Landmark Commission Minutes - 07/27/2001MINUTES
LANDMARK COMMISSION
July 27, 2001
RECEIVED IN I
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date
Ti
By
mc
PRESENT:
Lin Purtle, Chairperson ■ Members
Loraine Blackwood ■
Ken Dowdy ■
Andi Holland ■
Jim Newsom ■
Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III ■ City staff
/U17- 14:01i'11F
Dick Bundy ■ Members
Doug James ■
Susan Koch ■
Dorothy Rhone ■
Arthur Bea Williams ■ Council Liaison
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Purtle at 3:22 p.m. The Chairperson
reported back to the Commission regarding the Berry Brown House discussion at the July
19th meeting. The Chairperson informed the Commission members that safety concerns
with the Berry Brown Landmark and the vicinity of the Faith Mission to the adjacent
neighborhood were outlined to the Kemp Center Board of Directors for further review.
Mr. Newsom informed the members that Faith Mission is proposing to expand their
operations and extend closer to 13th Street, which may aggravate the current situation.
Mr. Newsom stated that he was under the impression that the Mission expansion would
have to be reviewed by the City's Planning & Zoning Board (ie. site plan approval,
notification to property owners within 200 ft, etc.) prior to final approval, which may provide
opportunities for the neighbors and City to address security issues.
IV. REPORT FROM THE LANDMARK SUBCOMMITTEE
Ms. Montgomery-Gagne introduced the revised Instructional Booklet for completing
Landmark Nomination Forms for discussion and additional recommendations from the
Commission.
Section 1 - Introduction
Ms. Holland indicated that she had received several inquiries about the tax benefit and
incentives for rehabilitating historic structures. She added that the original writers of the
Design Review Guidelines wanted to provide a tax benefit opportunity and incentive to
Landmark Commission July 27, 2001 Page 1 of 4
those individuals who invested funds to restore and /or renovate historic structures. She
added that they would be upset if it the provision were completely eliminated from the City
ordinance. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne referred Commission members to page 3, noting that
the tax benefit incentive portion required further clarification. Currently a tax benefit credit
cannot be given to a renovated historic structure situated within the TIF district as it
conflicts with the purpose of reinvesting the added tax value. The downtown Historic
Depot Square is entirely situated within the City's TIF District.
The Landmark Commission members recommended that additional information regarding
the tax benefit incentive be included on page 3 of the instructional booklet. Ms. Holland
noted that people need to know that: a) the proposed structure must already be
designated as a landmark, or b) is within a historic district, and c) that the renovation plans
for the historic structure must be reviewed by the Landmark Commission prior to any
renovations to even be eligible to apply for tax benefits. The Commission specifically
noted that the insertion would state, "the tax benefit incentive only applies to those
designated historic structures/buildings that are outside the City's Tax Increment Financing
District. "
Members requested that the tax benefit item be discussed in depth at the August
Landmark Commission meeting.
Commission members noted increasing concerns that the general public are unaware of
the process to designate historic structures and that design review is required prior to any
exterior alterations. Mr. Dowdy and Mr. Newsom indicated that upon applying for a
building permit people should be informed about the potential for a tax benefit for
designated historic structures. Members recommended that staff randomly check various
landmark deeds to determine if the process followed through and the deeds were updated
to note "landmark status." Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that she would select a
variety of landmarks and check whether they're deed status noted "landmark."
Ms. Holland asked how residents within a historic neighborhood would have knowledge of
the potential tax benefit? Mr. Newsom recommended that the neighborhood association
could distribute both landmark designation and tax benefit information at an annual
neighborhood meeting. Landmark Commission members recommended that staff contact
the three title companies to discuss the potential for including a one -page overview
regarding landmarks, design review and tax benefits for all properties designated historic
as part of the proof copy at closing. Therefore, at the time of land transfer new property
owners would be informed of the 'historic' status.
Ms. Koch was unable to attend but faxed comments, noting that:
a) on page 3 the following should be amended to read: "The Landmark Commission
normally meets on the third Thursday of each month at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council
Conference Room, if there is business."
b) on page 4 — Criteria for Evaluation - each subcategory have item (a), (b) removed.
Ms. Holland and Mr. Newsom recommended that in order to streamline the application
process and provide a clear instructional booklet that both individual and district landmark
application procedures be addressed in the same booklet. However, two nomination
Landmark Commission July 27, 2001 Page 2 of 4
forms would be available: Form A - individual landmark and Form B - designation of a
historic district.
Ms. Montgomery-Gagne indicated that Ms. Dawn Murer had reviewed the instructional
booklet as she is in the process of preparing a district nomination packet for the Southland
Addition. Ms. Murer recommended that a section be included to specifically address the
designation of historic neighborhoods:
"For Historic Districts: The local neighborhood association must approve a nomination
for historic neighborhood status. A notice to residents in the proposed historic district "Of
intent to submit an application" must be made prior to submittal to the City Landmarks
Commission and City Council. Notice of intent should be made to residents through a
regular neighborhood association meeting where the neighborhood association publicizes
intent, and holds meetings with residents for question and answer sessions, education
programs, etc. It is recommended that one (1) year should be devoted to this process
prior to submittal for review and approval by the City of Wichita Falls."
Commission members recommended that portions of the instructional booklet, which
pertain specifically to the designation of historic districts, should be state the following:
"For Historic Districts"
Section 3 - Procedures
Change recommended on page 9 - "For Historic Districts: enter the names and mailing
addresses of all Property owners of record and attach Appraisal District records for each
property. Use Form B if completing a District Application."
Under Classification, page 10, members recommended to delete the section regarding
whether the subject structure or property was within an historic district. The initial section
under Classification would provide for a "District" category. The corresponding description
should be revised to read, "Mark one or more blanks, which apply to the nominated
historic property.... "
Members recommend rewording Section A — Building, Structure, Object on page 12 to
state "....Reference to an appropriate guide book on American architectural styles (ie.
Marcus Whiffen's American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles, Virginia & Lee
MCAlester's A Field Guide to American Architecture ", etc.) may be consulted when
questions of terminology arise...."
Mr. Dowdy noted a clarification on page 15 and 16 — Section 9, the category
"Builder /Architect" should be revised to state "Architect /Builder."
V. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION - REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPANYING
DOCUMENTATION FOR ALL LANDMARK NOMINATIONS
Ms. Montgomery-Gagne suggested that this agenda item be deferred to the August 30th
meeting to allow adequate comment and discussion with the entire Landmark
Commission. All Commission members present agreed with the suggestion.
Landmark Commission July 27, 2001 Page 3 of 4
Mr. Dowdy and Mr. Newsom recommended that the Landmark Nomination Application be
notarized by the City Clerk prior to review by the Landmark Commission. They suggested
that on the final page of the application under "For Landmark Commission Use Only"
include a section for notarization to provide a level of accuracy in completing the
paperwork.
X. ADJOURN
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 30th at 3:00 p.m. in order to discuss
the remainder of the agenda items. The Landmark Commission was adjourned at 5:03
p.m.
Lin Purtle, Chairperson
Date
Landmark Commission July 27, 2001 Page 4 of 4