Loading...
Landmark Commission Minutes - 09/20/2001MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION September 20, 2001 on Time am CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date dti, ` 0 ( By __&C _Time 164 PRESENT: Jim Newsom, Vice - Chairperson ■ Members Loraine Blackwood ■ Ken Dowdy ■ Andi Holland ■ Doug James ■ Lin Purtle, Chairperson ■ Jan Schaaf ■ Arthur Bea Williams ■ Council Liaison Steve Seese, Planning Administrator ■ City Staff Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planner III ■ ABSENT: Dick Bundy ■ Members Susan Koch ■ GUESTS: Shirley Craft, Downtown VISIONS Coordinator Janis RuBane, Floral Heights Neighborhood Association Carolyn Looney, Floral Heights Neighborhood Association I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Newsom at 3:10 p.m. The Vice - Chairperson asked guests to introduce themselves. Ms. Jan Schaaf was sworn in as a new Landmark Commission member. Mr. Seese reported to the Commission that she was appointed by City Council September 18th to fill the seat vacated by Ms. Dorothy Rhone. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Vice - Chairperson asked if there were any changes to the August 30th meeting minutes, there being none, Ms Blackwood introduced a motion to accept the minutes as presented and Ms Holland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. III. UPDATE & REVISIONS TO THE TAX BENEFIT INCENTIVES FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES Ms Montgomery -Gagne and Mr. Seese highlighted the staff suggestions and proposed revisions to the historic landmark tax freeze section of the City Code of Ordinances. In addition, Ms Holland had requested information regarding the potential tax savings for a residential property owner. Ms Montgomery-Gagne indicated that she contacted the Wichita Appraisal District to obtain the current City tax level and a tentative value after investing either 50% of the assessed value or $100,000 (whichever is less), which are the current Ordinance requirements. The tax Landmark Commission September 20, 2001 Page 1 of 4 savings on a property initially valued at $35,600, then restored with 50% value increase were $81.00 per year. On a high -end historic residential property with an initial value of $290,000 with $100,000 of restoration invested, it would save approximately $550.00 in City taxes per year. Ms Holland and Ms Craft both commented that the tax savings could be significant to an individual property owner. Ms Purtle and Ms Craft recommended that residential and commercial renovations should be differentiated, ie number of years for tax freeze comparable to the level of reinvestment. Mr. Newsom agreed that a graduated timeframe should be incorporated into the Ordinance to address commercial vs. residential rehabilitation. Members agreed upon the following inclusion under Sec. 98 -127— Eligibility: "1. The cost of the rehabilitation project must exceed. (a) For commercial projects or improvements, 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the improvement for which the rehabilitation will occur for the year the rehabilitation is to begin or $100,000.00, whichever is less. The tax freeze shall not exceed five years following completion of the rehabilitation project. (b) For a single - family residence, 25 percent of the assessed valuation of the improvement for which the rehabilitation will occur for the year the rehabilitation is to begin or $50,000.00, whichever is less. The tax freeze shall not exceed eight years following completion of the rehabilitation project. " Ms Blackwood asked if under Sec. 98 -127, item (3) it would negatively impact the tax discount for people over age 65. Councilor Williams noted this was a separate issue and that the senior tax discount was part of the school district's taxation not the City. Mr. Newsom requested that for clarification under item (3), it should state: "The historic landmark must not have been granted a previous historic property tax freeze under this article." Ms Craft inquired if these taxing provisions would apply to a building not within the historic district or not designated as a landmark. Mr. Seese commented that with the Floral Heights neighborhood, individual buildings may be designated prior to application for the entire residential neighborhood. Ms Purtle added that prior to being eligible for the tax freeze the Landmark Commission and City Council would have to approve an application for historic status. Ms Looney asked about the process for designating a residential district. Ms Montgomery-Gagne indicated that the Commission members were still finalizing the requirements for submitting district applications. However, for any historic tax freeze the Landmark Commission must first approve the structure or area is historic, either as a landmark or district, then review the proposed renovation plans, alterations, etc. prior to even being eligible for applying to City Council for a tax freeze. Ms Craft had questions regarding Sec. 98 -127. Eligibility, proposed item (5) TIFF and the historic district criteria. Mr. Seese and Ms Montgomery-Gagne noted that depending on the original language in the Ordinance, that created the TIFF District, the historic tax freeze may be a mute point, as it negates the purpose of the District. Staff indicated that they would look into this issue with the legal department. IV. UPDATE & DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL PRESERVATION STANDARDS REGARDING SUBMISSION OF ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION Ms Montgomery-Gagne explained that three reference documents were included with the meeting packet to assist in developing the revised "Accompanying Documentation" requirements for landmark nominations. Materials were obtained from the National Park Service website and addressed preparation and submittal of photographs for National Register nominations. Ms Montgomery-Gagne highlighted key items within the documents and prepared a draft for review and discussion. Landmark Commission September 20, 2001 Page 2 of 4 Commission members reviewed the reference material and concluded to develop guidelines that echoed the National standards but were not as stringent as those necessary for a National Register application. Ms Holland commented that in order to encourage local preservation, encumbrances for submitting the application need to be at a minimum. Mr. Dowdy commented that based on the reference materials, photographs should not be permitted to have any adhesive labels, tape etc. as over time they will deteriorate. It was agreed that local landmark submittals shall meet the following with regard to photographs: B. Photographs - 3rd and 4th paragraphs revised: 1) Black and White photos are encouraged but color photos are acceptable; 2) Size — photos must be at least 3" x 5" but not exceed 8" x 10" 3) Quality — photos must be well composed, sharply focused, and clear 4) Unmounted photos only 5) Labels — labeling either in pencil or on a Continuation Sheet (see below) 6) Polaroids and photocopies are not acceptable. Photographs must be identified with the following_ 1) name of property; 2) street address; 3) description of view; and 4) photograph number. Ms Holland and Ms Purtle suggested to remove the requirement of submittal in 'a manila' envelope. Any labeled, envelope, minimum 8'/2" x 11 ", will be acceptable for photographs. Under the category of a `Building, structure or object,' Ms Craft commented about the wording for photos taken showing all property boundaries as seen from the public way. Mr. Newsom and Ms Schaaf commented that it refers to a photo taken from the street or alley looking toward the subject building, structure, etc. Ms Montgomery-Gagne asked members if they would prefer to change the wording from public way to street or alley. Members agreed that public way should be replaced with 'street.' Ms Montgomery-Gagne referred members to reference item "Documenting Historic Places on Film" noting that within the `Building, structure, or object' category the following should be added: "The main goal for photographing buildings, structures, sites and objects is to adequately document and record the resource." In addition, the reference material made note of addressing interior views in specific cases. Ms Purtle and Ms Holland recommended a change to the proposed wording, to state the following based on National standards, "Interior views of historic buildings, structures, sites, and /or objects are not necessary. However, they may be submitted if the significance of the property proposing to be nominated is entirely or partly based on them. Interior views can add valuable information to the nomination process." Commission members were in agreement with adding interior photo recommendations. Under the category of a `Site', such as the Kemp Center for the Arts, Commission members agreed that submittal of an aerial photo would be beneficial to clearly show the configuration of the area proposed for designation. Ms Schaaf noted that this category might also focus on something unusual with the site's land /topography (ie. ancient Indian mound) which may not be addressed by the other designation categories. It was generally agreed that the 'Site' category should remain as a designation category. Under the category of 'Districts,' Ms. Montgomery-Gagne informed members that the National standards state to "...submit as many photographs as needed to depict the current condition and significant aspects of the property. Include representative views of both contributing and noncontributing resources..." Mr. Newsom commented on the Morningside (National Register Residential Neighborhood) neighborhood noting that since the time the area was designated on the National Register many of the 'noncontributing' structures /buildings would now be 50 years old and would qualify as 'contributing.' He added that in the case of Morningside, it would be beneficial to now have the old photos of all noncontributing structures. Mr. Dowdy and other members were in agreement that representative photos /views should be required in historic Landmark Commission September 20, 2001 Page 3 of 4 district nominations for contributing and noncontributing resources. In addition, it was agreed the last paragraph under this category should be revised to state: "All Historic District photographs should be numbered or keyed to correspond with a District Sketch Map and the buildings listed in the inventory of significant buildings required in Section 6 — Physical Description of the application. " Under item C —Maps, Ms Purtle requested clarification for `Sketch Maps,'that access to plat books should be noted. Ms Schaaf and Mr. James noted that copies of plats could be obtained at the County Records office or at a Title Company or at most real estate offices. Members agreed that, the section should state: "Plat books (plat maps available at either Wichita County Records Office or at a title company office)..." V. UPDATE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REVISION AT CITY COUNCIL Ms Montgomery-Gagne reported to Commission members that the Depot Square Historic District expansion to include all properties used for the Railroad Museum and the creation of a local historic preservation officer were approved by City Council at their September 18th meeting. The proposed Historic District expansion was advertised in the paper but the planning division received no comments or questions. She also provided a revised copy of the Historic Preservation Ordinance that was recently codified along with the entire City Code. The format has been revised and Ms Montgomery-Gagne requested that members become familiar with the new version in case they receive questions and keep it as a reference document. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: 1) Heritage Society's Historic Downtown Buildings Tour— Oct. 13, 2001 Mr. Newsom reminded members about the Heritage Society's upcoming event — Downtown Buildings Tour - that will include the Littlest Skyscraper Building, Bundy, Young, Sims and Potter Building, Federal Courthouse, Wichita County Courthouse, Holt Hotel, Hamilton Building, Wichita Theatre and the Kemp Center for the Arts. The tickets are $15.00 that includes a guided tour of the buildings and lunch afterwards to the Kemp Center. 2) Floral Heights Neighborhood Association — Interest in Designation Ms Carolyn Looney and Janis RuBane reported that western Floral Heights Neighborhood Association is active and looking at the potential for developing an application for historic designation. Ms Looney stated that the proposed area for consideration would encompass from 10th Street south to Avenue H and from Buchanan west to Garfield. She noted that there is already strong neighborhood support and involvement with the appointment of a preservation officer. The association has developed a membership fee schedule, produces a monthly newsletter to inform residents of upcoming activities and is anxious to begin the process of designating a historic residential neighborhood. Ms Looney invited Landmark Commission members and planning staff to their next neighborhood meeting on October 4th when Mr. Dave Clark would be discussing community development issues. VII. ADJOURN The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, October 18th at 3:00 p.m. The Landmark Commission was adjourned at 3:44 p.m. Lin Purtle, Chairperson Date Landmark Commission September 20, 2001 Page 4 of 4