deteriorated ones Ms. Montgomery-Gagne showed a 2004 photo when the planter box was intact, and it appeared to originally have four brackets. The owners would like to replicate the brackets and planter box. The board was provided pictures of examples illustrating a replica. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: There are four holders that need to match the one lying on the ground, which would not be difficult to replicate. There are currently two in place, one on the ground and one is missing. Chairperson Graham stated the planter box is a key element to the house and needs to be replaced and brackets replicated. Mr. Dixon made the motion to approve replacement of the missing wood planter box (102.25-in width x 10" depth) below the Buchanan façade front window. The existing, deteriorated wood brackets can be utilized as a pattern to replicate (4) same design and size. Mr. Enlow seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, and it passed 7-0. C12) Awning (Buchanan facade) - determined existing metal awning most likely not original; no replacement authorized The awning over the front window was discussed, with some question on when the metal awning was added to the house. It is unknown when it was installed. The Melton's are requesting approval to change the awning to a canvas material and provided a sample photo with a striped canvas awning. Images of the south façade facing Avenue D, which showed a different style of metal awning over two windows may have been post-World War II. Owners not requesting to repair Ave D awning when they repair the window, and would like the awning removed. Wichita Falls Design Guidelines for canopies and awnings: a) Recommendation to not remove an element that is original. b) If the replacement is necessary, replace only those elements beyond repair. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: Board members felt the metal awning may have been put in place in the 1950's to early '60's. Additional photos were presented to the board members, and support brackets on the triple front window were discussed. There is no photographic evidence showing what the original awning looked like, if there was even an awning when constructed. There is verbiage in the Guidelines that states, "if no documentation regarding the appearance of the original canopy or awning exists, the replacement shall be appropriate for the building's form and architectural style." Awnings around the Melton's property were brought up to compare with what is on their house. Discussion continued noting the fact the metal Landmark Commission 10 April 21, 2026 awning blocks out significant light and preferences of the Melton's were further discussed including the option of not having a front awning at all to allow for light and visibility. Members also talked about whether the awnings fit the Craftsman style, and many do not believe it's architecturally appropriate. Commission suggestion that the request should strike replacement with a canvas awning. Mr. Dixon made a motion to approve removal of the existing metal awning over the Buchanan façade front window and the Ave D façade window metal awning as determined to be non-original to the Craftsman architectural style of the house. Ms. Stephens-Musick seconded the motion. Chairperson Graham took the motion to vote, it passed 7-0. 13) Concrete Walkways - leading to Ave D and Buchanan; replace with standard broom- finish concrete for safety and security. Views of the existing walkways (Buchanan and Ave D) were provided to the board. Looking from the house to the sidewalk along Avenue D and Buchanan, the walkways are narrow and concrete broken, potentially treacherous for the owners or visitors. The Melton's intend to replace the concrete with the brushed 'broom' style typical of most concrete walkways. They are requesting approval to remove and replace both sidewalks. Public Comment& Commission Discussion: Chairperson Graham made a motion authorizing the removal and replacement of the broken concrete walkways leading to the house from Buchanan and Ave. D. with broom- finish concrete in the same location, alignment for improved safety and appearance. Mr. Dixon seconded the motion. The motion was taken to vote, and passed 7-0. IV. Other Business Monthly Reports: Chairperson Graham for the Depot Square HD: Wichita Theatre: • Stage Two - CLUE —Will run through May 9th • Main Stage: Eagle Tribute Band — April 25th; Sister Act — May 1st-gth; comedian Mike Walker— May 15th Backdoor Theater: • Celebrating 50th anniversary—April 10th • Exterior lights and new sign approved by Landmarks have been installed • Adjacent building (517 Indiana) wall collapsed into parking lot Ms. Janel Ponder Smith for West Floral Heights HD: • Organizing officers for outreach/introduction to residents • Remind residents they live in a historic neighborhood; offer to install the historic plaques on their house. Staff Updates: Ms. Montgomery-Gagne • Real Places Conference, April 8-10; good workshops, sessions and some Landmark Commission 11 April 21, 2026 connections for a future window repair workshop; some potential products for consideration by the Commission, Accoya, modified wood product with improved performance; information included in meeting packet. • 2024 - Heritage Tourism was the 3rd highest economic industry in Texas • HOT tax, Hotel Occupancy Tax, can be utilized for heritage tourism projects • 5th Annual National History Marker Demonstration Day:April 24; Museum of North Texas History 11:30am 'lunch & learn' followed by fieldwork on the THC markers • 6 Markers identified for 2026 in need of restoration: Wichita Water Improvement District—402 E Scott Street Wichita Falls Lodge No 635 (Masonic Lodge) — 3388 Barnett Rd First Baptist Church — RTHL Marker— 1200 9th St First Methodist Church — RTHL Marker— 900 10t St Frank Kell Home— RTHL Marker— 900 Bluff St. Riverside Cemetery—State Cemetery Marker— 1810 5th St • National Historic Preservation Month Proclamations — May 5th (City & County) V. Adjourn: Chairperson Graham adjourned the meeting at 1:37 pm and stated the next two scheduled meetings would be May 19, 2026, at 12:00 pm and June 23rd, 2026 at 12:00 pm. CA/14/1/ti 1/411411() ` Christy Graham, Chairperson Date 0