Loading...
10/11/2017 MINUTESREGULAR MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 107 EAST KAUFMAN PARIS, TEXAS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017 Chris Dux- Chairman Skipper Steely David Alarid Sarah Barbee Glee Emmite Randy Hider Linda Vandiver Cheri Bedford HPO Linda Knox Council Liaison Carla Easton- City Engineer Stephanie Harris- City Attorney Robert Talley- Code enforcement officer Guests: Kari Daniel Commission Chair Dux called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. A motion to approve the September 13, 2017 was made by Skipper Steely, seconded by David Alarid, Motion carried 7 - 0 Discussion and Possible action on the following certificate of appropriateness: COA #2017-30 Window Replacement of windows on the back of her building, second floor. Kari Daniel: Ms. Kari Daniel stated that some windows on the second floor back of their property, needed to be replaced because of their lack of energy efficiency, leaking and general deterioration. Ms. Daniel stated that she wanted to use Vinyl Clad windows just like she did on the front of her building. Commissioner Dux printed several documents to present to Ms. Daniel, and he asked her to bear with him as he went over the documents and would give her copies. He went on to explain the Historic Preservation Commission objective is to try to maintain the historical integrity of the buildings in the district. There were several reasons that they are interested in doing this, to maintain the character of the structures in the district, and several economic reasons too. He stated that the commission had design standards for the district, that are derived from the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, along with their technical briefs, and anything the commission decides should be guided by and in compliance with the design standards. Chairman Dux clarified that what they decided in the meeting was not going to be anybody's personal opinion, but data available from across the country. He read from US department of Interior Preservation Brief 49 the following paragraphs since it was several pages in length: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the accompanying guidelines, call for respecting the significance of original materials and features, repairing and retaining them wherever possible, and when necessary, replacing them in kind. As a part of this evaluation, one must consider four basic window functions: admitting light to the interior spaces, providing fresh air and ventilation to the interior, providing a visual link to the outside world, and enhancing the appearance of a building. After all of the factors have been evaluated, windows should be considered significant to a building if they: 1. are original, 2. reflect the original design intent for the building, 3. reflect period or regional styles or building practices, 4. reflect changes to the building resulting from major periods or events, or 5. are examples of exceptional craftsmanship or design. Ms. Daniel stated that their windows were not the original window at this point. Commissioner Dux went on to further read: The decision process for selecting replacement windows should not begin with a survey of contemporary window products which are available as replacements, but should begin with a look at the windows which are being replaced. Attempt to understand the contribution of the window(s) to the appearance of the facade including: 1. the pattern of the openings and their size; 2. proportions of the frame and sash; 3. configuration of window partes; 4. muntin profiles; 5. type of wood; 6. paint color; 7. characteristics of the glass; and 8. associated details such as arched tops, hoods, or other decorative elements. Armed with an awareness of the significance of the existing window, begin to search for a replacement which retains as much of the character of the historic window as possible.Technical Preservation Services recommends the retention and repair of original windows whenever possible. We believe that the repair and weatherization of existing wooden windows is more practical than most people realize, and that many windows are unfortunately replaced because of a lack of awareness of techniques for evaluation, repair, and weatherization. Wooden windows which are repaired and properly maintained will have greatly extended service lives while contributing to the historic character of the building. Thus, an important element of a building's significance will have been preserved for the future. Chairman Dux went on to explain the Design Standards for the Paris Historic District talk about the windows and types of replacements. Commissioner Dux asked for clarification as to the type of windows being vinyl, or vinyl clad wooden windows Ms. Daniel was proposing. Ms. Daniel confirmed that the application was for vinyl clad wooden windows. Commissioner Dux said he had driven by and noticed that some of the windows looked original, in which Ms. Daniels stated 10 years ago the windows were bricked up, and that when the bricks were removed all that was left was some rotten pieces of frames, and so they replaced all of the windows 10 years ago. She told the commission the windows don't open and close, they weren't done well, they are not insulated, single pane glass, but they did what they could afford at the time, and now they want make them better. Commissioner Dux also had an article from the magazine "This Old House " with information comparing window types with substitute materials, noting the defects of vinyl windows. He asked her if she would be willing to withdraw her application and review the information and come back to the commission. He let her know most preservation commissions wouldn't allow vinyl of any type. Ms. Daniel stated that she had the vinyl windows approved on the front of her building several years ago, and it was her understanding that this was allowed. There was more discussion on windows panes requested by Ms. Daniel, appropriate divided light panes, scale, size and dimension of the windows and the windows on the buildings next door. Ms. Daniel said she had talked to the HPO, and had been told that divided light panes that had divider mullions sandwiched between two pieces of glass would not be acceptable, so they were going with single pane over .single pane window as pictured. Commissioner Dux said he understood that there may have been some confusion if in the past vinyl clad windows had been approve. He also stated there are also some nuances about aluminum windows in the standards being allowed if they are powder coated. Ms. Daniel said it is incredibly frustrating as a business owner and someone that is trying to do something good to her building, and there seemed to be some changes in the commission decision process, because the first time they had to spend an extra $4000 to get vinyl clad windows instead of aluminum windows, and now this time it is different standard. She also stated that she was told originally that the rear of the building didn 't fall under the purview of the commission, but now recognizes this has changed too. She also stated that she wouldn't have done any work without a COA had she known the back of the building was in the purview, because she is a supporter of downtown and tries very hard She felt as if some misunderstandings were being held against her. Commissioner apologized to Ms. Daniel for any misunderstandings and told her nothing was being held against her. Commissioner Hider asked if it would be reasonable to make an exception since her windows were at the rear of the building because he felt that this was not as significant, especially on a second story, and what used to be an alley. Commissioner Dux advised the commission about not going against the Design standards. Commissioner Dux gave Ms. Daniels an article from this old house magazine entitled "all about fiberglass windows " Technical Preservation brief 16, Preservation brief 9, Technical Preservation Brief Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated guidelines to historic windows, and pages 21, 22, 25, 56, 57 & 58 of the Design Standards for the Paris Historic District. After more discussion, Commissioner Dux stated that there was one commissioner who wanted to approve the COA and asked for any motions or discussion. Commissioner Hider asked Ms. Daniel about the mullion on the outside of the glass and if would be something that she would consider Commissioner Emmite made the motion to table the decision until October 23 at 4:00 p.m. to allow Ms. Daniel to review the information. Commissioner Hider asked the commission to clarify what would Ms. Daniel need to bring so she will get approved. Glee Emmite withdrew her motion. Commissioner Dux called for a motion to approve or deny the COA as presented. Commissioner Alarid made the motion to deny the COA for replacement Vinyl Clad windows, seconded by Commissioner Vandiver, motion carried 5 —1, Commissioner Hider opposed, and Commissioner Barbee abstained. A meeting to review a new COA was set for October 23, 2017 at 4: 00 p.m. Discussion on the process of substandard housing and what happens to cause a house to end up on the Building and Standards list. Robert Tally, Code Enforcement: Robert Talley stated that code enforcement will receive a complaint or proactively drive by and see substandard structures, some are repair, or some demolish. When a structure needs to be demolished, the first step is to bring the house to the Historic Preservation Commission with photos and possibly a few bullet points, and it is the Historic Preservation Commission responsibility is to tell if the property has any historic value to the community. If it is determined that it does, the HPC has the option of pull the structure from going to the Building and Standards, or if they do not have any value they will go through to Buildings and Standards for review. At the Building and Standards commission meeting, Robert Talley makes a presentation with photos on the houses, and options. The Commission will ask Robert questions, and sometimes the property owners attend and address the Commission. The Commission makes the decision on what will happen to the structure whether to repair or demolish. If the Commission votes to demolish the structure the general times due are 30, 60, or 90 days by state law. If it is 30 days to demolish, then on the 31 day the city calls the utilities to have the services killed. Everything has to be disconnected. After all services are cut, the public works makes a work order and it is given to the contractor to demolish, and after demolition, a lien is filed on the property. Commissioner Vandiver asked if the buildings are deemed substandard does it comes to the HPC first. Commissioner Dux and Commissioner Hider both clarified the only responsibility of the HPC is to determine if the house had any historical significance to the community, not whether it can be saved or demolished. Commissioner Alarid asked Robert Talley Code Enforcement identifies the structures or how he "marks " it? Robert stated that he puts an orange sticker on the house. Commissioner Alarid said what is that called, an orange sticker and not a red tag? Robert said that Commissioner Alarid may call it a red tag, but that is not what it's called. Commissioner Alarid asked what the orange sticker does, and Robert said it identifies the structure as substandard. Commissioner Alarid asked if he puts an orange tag on the house, does he pull the power on the house. Robert said it depends on the condition and if there are active hazards, like if the house has burned, it is out of his control because the fire department has already cut the power due to fire. Commissioner Alarid asked if *it is just someone ' opinion or a code that identifies a substandard property, and where are the standards for identifying something as substandard? Robert said there is an ordinance dedicated to the substandard properties. Commissioner Steely asked when in the process is the owner contacted? Robert stated that before the BSC meeting can take place the city sends out a certified letter to the owner letting them know they are in violation and puts a public notice in the paper. After the meeting when the orders are placed, the owner gets a copy of the notice, and the decision is also listed in the newspaper Commissioner Alarid asked whose name is in the newspaper. Robert said whoever the appraisal district lists as the owner of the property. Robert told the commission that if the owner wants to try to repair, they are given some time to do so, but in 90% of the structures that are taken to BSC no owner shows up. Most of the houses are vacant, abandon, have back taxes and nobody cares. Commissioner Steely had some questions on some properties in particular, but because they are not on the agenda they cannot be discussed So he rephrased his question and asked, if there is house that was on the agenda for demolition for BSC, and and it were to come off the list to be considered for demolition, what are some of the reasons that it might be removed from the list? Stephanie Harris told the commission that if the owner wants to demolish it on their own it would come off. Commissioner Hider recommended that the verbiage change on the agenda so as to reflect the commission is to only determine the historic significance. Commissioner Dux asked the commission to review the Building Standards ordinances, and to keep in mind the only thing that is for the commission to decide is historic value. Discussion on the Belford apartments: Commissioner Alarid led the discussion for the Belford, and the city says the property owners owe $1, 000, 000 in fines; and the property owner is asking too much to sell the building, it is difficult to find a buyer, and to give the owner more time to find a buyer and he felt selling it will never happen. Commissioner Alarid further explained the normal process throughout the country that other cities follow on a building like the Belford, that has been abandon, or has excess fines, is a foreclosure process where the city takes ownership and files a Request for Proposals (RFP). He said there were all kinds of methods for renovating and that is what he had on his sheet. The City forecloses, puts out the expected requirements on the properties as an RFP, then someone will come along and want to buy it. The City could then sell the building for a million dollars (or any other amount agreed on), the sale could be done on a dead of trust, with conditions, and time frames for restoration completion and project financing allowing time for the developer/buyer to arrange tax credit financing. There were some discussion on tax credits, and Commissioner Alarid suggested Tax Increment Financing as an incentive, where the money can go to street scape or to the buyer for restoration. But the important part is the building gets rehabilitated He asked the commission to review his proposals and ask the City Council to instruct the City Manager and City Attorney foreclosures on the property and put out an RFP, then the City would take bids for adaptive reuse. Commissioner Alarid said if someone is saying the city cannot foreclose on the property they are not being truthful or accurate. Commissioner Dux made the point that the City would want to approach this very cautiously so as not to accept a potential liability that they might not he able to sell or afford to demolish. ,Several points on his resolution are recommended as a potential process, and does the commission want to recommend this solely based on the Belford or other properties as well? What are the benefits to the city? What is the process of TIF financing, and what they should be asking the city council is to look at the elements of the proposal not only in regard to the Belford, but any properties. Commissioner Alarid stated the same process would work on all properties. Commissioner Hider said the idea sounds good in theory, but he is not a tax attorney, and would not be comfortable making any decision. There was some more discussion on the Belford, but Commissioner Alarid stated that if'the proposal was worked out there would beat least one bid. Commissioner Dux asked Commissioner Alarid to send it to him the wording of his resolution in an electronic format. Commissioner Dux asked for a motion, Commissioner Alarid made the motion to give his resolution to the City Council, and ask them to take a look at this process and see if this is something they want to pursue. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Steely. Commissioner Vandiver stated that nothing has been done anyhow on the property so it couldn t hurt. Commissioner Alarid said it can be saved if'we do something. Motion carried Discussion on substitute materials and the design standards for window replacement: Commissioner Dux had researched several window options and discussed with the commission and asked at the September meeting that clarification be put on the agenda. He proposed a clarification to the design standards to include a statement that the use of aluminum clad wooden windows are allowed only if they are powder coated and not anodize. Also fiberglass clad wooden windows, and fiberglass windows, will also be added as a substitute material and clarified in the design standards based on current research. All this should be added as an addendum to avoid confusion in the future. These specific types of window materials will be acceptable provided the design characteristics match the original configuration of the original historic window, such as divided light, and size; Commissioner Dux made the motion to clarify and add these materials to the Design Standards, second by Glee Emmite. Commissioner Hider asked about vinyl windows, and Commissioner Dux stated that vinyl windows will not be an acceptable substitute material. Motion carried 7 — 0 Clarification on the procedure if work commencing in the district without a certificate of appropriateness: Commissioner Dux explained if any commissioner sees something or realizes work is being done that isn't in accordance to the HPC design standards, or being done without a building permit, please report it to the building department, or HPO. Commissioner Steely clarified to report to HPO. Commissioner Alarid asked what happens if someone is doing work without a permit what occurs at this point, does the city go and red tag the property, or do they just go to the owner? He stated every other place in the country when a building is red tagged the owner cannot occupy the space until the problem is corrected, and does that not happen in Paris? Commissioner Dux stated that he didn't know what the process is from the building permit side. Carla Easton came up and explained that there is usually a stop work order issued by the building inspector, and the city works with the property owner as best as they can. The city tries to work with the property owner. If someone refuses to be compliant, then it becomes a code violation. Commissioner Steely asked how often that happens that people work without a permit. Ms. Easton stated she was unsure how often, but if anyone sees something they can come up and report it, and the ladies in the office can check out the permits by address. It does happen, and neighbors can report the concern if necessary, and the city will check it out. Commissioner Dux reviewed the process of violation and proposed fees. Commissioner Steely asked about boarding up windows in the Historical District? It was determined that blanker panels (plywood infill) for historic landmark properties would require a COA. Commissioner Dux encouraged the Commission to read the historic preservation ordinance. It was his observation that the commission spends a lot of time discussing things that are water under the bridge and things the commission cannot do anything about, and our duties and powers are: Adopt rules and procedures; 2. Adopt identification criteria and rules for delineation of historic district boundaries; 3. Conduct and administer historic resource surveys; 4. Recommend designation of districts and landmarks; 5. Establish committees as needed; 6. Produce and distribute minutes of meetings; 7. Develop public outreach/education/awareness programs; 8. Approve/disapprove certificates of appropriateness; 9. Provide design and other reasonable forms of advice to owners and tenants of historic properties in the certificate of appropriateness review process; 10. Recommend acquisition of endangered historic resources to the city council when necessary; 11. Submit an annual report to city council and the mayor on the status of preservation in the community and the work of the commission; 12. Prepare and promote design guidelines for landmarks/districts. Chairman Dux noted that a lot of time is spent talking about demolition, and not historic significance, and the commission needs to get on the front end of the curve for historic properties, and being proactive by designating properties, getting them some protection. Commissioner Steely said he wanted to start a positive program when he first came on the commission. Commissioner Dux said he could be in charge of a committee to do this. --CONSENT AGENDA --- Discussion of and possible action regarding the following structures considered by code inspectors to be in violation of Article III of Chapter 7 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Paris, Paris, Texas, entitled "Substandard and Dangerous Buildings and Structures," to determine whether such buildings or structures can be rehabilitated and designated on the National Register of Historic Places, as a recorded Texas Historic Landmark, or as historic property as designated by the City Council of the City of Paris. Commissioner Steely made the motion that all structures except item c be approved on the consent agenda, and item c be pulled for discussion. Seconded by Commissioner Barbee, motion carried 7 - 0 a. 617 NW 4th b. 1547 W Henderson c. 627 Pine Bluff d 1140 NE 6th e. 304 E Neagle Commissioner Dux asked Commissioner Steely how he felt that the property could be rehabbed, or designated a historic property. Commissioner Steely said he was doing some research and the house was tied to .some families in the community. Commissioner Steely made the motion to pull the house for 60 day. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alarid. Commissioner Dux and Hider both confirmed they had driven by the house felt the property was beyond repair, and 60 days wouldn't help it in any way. Commissioner Dux called for a vote, the motion failed 4 — 3. The house located at 627 Pine Bluff will move forward to building and standards commission. HPO reported that all the items on the report were just painting with historic colors. She also reported that she had attended the historic home owners fair in San Antonio, and got some good outreach ideas for the commission. If there were any volunteers who want to work on newsletter, or wanted to do some educational outreach, then she would be willing to assist. Commissioner Dux requested an item be put on the next agenda to prioritizing goals for the commission that would include items such as education and outreach. dy f L �U 2017 Chair RFCni 1ITInN The Paris Historic Preservation Commission is aware of the desire by the City of Paris to demolish the old Belford Apartment complex on South Main Street due fines owed to the City in excess of one million dollars. The members of the commission would however petition City Council to instruct the City Manager and City Attorney to foreclose on the Belford Apartment Complex and put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for the sale Belford Apartment Complex as an "Adaptive Historical Property Restoration". The Commission would suggest the following: • Foreclose on the Belford Apartment Complex • Put out an RFP • RFP requests bids for adaptive historical buildings sale / restoration • Suggest the City adopt TIF and include that into the package • Sell it for $1,000,000 with a deed of trust for 5 years, if the building is completely restored or substantially restored, the note will be extended or forgiven. • The note to become a second behind a bank in the event of a bank lien is necessary to obtain financing • Quarterly progress reports to be provided to City Council or to HPC • Historical approvals and tax credit financing should take 18 months • Once rehab starts it is 24 months for completion If nothing is done, the building will fail or will be demolished; in the meantime it remains a blight on the City, and reduces property values. Requiring a buyer to provide a loan approval up front is useless because NO bank will loan $20M on a dilapidated building. A developer will need to obtain Historical and New Market tax credits (and TIF if possible) in order to obtain tax credit financing as well as interim financing for the project. Thus, the Commission wishes the City Council to discuss, adopt and approve the foreclose of the Belford Apartment Complex for fines due to the City and put out an RFP in order to restore the property, enhance one of the entrances to the City and create an economic benefit to the City of Paris. Adopted by the Members on October 11, 2017: Chris Dux Skipper Steely Linda Vandiver Sarah Barbee Glee Emmitte Randy Hider David J. Alarid