Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- Pres. Standards Page 1 From: Lindsay Kramer To: Morgan Harrison Date: 11/19/2009 4:14 PM Subject: Pres. Standards Attachments: Pres Standards DRAFT 111209 with comments.pdf Morgan- Attached are comments for Pres. Standards. I'm sure you'll have questions, or maybe even answers for me. What we'd ultimately like to know is as preservation professionals, if we removed everything that was not acceptable to the neighborhood, do we have enough to still call this a preservation district? Specifically, we'll need to address this with Oakwood and talk to them about how they want to proceed with their application for a rezoning knowing that what the neighborhood is responding to might not be actual historic preservation. The rest of the comments should be pretty self-explanatory. As for the December training, I thought we had pushed that back to January since Landmark wasn't going to consider the rezoning until then. What we're thinking is that we may go ahead with training in January anyway regardless of where the rezoning is, so you guys don't have to wait on the neighborhood if there is still significant opposition. We've had things drag awhile, and wouldn't want to hold up finishing the contract if we have all the deliverables. I just don't think we'll have time in Dec. to finish the draft with comments from everyone and have a training with the holidays looming. Let me know if that doesn't work! Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP Senior Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station,Texas 77840 (979)764-3570/(979)764-3496 Fax Ikramer@cstx.gov www.cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University® ((1/13/2010)20_-_ -10)Lindsay Kramer- Re: Oakwoodd Preservation Standards Draft Page 1 1 From: Lindsay Kramer To: Morgan Date: 12/9/2009 11:28 AM Subject: Re: Oakwood Preservation Standards Draft Morgan- Looking through some of these items, there are a number of things that I indicated did not receive a majority vote from the neighborhood for inclusion. By their inclusion, I am to understand that they are necessary for historic preservation? I'm a little concerned, there were some things that were cut, but others not- in looking over it, I just want to be sure as I am presenting this information next week to the Landmark Commission and Oakwood that the following items, by their inclusion are necessary for historic preservation even if the neighborhood voted not to include: 4.1.B, Driveways in its entirety 4.1.0 Landscaping -there was a slim majority on 2.b, but otherwise no majority, and from a City perspective, difficult to enforce. 4.2.A.2.b- style 4.2.B- Porches 4.2.C.2.e- Storm doors 4.2.D.2.d &f-windows 4.2.F- Exterior lighting 4.2.I.2.b- sun shades 4.2.I.2.d - exterior storm windows 4.2.I.2.3 - interior storm windows 4.2.3 -accessory structures 4.3.B- masonry preservation 4.3.F- Paint and Color Also, I had requested to remove one of the landscaping items that the City wasn't going to be able to enforce, and some additional language about wood material -you only talk about roof requirements, no discussion of wood as a siding material. Please let me know as soon as possible as I'm trying to prepare these presentations. Thanks- Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP Senior Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 764-3570/(979)764-3496 Fax Ikramer@cstx.gov www.cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University® >>>"Morgan" <morgan@quimbymccoy.com> 12/9/2009 10:55 AM >>> 1(1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Page 1 I From: Lindsay Kramer To: Morgan Harrison Date: 12/10/2009 4:28 PM Subject: Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Morgan- Here is what I would like to convey to the Commission and to the neighborhood -of the items in the designation report, a list of what is necessary to promote historic preservation and this is what promotes the neighborhood/district character. Because of the issues with the neighborhood voting seeming to be about"feeling" historic rather than actually"being" historic, I need to be clear about what things need to be in the standards to still be considered historic preservation. The items I (very untrained that I am) would consider needing to be in for the sake of historic preservation would be: 1. Form 2. Style 3. Porches/Stoops/Porte Cocheres 4. Windows 5. Doors 6. Preservation of historic building and roofing materials As for neighborhood character, I would say: 1. All of the site standards My questions come in with Exterior Lighting, Mechanical Systems, Environmental, Accessory Structures, and Paint and Color- most of those items, the neighborhood being lukewarm at best about. I would think that the accessory structures and paint/color wouldn't be that big of a deal to come out and considered character rather than preservation issues, since they aren't that big of a deal in this particular area, but I'm stumped when it comes to the rest. Let me know what you think. When it comes to the meeting next Monday and Tuesday, I would like to present to the neighborhood what it is they voted on and say, ok, this item - preservation of masonry- for example- didn't receive a majority vote, but for the sake of historic preservation, it's needed to maintain the historic integrity of the district. And talk to them about the difference between feeling historic and being historic. If you have any questions about this, or I'm not making any sense, please let me know. I'm in a meeting at 10 and 11:30, but otherwise will be in my office. Thanks for all your help- Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP Senior Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 764-3570/(979) 764-3496 Fax Ikramer@cstx.gov www.cstx.gov ----- Page 1 (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- RE: Oakwood items g From: "Nancy McCoy" <nancy@quimbymccoy.com> To: "'Lindsay Kramer"'<Lkramer@cstx.gov> CC: "'Morgan'<morgan@quimbymccoy.com> Date: 12/10/2009 6:49 PM Subject: RE: Oakwood items I am free. I have it'penciled' in on my calendar. This would be for the LC and staff training or just LC? I am not in tomorrow- Friday- but please let Morgan know what you need with the Draft Ordinance. I may have misunderstood what you wanted us to do with your comments. We did not address the comments that were based on neighborhood input; only the comments that were from you and Molly. We thought you wanted us to keep a"model"ordinance rather than take out the things(up to a point)that the neighborhood did not want. We are happy to fix this for you right away-just let Morgan know. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Nancy From: Lindsay Kramer[mailto:Lkramer@cstx.gov] Sent:Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:09 PM To: Nancy McCoy Subject: Oakwood items Hi Nancy- Just a quick followup on the December meeting, in talking to Molly I think we should have you come in once the neighborhood has a chance to comment on all of the pieces and we have a complete package, so we won't need you to come in for the December 14th meeting. Also,we were thinking of training in January, how is the last Monday(25th) look? Thanks! Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP Senior Planner (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- RE: Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Page 1J From: "Morgan" <morgan@quimbymccoy.com> To: "'Lindsay Kramer"' <Lkramer@cstx.gov> Date: 12/11/2009 10:22 AM Subject: RE: Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Lindsay, Historic Preservation Questions: 3: Considering the prevalence of •orches and stoo•s in } "" " :nd the need to respect building style, I would say tha , 4&5 , ,�..,�`a� � ... b� , •r -� 7� nd restored to keep historicin egn y. , ., nsnr° , -specia y since i "appears a -• •• rep ace• a so - •• . -ler, you might want to indicate that it would be nice for historic roofing to be preserved and maintained if possible. Site Standards: - owever, it is always nice to make sure that the lights fit the character Mechanical Systems: Do you want to take the risk of someone placing air conditioning units etc. in view of the street? This would not go with the character of the neighborhood. However, this has not happened yet, so it may be a non-issue. Environmental: We included some green technology aspects because their use is becoming more prevalent. Inclusion would allow standards to be followed if anyone wanted to incorporate any of these technologies on their property at a later date. The problem with not regulating this is that the incorporation of some sustainable/•reen •roducts can cause •-mage or alter the visual appearance of the building • „ f the buildings. Accessory Structures. R eo =s they are character defining features in the neighbor oo:. (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- RE: Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Page 2 • g ° if necessary. Does this help? Please let me know if there is any more information/clarification that you need. I am happy to help! Morgan Harrison Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture, LLP 3200 Main Street, #3.6 Dallas, Texas 75226 214/977-9118 ph 214/977-9119 fx www.quimbymccoy.com From: Lindsay Kramer[mailto:Lkramer@cstx.gov] Sent:Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:29 PM To: Morgan Harrison Subject: Neighborhood Character/Historic Preservation Morgan- Here is what I would like to convey to the Commission and to the neighborhood-of the items in the designation report, a list of what is necessary to promote historic preservation and this is what promotes the neighborhood/district character. Because of the issues with the neighborhood voting seeming to be about"feeling"historic rather than actually"being" historic, I need to be clear about what things need to be in the standards to still be considered historic preservation. The items I (very untrained that I am)would consider needing to be in for the sake of historic preservation would be: 1. Form 2. Style (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer-a few questions about the preservation standards Page 1 From: Lindsay Kramer To: Morgan Harrison Date: 12/12/2009 2:16 PM Subject: a few questions about the preservation standards Morgan - I'm prepping the presentation for LC and Oakwood next week and could use a few clarifications- 1. Applicability for New Construction and Additions is Contributing and Non-contributing structures. This wasn't really clear to me until I got to the non-contributing section. I didn't see a whole lot of guidance relating to additions to non-contributing structures relating to features(I get the site standard stuff). See following questions: Form and Style- I didn't see anything to review for non-contributing for additions-would this mean LC wouldn't evaluate it on a non-contributing? Garages- if it's non-contributing, I assume it still is governed by the requirement to separate if building a new garage?What if claimed to be ranch/populist modern - since we don't have styles for non- contributing, how would staff be able to verify?what if of another style that had garage locations attached/etc Doors- has to be compatible with historic building for additions. If the addition is to non-contributing? It needs to be compatible with the structure on site or with historic buildings in neighborhood? Same for windows Roofing - matching historic roofing for non-contributing additions? I don't know how that works Dormers-what if a historic structure had front dormers and is not populist modern/ranch -they still wouldn't be allowed on a front facade of an addition? Also on Dormers-why would we regulate the setback of a dormer on a non-protected facade since they aren't allowed on the front facade?Very confused by the dormer section. 2. I could find diagrams for the driveway locations. If you could point me in the right direction or send them to me for the presentation, that would be helpful. 3. Secondary walkway- i assume this is a walkway connecting from main sidewalk to driveway or to rear of house? not a sidewalk parallel to street? Thanks for all your help and hard work. I'll get a complete list of comments to you by the end of the week from everyone on staff, and conclusions from the meetings with the neighborhood and see where we go from here. Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP Senior Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 764-3570/(979) 764-3496 Fax Ikramer@cstx.gov www.cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University T - f (1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- RE: a few questions about the preservation Page 1 1 From: "Nancy McCoy"<nancy@quimbymccoy.com> To: "'Morgan"' <morgan@quimbymccoy.com>, "'Lindsay Kramer"' <Lkramer@cstx.gov> Date: 12/14/2009 11:30 AM Subject: RE: a few questions about the preservation standards I had a couple of clarifications to Morgan's answers-you will find them in bold red.Thanks. Nancy From: Morgan[mailto:morgan@quimbymccoy.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:55 AM To: 'Lindsay Kramer' Cc: 'Nancy McCoy' Subject: RE: a few questions about the preservation standards Lindsay, Nancy is out sick today, so I am going to do my best to answer all of your questions myself. 1.Additions and New Construction Form &Style: It appears to me that additions to non-contributing properties should follow the same addition standards as those for contributing in an effort to bring the historic non-contributing properties closer to their historic appearance. New construction seems to be the bigger issue here. The LC would have to review all new construction, but as far as additions to non-contributing, I am not sure. Yes, LC would need to review non-contributing.You would want them to review so that the non-contributing don't get worse! Problem is in defining the standards for additions. Ultimately,the goal has to be to allow the non-contributing properties to exist and to make changes, as long as they don't have a negative effect on the historic character of the neighborhood. It may be that we need to add a section to the non-contributing properties for additions at least, since this is not really clear. If there is demolition, obviously the new construction standards apply. Garages: The reason that there are no styles for the non-contributing properties is because we cannot tell what style these properties used to be or the properties are new construction. I would say that for these properties, the garages should just be placed where allowed within diagrams 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. Doors&Windows: Compatible with the structure on the site. This is correct. We can make this clearer again, by adding standards for r(1/13/2010) Lindsay Kramer- RE: a few questions about the preservation Page 2 J additions under non-contributing as described above. Roofing: Non-Contributing additions should have a roofing material that matches the rest of the house. Dormer(question 1): Additions should not be visible from the street on any property, so this is a non-issue. Some additions will be visible from the street. It will depend on the property. For example, a ranch style house on a good sized lot could have an addition on the front. Such an addition would need to be set back from the front facade and be compatible in design. The dormer thing may not be 100% clear. If there were dormers on the historic property, they would be allowed on the front of the addition, as well as on the rear, so we will need to revise this in the Ordinance. Dormer(question 2): Because it would not be cohesive with the rest of the neighborhood. Dormers are allowed on the front façade on an addition to a historic house that is of style that would use dormers. Confusing, isn't it? Most additions will be in the rear, but not all, so there is a possibility for there to be dormer on the front façade of an addition or new construction.There are a couple of houses in the neighborhood with dormers that are not set back from the front façade and it is odd, but possible original construction. The standard requiring a set back for dormers is meant to discourage this sort of thing from being repeated. But I can see how this would be confusing. Need to make sure it is clear that if historic dormers exist, new dormers in additions are permitted, and maybe instead of requiring the set back, we should say they shall be designed to be compatible with the historic building. 2. Diagrams: Nancy did not give me any diagrams for driveways, yet we mention them in the text. Would you like me to try and make these even though I am not sure what she has envisioned here exactly?In the end, I decided that the parameters for locating the driveways were sufficient and I was not sure a diagram was going to clarify anything. But, we will look at this again and consider the need in the next draft. 3. Secondary Walkway: You are correct. I hope that this helps! Let me know if there is anything else that I can do for you! Please note that as of the end of the day on Friday(Dec. 18) I will no - - _ -- 1age x(1113/2010)Lindsay Kramer-Nancy and Morgan- PJ From: Lindsay Kramer To: Morgan Harrison; Nancy McCoy CC: Molly Hitchcock Date: 12/17/2009 5:03 PM Subject: Nancy and Morgan- Attachments: Pres Standards DRAFT 120909 with comments.pdf; Oakwood Designation 120909 with comments.pdf Nancy and Morgan- Here are our comments from the drafts and a few other items that have come up. If you have any questions about them, please email me and let me know. I'll be out of the office until the new year, but will be checking email. If you need to directly speak with someone about any questions, please call Molly. I have CC'ed her so she has this information. 1. Neighborhood meeting - Unfortunately, we weren't able to move forward on getting feedback on the standards. There has been much confusion and misinformation going around about the work that's being done. We opted to take a step back on Tuesday night and answer questions and comment on concerns about how things are progressing. With that, we'll probably need to look at the schedule again. 2. Can you provide any recommendations about sub-districts that make sense for the area?There may not be enough support to move forward with an entire district and would like to offer some recommendations of smaller areas where the neighborhood may find more support but still make sense in a district sense- understanding, that the preservation standards would be for the whole district. 3. Can we get a complete listing of the standards and sub-requirements that are absolutely minimum to maintaining historic preservation and what is negotiable. As the neighborhood is working towards compromise, they'd like to know what things can be cut and what things cannot to still hold up as historic preservation. I understand the form, style, and materials. But for even things like porches, doors, and windows there are other things beyond protecting and preserving that may or may not be necessary. This includes the new items for Additions and New Construction. 4. Schedule: The January training isn't going to work at this point. I would like to get revisions and the above information by January 11th if possible. At this point, we will take it back to the neighborhood with the information about what can be cut and what cannot and let them make some choices about the standards. We can then look at those revisions and shoot for a training in the end of February (22nd). Will this work for your schedule? if not, we can extend out the January deadline(I know with the holidays upon us, it just may not happen). 5. Comments- I've provided back the drafts with comments from all of our staff, so some things may conflict with other things I've mentioned. I've tried to find all of them and resolve those on our end, but I may not have caught all of them.There were some grammatical things, but a lot of questions that remain unclear to us about how to apply something or whether or not we have to/should. If you would like to address these separately rather than try to make a judgement call, please let me know as you come across them and we can try to hash them out. Thank you so much for your help on this, and let me know if you have any questions. Morgan, also, thanks for all your hard work and good luck in the future! Lindsay Lindsay B. Kramer,AICP From: Lindsay Kramer To: Molly Hitchcock Date: 2/11/2010 3:21 PM Subject: Fwd: Oakwood - Preservation Criteria in single PDF format Attachments: Oakwood Criteria 021010.pdf >>> "Nancy McCoy" <nancy@quimbymccoy.com> 2/10/2010 12:49 PM >>> Lindsay, I meant to mention to you that there are some definition questions also, in red in this Draft. Nancy McCoy, FAIA Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture, LLP 3200 Main Street#3.6 Dallas, Texas 75226 ph. 214 977-9118 fx. 214 977-9119 www.quimbymccoy.com From: Lindsay Kramer To: Molly Hitchcock Date: 2/11/2010 3:22 PM Subject: Fwd: Oakwood - Final Designation Report and Property Spreadsheet Attachments: Oakwood Designation 020610.pdf; Property Spreadsheet College Station OAKWOOD R 020610.xls >>> "Nancy McCoy" <nancy@quimbymccoy.com> 2/4/2010 8:57 AM >>> Lindsay, I am delivering the Designation Report and the revised Property Spreadsheet today, and will follow either by the end of the day tomorrow or over the weekend with the revised Designation Criteria, assuming you still need this today. I did make revisions to the Spreadsheet so that all the Style designations match exactly; the styles that appear in parenthesis next to "Altered" are the styles we have presumed to be the original style of the house and these do not appear in the spreadsheet since it would require an entirely new column that would be confusing with the style column. The only comment that I was not able to resolve was the vacant lot at the end of the report. It is not clear to me that this lot is R103176, but it does not appear to be part of 301 Timber either according to the legal description. This may be a question for BCAD. It remains an open issue at this time. I did check East Jersey (correct, per 1938 insurance maps) and other items on the list are resolved and coordinated appropriately, in my opinion. I am going to be headed to College Station this morning for a meeting from 2—4 pm. If you would like to meet while I am in town, I would be happy to stop by. My partner and I were hoping to set up a conference call with you regarding the upcoming Landmark Commission Training that we are working toward—is that still on? I sent an outline for comments. I realize that due to what is happening in Oakwood, it may not be ideal to do the training (or maybe it is);just let us know if you prefer to postpone it. I will call you while I am on my way to CS also. Nancy McCoy, FAIA Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture, LLP 3200 Main Street#3.6 Dallas, Texas 75226 ph. 214 977-9118 fx. 214 977-9119 www.quimbymccoy.com cp.A. a , V oroox- -\(.5 c)_,\)\\Q....! . 00 A c 01`11 '')L'L'\ \c. -\'' 4z-LOLAA,N\, 6VOS-Q- From: "Nancy McCoy" <nancy@quimbymccoy.com> To: "'Lindsay Kramer"' <Lkramer@cstx.gov> CC: "'Marcel Quimby"' <marcel@quimbymccoy.com> Date: 1/20/2010 6:46 PM Subject: Oakwood -College Station Landmark Commission Training Attachments: Draft Agenda for College Station Landmark Commission Training 012010.pdf Lindsay, Attached is a Draft Agenda for Staff review-which is not to say you cannot share with the Commission members! We think that this will provide a good overview and help the Commissioner's get a feel for what they will be doing in future public hearings. It will also help explain the Secretary Standards ,,,,cc some of the principles that they will be applying to the Certificate of -V fot') AA c Appropriateness applications in the future. This is a 4 hour Training, per , our contract. r`'`-` v V\C‘Pin A couple of questions for you: ‘,.3° Q) ' 1. Our contract has us coming out for a 2 hour public meeting fo6.0# c the neighborhood prior to the Commission Training. Do you still want us to \s. l come out earlier to meet with the neighborhood? Or do you want to postpone �\ that for another time? 24 r.��,„›. . k ms^^ QP 2. What time should be plan for the Training and neighborhood meeting, if included now? In our experience, a 4 hour session is difficult for people during the work week. Do you want to do this on the weekend? We can do that for you if you like. Or maybe in an evening from say 4:30 -9:00 \5'4".,c-- 02-44 wok G.--C `e with dinner included? 3. We have very purposely left all reference to Oakwood out of this Training. This is meant to educate the Commissioners about historic district and property review in general, and we did not want to get side-tracked into discussions about Oakwood's ordinance in lieu of getting the training done. Still, if you think that we need to leave some time at the end of the Training to discuss Oakwood, we can do that. We do want to keep that discussion separate and at the end of the presentation however. Hope you '^^ agree- but do advise. ar Q,^�) I 4. Does the Commission have training already for how to hold a Public Hearing, for what the process is for CofA applications etc? If so, ,e.,,-, c.s,,A. .c--- we will not want to repeat thati orma ion in our raining. vs�cxss 5. We would like to come a little bit early to discuss the Training C:VP C-e�c��'iNZ2n-12arb52 with you just prior. We have a role for you and other staff, if they can attend, in the Mock Commission, so will want to "rehearse" that a tiny bit. \,J v 1- Itv c;,60,,,--L, tic' -' c-4( 6. Marcel Quimby, my business partner, will be doing the Training with me, so there will be two of us. 7. Do you have a CofA application form yet? If so, we would like to �!�.� , r L use it in our Training. 8. There will be handouts; we will get you an original or digital file of everything several days before the Training. We thought you might want to make binders, but if the Commissioners already have binders, they -‘,1i1'w) or"' ; might want to add the handouts to their binders. ' 9. M. - and I would like to talk to you once you have comments on the Agen.: = • on the questions above - let me know when you are available to dotha . Thanks. Nancy Nancy McCoy, FAIA Quimby McCoy Preservation Architecture, LLP 3200 Main Street#3.6 Dallas, Texas 75226 ph. 214 977-9118 fx. 214 977-9119 www.q u i m by mccoy.co rn Page 1 of 1 Molly Hitchcock - final report From: Molly Hitchcock To: nancy@quimbymccoy.com; Nicky Date: 9/26/2008 11:55 AM Subject: final report Thank you for a great presentation last night! I've looked over the disks that were delivered yesterday and have a few outstanding items. It seems that comments #9, 11, 19, 30, and 33 have not been addressed. I'm not sure if it was on purpose or not, but the "Prairie School and Foursquare" section is no longer there so I'm not sure about Comment #21. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss these. Thanks! Molly Molly Hitchcock, AICP Planning Administrator Planning & Development Services, City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave. College Station,Texas 77840 979.764.3570 1979.764.3496 (f) file://C:\Documents and Settings\mhitchcock\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48DCCDC... 9/26/2008 (1/24/2008) Molly Hitchcock- Re: "'C ----- Page 11 From: Barbara Moore To: Hitchcock, Molly Date: 1/24/2008 12:37 PM Subject: Re: HPC Here are the names and contact info for neighborhood association folks that are in neighborhood s that are older and may be interested in the overlay and HP. College Hill Lucille Young 720 Church Hill CS,TX 77840 979-260-9516 lucile8419@aol.com College Hills Estates Jennifer Fredericks 1006 Puryear CS,TX 77840 979-696-1909 jennifer@ashfordsauare.com College Woodlands Sarah Bednarz 1101 Marstellar Avenue 979-845-1579 s-bednarz@tamu.edu Oakwood NA Gaines West 200 Suffolk CS,TX 77840 979-694-7000 gaines.west@westwebblaw.com Jerry Cooper is a person that I think would be interested in being a part of this process.We was a big proponent of the overlay. His neighborhood is not organized yet. Here is his contact info: Jerry Cooper 602 Bell 979-696-3963 cooperl@cullums.orq Thanks Barbara Moore City of College Station Neighborhood&Community Relations Coordinator 979-764-6262 bmoore@cstx.gov