Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/2001 - Regular Minutes - Historic Preservation Committee Minutes Historic Preservation Committee Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shawn Carlson, Chair; Bill Lancaster; Thomas Taylor; Myron Gantt; Monte Trenckmann, Margaret Griffith, Deborah Jasek, Robert McGee, MEMBERS ABSENT: Marsha Sanford. STAFF PRESENT: Deborah Grace, Lee Battle, Molly Hitchcock, Jim Callaway, Development Services. VISITORS PRESENT: Mike Luther, Benito Florez-Meath, Lee Einsweiler, Duncan & Associates 1. Call to Order: Shawn Carlson called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. L.`. Consideration &Approval of Member Requests for Absences: Marsha called at 3:30 PM the day of the meeting to say she would not attend the meeting because she was sick. The Committee approved her absence. 3. Approval of minutes from the January 10. 2001 meeting of the Committee: Tom Taylor made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Myron Gantt seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. 4. Hear Visitors: Mr. Luther spoke to the Committee concerning the letter he sent to Jim Callaway. (the committee received a copy of this letter in their packets). Mr. Luther wanted to emphasize not only what was in the letter, but to make the Consultant aware of the importance of giving notice on critical changes that take place in a Historical area. Mr. Luther spoke about the re-platting that took place in College Park. Mr. Flores-Meath re-iterated Mr. Luther's concerns that giving notice is very important. He showed the Committee a graphic of development in College Station. He voiced great concern of College Station approaching the size of Austin or Houston. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 2 5. Presentation and discussion on revision of the City's codes. Shawn introduced Lee Einsweiler with Duncan & Associates to the Committee. Shawn gave Mr. Einsweiler a brief account of the Committee. Shawn told Mr. Einsweiler about the group that formed the Neighborhood Preservation Committee. Some of their meetings were done under guidance of city staff. A report was made that itemized standards that they wanted to see preserved in their neighborhood. Shawn stated that it is her belief that that group of people probably thought that report in some way protected them. Shawn talked about the lot in College Park that was re-platted, adding 2 additional homes to the existing double lot with one existing home. The NPC discovered that all the work that they put into developing the report basically was worthless. Shawn stated that the HPC is well aware that documents like that have no legal basis and they can not in any way protect the neighborhoods. The HPC has been discussing the idea of a Historic Preservation Ordinance. Shawn briefed Mr. Einsweiler on what the HPC has done so far. They have followed the guidelines that the Texas Historical Commission put out with a model historic ordinance. Formally the boundaries have been defined of the historic neighborhoods. Those boundaries were based on 1950 or early plat dates for the subdivisions. This information has been passed on to the City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission. The HPC has agreed that what they want is more like a Historic Conservation Ordinance. They are not interested in being to restrictive in terms of what one can and cannot do to their homes. The interest is in preserving the integrity of the neighborhoods. Shawn told Mr. Einsweiler what the HPC wanted to know from him is how can they best proceed as a Historic Preservation Committee to help preserve and protect what history the city has. Mr. Einsweiler told the Board that they are not too late. The ordinance is still being worked on and there is plenty of time to fold in the ideas of the group. Depending on the degree to which the ideas are folded in, there still maybe a lot of work to be done before a full scheme would be in place. Mr. Einsweiler told the committee that he wanted to explain what the tool kit looks like in other communities and what it would imply if they were to use it here. The first and most important preservation idea is the individual landmark structure. That is a single building 50 years and older that meets the national registrar requirements. Mr. Einsweiler spoke about Northgate and some buildings there that might fit the category. They may be considered of high importance and are unique enough to fit the national registrar requirements, etc. A landmark building like that could have special protections in the Zoning Ordinance including a procedure to deal with demolition and a procedure to deal with modifications to the exterior of the building. The next tool is to protect a district. When you protect a district you are normally defining some kind of character for the entire area. Within a district not every single building has landmark status. Some buildings are normally considered contributing and some are considered non-contributing. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 3 Basically the newer buildings without the character and style of the neighborhood are non- contributing. This is an area where there become more problems. This problem exists in Northgate. There are no patterns of architecture, no pattern of lot sizes or lot depths. So it becomes more difficult to find what the elements are that are being protected. Take the same example here in College Station and go to many neighborhoods and there is not enough similarity among buildings. Mr. Einsweiler stated from his perspective it would be difficult to define what the elements are that are unique because the elements become unique site by site. If the elements could be defined then the normal process would be a formal body (i.e. city staff or a separate Board or Committee of the city) that issues a Certificate of Appropriateness. The idea behind the certificate is that it is a decision that a proposed change is appropriate to the district or the building. Example: I want to replace the windows or change my roof and I will replace them with... is this acceptable. The certificate simply says yes the proposal you have made matches the character of the district and yes you can make that change. There are other tools that can be used. Mr. Einsweiler referred to the College Park re- plat. What happened on that site had very little to do with two units going on the site. It had very little to do about being re-platted. But it had everything to do with the relationship of the buildings that were built next to the adjacent buildings. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee what happened wrong in his mind is what came back on the site had too much height, bulk and mass for that site. That is exactly what zoning controls. What was in place was a zoning category that allowed a bigger house to be rebuilt, to replace the small one. That is a normal prospect of neighborhood change. We cannot lock our neighborhoods into one pattern for all time. If you look at existing old houses you can see that they have been expanded. Often they become two stories when they were one story or they are doubled to the back or apiece is added to the front. There is a lot of change to be expected in neighborhoods. The change has to respect some of the boundary conditions. There are a number of elements that can be regulated with the Zoning Ordinance and maybe the Committee should look into that. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee that he thinks there are a series of at least historic buildings, not truly historic districts the Committee should continue to focus their attention on. Northgate is going to get some continued special protection due it's own zoning districts. One of which of those really deals with the frontage along University Drive. This district goes back about 2 blocks deep into the neighborhood. In that district there already have been some special architectural standards proposed. This area will be looked at to a greater degree to fine-tune the standards so redevelopment activity that occurs there will be in keeping with some of the best buildings that were originally there. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee that he was surprised to find the great majority of those buildings really have no historic significance at all. So the committee needs to be focused on determining what elements are worth of preserving. If they can define those things carefully enough then they can use them in the Zoning Ordinance as regulations. Examples: a given lot pattern, a given front setback, a specific kind of rooflines, etc. Anything that can be drawn out as similarity in character along the street fronts can be used to help devise regulations, so what went back in would have those elements. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Einsweiler ended by telling the Committee that it would be very straightforward to provide full historic preservation tools in the Zoning Ordinance. It would be very easy to empower a Historic Preservation Board to issue Certificates of Appropriateness. Mr. Einsweiler stated that it would be hard to pin point those resources that are worthy of that protection because there are not that many worthy of that degree of protection. So he thinks the charge to the Committee is to gather as much information as they can to support some of the other mechanisms that are not full blown landmarking that might allow those buildings to remain another 20 years until it is time they can be landmarked. But really to ensure the survival of the neighborhood feel more than truly an historic focus. Shawn told Mr. Einsweiler that they had decided on a conservation ordinance and how would that be different. Mr. Einsweiler stated that he has drafted material that was called neighborhood conservation but he has never drafted material called historic conservation. When dealing with neighborhood conservation you deal with fundamental elements. You don't want too much unit conversion on lots where there are larger older houses. On lots of larger older houses it is possible to actually convert a single to a double, or a double to a triple. So in neighborhood conservation ordinances you try to tackle that conservation of the housing stock by not allowing those types of things to occur. This being a tool to define things. There are a number of ways to pick a setback for a vacant in-fill lot. One way is to look into the Zoning Ordinance and it says 25 feet. Another way is to look at the built up lots along the block face and say the average of the block face is this. Or with even more flexibility you could say, you can be no closer than the closest and no further back then the furthest from the right-of-way line. It will change site by site because it depends on the context of the neighborhood. Just a few standards would help in dealing with the character of in-fill. Tom asked Mr. Einsweiler in his experience how do cities or groups go about identifying the different elements. Mr. Einsweiler said the simplest answer is an architect or urban designer most often does it. It is done by a survey and literally looking at every single house, taking photographs, looking at the pattern of the lots, measuring setbacks, etc. Really doing the detailed work. Tom said that he could not imagine that anything in these neighborhoods would be designed oriented. Mr. Einsweiler said he had driven the streets and he is not surprised to hear him say that. If that is true then we should be looking at more of the livability questions. Tom said that he thinks that is really the issue. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee that they could have standards block by block. The Committee could very easily make it impossible to do in-fill development. That is the last thing they should want to do because what you would get is dis-investment instead. One thing that is valuable about historic landmarking is there is an idea that normally goes along with it that keeps you from completely dis-investing on the property, it is called demolition by neglect. Basically you don't allow demolition by neglect, this meaning your roof cannot rot and fall in. It is not allowed. That means people who cannot afford to be in a truly landmark structure has to divest themselves of it and someone else who has the ability to retain it is normally placed in it. That idea applies to landmarks and we can see why it is important because we can see they are of landmark character. That idea would not apply within normal neighborhoods. You're allowed to dis-invest to a certain degree in your structure as long as it continues to meet code Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee if they truly had some landmark entities he urged the group to move forward and get them designated whether local, state or national. Tom asked Mr. Einsweiler if he knew of the high importance buildings in Northgate. Mr. Einsweiler said he did know of them. One is the old theater that has been pretty much destroyed. Maybe the facade could be peeled off and there could be something there. The Bookstore and the Sparks Building and the fourth being a tiny house at 303 Cherry. There were others of medium importance but none of them at the time the designation forms were filled out met the criteria to be on the national registrar. They would not qualify for the highest protections. Margaret asked if the old city hall would be of high importance. Lee Battle replied that he believes it is of medium importance. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee that College Main had the most buildings of medium importance. He was surprised that on University Drive after the one building on the corner of high importance, the rest of the block face was of low importance. This meaning that there was not anything unique enough, old enough to meet the historic concept. That does not mean we want to save every building along there. Mr. Einsweiler encouraged the Committee to continue their efforts to save great buildings, great sites, neighborhoods, etc, but to divorce in their minds the truly historic issues of landmark building and structures that are definable or have a character that are distinctive. Shawn stated that as a Historic Preservation Committee this city only has the three areas that are historic. Maybe they are not really that historic but it is all that there is. She said she would like to see they are recognized in someway as being our oldest neighborhoods. Mr. Einsweiler offered this scenario: If he was the decision maker and something comes to him for approval in the designated old area of town, what can be done different in the old area then what can do in the new area. Does he need extra notice, maybe? Let everyone know to a greater degree then else where in town. Does he have a demolition permit so people have to ask before they demolish something? You cannot keep them from demolishing it but you can have a public process where people can come and talk about it before it occurs. Beyond that what can be done? The way the rules base goes you can set different rules for different parts of town, you can be more careful of certain type things in in-fill and greensfield development. You can be more careful in in-fill development about context and scale. But the expectation has to be that those areas are going to change. The only thing to do for the most part is make sure the degree of change is such that it is consistently acceptable to the neighborhood. There is no tool kit for the no change model. Not for homes that are not distinct enough to be landmarked or even be part of a district with a defined character. If a truly historic district is designated in some of the neighborhoods in spite of the fact that some of the houses are old enough, etc, you would be hard pressed to define that district in court. Reason being, a judge looking at it is going to be looking for defined characteristics upon which you're going to make decisions about future construction in that neighborhood. If you cannot define those characteristics you cannot let a Committee apply a sense of taste on an ad hoc basis. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 6 Shawn asked should the Committee go with neighborhood conservation. Mr. Einsweiler suggested looking for as many tools as possible to try and be certain that vacant lots, newly platted lots and tear downs all end up in scale at least and in character to the extent feasible with their neighborhoods. Shawn asked are these separate ordinances. Mr. Einsweiler said they are part of the big book. All the ordinances will be in one unified development code. This material would be a part of the zoning kind of reviews that occur now. Who would review it? Most likely if there is a sound standard it would be reviewed at staff level. The kinds of things talked about are modest review in which we are not talking about a substantial amount of discretion. And therefore if you need discretion you go before City Council or P&Z. A citywide design review board has been proposed to operate some specific settings. That idea has not been fully fleshed out and the City Council has not fully agreed on it. Right now Northgate and Wolf Pen Creek have their own entities reviewing things. If you keep going you could have entities for all areas and it is really hard to service the Boards staff wise. It is proposed to use the Design Review Board to do the design level review in these various settings. They would not be necessarily staffed to do truly historic review but they could do the kinds of neighborhood reviews when necessary. When would HPC be involved in review? Right now for significant site plans. What is significant? Mr. Einsweiler said he did not know, maybe 2500 square feet of retail space and greater anywhere in the city. Those would go to the DRB. And then any special areas they would operate on the larger scale developments. City staff would review the smaller scale reviews. So where would HPC get involved in neighborhoods? Maybe on the house-by- house, case-by-case basis. What if someone buys a whole block? What if someone replats? Maybe HPC gets involved. Triggers can be set for when the site plan review might go to someone that has more discretion over the DRB. Margaret talked about students living in individual residential style housing. It is not in just Northgate, Southgate, Eastgate; it is all over the city of College Station. Margaret questioned if something could be done and applied throughout the city limiting the amount of front yard that could be turned into parking. Mr. Einsweiler stated that unfortunately this is not the body to make the final decisions but they could certainly voice their concerns. The City Council is separately dealing with some issues that have been raised on student housing. Some research has been done around the country on what other cities are doing. One of the most promising ideas that were found is one that was recently implementing in Tallahassee Florida. They have chosen to regulate what is called a rooming house. Four unrelated persons and more in a single unit are then classified a rooming house. Every rooming house has to register and there is a separate complaint process. The rooming housing becomes a non-conforming use. Meaning they don't meet the guidelines of the ordinance. This lets the city regulate if a new rooming house wants to be established. The city can require them to have adequate parking and other things that are needed to accommodate the 4 plus people living there. The other thing is with the existing homes now those are simply rental houses. If they don't follow the rules and break other rules of the city i.e. noise, abandoned cars, etc., you can take away the non-conforming status. ffistoaic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 7 They would at that point have to return to the single-family home classification. Mr. Einsweiler stated that this is an idea that can be incorporated in the ordinance. Most of the ideas that help treat student housing around the country are not unified development code ideas. Mr. Einsweiler said that the Zoning Ordinance could not say whether a house is owner occupied is a condominium, rented, etc. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee that one of the strongest tools to accomplish what they are talking about is the private tool of covenants and restrictions. Monte asked about making the streets narrower. Mr. Einsweiler said that the Subdivision Ordinance does tackle new streets in new subdivisions. There are talks in modifying the standards for new streets and allow for narrower streets. That would not apply to old streets. It would help with widening projects because you could get more out of the existing right-of-way. Mr. Einsweiler told the Committee about some other things being talked about in the Subdivision Regulations. Included in that is a discussion of both ingress and egress. The number of entrances to any given subdivision. One terrible thing that has been done in the past is to funnel large neighborhoods out onto a single contact spot onto a major arterial. During peak times there is no network of streets to service the people and you have to wait. The alternative to this is to force multiple connection points. Tom asked could the older neighborhoods be managed and controlled as to what is built next door to them. Mr. Einsweiler said you have to pick the most important elements of character and try to regulate those. The elements can be a number of things that are already regulated, i.e. setbacks. Maybe in in-fill areas, redevelopment, teardowns and new development, they should not be allowed to vary the setbacks. Lot coverage and height are other ways to deal with bulk. You would not necessarily restrict the height to which you could build, but the height within a certain distance of a single story building. Another important element maybe the location of garages. Shawn asked if there could even be incentives for homeowners for keeping up their homes and restoring them to the original state. Mr. Einsweiler said yes but he did not have anything to offer. Incentives are tough. If the city wants investment in existing neighborhoods they need to rebuild the city infrastructure and the private development will respond. Mr. Luther told the Committee that the city is trying to help by passing the Moratorium. Jim Callaway told the Committee that City Council adopted an amendment to the subdivision regulations and included some zoning like provisions. These were done with an expiration period that will expire next January 1. They were intended to be an interim alternative to the Moratorium. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 8 The regulations essentially do not allow the properties in the residential subdivisions platted before 1970 in the two Moratorium areas be re-platted but with some exceptions 1) to correct or adjust a boundary line without creating any new lots or building plots, 2) when new lots are created the resulting new lots are at least the minimum width of all the lots on the block and no less than 8500 sq.ft. This will not prevent in-fill platting and re-platting but it will certainly limit it. They only apply to replats of existing residential subdivisions so it does not affect people with un- platted property that maybe proposing to develop it. Jim said the purpose for bringing it to Council is to give them an alternative to the Moratorium that expires tomorrow. That was done because the Planning & Zoning Commission has tabled a rezoning that would make other regulations i.e. 8500 sq. ft lot minimum permanent in those Moratorium areas. It was important to let Council have an alternative to limit in-fill development. 6. Discussion and possible action on history of the Eastaate area. Shawn suggested that this be added to the next meeting agenda. Lee told the Committee that the next neighborhood-planning project would be the Eastgate Area. One item that he likes to include in the plan is a brief history of the area. The thought was there might be a couple of people on the HPC that might be interested in working on this type of project. The final product is a few pages that cap the history and significant events that lead to the development of the neighborhood area. Bill said that Pat Holland worked with Mr. Culpepper in the development of that area. 7. Future Agenda Items. Margaret suggested having the Historic Plaque applications on the agenda. Tom wanted to get back to the Neighborhood Recognition Program. Lee suggested having a meeting to set goals for the Committee or talk about things that they really wanted to focus their energy on. Margaret suggested having two meetings in April so the goals could be set. Tom said that he did not know what the Committee would come up with or if they want to make recommendations to the Consultant. Tom did not know how you could do that in an hour. Margaret suggested meeting for 1 1/2 or 2 hours when they meet. Shawn stated that she did not think the Committee could give the Consultant specifics. She thinks the Committee can agree to the variables Mr. Einsweiler spoke about. Tom said the committee should express their concerns over certain elements. The Committee decided to meet again February 28th Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 14, 2001 Page 9 8. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:40p.m. APPROVED: c 'c es c Q c aSe8\ L-4—o1 Shawn Carlson, Chair ATTEST: --� Ossa.. Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant