No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Historic District Commission was held on November 15, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN Dickson Street Historic District Design Standards Discussion only White Hangar Local Ordinance District Report Forwarded Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Vince Chadick Cheri Coley Tim Cooper Rob Merry -Ship Ethel Goodstein-Murphee Karon Reese STAFF PRESENT Kristina Jones, Long Range Planning Karen Minkel, Long Range Planning MEMBERS ABSENT Leslie Belden STAFF ABSENT 2 Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Goodstein-Murphree at 5:37 p.m. I. Announcements A. Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner, announced that beginning in January, minutes would only include actions taken rather than a summary of discussions. DVD copies of the meetings would be kept for reference by staff, officials or the public. City Council approved this method in order to save staff time. B. Minkel also requested that the Commission move the White Hangar report to the beginning of the meeting because she would have to leave early but wanted to answer any of the Commission's questions. II. Approval of the Minutes MOTION to approve the minutes of October 11, 2007: Cheri Coley SECOND: Vince Chadick VOTE: The vote was unanimous to approve the minutes from the October 11, 2007 meeting, 6-0-0. III. Change to the Order of the Agenda MOTION to discuss new business before old business: Cheri Coley SECOND: Vince Chadick VOTE: The vote was unanimous to discuss new business before old business, 6-0-0. New Business IV. Review of Air Museum Local Ordinance District Report Minkel first explained the process described in Arkansas State Code for establishing a local ordinance district. The Historic District Commission (HDC) must first prepare a report that is submitted to the Planning Commission and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Office. These bodies have 60 days to suggest changes or approve the report. HDC must then hold a public hearing, which must be advertised in the local paper once a week for three consecutive weeks before the hearing. After the public hearing, the HDC may make changes to the proposed district and then can submit the proposed ordinance to the City Council for final approval. Minkel then summarized the staff report for White Hangar, which is now the Arkansas Air Museum. The structure is one of only two dozen or so World War II -era aircraft hangars. While the structure is on the Arkansas Registry of Historic Places, it does not qualify for the National Registry because of the modifications that have been made to the exterior. The benefits of a local 3 Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page 4 ordinance district would include protection and preservation of the structure as well as opportunities for preservation and restoration grant funds. Commissioner Chadick asked if there was any opposition to the proposed local ordinance district from the museum. Minkel responded that both the Airport Board and Air Museum Director were in favor of the proposal. MOTION to submit the report to the Planning Commission: Vince Chadick SECOND: Rob Merry -Ship Chair Goodstein-Murphree stated that she would like the report to include the nomination form for the Arkansas State Register. Commissioner Chadick restated his motion with Commissioner Goodstein-Murphree's amendment. MOTION to submit the report to the Planning Commission with the inclusion of the nomination form for the Arkansas State Register: Vince Chadick SECOND: Rob Merry -Ship VOTE: The vote was unanimous to submit the report to the Planning Commission, 6-0-0. Old Business V. Dickson Street Historic District Design Standards Chair Goodstein-Murphree said that the minutes from the previous meeting showed the depth and complexity of developing design standards for a Dickson Street district. She shared an outline that included elements of potential design standards and said that the first page represented information that the commission agreed was significant. These included preserving the commercial vernacular, the streetscape, trees and alterations of existing buildings. She commented that when she looked at the goals, she could not find a lockstep translation into a series of guidelines. However, the efficacy of the ordinance would be based on having clear standards. The outline was modeled after El Dorado, which had a tone of using best practices rather than punishments. Minkel reminded the commission that it would need to make a decision about applicability. Chair Goodstein-Murphree added that the commission would need to discuss: 1) degree of restoration; 2) adaptive re -use; and 3) demolition. Commissioner Chadick asked about the consideration given to contributing versus non- contributing buildings. 11 Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page S Chair Goodstein-Murphree said that she would like to see a copy of the actual National Register nomination form, which would have a tidy summary of the historic significance and would be to the commission's benefit. Commissioner Chadick said that he thought the guide to preservation resources in the outline was a perfect addition. Minkel reminded the commission that the map of the National Register district indicated contributing addresses with red dots. Commissioner Chadick asked if the idea would be to exempt non-contributing buildings from improvements. Chair Goodstein-Murphree gave examples of dealing with broken glass or other public safety issues as exempted improvements. She separated these issues from a discussion on contributing versus non-contributing buildings. She asked if work on non-contributing structures were exempt, could you end up with something that would be deleterious to the district. Her personal feeling was that exempting structures would be letting the horse out of the stable, but she was waiting to hear someone play devil's advocate. Commissioner Chadick added that contributing buildings owners might give pushback if they felt they were being held to a higher standard. Commissioner Coley said she thought everyone needed to be held to the same standard. Commissioner Reese said that she thought the Three Sisters building was an example. She would hate to see it torn down because it was exempted. The old strip shopping center would theoretically be exempted, but it was a funky structure that contributed to the character of Dickson Street. Commissioner Cooper responded that it might contribute to the character but the developer probably wouldn't like the commission dictating what he could or could not do with the property. Commissioner Chadick said that maybe what the commissioners were talking about was a minimum standard where the commission would not control the outcome but there would have to be a dialogue with the developer where the commission would get to say, "Have you thought about this?" Chair Goodstein-Murphree responded that some districts operate as advisory rather than regulatory bodies. They might want to consider the commission's role with non- contributing structures as advisory but regulatory with contributing structures. With regards to encouraging appropriate development, she suggested that tax incentives might be a vehicle for this. She thought that demolition is where these incentives could be utilized since it is generally thought of as a sticky subject. She then stated that the role of the Historic District Commission is to encourage the maintenance, and preservation of a Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page 6 contributing structure. Then again posed the question that if a structure is non- contributing, what do we do? Commissioner Chadick asked how we move this forward. Chair Goodstein-Murphree responded that we give staff the information, they write it and then the commission marks it up. Commissioner Chadick stated that he wants written standards that would apply generally to contributing or non-contributing structures. He is not yet ready to vote one way or another regarding non-contributing structures. Staff should draft a set of general standards. Chair Goodstein-Murphree referred to previous discussion of existing building standards and said that the commission has discussed big picture goals and ideas that can transform into a framework for exterior guidelines. We can also look at the Secretary of the Interior Standards to use as a guideline. Commissioner Chaddick suggested that this body could both maintain and encourage incentives as well as be an advisory board. He thought that the commission should be a "you should" body, not a "no you can't" body and asked how they might support incentives. Commissioner Merry -Ship referred to the Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions Programs handout as a model of good incentives and a role model for the group. Chair Goodstein-Murphree asked staff to research the information with Kit Williams and get a sense of whether the ordinance will get support. Commissioner Reese wanted to know how staff would actually go through the process of developing guidelines. Would staff be going through the Secretary of the Interior Standards line by line? Chair Goodstein-Murphree replied that the theme of the Secretary of the Interior Standards is "do no harm", and that work should be compatible with, and extend the life of the building. Staff would develop guidelines in the same spirit. Commissioner Chadick requested that staff provide city regulations on the demolition process or any other discussion on demolition and also if there are any federal regulations in regards to it. Chair Goodstein-Murphree Issued directives for staff. 1: Staff should begin to articulate guidelines for exteriors, and guidelines for additions, so that they might be able to visit how to look at regulations for contributing versus non- contributing structures. 0 Historic District Commission November 15, 2007 Page 7 2: Look at current city regulations pertaining to demolition and get that to the commission. 3: Visit where we would stand to look at specific incentives regarding Ad Valorem Taxes. She referred to Argenta in North Little Rock where a small investment from the city can go a long way toward rebuilding and rehabilitating. MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:47 P.M. 7