In a lengthy agenda Tuesday, Nov. 5, the Stephenville City Council denied establishing the zoning classification of Historic Overlay District.
The process for the zoning classification change began Sept. 17 with the Development Services Committee and then on Oct. 16 moved to Planning and Zoning Commission where it failed 6 to 1 and it was recommended that the council deny or reject the proposed ordinance.
The city was considering establishing the Historic Overlay District to protect historic, architectural and cultural heritage of downtown Stephenville. The ordinance also states that it would protect and enhance attractiveness to visitors and help stimulate the economy of downtown.
“This was brought to city staff from some community members based on some previous studies that the city had acquired regarding our downtown,” Development Services Director Steve Killeen said. “They had some ideas of what they thought the city should be considering and they proposed this historic ordinance which is authorized by the Texas Local Government Code.”
City staff and the city attorney worked together to bring an ordinance to council. Generally, a historic overlay district is an area of zoning which includes restrictions, with the main goal of preserving historic characteristics.
During the process, a large area of downtown had been preliminarily selected as a potential historic district and 149 notices from the city were sent out to notify citizens the process was being worked on.
If the process had been approved out of council, a historic preservation commission with five members would have been established. The process would have recommended to council the district and resources, administer the program, approve or deny certificates of appropriateness (requiring at least three votes of the commission) or deem a building as demolition by neglect.
As part of the proposed ordinance that failed, any person making modifications (including demolitions) to historic buildings/ resources or the exterior of street facing facades of any building within the Historic Preservation District would have had to apply and obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness before work would be authorized. Ordinary maintenance and repair was not prohibited. Persons within the proposed district would also have the ability to opt out, though that request could be overturned through a 75% majority vote both on the Historic Preservation Commission and the city council.
The proposed ordinance would not be retroactive; it would only apply to new changes made on buildings.
“How many of our current buildings would be in violation of this? Not retroactively, but if they were sold,” Councilmember David Baskett asked. Killeen explained that each person would be issued a certificate of appropriateness and would have to work within the confines of that certificate.
The proposed guidelines would have also established a vacant building registration requirement. All vacant buildings that were longer than 90 days would have to register with the city and carry at least a $100,000 insurance policy.
Within a historic overlay district, guidelines such as paint colors and materials are typically given.
As part of the Nov. 5 council, a public hearing was held where several citizens spoke out against the formation of the Historic Overlay District.
Jann Caamano, owner of Caam’s, said there was no question everyone downtown wanted a busier, more beautiful downtown, but how that was accomplished was in question. “Currently, we are not in favor of the Historic Overlay as it is currently proposed,” he said. “We feel like it’s a little too vague and with the committee part of it, we don’t know what all authority they have and what all they will be able to deny or approve.”
Jim Coats spoke against the ordinance because he said he feels the ordinance is not complete.
“They’re asking you to approve an ordinance without telling you what the rules are,” he said. “No one wants their building to be worth less than what it’s worth, everyone wants it to appreciate. Businesses know what they need to look like and how to function like they need to function.”
Coats said he was lucky enough to have three historic buildings and one made to look historic but very few buildings fit into that category.
“Mine look historic, some of them don’t, but they have the right to be what they are,” he said.
Attorney Brady Pendleton and building owner spoke out against the ordinance.
“I think it’s kind of preposterous, and we spoke about it at P&Z, that this is being sold as kind of a separate package – meaning the ordinance and then what the proposed guidelines have been presented,” he said. “I think Jim is exactly right as he just mentioned that it’s probably incomplete.”
Pendleton said over the years it is always council’s job to make downtown better, to incentivize downtown and make business better.
“I’ll tell you, by God, if you think back what’s happened over the past 10, 12, 14 years, it has gotten better,” he said. “It hasn’t gotten better because of the government’s role. I appreciate the city coming in ... one of the last things I did on council was to fund the light poles. No doubt that has been a tremendous asset to our community, but there is so much more that the government can be doing down here in Stephenville vs. telling me how I can paint my building.”
Councilmember Gerald Cook offered comments about the proposed ordinance before the council vote.
“Key thing here, I think, is we’ve had quite a few people here that have said they don’t think this is the right way to do it, and I have to believe they are very honest and agree to that. I think there are probably other ways that we can encourage growth and development in the downtown area as well as creating an atmosphere where we are protecting the historic character,” Cook said. The ordinance was unanimously denied.
Cook said what they would try to do is take concerns that have been expressed at council, P&Z and through letters, and potentially take a different approach.