Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/24/2013MINUTES r'lN CLERK'S OFFICE LANDMARK COMMISSION DATF: _ /�/3 September 24, 2013 BY: __ -- T!MF: ,G -J7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Stacie Flood, Chairperson ■ Members Christy Graham Carolyn Looney Andy Lee John Kidwell Michael Koen Steve Wood Miles Risley, City Attorney , Staff Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planning Administrator ■ Peter Scott, Assistant City Attorney II ■ Leo Mantey, Planner I ff ABSENT: Councilor Michael Smith ■ Council Liaison Jackie Lebow ■ Members ® I. Call to Order and Introductions Chairperson Flood called the meeting to order at 12:09 p.m. and introduced members of the Commission. Staff reiterated an apology for the change in meeting due to a sudden death in the family of the Texas Historical Commission (THC) staff member originally scheduled for training with the Commission. Ms Gagn6 indicated THC will reschedule the site visit for a future date. II. Review and Approval of Minutes from August 27, 2013 Chairperson Flood called for approval of minutes from the August 27, 2013 Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Koen motioned for approval and Ms Graham seconded. The motion carried. III. Application for Design Review — Memorial Auditorium (1300 7th Street) — Kiosk Alteration Ms Gagn6 indicated this application was a follow up from initial information provided for discussion at the August meeting. She said the commission and staff knew there was a proposed project that would occur at Memorial Auditorium, but didn't know the schedule of the project. City Management worked with a local architect to coordinate project details and designs. Ms Gagn6 provided the commission with photos showing the west building wing of the Memorial Auditorium depicting the existing awning and window payment kiosk; and detailed drawings with dimensions of both the existing and new elevation for the proposed automated kiosk. She said there will be a concrete bollard on both sides of the kiosk to protect the building facade. Ms Gagn6 introduced Mr. Koen who is the project architect to give more insight on the project. ® Mr. Koen stated the first detailed drawing was the existing drive -up window which protrudes nine (9) inches from the wall; the second drawing showed the proposed automated kiosk which will also extend nine (9) inches from the wall. A concrete bollard will be erected to prevent people from hitting the building. The existing window kiosk will LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 1 be removed and replaced with a smaller, automated unit as outlined in the architectural drawings provided. ® Mr. Koen said the new kiosk will be black and recommends installing brushed aluminum for the surrounding area of the kiosk. He said the previous project for the handicapped access ramp along the 7th Street fagade utilized brushed aluminum and that will look similar. Mr. Wood made a motion to approve the alteration for a smaller automated kiosk based on plans presented, with brushed aluminum panels for the surrounding area. Mr. Kidwell seconded. Mr. Koen being the project architect abstained from voting and declared his conflict of interest. The Landmark Commission approved the design outlined in the architectural plans however the Building Inspection division will require a full set of plans in order to review the project for conformity with the building codes. IV. Discussion, Review and Recommendation of Staff Research — Landmark Commission Composition Ms Gagn6 informed members that this research was initially requested at the March 26, 2013 commission meeting. Staff was requested to research issues relating to the current composition of the commission. Initially, concerns were brought to the City Planning Division's attention in 2011 and again in 2012 regarding the preservation district liaison's position, specifically the West Floral Heights Historic District, on the Landmark Commission that currently has non - voting representation. Staff at first looked at the Code of Ordinances - Chapter 62 — Historic Preservation, Article II, Sec. 62 -36 (Landmark Commission created; composition, qualifications and compensation) in an ® effort to consider alternate language that would provide a vote on the commission for the liaison but not increase its size since there were already nine (9) voting members. Staff referred members to the ordinance language included in their meeting packets: "Of the nine (9) members, one shall be a licensed real estate broker or appraiser, one shall be a member of the planning and zoning commission, one shall be a member of the Wichita County Heritage Society, one shall be a member of a historic district that shall either own property or reside within a district, two shall be licensed or have expertise in the field of architecture, and three shall be members at-large. In the event that a member from a category noted above is unable to serve on the commission, city council may appoint an additional member at- large. The preservation district liaison from each district shall be considered a non - voting member of the commission." Ms. Gagn6 noted that currently there are two vacant positions on the Commission for the 'at large' member positions. Ms Gagn6 informed the commission staff research considered various sizes of communities that currently had Certified Local Government designation and comparable to Wichita Falls. Cities included: Granbury, Grapevine, Abilene, Denton, Lubbock, Waco, Tyler and Fort Worth. The research reviewed their preservation board membership and composition. She said it is important to note that City Council makes all appointments (unless joint City /County) to the various boards & commissions and it is their final determination for membership. Ms Gagn6 stated that traditionally membership on any City boards should be an odd number to prevent issues with a tie in the case of a split vote. ® She introduced the legal staff who assisted with the project - Mr. Miles Risley, City Attorney and Landmark Commission Legal liaison Mr. Peter Scott. Ms Gagn6 concluded the overview and referred member, to a memo which outlined five options developed in LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 2 conjunction with the Legal Department for the commission's discussion and ® consideration. Option 1. Preservation Ordinance remains unchanged and the preservation district liaison is retained as a non - voting member of the Commission. It was pointed out by Legal staff, that we actually need to consider a second preservation district liaison (non- voting) from the Depot Square Historic District since the ordinance currently reads "...from each district..." Somehow this item was overlooked as the ordinance revision in 2003 was written with consideration for the creation of future districts. Option 2. Create an alternate member category. Altemate members would have voting rights and be able to contribute to the discussion whenever there are regularly appointed voting members who are absent from the meetings. Alternates are utilized for the Planning & Zoning Com., and Board of Adjustment. This option addresses both the issue with non -voting and ensures there will always be a quorum at Commission meetings. However, there must be additional provisions added to the ordinance which place a cap on the total number of potential alternates so their position does not over power the votes from the professionally qualified members. A second concern with this option is the potential for a conflict of interest and the issue that alternates may not be needed at each board meeting but as official alternates are expected to be present. Option 3. Add a second position/vote for a historic district member (shall either own property or reside within a district). No specific historic district would be specified; it would be City Council's option to select two (2) appropriate representatives (depending ® on terms/limits) for this category; so potentially in the future if there are more than two (2) historic districts they will not always be represented on the board. Concerns with this option are the increase in size of the commission and creation of an even number of members, potential issues with equitability so over time each historic district has an opportunity for representation on the Landmark Commission. Option 4. Preservation district liaison's become voting members. This appears to be a clear and simple solution to allow liaison's to be voting members. However, it again, as in Option 3 and 5 increases the size of the commission and may result in the at -large and preservation liaison position's dominating the board rather than the professionally qualified positions. There may be issues with setting up for an undemocratic process where there are numerous members from one particular historic district which creates a political power struggle for approval on either a landmark nomination or design review case. Option 5. Add a fourth at -large member. This would provide greater opportunity for anyone in the city with an interest in history/preservation the ability to apply for the board but as with Option 3 and 4 it increases the size of the commission and creates an even number of members (10). Additionally, there is no guarantee that City Council will automatically appoint an interested person who resides in an existing historic district so there is equitable distribution of votes among the general representation (at- large), the professionally qualified members and those from the specific historic districts ® Staff recommended Option 1 as the preferred solution since it retains the current ordinance language and it provides the option for a preservation liaison from each district (Depot Square and West Floral Heights). LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Risley informed the commission that it is a legal due process that a city appoints • experts in the field to serve on boards and commissions that have an actual discretionary authority over people's property rights of which the Landmark Commission is an example. Mr. Scott also said adding more members to the commission thus increasing the total size of the commission results in difficulty in meeting a quorum for meetings. He also suggested having an odd number (eleven) on the Landmark Commission to prevent an issue with a tie in case of a split vote. Ms Gagn6 stated there are two at -large positions open on the commission as of July; she said there have been some applications on file with the Clerk's office for City Council's consideration. She said it is important for the commission members to determine where they want to proceed with the issues concerning membership composition before Council considers filling those two vacancies. Depending on what the commission recommends, there might be a change in the overall composition of the commission Chairperson Flood asked how many people were applying for the two vacancies on the Commission. She wanted to know if there is was a sufficient number of applicants or qualified applicants to consider, and if that was the case, how do we fill an additional spot when it's difficult to fill existing vacancies. Ms Gagn6 said traditionally it is always difficult to obtain qualified people to volunteer for boards and commission. She said there are currently four applicants for the at -large positions but some of those dated back to 2011 and 2012. • Mr. Wood asked if Council had a process where they consider making a decision on amending the ordinance with staff recommendations. Mr. Risley said Council makes revisions based on information provided and recommendations from commissions and boards. He also said the final decision to add a member to the Landmark Commission will be done by City Council based on recommendation from the Landmark Commission. The commission members deliberated and discussed various options including combinations of the suggested staff options. Mr. Wood made a motion to remove one at -large position from the commission and replace with a second member of a historic district. One would be a member of a primarily residential historic district who resides or owns a property in the district; the second shall be a member of a primarily commercial historic district and shall reside or own a property within the district: and the non - voting preservation district liaison position would be removed as a member of the commission. The commission discussed and weighed the ramifications for this option prior to voting. Mr. Koen seconded the motion. Members inquired about the next steps. The motion was unanimously approved. Ms Gagne indicated the revised text would be presented to the commission at the October meeting for final recommendation and Mr. Risley said the ordinance revision will then be recommended to Council for approval. V. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding — Graffiti Artist — 600 Ohio Street (Depot District) Ms Gagne provided a brief overview on the history of the graffiti case. She stated the commission and staff were first alerted to a new mural/graffiti in June 2011 that LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 4 suddenly appeared on 600 Ohio Street (Depot Square Historic District — former Pond's Laundry circa 1904) without the prior approval from the building tenant (Bob Mayfield) or the owner (Bob Casselman). She provided the commission with photos that illustrate the graffiti mural in detail and highlight the poor condition of the underlying bricks. Ms Gagne said Planning coordinated with the building tenant/owner, Code Enforcement and the Police Department regarding graffiti abatement and trying to find the person responsible for the incident. The Police Dept. created a case file #11070733. During the interim the Landmark Commission and staff tried to develop options by late summer 2011 to abate the graffiti but also to consider the deteriorating brick wall and appropriate options for long term maintenance. The ideal abatement situation was to repair and repaint the 6t' Street fagade of the building but that involved additional costs for the owner and could not be mandated by the commission. Ms Gagne informed the commission that recent information surfaced in a Times Record News article published on Monday, September 16, 2013 that highlighted unique yard features and murals in Wichita Falls. Local artist Mr. Ralph Steams was interviewed and he admitted to painting the graffiti mural on the building at 600 Ohio. A copy of the news article was enclosed with this agenda item. The article stated: "Recently, he painted a mural of a girl looking out a window, as if she's trapped, on a Wichita Falls downtown brick wall. `That one is more graffiti. I never asked permission to do it," he confessed. 'I just did it without anybody's permission. I had to hurry up and get it done before/ got arrested "After three hours, it was done." Staff along with the commission chair and vice- chairperson wanted this information considered by the entire Landmark • Commission. Ms Gagn6 outlined options for the commission to consider moving forward with this issue: 1) Landmark Commission mail Mr. Stearns an official letter outlining the violation, open police case and concern with his choice to paint the mural on a designated historic building prior to obtaining permission and /or coordinating with the Commission. 2) Request Code Enforcement pursue citation and restitution via community service. 3) Contact the Police Department regarding Mr. Steams public admission. 4) Coordinate with the tenant and owner of 600 Ohio regarding their preferred option to proceed with abatement. 5) Require Mr. Stearns to abate the graffiti with painting over the non - approved design and replacing it with an approved mural that the tenant, owner and Landmark Commission deem appropriate for the Depot Square Historic District Ms Gagner indicated she discussed the new information regarding the graffiti artist with the building tenant, Mr. Mayfield, on September 18, 2013. Mr. Mayfield noted he had worked with the owner (Mr. Casselman) and was in the process of finalizing maintenance plans for plaster /masonry repair, roof repair and repainting the walls of 600 Ohio Street. His initial thoughts were to not paint a new mural on the building but he would discuss options with Mr. Casselman. Mr. Mayfield suggested having Mr. . Stearns cited with a ticket from Code Enforcement and require some form of community service. LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Lee said he agreed with the tenant and suggested Mr. Steams be cited with a ticket or accept to do community service. ® Chairperson Flood said this will be a great opportunity to educate the public on why certain things cannot be done in the historic district. Ms Looney agreed and said a column in the newspaper should be dedicated for that. Mr. Risley informed the commission that the City does not have any authority for criminal prosecution because the accused, Mr. Steams waited until the statute of limitations had expired before making an admission. The ability to therefore force him to do anything is limited. Mr. Lee made a motion that an official letter to be mailed to Mr. Steams outlining the violation, open police case and concern with his choice to paint the mural on a designated historic building prior to obtaining permission and /or coordinating with the commission. Mr. Koen seconded. The motion carried unanimously. VI Other Business a) West Floral Heights Historic District— Monthly Report Ms Looney provided the commission with a photo showing a house in the 1500 block of Buchanan Street (1505 Buchanan). She stated the owners moved out and left the house unattended with trash, a trailer is being used as storage and there are overgrown weeds. Ms Looney asked if the commission can do anything about the unpleasant view of the area. She said the whole corridor needs to be cleaned and repainted to make it appealing to residents. Ms Gagn6 said the trash trailer and weeds are a Code issue. Mr. Wood said it will be difficult to comment on the painting issue because people have different preferences for colors. Ms Looney said any color chosen should be a historic • approved color. Ms Gagn6 said the issue of paint colors was not discussed with the consultants that were hired for the design review guidelines update in 2011/2012 because it's difficult to determine what constitutes a historic color for each architectural style and period. Ms Gagne said she will however send an email to Code Enforcement about the problem so it can be investigated. Ms Looney informed the commission that stop signs are being replaced in the area. She also said the district will be having a fundraising event on September 27, 2013. b) Depot District — Sales of Zales ( Defoor's 800 -06-08 Ohio/ 601 a Street) Building to DWFD, Inc Mr. Lee informed the commission that the Downtown Wichita Falls Development organization formed a Limited Liability Company (DWFD LLC) and purchased the Zales building to invest money and redevelop the building. Mr. Lee said this initiative is a preservation project that will extend to other buildings in the downtown area. They intend to put two signs up and will carefully remove the former pawn sign. They will seek approval from the commission and put up a real estate sign on the outside of the building. Ms Gagn6 suggested they maintain the existing sign frame and simply change out the letters. c) Design Review — No Staff Authorized Minor Alteration / Repairs d) TX Historical Commission — SAFB Historic Marker Dedication — Sept. 23rd — 10 am main gate • Ms Gagn6 informed the commission that it was well attended. She said Robert Palmer from the County Historic Commission did a really good job presenting an overview of the history of Sheppard Air Force Base. The new commander, Brig. Gen. Kindsvater, was also present to give a presentation. LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 6 • • • Mr. Lee stated his initial thought on creating a Downtown TIF district should be added to the agenda for the next meeting. e) Articles & Periodicals No articles or periodicals for the month VII New Business Chairperson Flood stated the Landmark Commission will meet in October. The next meeting is scheduled for October 22nd , 2013 at 12pm. VIII. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 1:47 pm. S Stacie Flood, Chairperson ock . 9a 3 Date LANDMARK COMMISSION September 24, 2013 Page 7