Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2001 - Regular Minutes - Historic Preservation Committee Minutes Historic Preservation Committee Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shawn Carlson, Chair; Bill Lancaster; Thomas Taylor; Myron Gantt; Monte Trenckmann, Deborah Jasek, Robert McGee, Marsha Sanford. MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Griffith. STAFF PRESENT: Tammy Macik, Lee Battle, Molly Hitchcock, Jane Kee, and Jennifer Flannery. VISITORS PRESENT: Mike Luther, Benito Florez-Meath. 1. Call to Order: Shawn Carlson called the meeting to order. 2. Consideration & Approval of Member Requests for Absences: Margaret called Shawn the day of the meeting to say she would not attend the meeting because she was sick. The Committee approved her absence. 3. Hear Visitors: No visitors spoke. 4. Discussion I Action Neighborhood Conservation Codes. Shawn asked the Committee if anyone had any comments concerning the Consultants presentation at the last meeting. Tom said that was the second time he had met with Lee Einsweiler and he seemed very knowledgeable. Shawn handed the Committee a summarized outline of the Duncan Report. Shawn stated that going through the report the committee would not have a clue what all the possible zoning regulations and design guidelines are. Shawn added that she does not think that anyone on the Committee even knows what College Station's zoning regulations are. There were things that she did not understand when she read through the report. Shawn thought it would be better to eliminate from her outline what did not apply to this Committee. Shawn told the Committee that she thinks Mr. Einsweiler gave this report to them thinking it reflected what the Committee probably wanted to be doing with the College Station neighborhoods. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 28,2001 Page 2 Shawn asked Lee if the items listed are already in College Station's ordinance. Lee replied that compared to College Station's ordinance this is more complex. There are some good things listed but it does not include all the options either. Shawn also told the Committee that they should make a recommendation that the number of occupants in a rental house be limited to maintain the single-family as opposed to saying how it should be done. Shawn told the Committee that one thing she wanted to come out of this meeting is to have a list of things that she can itemize in a letter to Mr. Einsweiler stating the concerns of the Committee. And if possible to have them included into the ordinance as a Conservation Overlay. Lee told the Committee that one thing Mr. Einsweiler is working on, as part of the unified development code is a proposed Neighborhood Conservation District. Most of the items would be recommendations of what might be included in that district. Lee said that he had heard it mentioned from time to time and it probably does not fall within the realm of the Neighborhood Conservation District, i.e. rental permitting program, parking permitting program. These kinds of things don't fall under unified building code type regulation. They would be found in another municipal code. Lee said that he would like the Committee to make recommendations for the Neighborhood Conservation District. Lee told the Committee that he would like them to make a separate list of items they think is important and that does impact the character of older neighborhoods. Think about the features of a Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Lancaster said that he could see the Committee making a broad statement or two of what they would like to have. The items needed to accomplish the preservation of neighborhood character. Lee told the Committee that they need to talk about what the Committee wants to achieve. What are they trying to preserve and protect? Shawn said she thinks Mr. Einsweiler said it when he used the term livability. Lee said that was a good broad definition in terms of what specific elements of the neighborhood they want to protect. Another way to think about it is for future in-fill development, what is appropriate. What should be allowed and why. Then identify the tools to accomplish it. Shawn said that Mr. Einsweiler stated he had never heard of Historic Conservation District but she has seen it in literature. What this means to her is the term of Conservation is the term that is necessary. She said that since they are working with the older neighborhoods and they want them to be historic neighborhoods she suggested calling it Historic Conservation Overlay. Tom said he had not problem calling it Historic Conservation Overlay. It does not change what they are doing. Shawn said that the boundaries of the neighborhoods have been defined and she thinks those boundaries should be suggested for the overlay district. Shawn asked if Northgate would be included in this district. Lee replied no because they have their own district. Shawn said that the overlay district would only include South Side and Eastgate. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 28,2001 Page 3 Tom said that what Mr. Einsweiler was talking about is identifying some specific things. If the Committee can define things of what they are trying to do then it does give it an outline. Lee stated that he thinks Mr. Einsweiler will come up with some good purpose statements in the ordinance. What elements in a neighborhood does this Committee want to preserve? Marsha spoke about the North Oakwood Subdivision in Bryan. In those deed restrictions it states that if the property is rented out there can not be any more than 2 unrelated persons living there. If there is a third party that comes into the property a letter is sent stating that they are in violation of the deed restrictions. Marsha said that in that area the parking problem is solved & the rental to multi-people is solved. Lee said that it is important to recognize that there is a difference between deed restrictions and government regulations. Lee reminded the Committee that Mr. Einsweiler told them the most powerful tool for regulating anything is deed restrictions. Lee told the Committee that there are neighborhoods in College Station that are currently making amendments to their deed restrictions to make that exact limitation. Lee said that legally an ordinance can be passed but the issue has always been on enforcement and effectiveness. Lee told the Committee that he thinks that this is outside the realm of the neighborhood conservation. It could be included though if they wanted it to be. City Council has taken up the issue separately so the Committee could make it a recommendation in the Conservation Overlay District. This is an issue that would apply not only to the defined historic areas but also to all areas of town. The Committee discussed the outline that Shawn put together. Lee told the Committee to avoid too much complexity as much as possible for the simple fact that it becomes difficult for people to understand. Lee said that the way this would work is, currently the historic neighborhoods have a zoning of R-1. With a conservation district you lay it ontop of those standards. So in a case where the lot size requirement is stricter than R-1 it would take it's place. But maybe there are items in R-1 that is not addressed by the overlay and those would remain in place. What will be created in the Unified Development Code is a district. So what is being adopted in the Unified Development Code is a toot. Monte asked could it come to the people in a district voting on things that happen to structures. Lee said he did not know on a case-by-case basis but as far as application of the district to a particular area over time you might develop different types of conservation districts. Lee said that for now we just want to make sure the conservation district idea is included in the ordinance. Tom said that he does not live in one of the districts and he could not say how the people who do live there want it to work. Lee said at minimum it would be a rezoning process for getting it applied to a certain area. Lee said that mass is something that the ordinances do not really address in this way. How much building can you have cubic foot wise? Tom asked what is the difference with mass and bulk. Lee said the difference is if you put bulk and height together then you tend to regulate the mass. Tom said that he would recommend taking mass out of the list. Monte told the committee that he works a lot in the older areas of town. Do the newer areas have height and bulk regulations? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 28,2001 Page 4 Lee said that the current R-1 district has setback requirements and an overall height requirement. There are also the lot size requirements but none of the other things listed on the outline. Lee said what some of the other items listed are meant to do is keep the character of the neighborhood consistent. Lee spoke about bulk. Lot coverage is how you regulate how much of the lot can be covered by the house. The setbacks cover that to some extent. For example: the interim ordinance has 8500 min lot size, if you go 25 feet back and 7.5 feet on the sides, you would get a huge house on a 85 x 100 lot. What you would want is something more to scale with the rest of the neighborhood so you would want to regulate how much of the lot can be covered by the house. Shawn asked if a neighborhood has larger side setbacks, how do you state that. Lee said you have a building separation requirement. Shawn asked what building angle of vision means. Lee said that it is how wide the house is from the front. Shawn asked if that is something that is currently covered. Lee said it would not be other than by setback. Tom asked about building height plane. Lee said that has to do with multi-story buildings. Lee said you find this more in a commercial situation. This keeps you from impacting your adjacent property. Jane told the Committee that it is in the current ordinance. Lee said that one thing this could do on a residential level is to encourage people to have more architecture to their building. Shawn asked should the Committee be concerned with the building angle of vision right now since it is covered by the setbacks. Monte said that character affects the vision. People are going for volume when they build. He thinks building angle vision is important. Shawn asked about building height. Lee said that you could leave the maximum building height as it is but you could add a plane from the property line. Lee said step backs is the same type philosophy where you want to control either the impact of the second story on an adjacent property or maybe you are looking for some architectural possibility. But it is basically where you would have the front setback 25 feet and then you might have a 5 to 10-foot step back for the second story. What this does is make the second story step back from the plane of the first wall. Shawn told the Committee that step backs would not be included since there was some controversy. Lee told the Committee that lot dimension is already being looked at and they may not need to discuss this. Shawn asked Lee to tell the Committee which items listed under "Other" could be covered. - Maintenance of property— listed in the municipal code —code enforcement. - Limit Parking — covered in several ordinances. This will be an issue that will be discussed for the Unified Development Code. Tom wants this to be added as a recommendation of this Committee. - Limit occupancy (single family dwellings) —. Lee suggested listing this as an issue. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,February 28,2001 Page 5 Tom asked about listing garage apartments as it was discussed at the last meeting. Lee said that if the Committee has some consensus on it they could forward that on. - Buffers between businesses and residences — Lee said that will be in the new Unified Development Code. - Limit driveway coverage—this will be included in the Committee's recommendation. - Screen backyards - this is a drainage issue relating to fencing and will be added to the list of the Committee's concern. Design Guidelines - Shawn said that she is going to suggest that the Committee not consider these right now since they are dealt with in zoning. Lee said that the only one listed that might warrant being considered is the placement of the garage. The older neighborhoods either don't have a garage or the garage is setback from the house. Other - Tree preservation — Lee said that this probably can be regulated but it is a matter of private property rights. Lee said this is being addressed in the new ordinance on new development and commercial development level. - Reducing speed limits— covered elsewhere - Maintain original street widths— Shawn suggested listing this as an issue. - Reduce traffic impacts with traffic calming —Shawn suggested listing this as an issue. There were discussions among the Committee and the visitors concerning receiving notification when things are done in the neighborhoods. Lee said this is not something that necessarily has to go into an ordinance. Tom asked as the code develops will existing conditions be grandfathered. Lee answered as far as structures in place, yes. Tom asked where does the Committee go from here. Lee said that he would be happy to write this up into a report and forwarded it to Mr. Einsweiler and also to City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shawn said that the way this has been handled in the past a letter is written and the Committee members sign it. Jane suggested making a formal motion; the minutes can be attached to Lee's report with a letter from Shawn on behalf of the Board. Deborah made the motion to forward the recommendations of the Board. Marsha seconded the motion, which passed unanimously 5. Discussion and possible action on History of the Eastgate Area. Shawn asked anyone interested in working on this to please get in touch with Lee. Historic PreserveUon Committee Minutes,February 28,2001 Page 6 6. Agenda items for Future Meetings. No items were discussed 7. Adiourn. Tom made the motion to adjourn. Marsha seconded, which passed unanimously. APPROVED: Shawn Carlson, Chair IITEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Asistant