HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2009 - Regular Agenda Packet - Landmark CommissionAGENDA
LANDMARK COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 01, 2009, at 5:15 PM
City Hall Administrative Conference Room
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Hear Visitors. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to
address the Commission on historic preservation issues not already scheduled on today’s
agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to
accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate
time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information,
ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for
discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for
the record).
3. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve Meeting Minutes.
· April 27, 2009, Landmark Commission Minutes
4. Presentation and discussion regarding the Landmark Commission Calendar of Upcoming
Meetings.
· June 29, 2009, Landmark Commission Regular Meeting, Council Chambers
5. Presentation and discussion on Bryan's Historic Landmark Commission and Certificate of
Appropriateness process with Bryan Staff and Commission member.
6. Presentation and discussion on preservation tools and examples from the THC
Conference presentation - Preservation Tools. (LK)
7. Presentation and discussion on an update relating to the contract for services for the
Oakwood Addition Historic Designation Report. (LK)
8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Landmark Commission
member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of
specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any
deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for any
subsequent meeting.
9. Adjourn.
1
Notice is hereby given that a regular meeting of the Landmark Commission, College
Station, Texas will be held on the Monday, June 01, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. at the City Hall
Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects
will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this the _____ day of _____, 2009, at _______
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By _____________________________
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Landmark
Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice
and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall,
1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The
Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and
Agenda were posted on _____, 2009, at _____ and remained so posted continuously for at
least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City
Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by
_________________________.
Dated this _____ day of_____________, 2009.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By_____________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of_______________, 2009.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any
request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make
arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov.
2
Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
LANDMARK COMMISSION
Monday, April 27, 2009, 5:00 p.m.
City Hall Administrative Conference Room
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Commission Members Present: Chairman Scott Shafer, Hillary Jessup, Joseph Williams,
Shawn Carlson, William Lancaster and Alternates Jerry
Cooper and Gaines West
Staff Present: Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner
Lindsay Kramer, Staff Planner Lauren Hovde, Staff
Assistant Amber Carter
Others Present: Mrs. Lancaster
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order.
Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on
Absence Requests from meetings.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to
approve meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Jessup motioned to approve meeting minutes from March 23, 2009.
Commissioner Lancaster seconded the motion; motion was approved (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation and discussion regarding the Landmark
Commission Calendar of Upcoming Meetings.
The Commission discussed the schedule of upcoming meetings, deciding upon June 1, 2009, and
June 29, 2009, as the next two upcoming meetings.
3
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Presentation and discussion of sessions attended by
Staff at the 2009 Texas Historical Commission
Conference.
Senior Planner Kramer and Staff Planner Hovde recapped the information that had been
presented to them at the 2009 Texas Historical Commission Conference.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation and discussion of a contract for a historic
designation report for the Oakwood Addition.
Senior Planner Kramer discussed the addition of training for the Landmark Commission
members to the scope of the contract along with the possibility of a telephone conference with
Quimby McCoy for informational and training purposes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
Commissioner Jessup requested that staff bring some samples of the data being gathered for the
Oakwood Addition historic designation report. Alternate Cooper requested that staff make
available to the Landmark Commission any power point presentations that were available from
the 2009 Texas Historical Commission Conference.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn.
Commissioner Lancaster motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Williams; motion passed (7-0). Meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
APPROVED:
___________________________
Scott Shafer, Chairman
ATTEST:
___________________________
Amber Carter, Staff Assistant
4
Page 1 of 5
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
February 13, 2008
Certificate of Appropriateness: 712 East 30th Street
LOCATION: 712 East 30th Street, between South Haswell and Hutchins Streets in east
central Bryan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Lot 4 in Block 11 of the Phillips Addition to the City of
Bryan, Brazos County, Texas.
DISTRICT: Eastside Historic District
ZONING: RD-5000 (Residential District – 5000)
EXISTING LAND USE: single-family dwelling
APPLICANT(S): Justin and Jennifer Bulhof
STAFF CONTACT: Julie Fulgham, Project Planner
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the requested Certificate
of Appropriateness.
LOCATION:
5
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify their residence and property within
the East Side Historic District, the most notable being the addition of an accessory structure and the
demolition of a legally non-conforming home on the rear of their lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the following:
Accessory Structure – The applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessory structure, to be
used as a garage, and breezeway, connecting the garage to the rear of their home. The applicant is also
requesting permission to modify the rear stoop for safety and ease of use. Staff recommends approving
these requests based on the Secretary of Interior Standard #10. The proposed garage, breezeway, and
modified stoop can easily be removed and restored back to the original configuration in the future without
destroying the historic integrity of the home. Additionally, staff believes the garage placement to the rear
of the home will not detract from the scale of buildings on the lot. The design, scale, and location of the
proposed garage meet all applicable City of Bryan ordinances and guidelines.
Demolition of Accessory Residence– To accommodate the rehabilitation of this property, the applicant is
requesting demolition of the 1950’s era home to the rear of the property. This ‘guest’ house does not
meet the architectural or cultural criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is
6
Page 3 of 5
considered a non-contributing structure within the East Side Historic District. The criteria for listing a
structure are as follows:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Additionally, the existence of this home on this lot is considered a legally non-conforming use of the
subject property. The property is located within a single-family zoning district, which limits one
residence per lot.
Fencing – The applicant is requesting a combination of open wrought-iron fencing and wooden privacy
fencing on the subject property. Staff recommends approval of these requests based on Standard #10. All
proposed fencing meets the City of Bryan’s ordinances. Additionally, the openness and height of the
wrought iron fencing will not obscure important architectural features of the home.
Altering the Front Design Work – The applicant is also requesting to alter an original decorative wood
scroll work on the front of the home. Staff does not recommend approving this modification. Staff
believes this original decorative scroll is a character defining feature of this home and should be
duplicated since pictorial evidence is available. Staff basis this recommendation on the Secretary of
Interior’s Standard #6
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Referenced:
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment would be unimpaired.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7
Page 4 of 5
SUBJECT PROPERTY (1986 Survey):
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the request for the modifications to the property concerning the addition of
the garage structure, fencing, and demolition of the guest house.
Staff recommends denying the request to alter the original scroll work.
(Pages 6-12 supplied by applicant)
8
Page 5 of 5
Placeholder, survey form
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Page 1 of 8
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
March 21, 2007
Certificate of Appropriateness: 110 North Main Street
LOCATION: 110 North Main Street, between East 26th Streets and William J. Bryan
Parkway in downtown Bryan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1.1, (north half of Lots 1-4) Block 257, Bryan Original Townsite,
Bryan, Brazos County, Texas
DISTRICT: Downtown Historic District
ZONING: Downtown South District (DT-S)
EXISTING LAND USE: vacant commercial building
APPLICANT(S)/AGENT: Wimberly Building Redevelopment Group L.P. /the Lawrence Group
Architects
STAFF CONTACT: Julie Fulgham, Staff Planner
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the requested Certificate
of Appropriateness.
LOCATION:
20
Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to make exterior alterations to the Wimberly
building, a vacant post-war modern commercial building (c.1967), at 110 North Main Street, formerly
known as the Woolworth building. Below are the proposed alterations as described on the application.
(Post-war modern structures are defined as modern structures usually with a classical “twist” and
“smooth” surfaces.) The Wimberly building’s defining features include terrazzo panels and repetitive
“columns” and arches, which reference the historic neo-classical architectural style.
Proposed exterior alterations to the Main Street Façade include:
- Replacement of existing storefront glass with insulated storefront glazing compliant with
International Energy Conservation Code requirements. On the ground level of the Main Street
façade, this replacement will match the existing glass. The second story windows will be covered
with screens, (explained in further detail later in this report). An additional set of entry doors
made of glass and aluminum which match the existing entry doors will be installed. Graphic:
- Other decorative elements include aluminum clad “vaults” under the existing Main Street arcade
that take their cue from the arched motif on the building. These vaults are detailed at their spring
points by translucent “scoops” designed as lighting elements. Additionally, to demarcate the
entry into the building on Main Street, awnings similar in construction to the vaults below would
be integrated into the center six arched bays of the upper level. Graphic:
- Large chillers and generators would be placed on the buildings roof. In order to mask these from
general view from the street, screens approximately 8 feet tall and constructed of perforated
21
Page 3 of 8
aluminum panels and galvanized steel frames would be slightly set back from the building’s
facades. Since these screens align with the upper level windows below them on the Main Street
façade, the screens would visually extend down through the roof and continue in front of the
windows. Once again, exterior cove lighting would be introduced to add interest at night.
Graphic:
Proposed exterior alterations to the Bryan Avenue Façade include:
- The proposed alteration of the Bryan Avenue façade would include replacing the existing
storefront at the street level and the upper level glass with solid infill. The original storefront
location will be defined but due to the critical aspects of security revolving around the proposed
Data Center use, the applicant is requesting this change. This infill would be metal framing and
exterior sheathing that is consistent with the idea of “future reversibility,” meaning the infill
could be removed and the storefront reinstalled in the future, if desired. In order to mark the
location of the existing storefront, decorative glass panels would be mounted to the solid infill by
stainless steel point connections. Exterior cove lighting would also be installed behind the
decorative glass panels to add interest at night. Round windows would be installed behind the
decorative glass panels. Because of security concerns, the main entry to the Data Center portion
of the building would be on the Bryan Avenue façade and would be placed at the fourth bay from
the north (see drawings). This entry would be a storefront type with appropriate reinforcement
for security. The relocation of the entry on the Bryan Avenue façade is necessary for this
adaptive reuse to occur at this location. Without a secure building, the proposed Data Center will
not be able to locate here.
- On the Bryan Avenue façade, an awning element would provide weather protection for
pedestrians and Data Center clientele. The awnings would be constructed of a modern
translucent plastic material on a light aluminum frame.
- Other elements proposed are intended to mask or screen new equipment needed to support the
Data Center. On the Bryan Avenue façade, three new transformers would be placed behind a
protective screen. This screen would be constructed of aluminum louvers and galvanized st eel
frame and take formal cues from the building’s scallop motif. If the Commission does not
approve the proposed screening shown in the enclosed drawings, the transformers will be
screened behind the same louvered aluminum panels used for the dumpster enclosures which
have been approved in the Downtown Master Plan. The transformers must be screened due to
safety concerns. These transformers will be hot to the human touch when fully loaded with
power. Graphic:
22
Page 4 of 8
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approving the requested Certificate of Appropriateness, finding the following:
The proposed alterations mainly center on altering the existing aluminum storefront systems by replacing
these storefronts with functional and decorative features. These alterations still define the historical
storefront rhythm. Staff believes these alterations will not diminish the historic character of the building
by altering, obscuring, or removing significant features and that these proposed alterations may be easily
reversed conforming to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation #10 which states:
STANDARD #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Additionally, Standard #5 and Standard #9 states:
STANDARD #5: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; and
STANDARD #9: New additions, exterior alteration, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the
old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
integrity of the property and its environment.
The original materials of terrazzo and stucco will not be altered in any way, and the storefront rhythm will
be retained. Most importantly however, the character defining classical influences of the repeating
“columns” and arches will not be diminished and the historic post-war modern defining materials will not
be removed.
Staff recommends approving this request for the reason that the alterations do not diminish the original
character of the building and these proposed alterations are easily reversed.
23
Page 5 of 8
ADDITIONAL GRAPHICS:
Bryan Avenue façade:
Entrances:
24
Page 6 of 8
FLOOR PLANS:
First Floor (street level):
Second Floor:
25
Page 7 of 8
Basement:
Roof:
26
Page 8 of 8
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Main Street Façade:
Bryan Avenue Façade:
27
28
Preservation Toolsfor Problem Solving29
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingWhat’syourproblem?30
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving31
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving32
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingWhat is the property?• Is it historically or architecturally significant?• Does it have integrity?•Is it eligible for listing in the National Register?Individual buildingComplexHistoric district33
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingWho owns the property?• The person making the inquiry• Another private property owner• Local, state or federal government34
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingWhat is the source of the threat?• The owner• Intent to alter or destroy• Well-intended but poorly-executed actions• Local, state or federal government• Federally funded, licensed or permitted undertaking • Eminent domain• Code issues• Natural disaster• Deferred maintenance35
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingWho are the players?• Do you represent an organization or are you acting alone?• Who is with you? Who is against you?• Media• Government• Local preservation groups• Private property owners• Preservation groups• Neighborhood associations36
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingPreservation Tools and StrategiesPartnerships IdentificationDesignationsLegal ProtectionsPlanningFinancialPublicity 37
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“We’re working all alone out here. Can anyone help us out?38
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Partnerships• County Historical Commissions• Heritage and Historical Societies • Archeological Stewards• Neighborhood Associations• Elected OfficialsStatewide Groups• Preservation Texas• Texas Archeological Society• Texas Historical Foundation• Texas State Historical Association• Daughters of the Republic of TexasState and National Organizationssuch as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and groups interested in promoting and preserving specific property types, including:• Bridges• Dance Halls• Modern Architecture39
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“We want preserve the historic properties in our town, but we don’t know where to start.”“We need to set preservation priorities in our community”“We’d like to have a project that gets our community members involved in preservation.”40
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationHistoric Resources Survey• Part of a broader preservation planning effort• Essential if you plan to pursue historical designations• Helpful if you are experiencing or expect the loss of historic resources• Community members can participate41
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationScope of Survey• County• City or Town• NeighborhoodSurvey can be based on geographic area or theme.Historic district nominations require the survey of allproperties in given area.42
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationSurvey Guidelines & Helpful Publications43
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationHelpful primary source material includes historic photographs, tax records, city directories, fire insurance maps44
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationSurvey Products: Survey Forms, Inventory, and Database45
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationSurvey Products: Photographs and Photo Log 46
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationSurvey Products: Maps47
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: IdentificationSurvey Products: Summary Report & Recommendations • History/Context of Survey Area• Detailed Discussion of Survey Methods & Results• Analysis of Neighborhoods & Individual Properties• Evaluation of Significance/Eligibility for Designations• Recommendations for Future Action: PlanningReport and survey materials kept locally and at THC48
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“We want to legally protect our historic properties.”“We want to document our historic properties so that everyone is aware of their importance.”“We seek preservation funding and wish to improve our chances over other properties.”“We want a marker or plaque.”49
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: DesignationsHistorical Designations• National Register of Historic Places• Recorded Texas Historic Landmark• State Archeological Landmark• Historic Texas Cemetery • Local landmark designations50
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: DesignationsNational Register of Historic PlacesOfficial federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture • Administered by National Park Service, Keeper of the Register• Establishes criteria for evaluating historic properties• Properties listed – or eligiblefor listing - in the National Register posses historic significanceand integrity51
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: DesignationsLocal, State, or National SignificanceCriteria for NRHP Evaluation• A Association with historic events or activities• B Association with important persons• C Distinctive design or physical characteristics• D Potential to provide information about prehistory or historyNational Register of Historic Places52
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations•Religious properties•Moved properties•Birthplaces or Graves•Cemeteries•Reconstructed properties•Commemorative properties•Properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 yearsNational Register of Historic PlacesCriteria ConsiderationsSome properties are eligible only if special criteria are met53
Integrity: The ability of a property to convey its significancePreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations19082008• Location • Setting • Materials• Workmanship• Design• Feeling• Association54
Integrity: The ability of a property to convey its significancePreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations55
• National Register listing itself does not obligate an owner to maintain or preserve the historic property.• Private property cannot be individually designated over the owner’s objection.• Listing makes buildings eligible for federal rehabilitation tax credits.• Provides certification of the properties significance.• Provides for a state sales tax exemption on labor costs for rehabilitation.• The nomination process takes about a year.Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: DesignationsNational Register of Historic Places56
Recorded Texas Historic LandmarkRecorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL) are properties at least 50 years old judged to be historically and architecturally significant. • Applications for designation are made through the County Historical Commission and approved by the Texas Historical Commission.Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations57
• Marker is installed on the building or on a post in front.• Owner must notify the THC 60 days prior to making changes to the exterior of the building.• If the proposed work will damage the historic integrity or character of the property, the notification period can be extended to a total of 90 days to provide time for negotiation. • There is no procedure for owners to “return” the marker and de-designate the property.• Provides recognition of the property’s historic significance.• Designation transfers with the property to future owners, providing some protection from future inappropriate changes or demolition.Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: DesignationsRecorded Texas Historic Landmark58
•Archeological sites•Historic buildings and structures (if already listedin the National Register of Historic Places)•Offers protection of historic properties on non-federal public lands and those on private property if the THC has the private landowner permission. •SAL designations protect these sites in perpetuity and these sites cannot be taken, altered or damaged with a permit from the THC. State Archeological LandmarksPreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations59
Historic Texas Cemetery• Official recognition of family and community graveyards and encourages preservation of historic cemeteries• Provides for the recordation of the cemetery into the county deed records as a historically dedicated property worthy of preservationPreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations60
Local Historic Designations• Requirements and benefits vary• Usually provides some protection for the building, a delay in demolition at least• Programs with tax abatements usually protect exterior of the building from alteration or demolition• Proposed changes are reviewed by a local landmark commission• Often stronger protections than most state designationsPreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Designations61
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“How can we protect our historic properties for the long term?”“How can we stop the government from ruining our historic properties?”“There oughta be a law to protect our historic buildings!”62
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation ActAntiquities Code of Texas Cemetery, Courthouse and Shipwreck RegulationsHistorical Designations (RTHL, SAL, Local)Specific State LegislationEasements & Covenants63
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment.64
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966• The federal agency consults with the Texas Historical Commission (as SHPO) prior to approving the undertaking.• The Advisory Council becomes directly involved only if parties cannot come to an agreement, national issues are involved, or atthe request of one of the parties.• The public must be invited to participate in the consultation in a manner deemed appropriate by the agency.• Ultimately it is the federal agency’s responsibility and decision whether to proceed with a project that has an adverse effect.65
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966Applicant must:• Describe the proposed project (Undertaking)• Identify Area of Potential Effects (APE)• Identify Historic Properties in APE(“Historic Properties” = Eligible for or listed in the NRHP)• Determine whether the project will have any effect on those properties:• No Historic Properties• No Historic Properties Affected• No Effect• No Adverse Effect• Adverse Effect• SHPO (THC) has 30 days to review each undertaking, or request additional information.66
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966Adverse Effectsmay alter characteristics that contribute to eligibility in a way that diminishes the historic integrity of the property.The effect may be direct or indirect, and include:• Physical destruction or damage • Inconsistent alteration • Change in the character of the property’s use or setting • Introduction of incompatible visual or audible elements • Neglect and deterioration • Transfer, lease, or sale without protectionAdverse effects may include those that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.”67
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionAntiquities Code of TexasTexas Natural Resource Code Title 9, Chapter 191Enacted in 1969 with amendments in 1997. It created: • State Archeological Landmarks• Antiquities Permits• Antiquities Advisory BoardAntiquities PermitsIssued for investigations on land owned or controlled by state agencies & political subdivisions of the state, including:• Public school districts• Water or utility districts• Municipalities• Counties• Public authorities68
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionHistoric County Courthouse ProtectionChapter 442 of the Texas Government Code requires that counties notify the THC 180 days in advance of demolishing, transferring, or damaging the historic integrity of a county courthouse. Many courthouses have additional protections including covenants and easements.69
Historic Texas CemeteryPreservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionNeither the Texas Historical Commission (THC) nor any other state agency enforces cemetery laws. This responsibility belongs to county and municipal law enforcement officials.Most of the Texas laws regarding cemeteries are in Chapters 694-715 of the Health and Safety Code.If a historic cemetery is publicly owned by a state agency or political subdivision of the state (counties, cities, utility districts, etc.), the burials are protected as archeological sites under the Antiquities Code of Texas70
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionLocal Designations and CodesYour BEST way to protect historic buildings and districts!• Local designations may be offered to protect individual buildings and historic districts.• Local landmark commissions should be involved in the building and demolition permit review process, guided by local preservation criteria.• These designations are tailored to suit local needs, and may include tax abatements and other financial benefits. • Building codes often allow exceptions & variances for historic buildings, and may allow “grandfathering” of existing conditions.71
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionRestrictions conferred with State Designations • SAL• RTHLNew LegislationEasements/Covenants72
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal ProtectionHistoric preservation covenants/easements are voluntary legal agreements made between the property owner and a qualified organization to protect significant historic properties, landscapes or archeological sites by restricting future development on the property. Under some circumstances property owners who enter into a qualified preservation easement can receive tax benefits while still retaining ownership of the property. To receive the tax benefits, the easement must be for perpetuity. Deed covenants and easements are filed with the county clerk. 73
Visit our website www.thc.state.tx.usfor additional information, including links to the “Rules & Regulations”The website can also direct you to the appropriate staff reviewer and department.Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: Legal Protection74
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“Preservation is not a concern of our local government”“Preservation is always an afterthought in our city.”“Our historic downtown is dying.”75
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningCertified Local Government (CLG)The CLG Program is a local, state and federal government partnership for historic preservation. It is designed to help cities and counties develop high standards of preservation. Local governments that participate in the CLG Program act independently to develop and maintain a successful preservation program. The Texas Historical Commission administers the program at the state level and the National Park Service is the responsible federal agency.76
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningCertified Local Government (CLG)To qualify as a CLG, a local government must:• Enforce state and local legislation that protects historic properties• Establish a qualified review commission composed of professional and lay members• Maintain a system for surveying and inventorying historic properties• Provide for public participation in the historic preservation process, including recommending properties to the National Register77
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningCertified Local Government (CLG)• CLG grants provide funding to city and county governments to develop and sustain effective local preservation programs. • Grant may be used for surveys, nominations to the National Register, and other community-based preservation projects. • All CLG grants require a local cash dollar for dollar match• Only non-federal monies may be used as a match, with the exception of Community Development Block Grants.78
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningTexas Main Street ProgramThe Texas Main Street Program helps Texas cities revitalize their historic downtowns and neighborhood commercial districts by utilizing preservation and economic development strategies. The program began in 1981 and is affiliated with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The program has assisted more than 140 Texas cities and commercial neighborhood districts, ranging in population from less than 1,000 to more than 200,000The program has resulted in the private reinvestment of more than $1.3 billion. 79
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningTexas Main Street Program Benefits• Ongoing comprehensive training for Main Street managers and board members• Training for communities in successful economic development approaches• A three-day, on-site evaluation and full report with recommendations• Design assistance• Consultation with downtown merchants about visual merchandising and window display• Advice on heritage tourism programs and marketing80
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PlanningVisionaries in Preservation (VIP)The VIP Program empowers Texas communities to shape the future of their historic preservation efforts through visioning and planning, and provides training and assistance tailored to achieve local preservation goals. • Builds partnerships among diverse groups and interests• Fosters preservation leadership • Develops unified preservation goals and action plans• Participating cities receive priority status for local training and assistance from the THC• Enhances capability to secure grants and funds for preservation projects81
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“We need money!”82
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: FinancialFederal Preservation Tax Credits20% Credit10% CreditState sales tax benefitsLocal tax abatementsTexas Preservation Trust Fund GrantsTHC History Museum Grants Other grant sourcesGrant writing workshops offered by Friends of the THC83
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: FinancialFederal Preservation Tax Credits* For Commercial Properties Only *20% Credit for certified historic buildings, including buildings listed in the National Register. THC and NPS review required.Tax credit application must be filed before building placed into service.10% Credit for noncertified, non-listed buildings built before 1936.No state sales tax on labor or materials for any buildings listed in the National Register84
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: FinancialTexas Preservation Trust Fund GrantsThe THC awards grants for preservation projects from the Texas Preservation Trust Fund, created by the Texas Legislature in 1989The funds are distributed yearly as matching grants for the acquisition, survey, restoration, preservation or for the planning and educational activities leading to the preservation of historic properties, archeological sites and associated collections of the State of Texas. Competitive grants are awarded on a one-to-one match basis and are paid as reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred during the project.85
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: FinancialTHC Museum GrantsApplicants must be organized and permanent nonprofit institutions in Texas whose primary mission is to serve as a history museums, with operating budgets of $350,000 or lessMust have a staff of at least one person, paid or unpaid, who devotes time primarily to object acquisition, care and exhibition.Must display objects to the public on a regular schedule at least 90 days per year. The maximum grant amount is $1,000. 86
Preservation Tools for Problem SolvingProblems:“They’re going to tear down our historic school!”“Nobody knows about the preservation work we’re already doing.”87
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving: PublicityEngage the media! NewspaperRadioTelevisionCreate a website or blogPost to listserves88
89
90
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingPart 2: Case Studies91
Preservation Tools for Problem Solving• Partnerships • Identification• Designations• Legal Protections• Planning• Financial• Publicity92
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase StudiesMarcus HouseDallas93
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, Dallas94
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, Dallas95
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, Dallas200196
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, DallasJuly 200897
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, Dallas98
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, DallasJuly 2008• Notice to THC regarding proposed demolition, initiating 60-day review under RTHL regulationsAugust 2008• Demolition permit filed with City of Dallas• Preservation Dallas alerted to threat• Daily and weekly newspapers cover the story• THC responds with 3-page letter proposing alternatives to demolition• Owner notifies THC that the house will be renovated, not demolishedSeptember 2008• Dallas Landmark Commission votes 14-1 to initiate designation proceedings99
Preservation Tools Case Study:Marcus House, Dallas100
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase Studies Gillespie County Rural Schools101
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsAs many as 42 rural schools in operation around Fredericksburg early in the 20th century; through school closings and consolidation the number has dwindled to four. Many of the schoolhouses and the outbuildings are still in place, serving as social gathering centers, polling places, and community club meeting halls. As the schools closed, the Fredericksburg ISD took ownership, but community clubs, former students and nearby families maintained the buildings, often leasing them from the ISD.102
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County Schools1999• A rumor that the ISD wanted to abandon or demolish the old buildings provided the spark for historic school preservation.• Concerned citizens formed the Friends of Gillespie County Country Schools.• Groups leasing the buildings sought to have the old schools donated, but state law forbade school districts from donating surplus property, even to nonprofit groups and community associations.2001 • State Senator Wentworth and Representative Hilderbran crafted legislation to allow donation of these properties to a governmental or nonprofit organization.• Friends of Gillespie County Country Schools garnered support with a letter-writing campaign to every county historical commission, and in November 2001, Texas voters overwhelmingly supported necessary amendments to the state constitution.2003• A 2003 bill clarified and expanded the law, so that school districts may now donate historic buildings to heritage associations, community groups, or even state agencies, providing another option when the threat of demolition arises.2004-2005• Twelve Gillespie County schools were listed to the National Register. Six of these are also RTHLs. 103
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsCherry Spring School104
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsCrabapple School105
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsPecan Creek School106
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County Schools107
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsA sense of community identity and extra years of operation helped preserve the Gillespie County school buildings, even as some took on new roles.The White Oak School was moved to the Pioneer Museum Complex in downtown Fredericksburg in 1990.The 1905 schoolhouse at Doss now serves as the local fire station.A few of the former schools have been converted to residences, while others have found new life as hay barns.Out of more than 40 historic schools, only the main buildings at Hayden and Palo Alto have been demolished. 108
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County SchoolsThe most famous former student of the 1910 Junction School was Lyndon Baines Johnson.He attended school here and at the Stonewall and Williams Creek schools each for a brief time.In 1965 Johnson returned to the old Junction School as President to sign into law the Elementary and Secondary School Act, with his former teacher, Miss Katie Deadrich, at his side.The school is now part of the Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park. 109
Preservation Tools Case Study:Gillespie County Schools110
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase Studies Rosenwald Schools111
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald Schools1912-1932 – Julius Rosenwald helps fund the construction of over 5,300 African American schools in the southern U.S., including 527 in Texas1996 – THC identifies 18 extant Rosenwald properties in its initial survey1998 – Multiple Property Submission Form accepted by the NPS, along with the first two Rosenwald NR listings in Texas2002 - The National Trust for Historic Preservation names Rosenwald schools to its list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places2006 – Lowes and the National Trust begin a joint program to fund the preservation of Rosenwald Schools nationwide112
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald Schools113
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald SchoolsLockhart VocationalCaldwell CountySweet Home VocationalGuadalupe CountyNRHP 1998114
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald SchoolsGarland School and TeacherageBowie CountyTeacherage listed in the NRHP 2002115
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald SchoolsPleasant Hill School, Cass CountyNRHP 2004116
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald SchoolsPleasant Hill School, Cass County2008 – Receives NTHP / Lowe’s Grant“The grant will go towards updating the building to ADA compliant standards, and improving climate control, plumbing and electrical systems. Once complete, the building will be a multi-use cultural center for community events, private rentals, as a meeting place local organizations, and venue for concerts and plays. Because of its future use in the arts, the project is also supported by the local County Performing Arts Council, and native son Don Henley.”117
Preservation Tools Case Study:Rosenwald Schools118
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase Studies John S. Harrison HouseSelma, Bexar County119
Preservation Tools Case Study:John S. Harrison House, Selma, Bexar CountyHarrison & Brown Stage Stop SiteSAL 2000Harrison House120
Preservation Tools Case Study:John S. Harrison House, Selma, Bexar County121
Preservation Tools Case Study:John S. Harrison House, Selma, Bexar County122
Preservation Tools Case Study:John S. Harrison House, Selma, Bexar County123
Preservation Tools Case Study:John S. Harrison House, Selma, Bexar County• 2001 – City of Selma purchases house from owner at nominal cost, with no restrictions• July 2005 – private citizen contacts THC; wishes to nominate house to NRHP and pursue SAL designation• August 2005 – THC concurs house is eligible• January 2006 – State Board reviews NRHP nomination; city objects• June 2006 – THC representatives meet with city official and tour property. THC continues work with city• June 2006 – Listed in the NRHP• 2008-09 – SAL nomination in progress• 2009 – City of Selma creates “Selma Historical Commission”124
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase Studies Santa Rita CourtsAustin125
Preservation Tools Case Study:Santa Rita Courts, Austin126
Preservation Tools Case Study:Santa Rita Courts, Austin127
Preservation Tools Case Study:Santa Rita Courts, Austin128
Preservation Tools Case Study:Santa Rita Courts, Austin1938 – Santa Rita Courts opens1993 – Property determined to be not eligible for listing in the NR under Sec. 106, along with 16 other housing projects statewide1999 – HUD & NPS prepare historic context “Public Housing in the United States, 1933-1949”2005 – Review under Sec. 106 with City of Austin, as an applicant for funding from HUD. THC cites the individual significance of Santa Rita Courts2006 – Private citizen submits NR nomination to THC2008 – Listed in the NRHP at the national level of significance129
Preservation Toolsfor Problem SolvingCase StudiesBeaumont Commercial Historic District130
Preservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic DistrictNRHP 1978131
Coale Building465 BowieTax CreditApplication 2004Preservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic District132
First Security National Bank, 505 OrleansPreservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic DistrictTax Credit Application 2006133
Antioch Baptist Church527 ForsythePreservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic DistrictTax Credit Application 2007134
Area 3Area 2Area 1Preservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic District135
Preservation Tools Case Study:Beaumont Commercial Historic District1978 – Beaumont Commercial Historic District listed in the NRHP, the result of a multiyear survey effortTax Credit Projects – Part 1 approval:• May 2004: Coale Building• August 2006: First Security Building• February 2007: Antioch Baptist Church2006-07 – NRHP nomination amendment prepared with support of the City of Beaumont CLG and Beaumont Main Street2008 - Amended NRHP nomination amendment approved by NPS136
Preservation Tools Case StudiesWhat’s Your Problem?137
138