Loading...
03/11/2015 MINUTESMINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY OF PARIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY MARCH 11, 2015 4.00 O'CLOCK P.M. 1. The meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chair Douglas Cox. A. The following commissioners were present: Chair Douglas Cox, Vice Chair Michael Glatfelter, Ruth Ann Alsobrook, Cindy Allcorn (arrived during item 3) and Sherrie Holbert B. Lauri Redus and Beatrice Ardila were absent. C. Staff also present: Joey Sleeper, Historic Preservation Officer; Robert Talley, Code Enforcement Supervisor 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (February 11, 2015) Motion was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Alsobrook to approve the minutes as written. The motion carried 4 -0. — CONSENT AGENDA-- - [Items appearing on this consent agenda may be approved by a single vote of the Commission, with such approval applicable to all items appearing on said agenda. If any Commission member desires to discuss and consider separately any item appearing on the consent agenda, that Commission member may do so by requesting that the item be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item.] 3. 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. Code Enforcement recommends demolition of the following structures: A. 816 NE 10th B. 1167 Grove St C. 1201 E Grove St D. 1390 NE 16th E. 613 Clement Rd Chair Cox introduced the item and called Mr. Talley. Mr. Talley explained that all structures were recommended for demolition. A motion was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Alsobrook to recommend all items for demolition. The motion carried S -D. 4. Discussion of proposed changes to the Paris Historic Preservation Ordinance Chair Cox introduced the item and asked Mr. Sleeper to explain the proposed changes. Mr. Sleeper explained that a group of downtown business owners had requested changes to the ordinance to allow a faster approval process. He further explained that the proposed ordinance changes would allow more approvals by city staff, reduce the size of the commission, and reduce the number of required meetings of the commission. Mr. Sleeper also stated that the city is a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Parks Services program, and that a minimum of S members and 6 meetings per year of the commission were required to maintain that certification. He then explained that the purpose of this item was to seek comments from the commission about the proposed changes, and that the comments would be relayed to the City Manager. Chair Cox then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the proposed ordinance changes. Dr. Robert Mosely stated that he owned property at 3rd (SW) and Kaufman (W) and that he felt the commission size should remain at 7 members. Sybil Colson of 819 Lamar Avenue felt that if the board was reduced to S members then a quorum should be more than 2 members, and that more frequent meetings would be better. She stated that she felt the proposed qualifications of commissioners were too elitist and should include average citizens. She also felt that the proposed section called demolition by neglect was too vague and should be more specific. Lastly, she felt that the powers given to the Historic Preservation Officer were too vague and too broad, and that the commission should be consulted before any action is taken. Barbara Wilson stated that she was a previous member of the commission and had helped put the current ordinance in place. She felt that the current ordinance was good and had stood up in federal court. She stated that the CLG program also had requirements for member qualifications which should be included in the ordinance. She also felt that if the duties of the Historic Preservation Officer are expanded, that additional training was necessary so that the officer's decisions would hold up in court. Lastly, she felt that the duties of the Historic Preservation Officer should be better defined to allow the officer to make more of the day to day decisions without going to the commission. With no one else in the audience wanting to speak, Chair Cox stated that he wanted to keep 7 members on the commission because it would be easier to make a quorum, and that the commission should meet at least monthly. He also felt that the member qualifications should include more average citizens. He then stated that the duties of the historic preservation officer should be to interact with the public and to review minor work allowed by the current ordinance, including alternative materials previously approved by the commission. Other issues, including signs, he felt should come before the commission. 2 Commissioner Allcorn felt that the number of commissioners should remain at seven, and that the member qualifications should include any person involved or interested in the historic districts. She disagreed with expanding the number of items that can be approved at the staff level just to expedite approvals because the purpose of the commission is to approve certificates of appropriateness. She also wanted to confirm that all demolition work was to come before the commission, which Chair Cox confirmed that the proposed ordinance changes would still require demolition to come before the commission. She further stated that the commission had the ability to have called meetings in addition to the regular meetings to help expedite applications. Commissioner Alsobrook noted that one of the stated reasons for the proposed ordinance change was that `our needs have changed' and asked what that meant and what needs had changed. Mr. Sleeper stated that he wasn't sure, but thought it meant that a lot of improvement had been made since the original ordinance was passed. She also felt that it was not necessary to change the qualifications of the members of the commission and that the number of members should remain at 7 members. Chair Cox asked why the city manager was not present and why the commission was not the first to be notified about the proposed changes. Mr. Sleeper answered that he didn't know why the city manager was not present, and that the changes were sent to city council first because all boards and commissions are under the city council so changes to any board should be heard by the city council first. Vice Chair Glatfelter stated that he first read about the proposed changes in the February 22nd Paris News and that he had spoken at the February 25`h city council meeting about the proposed changes. He then read a portion of the minutes from that council meeting stating that the city manager had spoken to the Main Street Advisory Board about the proposed changes prior to presenting them to city council and prior to notifying the commission. He also stated that he had called the Texas Historic Commission and spoken with Brad Patterson about the changes, and that Mr. Patterson told him that the proposed changes were illegal. He further stated that he would speak at the next city council meeting and recommend that John Godwin, City Manager, Cheri Bedford, Main Street Coordinator, and Mr. Sleeper be considered as insubordinate to the city council. Commissioner Holbert stated that she felt the number of board members should stay at seven, and that the ordinance may need some tweaking but overall it was a good ordinance and should not be changed. She continued that, prior to her appointment to the commission, she had appeared before the commission for approval for a building she had bought and wanted to renovate. She felt that, although she didn't get everything she wanted, the commission worked well with her for a solution that was appropriate for her building. Chair Cox stated that he had been on the commission for six years and that only a few certificates of appropriateness had been disapproved and felt that many of the concerns about the commission were misconceptions and misunderstandings. 3 Chair Cox asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak. Ray Trotter, who owns a house on South Church Street, stated he had requested a certificate of appropriateness to install a metal roof on the house and that his experience with the commission had not been good. He said he felt that the guidelines allowed the commission to approve metal roofing for his house. Mr. Trotter also stated that when he appeared before the commission another member of the audience, his neighbor, informed him that the commission was going to approve the metal roofing on the garage but not approve it on the house. He said that experiences like his are why people do not like to appear before the commission. Chair Cox commented that he remembered the case and that the commission had allowed metal roofing on the detached garage which had already been completed, but disapproved metal roofing on the house because the guidelines did not allow it. He felt that if property owners understood the guidelines, that there would be less dissatisfaction with the commission. Dr. Mosely spoke and stated that the commission should have an attendance policy to remove members that missed too many meetings. Chair Cox stated that he agreed. Council Member Sue Lancaster spoke and stated that she supported the commission and felt that the proposed changes should have been presented to the commission first, and that she did not agree with the proposed changes. She commented that she had restored a house on South Church Street and did not have problems with the commission. With no others wanting to speak, Chair Cox summarized the item by stating that the commission was not in favor of the proposed changes. He also requested that the city council consider a new attendance policy that allowed removal of a member that is absent more than 3 meetings in a row. No action was taken. 5. Future Agenda Items Chair Cox requested a future agenda item to discuss attendance. No action was taken. 6. Adjournment With no other matters to discuss, a motion to adjourn was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Holbert. The motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m. APPROVED THIS l�h DAY OF JUNE, 2015. Chair Dbuglas Cox 4