Loading...
14-D Hist Pres Comm (03-22-04)Heritage Preservation Meeting Minutes March 22, 2004 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Arvin Starrett at 4:02 p.m. The Chairman asked for a roll call by the secretary, the following members were present. Sue Lancaster Ann Rogers Claudia Hunt Arvin Starrett Becki Norment Barbara Wilson Brian Wear ~ Jerry Raper Paul Denny Present was Lisa Wright, Director of Community Development/Heritage Preservation Officer The following guests were present ' Suzy Harper Karen Wilkerson Lindsey Harper Item 2: No minutes were presented The item was tabled due to the absence of the secretary Ann Rogers Item 3: Discussion of and possible action on approving Certificates of.&ppropriateness A. The first applicants for a Certificate of Appropriateness were Michaella Bumgamer and Brenda Smyers for property located at 101 Grand Avenue. Their problems stem fi.om the various colors of brick not matching and the proposal asks for permission to repaint the brick facade to match the old or be harmonious with the old brick. They would tie together these various colors with beige paint only where brick has akeady been painted. After discussion and clarification of where the paint would begin and end ,a motion was made by Paul Denny and seconded by Barbara Wilson to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to the applicants, ,The Chairman asked for an amended motion to stipulate that the color match as closely as possible after a statement by Ann Rogers that we were not to get into paint color choices .The amended motion was made by Becki Norment and seconded by Barbara Wilson. The motion carded with one nay vote and eight aye votes. B. The second applicants were the City of Paris/Lamar County Chamber of Commerce- 1125 Clarksville Street, Paris Santa Fe-Frisco Raikoad Depot/Heritage Park Parking Lot. The applicants requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for asphalting of the parking lot between Paris Santa Fe- Frisco Railroad Depot and Heritage Hall serving both buildings and Heritage Park. The Community Development Director, Lisa Wright was asked to give the Commission an explanation of what the city wanted to do. The City Engineer was present and was then asked by Lisa to explain the project to the Commission. He related that the only minor change in the original plans submitted was to allow Coca Cola access. After a brief discussion period with questions by the Chairman and Barbara Wilson, a motion was made by Sue Lancaster and seconded by Becki Norment. The motion carried unanimously. Item 4 Discussion of and possible action regarding the following structure considered by code inspectors to be in violation of Article III of Chapter 7 of the "Code on Ordinances of the City of Paris, Texas. Building A: 438 1st Street N.E.. After some discussion on the wording of the motion, Barbara Wilson offered the motion that the structure has no historical significance and can be razed. Building B.: 765 1 st St, N.E. A motion by Becki Norment stated that this property has no historical significance. The motion was seconded by Sue Lancaster. The motion carried unanimously Building C: 758 1st St. N.E.. Paul Denny urged that this property be opened for discussion. It was stated that this property had historical significance as an example of a shotgun house. He further stated that the Lamar County Historical Society has shown an interest in this house and had funds to move the house. He then made a motion to pull the property fi"om the list. The motion was seconded by Claudia Hunt. The motion carried unanimously Building D: 340-348 2nd Street N.E. Paul Denny made a motion that the building was not historically significant and the motion was seconded by Jerry Raper. The motion carried unanimously. Building E. 2dz02F.~roxJI~ The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was de by Sue Lancaster and seconded by Claudia Hunt. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building F. ~. The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Ann Rogers and seconded by Sue Lancaster. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building G. 1772 W. Austin Street The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Barbara Wilson and seconded by Becki Norment. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building H. 350 3rd St. N.E. The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Paul Denny and seconded by Barbara Wilson. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building I 559 6th St. NW. ~ The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Barbara Wilson and seconded by Becki Norment. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building J. 635 6th St. N.W. The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Becki Norment and seconded by Jerry Raper. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building K. 605 6th St. NW The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Barbara Wilson and seconded by Becki Norment. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Building L. 649 W. Sherman St. Paul Denny asked to be recused fi"om discussion and voting on this building after providing the Commission with a 1958 picture of the building with no comments. He stated that he wrote a letter to the owner to offer to purchase the property from him. The motion to recuse Paul Denny was made by Barbara Wilson and seconded by Becki Norment. After Mr. Denny's departure, the discussion was opened concerning the property. Becki Norment asked for clarification fi.om the Chairman as to what the Commission's responsibility should be. Chairman Starrett said that we could declare that the house had historical significance and that a 180 day time fi.ame would be placed on the house. Barbara Wilson indicated that she would like to see a time fi'ame because even flit could not be rehabilitated, it may have historical salvageable items. She then moved that house was historically significant. The motion was seconded by Becki Norment and after a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. Before beginning the last structure, The Chairman asked for a motion to allow Paul Denny to retum. The motion was made by Becki Norment and seconded by Barbara Wilson. Building M. 249 3rd St. SW ~ The building was not deemed historically significant and could not be rehabilitated. The motion was made by Claudia Hunt and seconded by Paul Denny. After a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Item 5: Discussion and possible action on: A. Making revisions to the Commission's rules regarding Certificates of Appropriateness. There were concerns among the members of the Commission as to how many times should an applicant appear before the Commission and if they ask for a request to be tabled, how many times should it appear on the agenda before being dismissed. There was also a discussion about requiring a time for the completion of a project. Steve Medven of Buildings and Standards stated that Planning and Zoning automatically rejects a permit if the homeowner does not appear a second time after being on the agenda. Several solutions were proposed by Commission members. One was to use the P&Z's rule that a missed second appearance triggers a rejection and requires reapplication. The Chairman felt that we should make every effort to assist homeowners. There was some question as to whether the Commission could, by rule do this or would this action require a change in the ordinance by the City Council. After further discussion, it was decided to have Lisa Wright, Community Development Director ask for a ruling from the City Attorney's office. A motion was made by Barbara Wilson to have Lisa Wright ask the City Attorney for a ruling. It was seconded by Becki Norment The motion passed unanimously. Claudia Hunt then suggested using P&Z's rules to trigger declination and re-application of certificate. A motion was then offered by Barbara Wilson that failure of the applicant to appear on a requested Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certificate would be tabled until the following Commission meeting. If the petitioner did not appear, the Certificate would be denied.. The motion was seconded by Becki Norment. The motion passed unanimously. At this point, Becki Norment asked the Chairman, if questions that she had received fi.om a homeowner would be appropriate at this time. After assurances fi.om that this was the place in the agenda to do so, she stated that a homeowner had called to say that she was told that she would need a Certificate of Appropriateness to plant flowers. The Community Development Director Lisa Wright said that she did not tell a homeowner that they had to fill out a Certificate, but that it might be best to .just fill one out and put it on file. The Chairman noted that the 25% rule may apply, but beds that have been traditionally planted from year to year do not require approval fi.om anyone. Major. landscaping covering more than 25% of a yard with large trees and bushes do require a Certificate. He also stated that he felt that the Commission should only get involved in landscaping that would negatively affect a property. Paul Denny stated that one must look to see if something permanently has been ruined. Planting does not ruin ! Ruined means things that cannot be economically and practically reversed He then offered a suggestion that the Commission do as little as possible on landscaping. The Commissioner offered a by rule declaration on the landscaping issue. It stated that the Commission would not regulate landscaping on residential property. After discussion on the wording and the statement of the Community Development Director that unless she had something in writing or a picture, she could not make a judgement. She was then requested by the Commission to look into other CLG cities as to how they handle these issues and report back top the Commission in perhaps a week. The Commission would then seek a call meeting to hear the information she received.. Lisa would get together with the Commissioner and set up a call meeting. After discussion of a day that would be accommodating to most members, it was decided to have a luncheon meeting on Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. at Pads Junior College ifa room was available. Lisa Wright would look into the availability of a room for that day. B. Rescheduling the r>ublic hearing on the Church Street District Returning to Barbar~ Wilson's earlier suggestion of a meeting with homeowners in the South Church Street District, the Commissioner restated his position in favor ora town hall type meeting with the homeowners. Barbara Wilson brought to the Commission's attention that the need is urgent to meet with homeowners in the South Church St. District as soon as possible to answer questions such as the ones that had been asked of Becki No .rment.. To conform with the Open Meetings Act, the meeting would be published in accordance with the rules. It was felt that a meeting would allay the homeowners' fears and answer any questions they may have .about the Historic Preservation Ordinance and what it entails. Becki followed this suggestion with two more questions posed by her neighbors. One being the installation of a gravel driveway( permissible in residential homes)and two, a bathroom addition to the house( depends upon visibility fi'om the fi:ont and other factors).The meeting came back to the issue at hand scheduling a meeting. At this time, Paul Denny said that he was against the Commission scheduling a full Public Hearing because they Commissioners have a lot of work to do before being prepared to answer questions. He was however, in agreement with a Town Hall meeting. C. Setting design standards for the Church Street District Again returning to the items at hand, Claudia Hunt asked the Commission if we did not talk about hiring a design consultant to prepare the designs. She was reminded that at our March 1 st meeting, Bratton Thomason suggested that we check out Design Teams and see what has been done in other cities, but she would not recommend any teams A motion was made by Barbara Wilson to petition the City Council to become part of their agenda if the Hearing Officer determines that this action becomes necessary. The motion was seconded by Becki Norment and the motion passed tmanimously after a voice vote. It was suggested that we schedule a call meeting for the next week. After discussion of a day that would be accommodating for most members, it was decided to have a luncheon meeting on Tuesday, March 30th at Paris Junior College if room is available. Lisa Wright would look into the availability of a room for that day. Paul Denny brought in photographs of various roofs in town to show the Commission members what may be acceptable in a historic preservation roof and what may not be. It is a beginning to learning how we must begin to learn various designs that are acceptable in each part of the restoration of historical houses. At a later date, he will bring in pictures of various other parts of historical houses i.e.. windows doors etc. D. Requesting the City Council to make application for the Visionaries Grant The Chairman_asked Barbara Wilson to explain the role of the Visionaries. She stated that the program is sponsored by the state at no cost to us but we have to be recognized. This program will help us identify where we want to go and how to get there. .They use planning in small groups based on historical preservation. She then asked Suzy Harper to explain exactly what the Visionaries do for your city. Suzy Harper stated that Visionaries assist groups who need long range planning. They conduct meetings and seminars. The service is free, bm the legwork must be done by the citizens. A grant proposal is required, but they help you assess where you are and where you want to be. At the end you are given a profitized list and direction for accomplishing this. Some of the activities they promote are Heritage Tours, Education Seminars and Asset Surveys. There are not many Visionaries cities, but the ones who participate are all Heritage Preservation Cities. Item 6 Discussion of commercial Historic District si_mxage Lindsey Harper of the Main Street Board was present at the meeting. She presented a type of sign that is acceptable in historic districts. The sign would not require any change of poles, but a change of sign color (brown) to indicate the historical district. An example that was brought to the Commission showed a way of marking each street sign with a logo or motif attachment. A place at the top of the sign that would state the name of the District. She stated that the approval must come from TDOT before any changes could be made. Item 7 The Heritage Preservation Officer reported that two applicants for Certificates had applied to her. The First Baptist Church was opening their cornerstone and requested permission to replace the cornerstone in case it cracked with the exact same materials already there, ~(No formal request was needed from the Commission) Brad Hutchinson was replacing gutters with' the same kind. .No application necessary, but application made as his firm does business with the city) Item 8 A motion was made to adjourn by Claudia Hunt and it was seconded by Sue Lancaster. After a unanimous voice vote, the meeting was adjourned. Arvin Starrett Ann Rogers Chairman Secretary