Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Historic District Commission MinutesDraft to Clerk: 03/27/01 Approved: 05/03/01 To Clerk: 05/24/01 To SHPO: 05/24/01 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, March 8, 2001, 5:30 p.m. Planning and Neighborhood Development 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Conference Room C-3 Lansing, Michigan CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. Kolhoff, called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Todd Branstner, Amy Collett, Mike Kolhoff, Antonia Miernik, and Kevin Webb B. Excused Absences: Lyle Kissee C. Introductions: Staff: Jim Ruff, Planning Manager, Bill Rieske, Principal Planner, and Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner Guests: Sharon Kellogg, 421 W. Ionia St., Linda Carpenter, 801 N. Walnut St. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cantlon requested that a communication from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding an environmental review be added to the agenda under 2 (B). Kolhoff moved, seconded by Miernik, a motion to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - A. Michigan Historic Preservation Conference (MHPN), April 26-28, 2001 Ms Cantlon noted the commissioners received copies of the annual MHPN conference schedule and April 12, 2001 is the deadline for registration. Mr. Kolhoff asked if the City would be covering the registration fees for commission members. Ms. Cantlon said commissioners should submit their request so that Mr. Ruff can make a determination of number of members interested in attending and availability of funds. B. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Environmental Review: SHPO - ER-00-54 Ms. Cantlon distributed a copy of a letter from the SHPO, addressed to Dan Abeyta, FCC Wireless Telecomm Bureau regarding a 106 review on a Phase 1, Site Review for the property at 1421 Turner Street. The SHPO found that the proposed HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING. March 8. 2001 PaL-e 2 undertaking will have an adverse effect on the Turner -Dodge House as well as the North Lansing Commercial Historic District, both of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Ruff said it is with regard to a180' tall Communication Tower. He also indicated this a private property, zoned "H" Light Industrial, and located a block north of the new condominiums on Turner Street. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Linda Carpenter, 801 N. Walnut St. She is interested in receiving guidance from the HDC regarding historic paint colors for her house. Mr. Kolhoff said the HDC could assist her with recommendations for appropriate colors when she has collected paint samples or decided upon a range of color preferences. A discussion ensued regarding: local stores which carried historic paint colors (O'Leary, Sherwin Williams, Benjamin Moore - Roberts); the period and style (1880 Victorian) of the house; restoring porches, zoning set back issues, and waivers for balustrade heights for modern codes (42" height requirement). Mr. Branstner noted the Design Review Committee could review and make recommendations to the property owner regarding paint colors also. 5. PRESENTATIONS - none 6. BUSINESS SECTION A. Staff Comments Darius B. Moon House Historic District Study, 216 Huron Street 1. Final Report Ms. Cantlon indicated the request to establish the single resource local historic district at 216 Huron Street was moving forward in Council Committee. Mr. Ruff said Council will hold the public hearing March 19, 2001. 2. Capitol Historic District Study 1. Final Report Ms. Cantlon distributed a copy of the Capitol Historic District Study Committee's (CHDSC) Executive Summary and recapped both the Summary and the Final Report. She noted the map of the proposed, noncontiguous Capitol Historic District, includes 5 areas and an expanded Cherry Hill District. It differs from the Preliminary Report in that the CHDSC eliminated peripheral noncontributing properties, vacant lots and the River Street Park in the Cherry Hill Expansion area for the Final Report. The Executive Summary briefly described the study area, the criteria for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and the Committee's findings. Cantlon noted that the "committee recognized but HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING. March 8.2001 Paae 3 neither restudied nor considered or proposed any action concerning the two small [existing] historic districts previous enacted by city ordinance". Regardless of the Council's actions pertaining to the recommendations in the CHDSC Final Report, the existing districts would be retained. The findings of the CHDSC were: • the proposed, noncontiguous Capitol Historic District consists of five (5) areas, Capitol Historic District- North, Capitol Historic District -West, Capitol Historic District -Central, Capitol Historic District -South, Capitol Historic District -Southeast , and a Cherry Hill Historic District Expansion area; 546 resources exist with the proposed district, of which 82.3% are contributing resources a considerable number of resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or appear to be eligible for listing - significant for their design/construction, or their association with significant persons or events of local, state or national significance and/or a combination of these criterion; and although archeological sites were not specifically identified, there should always be consideration given to the fact that Lansing has had very few excavations and archeology is a significant aspect of cultural resource management. Mr. Ruff said the CHDSC Final Report and recommendations were forwarded to Council with one overall ordinance that would cover all six areas. In addition, there will be six (6) separate ordinances that will be transmitted also, one for each area. He added, "if there is hesitation by Council to approve the overall area, they can approve one or two or three now or a combination. The legal descriptions do not include the existing two districts". The existing districts would retain their current names and could be contiguous with a larger district. He further clarified there would be a Cherry Hill Historic District and a Cherry Hill Expanded District. Ms. Miernik said, "on page two of the [executive summary] report, it indicates that the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the Genesee Neighborhood Association nominated the proposed [Capitol] Historic District, which really is not correct. The Genesee Neighborhood Association did support the application of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and it was not a joint application, so we would probably want to clarify that. The letter of support from the Genesee Neighborhood [Association] said the Genesee Neighborhood Association supports the Historic District application of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and [the letter] is dated the 71' of August of 97". Ms. Miernik said this should be as accurate as possible. Ms. Collett moved, Mr. Kolhoff seconded a motion to support the Capitol Historic District Final Report, and its findings and recommendations as delineated in the Executive Summary, with the changes on page 2 recommended by Ms. Miernik. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5- 0). HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, March 8, 2001 Paize 4 B. Proposed to Modify Historic District Ordinance 1. Draft #4, Dated 2/5/01 Mr. Ruff noted the recent modifications distributed to the HDC, regarding the changes to the Historic Districts Ordinance proposed by some members of the Council, did not include all the sections of the ordinance. This was confusing to the Planning Board at the time they received copies for comment and may have confused the HDC also. A discussion ensued related to the proposed changes: ► the Council's desire to shorten the time frame for preliminary reports (180 days to conduct the study, with a 60 day possible extension period) is problematic depending on number of properties and research materials available; ► language added by Council regarding criteria for financial hardship application; ► concern with setting a five (5) year review of historic districts to monitor their effectiveness as an insufficient period of time; ► basic criteria: potential elimination of a historic district if it did not stabilize and improve property value, did not preserve the neighborhood, and did not strengthen the local economy or foster civic pride; ► historic districts are intended to be a long term tool for communities, not a five year short term fix for any district; ► whether or not this basic criteria would be subjectively supportable; ► several decades of neglect have effected some properties that may not be reversed in a five year period; ► use of the tax credit as a monitoring tool to take a more aggressive role in some of the statistics and their impact on a historic district; ► effect the changes will have on Lansing's ability to retain its certified local government status; and ► effect this proposal may have on preservation grants, the city's MOA regarding CDGB grants, and potential loss of State tax credits by property owners if districts are eliminated; ► concern with the section, "membership in the study committee to determine should include 33% of the local property owners" if property owners unwilling to serve; Ms. Cantlon said a sunset clause which provides for the potential elimination of historic districts does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 14 of PA 169-1970 and violates the certified local government agreement signed by the city [in 1997]. Discussion continued: ► potential issue of noncompliance with the statute if a sunset clause or a [evaluation] review is included in the ordinance, which could eliminate districts; ► the financial hardship criteria appears under 1220.07, Removal or Demolition of District Resources however the financial hardship paragraphs reference not only removal or demolition, but also alterations, construction and so on - recommend taking it out of the section on HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING. March 8.2001 Pase 5 removal or demolition and adding it to the Rules and Procedures related to "Notice to Proceed"; ► Secretary of Interior's Standard consider economical and technical feasibility of proposed rehabilitation "work'; ► the size of the district under review; ► the potential number of permits that might be pulled within a five year period that would effect visible and economic impact in a district, verses ordinary maintenance work; and ► utilization of the Mathieu -Gast Act by property owners desiring to cap their assessments during renovation work approved under the Act; and ► under the new State law, a property's assessed valuation may not be increased more than 3 % times inflation or 5%, whichever is lower, except in the year of sale. Collett moved, Miernik seconded a motion to refer this item to the Executive Committee for their recommendations in order that an appropriate letter of response could be drafted for transmittal to Council, regarding the proposed modifications to the ordinance. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Webb, Vice President of the Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC) asked if there would be a conflict of interest regarding his involvement with the LNC paint blitz program. He will represent the LNC in discussions with the Council and Development Office regarding the withdrawal of CDGB funds for this program due to the lead base paint issue. It was determined there was no conflict. The Commission indicated its availability to consult on historic paint colors. C. HDC Annual Report A summary of the HDC Annual Report activities was distributed by Ms. Cantlon at the February meeting. Mr. Ruff said he will be working with the HDC to develop a Work Program, with Goals and Objectives for the coming year and review this activities in an Annual Report to be submitted in December. Mr. Ruff distributed an evaluation form to the HDC and requested that members evaluate the support they receive from the Planning Office. D. HDC Work Program Mr. Ruff requested that Commissioners identify goals and objectives they fell should be included in the HDC Work Program for the next few years. He also indicated he wants to encourage and promote historic preservation in Lansing: ► by developing an assistance program for property owners within districts; ► setting up some promotional things, some regular mailings, some of those brochures ► communication with district property owners regarding incentives, Standards, educational seminars, and when permits are required; ► development of educational materials (walking tour brochures, etc.); ► conduct case studies in local districts to promote the benefits of a HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, March 8, 2001 Paae 6 historic district; ► by soliciting support from local companies to get discounts to encourage property owners in districts to do "work" on their resources; ► making preservation practical for everyone, not viewed as an elitist activity; ► publish educational materials such as a review process for various types of "work" to structures in districts; ► including preservation information on the city's web site; and ► build relationships with the Administration. E. HDC Membership 1. Resignation Letter, Commissioner Fred McLaughlin A copy of a letter of resignation from architect, Fred McLaughlin was received by the Planning Office. The Commission has three vacancies. F. Ethics Training (Collett, Kissee) Ms. Collett still needs to receive the Ethics Training. G. Approval of Minutes: January 4, 2001 Ms. Cantlon reminded Commissioners the January meeting was recessed to accommodate the public hearings for the Darius B. Moon House Historic District and the Capitol Historic District section, then resumed immediately after hearings. Collett moved, Branstner seconded a motion to approve the minutes of January 4, 2001. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). F. Committee Reports: Executive Committee i. Act-24-00 Referral, 125 Cottage Court, river Point Neighborhood Mr. Kolhoff said the Executive Committee met on February 1, 2001 to review a request by the City of Lansing's Parks and Recreation Department to acquire the property at 125 Cottage Ct. Mr. Kolhoff indicated the property is adjacent to the Grand River and includes a 2-story vernacular structure, built ca. 1908. Ms. Cantlon added the property is not located in the flood plain, and is a "contributing" resource in the potential River Point Neighborhood Historic District. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan amendment for the River Point Neighborhood recommended preservation of the remaining structures in this area. The Executive Committee recommended (2-0) to support the request by the Parks and Recreation Department to acquire the property with consideration that: ► the building be preserved in place for continued or adaptive use; or HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING. March 8, 2001 Paize 7 ► mothballed until an appropriate use be determined; or ► moved to a nearby location within the neighborhood; and ► that it not be demolished. ii 408 W. Maple Street, Recommendation Re: Proposed Demolition The Executive Committee also met on February 20, 2001 to review the request by Dawn Flynn, representing the Franklin Street Housing Corporation, regarding the proposed demolition of 408 W. Maple Street. That is a ca. 1864, 2-story Greek Revival style structure located east of the former School for the Blind. It is an Greek Revival and it is one of the few surviving examples of Greek Revival in Lansing. Ms. Flynn indicated that significant damage occurred to the house through bad remodeling and decisions made by previous owners, resulting in a crumbling foundation in the rear addition. It is estimated that $90,000 will be required to rehabilitate the house to a livable condition. The estimated cost of razing the house and replacing it with a modular home, which is proposed, was approximately $90,000. The Committee recommended (2-0) that the house be rehabilitated. Miernik moved, Collett seconded a motion to support the recommendations of the Executive Committee regarding the two Agency Referrals and to forward the recommendations to the appropriate agencies and individuals. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5- 0). 2. Design Review Committee - None 3. Education Committee i. Video Taping - Historic Districts, Information Ms. Collett indicated the Education Committee is developing an outline for a video production that will be used to provide information regarding Historic Districts. The discussion included: ► use of the city's access channel and City Council Chambers for 15-20 minute segments about historic preservation; ► work with Karen Schmidt so that the segments could be filmed and repeated throughout the month on the city channel; ► using a "user-friendly" Oprah style question and answer format or round table discussion on pros and cons of historic districts; ► the segments should be scripted to allow for the incorporation of graphic images, maps, etc. by Ms. Schmidt ► potential use of LCC studio space and access channel; ► potential use of MSU Communications Arts students to do an independent study project for on site camera work; ► a future project may include a segment such as Ken Burns meets Bob Villa with a tour old Lansing homes, neighborhoods; ► "This Old Rental", or a review of a historic rehabilitation project which includes the Development Office and one of the non profits; HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, March 8.2001 Paize 8 ► home owner education, maintenance focus; ► possible CDBG dollars available to plan and implement an educational video in conjunction with the Development Office; ► a product segment (costs differential on porch restoration and rehabilitation) ► use of the City's web site and connections to other Internet sites. ii Historic Preservation Week - Poster Contest, Exhibit The Education Committee met to review the procedures and guidelines for participation in a poster contest for elementary and middle school grades, in celebration of Preservation Week, May 13 - 19, 2001. This year's theme is Restore, Renew, Rediscover Your Historic Neighborhood Schools. Preservation Week activities, including the poster contest are sponsored cooperatively with Impression 5 Science Center. Digital cameras, provided by Impression 5, will be awarded to three schools. I. Pending Items: Future Action Required 1. Requests for Establishment of River Point Neighborhood Historic District. Ms. Cantlon indicated the Council has not established the River Point Neighborhood Historic District by resolution, and therefore a study committee has not been appointed. 2. Frances Willard Foundation Preservation and Relocation i. Letters of Support Ms. Miernik indicated conservationist, Ron Koenig, continues to work on the preservation plan for the fountain. She has talked to the National Women of Christian Temperance and they will write letters of support. They are considering possible funding opportunities also ii. Donation Account Ms. Cantlon confirmed that an account can be established in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department to accept donations on behave of the fountain restoration. Ms. Collett reported the fountain will be relocated to the gardens at Turner -Dodge House in time for a new sculpture installation in the Turner mini -park, June 2001. She is working with Merdock Jemerson on the relocation. It was recommended that the relocation of the fountain be video-taped. 7. NEW BUSINESS - None HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA. January 4.2001 Paize 9 8. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS - None 9. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESERVATION RECOGNITIONS - None 10. ADJOURNMENT Miernik moved, Branstner seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Susan Cantlon Recording Secretary DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 316 N. CAPrrOLAVENUE " SurrE D-1 • LANSING, MI 48933-1236 (517) 483-4066 " FAX: (517) 483-6036 PLANNING OFFICE David C. Hollister, Mayor May 22, 2001 Honorable Mayor David C. Hollister Ninth Floor, City Hall �? Lansing, MI 48933-1694 c RE: Proposed Amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 4, dated 02105101) Dear Mayor Hollister: The Lansing Historic District Commission, at its meeting held on May 3, 2001, voted unanimously (5-0) to refer the following comments on the proposed amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 4, dated 02/05/01) to the City Council for their consideration. The Council Committee on Development and Planning referred the proposed amendments for comments to the Historic District Commission as well as the Planning Board. The draft minutes from the Executive Committee report are attached for your review. The Commission found, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report that: 1. Based on their review of Michigan's Local Historic Districts Act, PA169 of 1970, and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the existing Historic Districts Ordinance is in close compliance with Michigan's statute; 2. The current ordinance also meets the requirements set forth in the Certified Local Government Agreement, signed in 1997, which enables Lansing to apply for Historic Preservation Fund Grants (up to $110,000 annually) and is in compliance with the city's Memorandum of Agreement with the state regarding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded programs ($650,000 annually); 3. The following proposed Council amendments (Draft # 4, dated 02/05/01) to Chapter 1220 of the Code of Ordinances would be compatible with the statute and existing ordinance - items on page 2, lines 2, 4,10 and 12; 4. Requiring 33% representation of property owners in a proposed historic district study area to serve on a volunteer study committee may impact the ability to fill membership on the ® Please Recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" David C. Hollister, Mayor Page 2 study committee; 5. The section on Financial Hardship, page 2 lines 6 - 9, should be a subset of the Notice to Proceed section, with the criteria in the Rules and Procedures; and 6. The remaining proposed changes would not be compatible with the statute and may result in Lansing's decertification as a Certified Local Government and affect the city's Memorandum of Agreement for federally funded programs; The Planning Board, at its meeting held on May 1, 2001, voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend supporting the Historic District Ordinance changes, subject to satisfying comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee, as well as comments made by the the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. The draft minutes of the meeting are attached for your review. Following your review of this matter, please refer it to the City Council for their consideration. Sincerely, James A. Ruff Lansing Planning Board JR:SC CC: Dennis J. Sykes James D. Smiertka PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 2001 PAGE 17 b. Historic District Ordinance Amendments Mr. Frederick, who attended the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting when the Historic District Ordinance Amendments were considered, reported. This was the result of much discussion and hard work by Ms. Foster who put in most of the work with changes and comments on the proposed revisions. When we met on April 11, we recommended supporting the Historic District changes, subject to satisfying comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee, as well as comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. The comments are attached, as well as comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends supporting the Historic District Ordinance Amendments, subject to satisfying comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee as well as the comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes. AII; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the Historic District Ordinance Amendments were APPROVED. CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: Planning Board FROM: Susan Stachowiak Zoning Administrator DATE: April 26, 2001 RE: Proposed Revisions to the Historic District Ordinance Attached is a copy of the revisions to the Historic District Ordinance as proposed by City Council's Committee on Development and Planning. The additions to the existing code are in ALL CAPS and the language to be deleted is shown with a strikeout. The Zoning & Ordinance Committee. has reviewed the proposed ordinance changes and the following motion was made at its meeting of April 11, 2001: "Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick, to recommend supporting the Historic District Ordinance changes, subject to satisfying the comments made by the Historic District Commission Executive Committee as well as the comments made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee." The HDC Executive Committee comments are attached. In addition, the following comments have been made by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Pages 2 & 15, "application for work" should be defined. 2. Page 11 & 12, If all of the affected property owners have to concur with the passage of an ordinance to establish a contiguous historic district, is it appropriate for it to be eliminated without their consent? 3. Page 13, "...foster civic beauty and pride." There is no method in the ordinance for determining what constitutes civic beauty and pride. 4. Pages 14 & 15, (B) does not follow (A). Once these comments have been discussed and approved by the Planning Board, they will referred to the Council Committee. LANSING HISTORIC DISTRICTS ORDINANCE: HDC Executive Committee, Meeting March 27, 2001 DRAFT Re: City Council Proposed Changes (Draft #4, dated 02/05/01) The Executive Committee strongly recommends that any changes proposed to the Historic District Ordinance be in compliance with Public Act 169 Of 1970, as amended, and follows the language of the enabling act as closely as possible - to ensure that property owners in historic districts will be able to participate in the state's historic preservation tax credits. In addition, adopting an ordinance that violates the Certified Local Government Agreement may result: 1) in Lansing's decertification as a CLG (the City may not be able to apply for Historic Preservation Fund grants (up to $110,000 annually); and 2) in a review of the state's Memorandum of Agreement with the City regarding CDGB funding ($650,000 annually) and compliance. Page Line Proposed Change(s) Staff, Executive Committee & SHPO Comments 2 2,3 Department of History, Arts & Culture (new) New Department created by the Governor - should replace the terms "Bureau" or "Center' throughout the document. 8 8,9 Property owners ... more than eight properties... shall make up 33% of Property owners should be encouraged to have representation the study committee. on the study committee. It may not be possible; however to find 33% representation (volunteers) from a neighborhood willing to serve on a Study Committee - and may prevent the formation of a study committee if the ratio cannot be met. 2 4 Substitute "Appropriateness" for "Approval" Yes - follows language of statute 2 6-9 Financial hardship definition and section A section delineating the criteria and procedures for application for financial hardship should be a subset of Notice to Proceed and defined in the Rules and Procedures. If set in the ordinance it may appear cumbersome for property owners as one more layer of regulation 2 10 Commission... appointed by Mayor... Yes 2 12 Committee... appointed by Mayor... Yes Page 1 ceived. Pent of a district r1fter request is re the eStablishm 1-4 r consent in b resolution. Regarding 8 written owhe study commiftee, Y prior to establishing Council will notify PCOP erty� uous. It appears ads to establish a historic le want Language is amb�g uest has been m ether of not PeOP regarding ers when a req to determine'Nh ublic hearing own 1 a study com ittee resu . d Y Council will hold P rn district (P stud10d) formation oforts to determine their area riot (?) to.. the are rep the request P and Prep recommended that conducts research are `n1On6g19 whether a district or a not adopt homey Gen eral issen�mM- Michigan's A its of 9overnm consent for the In 1996 that local un uire ownerthis violates the which states that ref- that In addition the The opinion states historic district ordinance as amended. net consent creation 0111, istrict. of 1970 1 states that ow adopted by public Act 169 ent Manua intent of p °cal G°Vernm the ordinances of 13 CI -Gs)• Certified i- of acceptable in Lansing is on clauses are n ernments ( for the Certified Local Gov eating (i.e.ePA of the public h Section 3 of roperty owner ever is required under rw owners the Notifying p ort), however gives PfOP . _ --- - prelim►nafy ReP ended• the study comet►ttee report__ - - 169 of 1g70, as ' nt on --- - --- - ----- -- --tion of the - opportunity to CO ------------- ----- - - — mends dele or. ---- mittee (EC) recom Council wants Mal _ suggests rnittee is The Executive Com which before a study com Public hearing noticey owners b support from PCop Property owners appointed). d, however that all prop study, the ation about the ated does recommend', inform roGess, anticre ring The EC area ten' h c and research P the public h within a study grap including at the study area, Photo the entire process be mailed lime table for This information may and final reP t e process erty owners to beginning time to invite prop ne ation about their an opP°ftu is informittee in its survey - This would be roviding Coin aid the study order r to at the Study properties in page 2 0 d�a\ h\st°r\c P pet e Pre\\rn\nav J the \nd\v\ to c0\1o\ W d PrOv\de ° nef s nts rece'ved ofnxne �ZadaiorvJacd anY 1,2 ceP°� a CO toot that enaebsources ` natwn \s ct \ts h\stor\c ord\nance,has \stv\ct dese and PTOte ear\y \n thenary rep°rt No ,d(\G eN rs p �e\\cc�� o 'M nt\fY ,Pies ent aPp d be pre arev\e� . Pfo a\on9 re ,d\rem �\b\\C aN teP ak nd a a�a \\e foc he Pre1\m\n e e fie\\\n9 Bch P �d to 'cn Ta c\03 np\e ed a ab\e to rev enaak\ans, \ S e be secs sh°°\ds and recocec mmendat\o nd\n9 CoUnhear\n9 °� \ts fi\nd\n9 I is or Hers of Pe P Pob\\c v�\th ed cam ectY o� \ nak\°n O.m ant to not\kj o`°Pd.\st�\ct d oe \s d�a ed C°one\\ cep e tt \s \n`p 9acdne t e,PTe\0\nary even benef\a\ otfa hear\n9� at astce4U\red a c\ate ' V . In °� h\s t may be po h \d Pook\c e Pt.6 " a� `ed9 e°f toN ever, \ttee t\Me th at\on l n s, tijo�ne both of, Skodl coo n\ 9 and ate pUl \n t°Ne $tvdy P 0{ the studded, dpes the sm Via\ - e \es), to exact eXPecta �C3 as abe Gondoctedl Iran cope ne,\ts a 9 o rch \s to of area, P the be Note' P P ova resew of re9U\at\ � product. � ec\\\ram h e reAu\reR`ees or a ti3O eromrnend sP of supp°Tk ea b°ondar not ti\v C°mm\to e does h\n9 stod`! e es e EXecu Pc\or msn\tte , ubC\c he d C° c e \ce, e �a P dy comm\ttee • end that th arn\c\9 0 cess � tOc to area. st does recc e NOC and \\out the prtkf \ed \nasty Y the �� w\the t\n9s thrhborhood \den cton conl at\ona\ m and ne9 \nforn' owners ProPem Page 3 10 1-6 ent (or appointment 180 days.•.establishm its preliminary report...within ittee shall issue preliminary study comet be granted... Of study committee.) • extension..•maY report. Up to one 60 day report is letion of the Preliminary The 6 Setting a time limit f180 day per, is problematic. even however the volunteers and dto conditions good, be unreal'pri l for repo due month period i r preliminary of committee in complete the . table: and availability of consultantseeCt the study tin'1e area may ents, size of study hea a have to be which ocesst requirements the p and weather conditions - P research data, are off taken when leaves the additional limit is made more difficult by and consultations additional public hearing the study The 180 day tion requirements for an Prior to the forma with property owners p + committee consulting teams have undertskmont Is to 1 year complexity of the project, (Professional co studies for the City which atpublic c from on the S1Z involvement). depending data, and available research ommittee owners concur in the passage of the delay, Council shall Unless all affected fide W,I�rtY a contiguous historic district... 11 � nce and provide written We of 60 day 11 ordinance ordinance establishing not pass Page 4 six month study c genton The EC recommends establishingristons conting reports with justific endation to Council). status rep ittee recommendations of 1970 as amended,. study comet 169 then the comp►fiance with PA is submitted in written petition ordinance. The This is ,not that if a gassing an have not The law states days before p eriod if they Council must wait 60 Y requesting the from property owners reA of have to wait the 60 day Council does tit. I received a of a district. establishmentovernment to make ority' of enable the local g requirement. The Mal removed The law does n this legal reA was tions to/Of waive City to be exemp in the previous or law a d allow the requirement was to state law brm ecieda'd not ro� I Government nment P-G). a CG certification --------- nsing,s CLclusion could jeopardize La In--------------- -- -- - M ommends deleting this Passage The EC rec 13 15 ...however, such a petition shall not be a prerequisite to modify or eliminate a historic district as the City Council may otherwise determine. Council shall set a 5 year evaluation date after establishment of a district to consider whether to continue or eliminate the district. 10 When considering the elimination of a historic district, a committee shall follow the procedures AND TIME LIMITS set forth.... (4) The historic district did not stabilize and improve property values, preserve neighborhoods, strengthen the local economy or foster civic pride 11 (B)(C) Application for financial hardship shall be made on a form prepared by the commission... Unclear what is intended ? By law, a written petition is not a prerequisite for the establishment, elimination, or modification of a district. The EC recommends deleting this passage. The inclusion of a sunset clause (or implied clause through a five year evaluation) violate's Michigan's Certified Local Government (CLG) Manual requirements (p. 5) which the City agreed to uphold when it signed the CLG certification agreement in 1997. The inclusion of this clause will result in the initiation of a process to de -certify the City of Lansing as a CLG and the city will lose the ability to apply for CLG grant funds (up to $110,000 annually), and ability to review federally funded projects at the local level through Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) or Programmatic Agreements (e.g. CDGB funded projects).. Including such a clause may also jeopardize a property owner's ability to participate in the state historic preservation tax credit program. The EC recommends deleting this passage. It is unclear if it is permissible for the City to add a fourth reason for eliminating a district. This may be something that is done legislatively. The City could open itself to legal challenge if this clause is included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The EC recommends deleting this passage. The section on financial hardship is good. The EC recommends including it the Rules and Procedures rather than in the ordinance itself. Placed in the ordinance, they appear to make the ordinance more cumbersome, possibly more ominous to interested parties. 16 14 The phrase " experienced in rehabilitation or reuse of the existing Recommend: "...experienced in rehabilitation or reuse of structure on the property ".. (unclear and limiting) historic buildings." Page 5 2. 3. Draft to Clerk: 05/04/01 Approved: / /01 To Clerk: / /01 To SHPO: / /01 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, May 3, 2001,-5:30 p.m. Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Conference Room C-3 Lansing, Michigan CALL TO ORDER Chair, Kolhoff, called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Todd Branstner, Amy Collett, Michael Kolhoff, Antonia Miernik, and Kevin Russell Webb B. Excused Absences: Lyle Kissie C. Introductions: Gina Nelson, resides at 605 W. Shiawassee St.(484-7899). Mark Ritzenhein, owns a commercial property at 1149 S. Washington Ave. (484-8860). Staff: Jim Ruff, Planning Manager, Bill Rieske, Principal Planner, and Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ruff requested that item # 1. Michigan National Tower be added to the agenda under new business. Miernik moved, Webb seconded a motion to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS (None) 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Ritzenhein told the Commission he is in the process of rehabilitating a commercial property at 1149 S. Washington Ave. A brief discussion ensued about the preservation tax credits, the request by the River Point Neighborhood to establish a local Historic District, and the River Point Neighborhood Architectural Survey completed in 2000 for the City of Lansing. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES, Mav 3, 2001 Paae 2 Ms. Nelson is in the process of rehabilitating a residential building at 605 W. Shiawassee St. She requests assistance from the HDC regarding selection of appropriate historical paint colors. Ms. Cantlon gave Ms. Nelson a list of paint colors and their equivalent code numbers for difference manufacturers of historical paint colors. Ms. Nelson also reviewed a copy of Victorian Exterior Decoration by Roger Moss and Gail Winkler provided by Ms. Cantlon. The Design Review Committee scheduled an onsite review for Thursday, May 10, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. to make recommendations. 5. PRESENTATIONS (None) 6. BUSINESS SECTION A. Staff Comments 1. Darius B. Moon House Historic District, 216 Huron Street Ms. Cantlon reported that the Darius B. Moon House Historic District has been established by ordinance. She also indicated that the owners have applied for the state preservation tax credits. The Historic Preservation Certification Declaration of Location was signed by Jim Ruff, Secretary for the Historic District Commission on May 2, 2001. 2. Proposed Capitol Historic District Ms. Cantlon reported on the following Council resolutions: # 137 - rejects the ordinance submitted March 19, 2001, with the HD-2-00 CHDSC final report, which covers the entire area (546 properties) recommended in the report; #138 - rejects the ordinance submitted March 19, 2001, with the HD-2-00 CHDSC final report, which covers CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - NORTH; #139 - rejects the ordinance submitted March 19, 2001, with the HD-2-00 CHDSC final report, which covers CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - SOUTH; #140 - rejects the ordinance submitted March 19, 2001, with the HD-2-00 CHDSC final report, which covers CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - WEST; #141 - rejects the ordinance submitted March 19, 2001, with the HD-2-00 CHDSC final report, which covers CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT EXPANSION; #152 - Council supports the use of the Final Report and data compiled by the Capitol Historic District Study Committee to evaluate new historic districts; #160 - set a public for April 30, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of establishing the CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - SOUTHEAST boundaries in accordance with Chapter 1220 of the Code of Ordinances; and HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES. Mav 3.2001 Page 3 #161 - set a public for April 30, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of establishing the CAPITOL HISTORIC DISTRICT - CENTRAL boundaries in accordance with Chapter 1220 of the Code of Ordinances. Council further encouraged groups within the CHDSC area recommended for historic districts to request districts (e.g. 2, 3, or 4 block faces) and stressed the much of the survey information has been compiled by the CHDSC already. B. Approval of Minutes: March 8, 2001 Collett moved, Miernik seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of March 8, 2001. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. HDC Work Program Mr. Ruff indicated staff will be working with the Commission to develop a Work Program for the remaining calendar year, at the end of which the work program will be evaluated. Goals and objectives will be set for the coming year. The need for the development of educational tools was stressed to build community public relations: ► videos of porch restoration or rehabilitation, window and siding repairs; ► informational brochures; historic district design guidelines ► basic home maintenance informational (e.g. windows painted shut). Mr. Ruff said he has communicated with Karen Schmidt, staff with the city's TV channel regarding producing educational videos with the HDC. Mr. Koihoff noted that he has communicated with David Hagadone, instructor in LCC's Media Department, regarding a potential student internship. Ms. Collett recommended the HDC obtain approval from Preservation Award 2001 winners to allow images of their properties to be posted on the city's channel. Mr. Ruff recommended using a release form for the use of images. Mr. Ruff also noted the HDC would be involved in Work Program activities such as: ► developing Goals and Objectives (e.g. catalog existing survey database; work with existing Historic Districts to provide education, assistance and encouragement of application of standards); and ► work with the Comprehensive Planning Process include a Preservation Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan and as a stand-alone plan. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES, Mav 3, 2001 Page 4 D. Ethics Training (Collett, Kissee). Ms. Collett announced that she would be resigning from the commission as she was moving to Toronto near the end of the month. Mr. Kissee was not present to confirm whether or not he has received ethics training. E. Committee Reports: 1. Executive Committee, Draft # 4, Dated 2/5/01) i. Proposal to Modify Historic District Ordinance The commission reviewed the recommendations from the Executive Committee meeting of March 27, 2001. Miernik moved, Collett seconded a motion to accept the recommendations of the Executive Committee regarding the proposed changes of the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft #4, dated 02/05/01) by City Council and to refer these recommendation to Council. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Design Review Committee No meeting was held. Next meetina: Thursday, May 10, 2001, 5:30 p.m. at 605 W. Shiawassee. A request will be made to Ms. Schmidt to video tape the review. 3. Education Committee i. Historic Preservation Week - Poster Contest, Exhibit Ms. Collett reported that the Historic Preservation Week will be held May 13 - 19, 2001 at Impression 5 Science Center. Invitations to the reception, May 15 from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. A poster contest, celebrating the national historic preservation week theme, "Restore, Renew, Rediscover' is sponsored also in conjunction with Impression 5. The contest is open to Lansing elementary and middle school grades. Three digital cameras will be awarded to winning schools and the posters will be at Impression 5 as part of Lansing's Preservation Week exhibit. Next meetinaa.: Friday, May 4, 2001, 1:00 p.m. at Planning Office Library Committee will review nominations for preservation awards. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES. Mav 3.2001 Pace 5 F. Pending Items: Future Action Required Requests for Establishment of River Point Neighborhood Historic District Cantlon reported that the Planning Office has a copy of a report, funded in part by the City and SHPO, which recommends the establishment of a local River Point Historic District. Council encourages groups of property owners to request historic districts and to utilized reports already compiled. Council has not established boundaries for establishment of a local district in this neighborhood by resolution. 2. Frances Willard Fountain Preservation and Relocation Ms Miernik and Ms. Collett provided the following report: ► a meeting was held with Parks & Recreation staff; ► a meeting was held with Ed Carpenter, Friends of Turner -Dodge House President, and Joe Pandy from BWL to discuss the possible donation of $15,000 towards the restoration of the fountain ► family members of Thelma Osteen (deceased NLCA member and past president) expressed concern about the relocation of the fountain from the Turner mini park, at the corner of Grand River Avenue and Turner Street to the garden at the historic Turner -Dodge House - Mr. Carpenter will meet with the family to discuss their concerns (Ms. Cantlon indicated she worked with Thelma for a number of years and would be available, if desired, to speak with the family). A plaque will be not be attached to the fountain to commemorate the significance of the fountain; however the information will be included in the brickwork near the fountain base. It is hoped the fountain will be restored and placed in time for its rededication December 4, 2001. The fountain will be 99 years old on that date. The celebration may be coordinated with the annual Xmas event at the Turner - Dodge House. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Michigan National Tower Building (formerly Olds Tower). Mr. Ruff indicated he has met with the new owners of the Michigan National Tower Building, Boji, regarding the proposed renovations to the building. The owner indicated the images which appeared in the Lansing State Journal were preliminary and did not accurately represent what was being considered. The owners have hired an architectural firm from Atlanta for the proposed renovations. Mr. Ruff indicated Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) has a grant available for historic preservation which may benefit this project ($10,000 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA, Mav 3, 2001 Page 5 25,000). Ms. Cantlon noted the property may benefit from the 20% federal tax credit depending on what other work needs to be done and how the proposed additions will affect the building. A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed Knapp's Center renovations: ► Mr. Webb indicated the proposed changes to the landmark Art Moderne building was covered recently in a Chicago TV news report; ► Mr. Ruff indicated the SHPO is hiring Elizabeth Libby, preservation architect to provide an analysis of the rehabilitation of the building utilizing the preservation tax credits, as a local case study. 8. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner, Branstner, noted that his second term ends June 2001. Mr. Ruff has submitted his name to the Mayor with a recommendation for reappointment. 9. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESERVATION RECOGNITIONS (None) 10. ADJOURNMENT Miernik moved, Collett seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; motion carried unanimously (5-0). The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Susan A. Cantlon Recording Secretary HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, June 7, 2001, 5:30 p.m. Planning and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Conference Room C-3 Lansing, Michigan AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call B. Excused Absences: C. Introductions: 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. COMMUNICATIONS (None) 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. PRESENTATIONS (None) 6. BUSINESS SECTION A. Staff Comments 1. Frances Willard Fountain: City Council Resolution 2. Grand Trunk Depot 3. Michigan Avenue (former) Gate Tower - Proposals for Adaptive Reuse in North Lansing D. Approval of Minutes: May 3, 2001 C. HDC Work Program D. Ethics Training (Kissee). E. Committee Reports: 1. Executive Committee (None) 2. Design Review Committee i. 605 W. Shiawassee Street, Exterior Paint 2. Education Committee i. Historic Preservation Week - Report ii. Goals and Objectives F. Pending Items: Future Action Required HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA. June 7.2001 Page 2 Requests for Establishment of River Point Neighborhood Historic District Proposal to Modify Historic District Ordinance Draft # 4, Dated 2/5/01) 3. Proposed Capitol Historic District 4. Frances Willard Fountain Preservation and Relocation 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS 9. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESERVATION RECOGNITIONS 10. ADJOURNMENT Draft to Clerk 11/20/01 Approved: 08/01/02 To Clerk: 08/ 07/02 SHPO: 08/07/02 LANSING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:30 p.m. Lansing Planning Office 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite D1 Lansing, Michigan I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called o order at 5:40 p.m. by Chairperson Miernik. A. Roll Call. Present: Kent Maher, Antonia Miernik, and Kevin Russell Webb. Three members present, none absent (six vacancies). B. Staff Present. Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner, and Bill Rieske, Principal Planner. C. Others Present. None. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ADVERTISED) - None. III. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. IV. RECESS - None. V. BUSINESS SECTION A. Executive Committee Meeting. Committee Appointments. Chairperson Miernik appointed Mr. Webb to the Design Review Committee, and Mr. Maher to the Education Committee. 2. Letter of Support for Michigan Historic Preservation Grant Application for the Automobile National Heritage Area (ANHA). Ms. Cantlon reported that the next step to local implementation of the ANHA General Management Plan is to develop a survey and interpretive management plan for Lansing as an ANHA Stewardship Community, focusing on enhancing the experience of Hub District attractions associated with Lansing's auto heritage. The ANHA Lansing Corridor Board, on October 16, 2001, voted unanimously (9-0) to request that the City apply for Historic Preservation Grant funds through the Michigan Historical Center, and to work in conjunction with the City to complete the project. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. Minutes - November 15. 2001 Paae 2 The project is expected to cost $24,000. The proposed grant amount would be $14,400, with a local match of $9,600, or 40% of the total cost. The ANHA Lansing Board is seeking support from the ANHA Board to cover the local match. ACTION: It was moved by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Maher, to support the request by the ANHA Lansing Corridor Board, that the City apply for Historic Preservation Grant funds through the Michigan Historical Center, and to work in conjunction with the ANHA Board to complete the project. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). 3. Agency Referral, Act 285 Review to Market for Sale the Property at 313 E. Grand River Avenue (a.k.a. Comfort Station). Mr. Rieske noted that this Act 285 Review is not to consider a specific offer to purchase the building. Rather, it is to consider whether the City should market the property for sale, or retain ownership. Ms. Cantlon added that the HDC is asked to comment on this case because of the building's location within the North Lansing Historic Commercial District. A discussion ensued about the scope of the review, and the need for community organizations to get along and work together. ACTION: It was moved by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Maher, to submit the following comment to the Planning Board: The Historic District Commission, by its Executive Committee, emphasizes the importance of the Comfort Station as an historical contributing resource within the North Lansing Historic Commercial District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Commission recommends that: 1. Regardless of ownership, any exterior work be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to review by the Historic District Commission, 2. If the building is sold, the City of Lansing retain, in perpetuity, an historic preservation easement on the north, east, and south sides of the building. The Commission further recommends that the building remain accessible for use by the public in accordance with its traditional role as a public meeting and gathering place in North Lansing. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. Minutes - November 15. 2001 Paqe 3 4. Executive Committee Adjournment. The Committee adjourned at 7:05 p.m. VI. COMMUNICATIONS - None. VII. ADJOURNMENT - The Historic District Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. CAHOC minutes 111501.wpd Draft to Clerk 12/11/01 Approved: 08/01/ 02 To Clerk: 08/07/02 SHPO: 08/07/02 Minutes LANSING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 5:30 p.m., Thursday, December 6, 2001 Lansing Planning Office 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite D1 I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called o order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Miernik. A. Roll Call. Present: Kent Maher, Antonia Miernik, and Kevin Russell Webb. Three members present, none absent (six vacancies). B. Staff Present. Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner, and Bill Rieske, Principal Planner. C. Others Present. None. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ADVERTISED) - None. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. RECESS - None. BUSINESS SECTION A. Executive Committee Meeting. Proposed Changes to Historic District Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11 /29/01) Ms. Cantlon noted that Draft # 6 of the proposed changes to the Historic Districts Ordinance, dated 11/29/01 is on City Council's agenda for Monday December 10, 2001. A discussion ensued about the proposed changes based upon a page -by -page -review and recommendations. Commissioners also reviewed the written draft comments from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). ACTION: It was moved by Ms. Miernik, seconded by Mr. Maher, to submit the following comments from the HDC; compile them along with comments from the Planning staff and SHPO; and summit them to the City Council: HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. Minutes - December 6.2001 Pace 2 The Historic District Commission, by its Executive Committee, makes the following recommendations (see attached memo) regarding the proposed changes to the Historic Districts Ordinance, draft #6, dated 11129101. 2. Executive Committee Adjournment. ACTION: It was moved by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Maher, to adjourn the meeting: The Committee adjourned at 6:35 p.m. VI. COMMUNICATIONS - None. VII. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: It was moved by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Maher, to adjourn the meeting: The Historic District Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. CAHDC120601.wpd CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: Larry Meyer, Chair, Development & Planning Committee of Council Joan Bauer, Member Saturnino Rodriguez, Member Ron Wilson, Council Office Jack Roberts, Law Office FROM: James A. Ruff, Planning Manag6r DATE: July 11, 2002 RE: Proposed Amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11 /29/01) Attached are the minutes of the Historic District Commission (HDC) Executive Committee meeting on December 6, 2001, featuring the Executive. Committee's comments regarding the Historic Districts Ordinance Amendments Draft#6; along with comments from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to the proposed amendments. The HDC Executive Committee, at its meeting:held on December 6, = 001; voted unanimously (3=0) to refer the attached comments on the proposed amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance `(Daft # 6, dated I1/29/01) to the City Council for. its consideration. - The HDC Executive Committee revi:ewed'the e" � t'- Historic Districts. Ordinance, the proposed amendments (Draft # 6, dated 11/2g%01), Michigan's Local Historic Districts Act (P.A. 169 of 1970), end tie colrmenfs rfeceyiVed from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHF?O) (t found that 1. The current H�stpric Districts Ordinance is tn`close cornpllance with the requirements 4f' • the :Mi t n at�at f • the Cartif�Catav1rjament agreement, signed in 1997, which enables �anai4h eta j i 'fdt�t-1 s' or`ic.:Preservation;Fund Grants u ePP _. ( p to $110,000 annually), andV • the City.'s Mempranum of l�greemnt wjth the state and federal government regard(ng Comfnunity DOV61opment Block Grant (CDGB) funded programs (i.e:; $806,168 in 2002) and HOME funds (i.e., $345,800 in 2002), as identified in the Consolidated Plan; RE: Proposed Amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) July 15, 2002 paw 2. The following proposed Council definition amendments would be compatible with the statute and existing ordinance - items on page 2, lines 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; 3. The provision that would require 33% representation (p. 8, lines 6-8) of property owners in a proposed historic district study area to serve on a volunteer study committee may impact the ability to fill membership on the study committee; 4. The remaining proposed changes may not be compatible with the statute and may result in Lansing's decertification as a Certified Local Government, affect the city's Memorandum of Agreement for federally funded programs, and jeopardize the City's application for funds on behalf of the Automobile National Heritage Area. The Executive Committee recommended that the section on Financial Hardship, pages 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and page 20, lines 1 and 2, be a subset of the Notice to Proceed section (1220.08), and that the criteria Council has recommended for meeting Hardship standards [Pg. 15-17, Sections 1220.07(B)(C)(1-11)] be listed in the HDC Rules and Procedures. Presently the amendment is proposed for the demolition of resources (1220.07) and should be under Notice to Proceed (1220.08). (The Rules and Procedures of City boards are subject to Council review and approval under City Charter Section 5-105.8.) Please review these comments in the context of your deliberations regarding the proposed ordinance amendments, and contact me at Extension 4070 if you have any questions or concerns. CC: David Wiener, Executive Assistant Dennis J. Sykes, PND Director James D. Smiertka, City Attorney Lansing Historic District Commission APLAN-DEVlsharedlPLANNING OFFICE1Historic District Cmsn1HDC 2001\Ordinance AmendmenhDraf tf8 Recom4 Memo.wpd July 15, 2002 Historic District Commission Comments Regarding the Proposed Amendments to the Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) Section 1220.02 Definitions Page 2, Top Comment - Insert definition of "Center" as Michigan Historical Center. Page 2, Line 1 Comment - Concur with proposed change. Page 2, Line 3 Comment - Suggest insertion of clarifying language. Recommendation - amend to read "... certificate issued BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION which authorizes Page 2, Lines 7 Comment/Recommendation- Concur with proposed change. Page 2, Line 11 CommentlRecommendation- the State Historic Preservation Office recommends that "MICHIGAN HISTORICAL CENTER" be substituted for "Department of History, Arts & Libraries", and that "CENTER" be substituted for "Department" in all cases. Page 5, Line 7 CommentlRecommendation- This item is out of alphabetical order and belongs on Page 6 above Line 7. Add - "It is the responsibility of the property owner to notify any land contract holder regarding ordinance requirements." (There may be other acceptable methods to satisfy this concern). Page 6 Comment/Recommendation- Insert definition of "reasonable economic return" as used in the proposed Financial Hardship language. Section 1220.03 Procedure for Establishment (b) Page 7, Line 16 CommentlRecommendation- One of the purposes of a local historic district ordinance is to protect the City's heritage by preserving its historic resources. Local districts can also offer financial incentives which are otherwise unavailable to HDC Comments Re: Proposed Amendments to Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) - July 15, 2002 Page 2 of 5 property owners. A public hearing on a historic district proposal without providing balanced information about historic districts may pre-empt the study to evaluate whether or not there is a potential district in the first place. Recommendation - amend (beginning on Line 17) to read: " . Council, by resolution, may REQUIRE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION TO schedule a public he�g afar a public INFORMATIONAL meeting REGARDING THE REQUESTED DISTRICT, and give by mail advanced written notice of the public hearing and1m SAID public meeting to all property owners in the requested historic district... " (b) Page 8, Line 6 Comment/Recommendation- The sole purpose of a study committee is to collect historic data on a designated area. It would be in the best interest of the community to have study committee members that have experience in research, local history, and architecture - "knowledgeable and interested persons". While it may be a good idea to include members of the area under study on the study committee, the proposed provision in the ordinance that would require 33% representation of property owners in a study area to serve on a volunteer study committee may impact the ability to meet the requirement set forth in PA 169 that the majority of the committee have a demonstrated interest in preservation. Further, if the quota is not met because there is no or insufficient interest from property owners to serve on the committee, the study committee will not be confirmed. Recommendation - Amend to read " ... WHENEVER FEASIBLE, REPRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE REPRESENTATION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS from within the proposed district ..." (b)(2) Page 8, Line 14 Comment/Recommendation- Property owners should have an opportunity to review the preliminary report before they are asked to comment on it. The purpose of the 60 day period between the distribution of the preliminary report and the public hearing is to provide this review period for public comments. Recommendation - DELETE THE PROPOSED - LANGUAGE AND ADD IT UNDER Page 9, Line 16, as item G - CHANGE TO READ - "PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNERS...COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT HDC Comments Re: Proposed Amendments to Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) July 15, 2002 Page 3 of 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FORWARD ANY COMMENTS RECEIVED TO THE PLANNING OFFICE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING". The Committee's charge is to inventory and collect data on the properties in the study area. A request for property owner feedback would be beneficial if it was to gain historical information about the property that the property owner my know. Page 9, Line 17 Comment/Recommendation- The 180 day time frame may cause serious difficulties for an all -volunteer study committee to conduct responsible research, issue findings and make recommendations. There is no time limit established by statute. Recommendation - Delete time requirement. Page 11, Line 8 Comment/Recommendation- The State Historic Preservation Office identified the following concern: Section 3(3)(b) of PA 169 states that a local unit "shall not pass" an ordinance establishing a contiguous district less than 60 days after property owners have approved it per a written petition. The proposed requirement appears to address two issues: (1) the applicability of the 60-day delay, and (2) requiring documented consensus for the establishment of a historic district. Regarding the applicability of the sixty day delay, the current 60 day delay requirement only applies if a majority of property owners petition for approval. If no petition is submitted, there is no 60 day delay requirement. A waiver is therefore not necessary, and the statute contains no provision for a waiver. (See p. 3, 41' paragraph, Michigan Historic Preservation Network's interpretation, A Guide to Michigan's Local Historic Districts Act - attached) Regarding the proposal to require documented consensus (through the waiver provision) for the establishment of a historic district, the statute does not provide that power to local governments. (SHPO comment) It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Office that the City of Lansing cannot modify a requirement of the state HDC Comments Re: Proposed Amendments to Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) July 15, 2002 Paqe 4 of 5 enabling law. PA 169 makes no allowance for a written waiver of a 60-day waiting period. Recommendation- Delete the proposed revisions on Lines 8 through 11. Page 11, Line 16 Comment/Recommendation- Proposed language may imply that a petition was a prerequisite for establishing a district, which it is not. The Statute has the same procedure for establishing, amending, or eliminating historic districts. I believe this clarifies that any petition will not affect the right of Council to make a decision. Delete the proposed language. Page 12, Line 7 Comment/Recommendation- (see earlier recommendations regarding notification to property owners and verify resulting Subsection). (See comment for p. 7, line 16). Page 12, Line 15 Comment/Recommendation- (see earlier recommendations regarding time limits). Delete "and time limits". Also delete the word "shall" which is not in the text. Page 15, Line 5 Comment/Recommendation- In the current proposal, the financial hardship information is addressed in Section 1220.07 and applies only to the removal or demolition of district resources. Is that the Council's intent, or does Council intend the financial hardship provision to apply to other exterior work as well? If so, financial hardship language should occur under Section 1220.06 also, placed in Section 1220.08 or placed in a new section and referenced in applicable sections. Suggest clarifying language: "Application for financial hardship shall be made on a form prepared by the Commission and approved AS TO FORM by the City Attorney, and SHALL BE submitted BY THE PROPERTY OWNER in conjunction with an application for work. Page 15, Line 8 Comment/Recommendation- The HDC recommended that the additional information and requirements on Financial Hardship, pages 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and page 20, lines 1 and 2, be a subset of Section 1220.08 regarding "Notice to HDC Comments Re: Proposed Amendments to Historic Districts Ordinance (Draft # 6, dated 11/29/01) i July 15, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Proceed", and that the criteria be listed in the HDC Rules and Procedures. (The Rules and Procedures of City boards are subject to Council review and approval under City Charter Section 5-105.8). Page 17, Line 9 Comment/Recommendation - Amend to read "A COPY OF THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, ALONG WITH INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THE form of ownership AND/or operation of the property, . . . " Include in Rules of Procedures. Page 19, Line 12 Comment/Recommendation- The HDC approves work which is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards by issuing a "Certificate of Appropriateness". A "Notice to Proceed" applies to work permitted by the HDC when preservation is not economically or technically feasible. Recommendation - Reword to say "... issue a Certificate of Financial Hardship approving AND A NOTICE TO PROCEED WITH the proposed work.. . " Page 19, Line 17 Comment/Recommendation- The proposed language would appear to circumvent the State's established avenues of appeal, and open the possibility for litigation if a decision by a local appeal body were contrary to the decision that would have been made through the statutory appeals process. Recommendation - Reword Line 17on Page 19, and Lines 1 & 2 on Page 20, to read: "... right to appeal to the State Historic Preservation Review Board and Circuit Court, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1220.05(b), and provide a copy of same to the Director of Planning and Neighborhood Development." 1220.04 Membership Comment/Recommendation- The Statute recommends 7 to 9 members serve on the HDC. Reduce membership requirements from 9 to 7 members, allowable by statute, and easier to get a quorum of 4 members. \1PIan-dev\shared\PLANNING OFFICE1HIslorlc District Cmsn\HDC 2001\Ordinance Amendmenl\Convnenls on ordinance revIsion 071502.wpd 3 In 3(1), new language mandates that the majority of the members of a study committee must have interest in or knowledge of preservation. This section also describes the minimum tasks a study committee must complete before proposing a district for designation, such as conducting. a photographic inventory of resources and completing historic research. It also provides that the study committee must be guided by the selection criteria utilized in connection with nominations for listing in the National Register of Historic Places when evaluating resources. While communities must be "guided" by the National Register criteria, they are not bound by them; communities are free to establish criteria which are guided by the national criteria but relate to local conditions, history, and character. In addition, the basic content of the historic district study committee report is specified, and provides for the inclusion of such -items as the names and boundaries of the historic districts under study and a summary of their historic significance.. These _new provisions add. to, the. requirements of the Act, but. in general only. codify proper practice. The language of section 3(2) makes clear that when the Act states that not less than 60 days after circulating its preliminary report the study committee must hold a public hearing, it means calendar rather than working days. Also included is the requirement chat owners within the proposed historic district receive. a written notice by first class mail not less than 14 calendar days before the public hearing. Finally, the Act specifics the source of the names and addresses of owners to be notified as those listed on the .property tax rolls. Thus, the Act eliminates any question of where and how the list of those to be notified is obtained. In section 3(3), new language limits the length of a historic district study period to one year following the study committee's public hearing, unless the period is extended by the local legislative body. During that period after the hearing, the study committee prepares and submits its final report to the local legislative body, including any recommendation received from the local planning body. The report must include a draft historic district ordinance if the committee is recommending that a district be established. The legislative body acts upon the ordinance before the end of the one year period (unless =ended), approving, rejecting, or modifying it. The statute contemplates that future purchasers of designated property should receive notice of the designated status of property by requiring filing of ordinances of designation with the register of deeds. The last sentence of 3(3), included in PA. 96 by amendment, must be carefully read. It'provides that if a petition of support, signed by more than 50% of the property owners in a proposed contiguous historic district, is presented to the local legislative body, then the local legislative body must wizir sixty days before adopting an ordinance of designation for that district. Note that no petition is required; note also that the section does not address the issue of petitions in opposition, which do not trigger the waiting period. If a support petition is I resented, the sixty day wait must be observed. After that time, the local legislative body is free to adopt, reject, or otherwise handle the proposed ordinance as if there had been no petition. The language of section 3(4) is clarified without changing the effect. Section 4: Establishment of historic district commission; number and qualifications of members, appointments, terms, vacancies. This section clarifies that the historic district commission is established, by ordinance, by the —local unit's legislative body. The language prescribes when a commission may or must be _ �srablished, namely, at any time, but not later than when the first historic district is established. It specifies the size of a commission relative to the population of the local unit so that a commission will have 7 to 9 members if there are 5,000 or more people, or 5 to 7 if. State of Michigan John Engler, Governor Department of History, Arts and Libraries Dr. William M. Anderson, Director December 6, 2001 Mr. Jim Ruff Planning Manager City of Lansing 316 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Ml . 48933 Dear Mr. Ruff: State Historic Preservation Office RECFFIVED DEC 1 0 2001 PLANNINGDIVISION Enclosed are staff comments on Lansing's Draft Ordinance #6 dated 11/29/01. Michigan Historical Center 717 W. Allegan Street P.O. Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240 517/373-1630 Please be advised that the State Historic Preservation Office does not have the authority to give legal advice. Nevertheless, we do have experience working with the provisions of the Local Historic Districts Act and we are often called on to share our interpretation with.local — governments as they develop and revise their local ordinances. If you would like to discuss your ordinance further, please contact Amy Arnold at 517-335-2729. We look forward to receiving a copy of your final ordinance for our files. Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely Brian D. Conway State Historic Preservati. on Officer BDC:ALA Enclosure cc: Louis Adado, President, Lansing City Council James D. Smiertka, City Attorney Michigan Historical Center State Historic Preservation Office Comments on Draft #6 of Proposed Historic District Ordinance Changes 12/05/01 In the Definitions Section, page 2, line 11 instead of "Department "use "Center" means the Michigan Historical Center. Line 6, Page 8 The sole purpose of a study committee is to collect historic data on a designated area. It would be in the best interest of the community to have study committee members that have experience in research, local history, and architecture. While it may be a good idea to include members of the area under study on the committee, we see no need to require that 33% of the members come from the area. It may be difficult to meet both the requirement set forth in PA 169 that the majority of the committee have a demonstrated interest in preservation and the proposed 33% requirement in your ordinance. Lines 8-10, Page 11 .Section 3 (3) (b) of PA 169 states that a local unit "shall not pass" an ordinance establishing a contiguous district less than 60 days after property owners have approved it per a written petition. It is our opinion that the city of Lansing cannot modify a requirement of the state enabling law. PA 169 makes no allowance for a written waiver of the 60-day waiting period. Line 16-18, Page 11 This is unclear. The law does not require a petition for the establishment, elimination or modification of a district. As worded, it sounds as if the petition is a prerequisite for establishment of a district but not for elimination or modification, which is not the case.