Historic District proposal approved
Written by Josh Beavers
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
The city council took steps last night to assist residents in their efforts to protect the historic integrity of the Minden Historic District.
The council unanimously approved an ordinance that sets aesthetic standards on the district and at the same time creates a commission to make decisions similar to those faced by homeowner associations found in subdivisions such as Ridgewood and Woodhaven.
The ordinance is a lengthy document that addresses a great number of areas. Everything from landscaping to outbuildings to garages and alterations are covered in the proposal. It will go into effect in 30 days.
“I am so excited that after 16 years of waiting the city of Minden has made the final steps to recognize and protect the Historic Residential District,” said Schelley Brown, chair of the Minden Residential Historic Preservation Study Committee. “It means that for many years to come people will be able to step back in time while looking at a beautiful, well maintained, harmonious neighborhood when they drive through here.
"But it's not over," she added.
What Brown means is that the council's action does not eliminate the possibility of a Walgreens locating in the district.
Time and again last night, Minden citizens came forward from an overflow crowd to speak to the council during a passionate yet civil public hearing. And almost every time during the two-hour session, the subject of Walgreens coming to the corner of Elm Street and Homer Road was mentioned.
Minden Mayor Bill Robertson quickly interrupted each person who mentioned commercial development.
"The zoning issue and this ordinance are two separate things," the mayor repeated.
Zoning will come up at the December meeting of the council when homeowners Craig and Mona Farley will come before the community governing board and ask that their property, 101 Homer Road, be rezoned to make way for the drugstore chain.
"We feel like our zoning issue caused this ordinance," Mona Farley said after the meeting. "We feel this ordinance is a knee jerk reaction to Walgreens."
The Farleys, as well as two other couples who reside in the district, asked that their properties be excluded from last night's proposal.
Dr. Timothy Talbert was one of those who filed for an exemption.
"I don't like the extra step of someone reviewing and deciding what is appropriate to do with my home. The home I pay for," the Minden physician told the council.
Talbert, a Natchitoches native, voiced concern over modeling a residential proposal after that city. He said he has friends and family who have to live in the "confines" of the Natchitoches historic district and their experiences are not pleasant.
"I have friends on both sides of this," he said. "I just think people have rushed ahead trying to stop something without putting the appropriate thought into it. I am cautious about someone walking onto my property and telling me what is best."
Bill Green, a historic district resident and a crafter of the proposal, said the new process is nothing more than an advisory committee to lend a hand to the homeowners.
"It's not people who will walk around with a club and whack you on the head," he said.
Brown said she feels the majority of the district can live with the proposal as all existing homes are grandfathered in. That was affirmed by City Inspector Brent Cooley, who also said the proposal only applies to the exterior of homes, not the interior. The ordinance also places no restrictions on selling property.
So what comes next now that the council has approved the ordinance?
On Nov. 15, the Farleys and other property owners will go before the Minden Regional Planning Commission to request a zoning variance. The request asks that the properties be changed from R-2 (Single Family Residential) to B-4 (Highway Commercial).
Following that meeting, the property owners will appear before the city council during the board's December meeting to learn the fate of the Walgreens push.
Both sides will be ready.
"So many historic areas disappear in the name of progress," said Jackie Lewis, a proponent of the new ordinance. "What do you say this time we give progress the boot and stand up for history?""We have a request in place and are going to take the appropriate steps," countered Farley attorney Whitney Pesnell. "We'll just see what happens."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Shreveport Times Coverage
Historic district gets nod from Minden City CouncilOctober 30, 2007
By Vickie WelbornVwelborn@gannett.com
MINDEN — Support for a recognized historic residential district was mixed with opposition Monday night but it did not deter the unanimous approval by the Minden City Council meeting during a special session.The vote means the city's district of approximately 71 buildings must now adhere to specific guidelines when it comes time for construction, demolition or remodeling projects, and even details such as paint colors and landscaping schemes. And the same law creates a mayor-appointed five-member commission that will govern the district.
Minden's historic district has been listed with the National Register of Historic Places since 1992, but it lacked the necessary teeth to enforce the suggested restrictions or the governing authority to carry them out.More than 100 Minden residents filled the chamber meeting room. While the issue has been an emotional one, feelings were kept in check as Mayor Bill Robertson directed all speakers to limit their comments to the issue at hand, and not partner it with a pending rezoning request from property owners Mona and Craig Farley. That separate but somewhat linked issue will be up for discussion before the Minden Regional Planning Commission on Nov. 15.Unlike past meetings where the Farley's have been the only ones speaking against the historic district ordinance, several of their neighbors joined them Monday night in opposing the restrictions, but not the district itself.Attorney Whitney Pesnell, who represented the Farleys, noted that his clients and two other property owners asked to be exempted from the district.Tim Talbert, a Broadway Street resident originally from Natchitoches, was one who joined the Farleys in seeking exclusion. Talbert said the homeowner should be able to make his own decisions on his property. He doesn't feel he should have to seek approval to make changes to his home."I don't like the extra step to ask somebody else on what to do with my home," Talbert said.Gloria Sullivan, a Minden native who had owned her home for seven years, agreed. "We really don't need a lot of guidelines to take care of our home or to paint our home or who to sell it to."Interior changes to homes in the residential district and sales of the property are not affected by the ordinance, said building inspector Brent Cooley to a question raised by Councilman Benny Gray.Councilman Rodney Seamster questioned legalities of the ordinance, including a provision that allows the district commission to file suit against property owners for violation of the restrictions.Councilwoman Magaline Quarles said the historic district commission is not meant to be a dictatorship but a manner in which to "maintain what you have or to be upgraded."What's in existence today would be grandfathered in. No one will go out forcing anyone to make changes, Cooley said.Schelley Brown, who chaired a committee tasked with studying the pros and cons of the district, said approximately 98 percent living within its boundaries were supportive. A main concern of the residents of the stately homes was commercial encroachment, which many fear was steadily endangering the integrity of the historical structures.Commercial structures are prohibited from the district; however, new businesses such as bed and breakfast establishments or a tea room are acceptable."When you buy a home in a residential district you expect it to stay residential," Brown said.Brown ventured into concerns about plans for a Walgreens at the corner of Homer Road and Elm Street, which is in the district, but Robertson directed Brown and others to limit comments to the historic district ordinance, and not a pending rezoning request from Walgreens."It's hard to separate the two," Brown said.Jackie Lewis lives in a nearly 100-year-old home and believes the historic district ordinance should be approved without exemption. She pointed out other important sites that have been torn down in the name of progress.She encouraged giving "progress the boot" and standing up for history.Rose Byles values the historic district but does not believe it's the city's only asset.Bill Green said the historic district regulations are no different from subdivision homeowners association. He likens the district commission as an advisory board that would work with homeowners on any problems they would have.Debbie Gibson sought a compromise. She cautioned against a "knee jerk" reaction, and said the city will continue to grow if everyone's concerns are considered, whether their roots in Minden are shallow or deep.Said historic district property owner Dawn Pearson: "I don't approve of someone telling me what I can or can't do. Unless you are going to foot the bill you have no say."The Farleys have said previously they are entertaining the Walgreens proposal because of a growing concern about the condition of their 104-year-old home, which is in dire need of costly repairs. Walgreens has agreed to cover cost of moving the Farley's house, while at the same time creating a memorial park that would commemorate a black Civil War regiment with ties to the land. The park, proposed to be about 100-by-300 feet, would sit at the corner of Homer Road and Elm Street, while the Walgreens and an unnamed coffee house, both built in a southern colonial style, would sit further back on the lot.The new law goes into effect in 30 days.©The TimesOctober 30, 2007
By Vickie WelbornVwelborn@gannett.com
MINDEN — Support for a recognized historic residential district was mixed with opposition Monday night but it did not deter the unanimous approval by the Minden City Council meeting during a special session.The vote means the city's district of approximately 71 buildings must now adhere to specific guidelines when it comes time for construction, demolition or remodeling projects, and even details such as paint colors and landscaping schemes. And the same law creates a mayor-appointed five-member commission that will govern the district.
Minden's historic district has been listed with the National Register of Historic Places since 1992, but it lacked the necessary teeth to enforce the suggested restrictions or the governing authority to carry them out.More than 100 Minden residents filled the chamber meeting room. While the issue has been an emotional one, feelings were kept in check as Mayor Bill Robertson directed all speakers to limit their comments to the issue at hand, and not partner it with a pending rezoning request from property owners Mona and Craig Farley. That separate but somewhat linked issue will be up for discussion before the Minden Regional Planning Commission on Nov. 15.Unlike past meetings where the Farley's have been the only ones speaking against the historic district ordinance, several of their neighbors joined them Monday night in opposing the restrictions, but not the district itself.Attorney Whitney Pesnell, who represented the Farleys, noted that his clients and two other property owners asked to be exempted from the district.Tim Talbert, a Broadway Street resident originally from Natchitoches, was one who joined the Farleys in seeking exclusion. Talbert said the homeowner should be able to make his own decisions on his property. He doesn't feel he should have to seek approval to make changes to his home."I don't like the extra step to ask somebody else on what to do with my home," Talbert said.Gloria Sullivan, a Minden native who had owned her home for seven years, agreed. "We really don't need a lot of guidelines to take care of our home or to paint our home or who to sell it to."Interior changes to homes in the residential district and sales of the property are not affected by the ordinance, said building inspector Brent Cooley to a question raised by Councilman Benny Gray.Councilman Rodney Seamster questioned legalities of the ordinance, including a provision that allows the district commission to file suit against property owners for violation of the restrictions.Councilwoman Magaline Quarles said the historic district commission is not meant to be a dictatorship but a manner in which to "maintain what you have or to be upgraded."What's in existence today would be grandfathered in. No one will go out forcing anyone to make changes, Cooley said.Schelley Brown, who chaired a committee tasked with studying the pros and cons of the district, said approximately 98 percent living within its boundaries were supportive. A main concern of the residents of the stately homes was commercial encroachment, which many fear was steadily endangering the integrity of the historical structures.Commercial structures are prohibited from the district; however, new businesses such as bed and breakfast establishments or a tea room are acceptable."When you buy a home in a residential district you expect it to stay residential," Brown said.Brown ventured into concerns about plans for a Walgreens at the corner of Homer Road and Elm Street, which is in the district, but Robertson directed Brown and others to limit comments to the historic district ordinance, and not a pending rezoning request from Walgreens."It's hard to separate the two," Brown said.Jackie Lewis lives in a nearly 100-year-old home and believes the historic district ordinance should be approved without exemption. She pointed out other important sites that have been torn down in the name of progress.She encouraged giving "progress the boot" and standing up for history.Rose Byles values the historic district but does not believe it's the city's only asset.Bill Green said the historic district regulations are no different from subdivision homeowners association. He likens the district commission as an advisory board that would work with homeowners on any problems they would have.Debbie Gibson sought a compromise. She cautioned against a "knee jerk" reaction, and said the city will continue to grow if everyone's concerns are considered, whether their roots in Minden are shallow or deep.Said historic district property owner Dawn Pearson: "I don't approve of someone telling me what I can or can't do. Unless you are going to foot the bill you have no say."The Farleys have said previously they are entertaining the Walgreens proposal because of a growing concern about the condition of their 104-year-old home, which is in dire need of costly repairs. Walgreens has agreed to cover cost of moving the Farley's house, while at the same time creating a memorial park that would commemorate a black Civil War regiment with ties to the land. The park, proposed to be about 100-by-300 feet, would sit at the corner of Homer Road and Elm Street, while the Walgreens and an unnamed coffee house, both built in a southern colonial style, would sit further back on the lot.The new law goes into effect in 30 days.©The TimesOctober 30, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
BIG Meeting
THE big meeting will be on Monday night, October the 29th at 7pm, and will be held in City Courtroom A. We'll see you guys there!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Meetings
The most important meeting that you will need to attend is going to be held at the Civic Center, City Courtroom A, on Monday night at 7:00 pm. This meeting is an open forum for the public to learn more about the proposed Historic Residential District City Ordinances and possible Historic Residential District Commission. The City Council will vote IMMEDIATELY when the meeting has concluded, as they will be in a special session. Call Schelley at 423-0192, Bill Green at 377-5004 or Jackie at 382-8979 for more information.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
