HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-04-20 packetNotice of Meeting & Tentative Agenda
City of Jefferson Public Works & Planning Committee
1) Introductions
Thursday, April 20, 2017
8:15a.m.
John G. Christy Municipal Build ing, 320 East McCarty Street
Boone/Bancroft Room (Upper Level)
TENTATIVE AGENDA
2) Approval of the March 23 , 2017 and April 17, 2017 Comm ittee meeting minutes
3) New Business
1. Scope of Downtown Electrical System (David Bange)
2 . Storm Water Utility Ballot Language (Matt Morasch/Ryan Moehlman)
3. Mill & Overlay Project Update (Britt Smith)
4 . Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance (Sonny Sanders)
4) Other T epics
1. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
5) Citizen opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works Issues
6) Adjourn
NOTES
Individuals should contact th e ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request acco mmodations or alternative formats as
required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three bus iness days to process the request.
Please ca ll (573) 634 -6410 with questions regarding agenda items.
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
Committee Members Present:
Larry Henry, Chairman
Ken Hussey
Laura Ward
Bill Luebbert
Committee Members Absent:
Rick Prather
Staff Present:
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
March 23, 2017
Matt Morasch, Public Works Director
Mark Mehmert, Transit Division Director
Britt Smith, Operations Division Director
David Bange, City Engineer
Don Fontana, Storm Water Engineer
Shane Wade, Civil Engineer II
Sonny Sanders, Interim Planning & Protective Services Director
Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
Eric Seaman, Wastewater Division Director
Ryan Moehlman, City Counselor
Steve Crowell, City Administrator
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Attendance
9 of9
9 of9
8 of9
2 of2
7 of9
Chairman Henry called the meeting to order at 7:30a.m. A quorum was present at this time. The
following guests were present: Frank Rycyk, Grant Shorthose, and Jeff Haldiman with News Tribune.
1. Introductions
Introductions were made at this time.
2. Approval of the February 23, 2017 Committee meeting minutes
Councilman Hussey moved and Councilwoman Ward seconded to approve the February 23,
2017 minutes, motion carried.
3. New Business
1. Storm Water Utility Case Study and Draft Code Modification (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Morasch gave a presentation on the Bogg's Creek Watershed and referred Committee
members to the draft ordinance included in their packet.
There was discussion among Committee members, staff and those present regarding fee
structure, credit program and a web based fee estimator.
Minutes/Jefferson CHy Public Works and Planning Committee
March 23, 2017
2. USDA Farmers Market Promotion Program (Sonny Sanders)
Mr. Sanders explained the City was approached to assist in submitting and administering a
Farmers Market Promotion Program Grant funded by the US Department of Agriculture. Staff would
be responsible for administration costs only.
3. JeffTran Assessment Stakeholder Meetings (Sonny Sanders)
Mr. Sanders invited the Committee to attend the Jefffran System-Wide Assessment
Stakeholder meetings March 27-30, 2017.
4. Update on Greentree Sanitary Sewer Extension (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Seaman explained the sewer extension project will serve several unsewered existing
houses on Green Tree Road.
5. Disposal of Surplus Wastewater Properties -old Belair Pump Station/Lagoon &
old Hayselton Pump Station (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Seaman explained the request to surplus and sell the properties where the old pump
stations were located as they are no longer needed.
4. Other Topics
1. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
Mr. Smith referred Committee members to the report included in the packet.
5. Citizen Opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works
Issues
There was no one present to address the Committee.
6. Adjourn
Councilman Hussey moved and Councilman Prather seconded to adjourn the meeting at this
time (8:50 a.m.), motion carried.
2
Memorandum
320 Eas t McCarty Street • Jefferson Ci ty, Missou r i 6 5 1 01 • P: 5 73 .63 4 .641 0 • F: 5 73.6 34 .65 6 2 • www.jeffersoncitymo.gov
Date : April17 , 2017
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From : David Bange P.E., City Engineer \>'fb
Subject: Downtown Sidewalks and Event Electric Project
City staff recommends the committee endorse the scope of the downtown sidewalk repair and event
electric project at a planning level cost of $630 ,000 .
At the direction of this Committee, City staff has been engaged in determining the method and costs
associated w ith installing festival style electrical connections along High Street in the Downtown area .
At this time we are considering four blocks which include High Street from Washington Street to
Monroe Street and Madison Street from High Street to Capitol Avenue . Based on bids that we rece ived
for similar work on the Capitol Avenue project we are estimating that the cost of the electrical portion of
this project to be appro ximately $95 ,000 per block or $380,000 for all four proposed blocks.
In addition it has been estimated that there are around $250 ,000 worth of repairs that need to be made
to the sidewalk and street to restore them to a good condition . These repairs include the removal of the
remaining trolley tracks under portions of the street and the replacement of c racked and deteriorated
sidewalk panels.
When the street and sidewalk repairs are considered together w ith the electrical items the cost of the
project is estimated to be $630,000.
With the Committee endorsement staff will begin the design process and peruse finalization of the
funding for the project.
If you have any questions I can be reached at 634-6433 .
DB :db
U:\Publi c W orks\E nginee ring\dba nge\PUBLI C W ORKS & PLA NNING\20 17\4-20-17\Downtown Si dewalks a nd E lectric.docx
BILL NO. 2017-
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN---------
ORDINANCE NO. ________________ _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, CALLING AN ELECTION IN THE CITY
OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2017, TO AUTHORIZE THE
CITY TO ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE ON DEVELOPED PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY; DIRECTING NOTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION AUTHORITY; DESCRIBING THE FORM OF
THE NOTICE OF ELECTION; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A election is hereby ordered to be held in the City of Jefferson, Missouri, on Tuesday,
August 8, 2017, on the following question:
PROPOSITION I
Shall the City of Jefferson be authorized to establish a stormwater utility fee charge to be charged
on each parcel of developed property at the following rates starting January 1, 2018 and
continuing until December 31, 2042:
Category
Single Family Parcel
Single Family Duplex Parcel
All Other Classes of Developed Parcels
$3.50 per month
$3.50 per unit per month
Computed ERU's** x $3.50 per
month (minimum fee of $3.50 per
month)
Rates shall be increased no more than 2% annually on January 1 of each year.
**ERU's (equivalent residential units)= square feet of impervious area /2500 square feet.
Parcel owners and account owners of sanitary sewer service accounts on a parcel (if any) shall
be jointly and severally liable for payment of stormwater utility fees assessed on a parcel of
developed property.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to notify the Clerk of the County
Commission of Cole County, Missouri and the Clerk of the County Commission of Callaway County,
Missouri of the adoption of this ordinance no later than 5 o'clock p.rn. on May 30, 2017, and to include in
the notification all of the terms and provisions required by Chapter 115, RSMo., as amended.
Section 3. The form of the notice of election shall be substantially as set forth on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof as fully as if set forth herein verbatim.
Section 4. The election shall be held and conducted, and the results thereof canvassed and
returned, in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri and the Charter and
Ordinances of the City of Jefferson, Missouri.
Section 5. If approved by the voters, the storrnwater utility fee set forth in Proposition I shall
become effective starting January 1, 2018 and shall continue to be assessed until December 31, 2042.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage
and approval.
Passed: _____________ _ Approved: ____________ _
Presiding Officer Mayor Carrie Tergin
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Counselor
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Works and Planning Committee
THROUGH: Sonny Sanders, Interim Director of Planning and Protective Services
FROM: Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Manager
DATE: April17, 2017
RE: Historic Pres erva tion Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Historic Preservation Commission:
The City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) came into existence in 1983. In 2003, the
City began participation in the Missouri Certified Local Government Program (CLG). The CLG program,
administered by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), is designed to expand the historic preservation network of federal and state governments by
creating a mechanism for participation of local governments. Requi re ments for participation in the
Missouri CLG program include enacting a historic preservation o rdinance, appointing a preservation
commission, conducting an ongoing survey and inventory of historic properties, and conducting publ ic
outreach and education.
The volunteers appointed to the HPC work to encourage and assist with the identification and
preservation of sites, buildings, structures and objects which reflect the community's cultural, historical,
and architectural heritage. CLG requires that commission members must be drawn from profess ionals
in architecture, architectural history, history, prehistoric and historic archaeology, planning, urban
design, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, folklore, curation, conservation, landscape
architecture, or any other related disciplines or fields related to historic preservation.
The HPC also reviews demolition requests forwarded to it by the city Department of Planning &
Protective Services (PPS) in accordance Section 8-32. If the building is over 50 years old or has historic
significance, the department forwards a copy of the application to HPC for review. The HPC has a sixty
{60) day period for review of the demolition application to evaluate the building for architectural,
cultural, and historic significance. The condition of the building and the feas ib i lity of rehabilitation are
also a part of the established review criteria taken into consideration . Based on the commission's
findings, the demolition application is returned to PPS with a recommendation for approval or
disapproval. If HPC recommended disapproval, then the sixty {60) day period would expire prior to
issuing the permit barring other issues being identified.
PWPC Memo Page 1
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
Proposed Demolition Ordinance:
In September 2015, the Historic City of Jefferson (HCJ) brought forth a proposed demolition ordinance
to the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission. HCJ is a local non-for-profit organization that
is not a City commission or board, but has an interest in historic preservation.
The City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the HCJ demolition proposal and voted
to amend the document. The City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission created a sub-
committee to specifically review the City's Demolition Ordinance within is located within Chapter 8 of
the City Code. During the February 28, 2017, Specia I Meeting, the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation
Commission approved their version of the proposed demolition ordinance.
On March 27, 2017, City staff sent an email blast to organizations, members of the general public, and
those who have provided email contact information from previous public meetings, that comments are
being collected for the proposed demolition ordinance as drafted by the City of Jefferson Historic
Preservation Commission. Information on the proposed ordinance was provided on the City's website at
www.jefferson c itym o .gov/live play/history herita ge/historic preservation.php .
PPS Staff are also proposing a number of other (mostly minor) amendments within Chapter 8 of the City
Code. The Draft Council Bill is broken down into 6 sections. A brief summary of each section is as
follows:
Section 8-32 Permit to demolish historic buildings
Section A-C
A "Historic Preservation Commission Boundary" is established for reviewing properties that are fifty (50)
years and older. The boundary roughly covers Belair Dr. on the west, Stadium Blvd. on the south, Grant
St. on the east and Missouri River on the north.
All other properties that do not lie within the designated boundary would not be subject to the historic
preservation review unless designated as a local landmark, local historic district and/or National Register
of Historic Places.
Section D
Definition of demolishing or removing was prepared from a variety of sources including other
municipalities' ordinances and commission research of available historic resources.
Section E
Specifically identifies items required to be submitted as part of the demolition application for historic
buildings. Existing demolition application includes the historic preservation checklist (Cultural Resource
Assessment), and interior & exterior photographs. The proposed ordinance would add the inclusion of a
map identifying the location of the property, plot plan showing the principal and/or accessory building
footprints, and statement from owner as to why property cannot be rehabilitated or sold at a
reasonable price.
Section F
This section represents bulk of the changes to the current demolition ordinance
• Much like Planning and Zoning Commission, the property will be posted with a sign indicating
demolition permit has been submitted, notification sent to affected property owners within
PWPC Memo Page 2
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
185 ft. of the subject property including the time, date and place of public hearing. Also
includes, posting of notice of public hearing at city hall and on city's website.
• City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission has 60 days from date of complete
application submission to provide a recommendation on the issuance of the demolition permit.
The 60 day review period is not a change from the current code. Recommendation on the
demolition permit based on:
historic value by reason of age; association with important figures/events; history of
Jefferson City, State of Missouri or United States; or architectural style, construction or
work of an historically notable architect, designer or draftsperson.
visual and spatial relationship to designated or potential historic landmarks or historic
districts; and/or
a perceived state of deterioration or disrepair in relation to the historic integrity of the
property.
• If City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission recommends denying the demolition
permit application the application is then forwarded on to City Council.
• If City Council rejects the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission recommendation to
deny, the demolition permit application is suspended for at least 30 days after City Council
determination.
During the 30 day suspension, the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission
may take action to consult with civic groups, agencies, and other interested parties;
acquisition of the property by a 3'' party; explore moving the building(s); submittal of
landmark application or initiate historic district designation.
• If City Council affirms the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission denial
recommendation, the applicant may appeal to the Circuit Court for a final decision.
Section 8-33 Penalties & permit fee for historic buildings
Sets the penalty for unlawful demolition at $1,000 which is the maximum amount allowed by statute.
Also identifies that the demolition permit fee for historic building is set differently than non-historic
buildings. This fee would help offset posting of signs, mailings, staff time, etc. The City of Jefferson
Historic Preservation Commission recommends setting the fee at $210.00.
Sections 8-34 Permit to demolish buildings not meeting the definition of historic buildings in Sec. 8-32
Details the process for all demolition applications for buildings not meeting the definition of historic
buildings.
PWPC Memo Page 3
I HPC Draft Demolition Ord. Boundary 3/31/17 1
Source: City of Jefferson Department of Planning and Protective Services
Note: This boundary is a draft and public comments are currently being accepted.
Rolle ew
Legend
c:J Demolition Ordinance Boundary -DRAFT
~City Limits t:::J City Limits
L\ 0
N
0.5
g. ..
.,..!
'fo0
Miles , ~r~
'~"
~ c.
be:,
i;:
(I)
~
"' c:
{!
~ Elli Blvd '>~t.
Oak Hill 01J C
Go h Center 'r
e:.' »'
<!'<$'
<t
r,~C iun g
Pa r~ 0
Jefferson
City Memonal
Atrport
ARTICLEIII.DEMOLITIONORREMOVALOFBillLDINGS
Sec. 8-32. Permit to demolish historic buildings.
A Review Determination: Any principal and/or accessory building(s) fifty (50) years old or older that
falls within the Historic Preservation Commission Boundarv area, or is designated a city landmark,
or is located in a designated city historic district or is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The City of Jefferson
Historic Preservation Commission shall review this ordinance at least once everv five (5) years, or
as they deem necessary.
B. Boundary Establishment: This ordinance establishes the Historic Preservation Commission
Boundary and is defined as an area established within the co morale boundaries of the City of
Jefferson to be named "Historic Preservation Commission Boundary" which includes primarily the
older neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City; the specific area is described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of Boonville Road and Belair Drive thence south to Main Street,
thence east on Main Street to Dix Road thence south on Southwest Boulevard to Stadium
Boulevard, thence east along Stadium Boulevard, to Leslie Boulevard, thence east along Leslie
Boulevard to Moreau Drive, thence south following Moreau Drive to Green Berry Road, thence
east on Seven Hills Road to Bald Hill Road thence northerly Bald Hill Rd thence northerly along
the easterly line of the Bird Haven Addition. thence northerly direction to the southwesterly comer
of lot 9 of Loehners subdivisio11, thence following the southerly line of Loehners Subdivision to a
point of southerly line of Elm St thence northeasterly to the intersection of Elm St and Vetters Ln
thence north to 1500 block of East McCarty Street thence east to 100 block of Grant Stover to
Riverside Drive thence north on Riviera Street thence west along the City Limits and the J\1issouri
River to the point of beginning.
C. Purpose: The puroose of the review of permit applications for demolition or relocation of principal
and/or accessory building(s) described in Part A of this section is to prevent the loss of principal
and/or accessory building(s) that potentially have historical or architectural significance. The
review process shall also provide the time necessary to determine if the principal and/or accessory
building(s) is eligible for designation as an individual landmark contributes to a local Conservation
or Historic District or to consider alternatives to demolition for the principal and/or accessory
building(sl.
D. Demolishing or Removing: Includes the act of either demolishing or removing:
1. Fifty percent or more of the roof area as measured in plain view (the view of a principal
and/or accessory building(s) from directly above which reveals the outer perimeter of the
principal and/or accessory building(s) roof areas to be measured across a horizontal plane)
excluding roof replacement or
2. Fifty percent or more of the exterior walls of a principal and/or accessory building(s)as
measured contiguously around the principal and/or accessory building(s) coverage· or
Rev. 3/31/2009
PWPC Memo Page 5
3. Any exterior wall facing a public street but not an act or process which removes an
exterior wall facing an alley.
QL.
a) The wall shall retain studs or other structural elements the exterior wall finish
and the fully framed and sheathed roof above that portion of the remaining
principal and/or accessory building(s) to which such a wall is attached;
b) The wall shall not be covered or otherwise concealed by a wall that is proposed to
be placed in front of the retained wall; and
c) Each part of the retained exterior walls shall be connected contiguously and
without interruption to every other part of the retained exterior walls.
4. Accessory principal and/or accessory building(s) such as garages, sheds, fences, and so
forth which contribute to the character of the site.
E. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful to demolish or ""'*""" relocate any principal and/or
accessory building(s) as described in Part A of this section without first filing an application with
the Director of Planning and Protective Services or his or her designee iR ;vritiRg Elfl:El sBtaiai:Rg a
ElsmslitisR rsrmit for a permit receiving the permit and conducting the demolition or relocation of
the principal and/or accessory building(s) before the permit expires. Demolition shall be construed
to include an act or process which destroys, in part or in whole, a structure or which threatens to
destroy a structure by failure to maintain it in a condition of good repair and maintenance. The
demolition application shall be in a form promulgated by the department. Beginning work to A
rsrmit ts demolish or rsmsvs relocate shall not Bs issusEl commence until a release is obtained
from the utilities having service connections with the building. The release shall state that service
connections and appurtenant equipment, such as meters and regulators, have been removed or
sealed and plugged in a safe manner Any 8J3J3lisatieR fer ElomelitieR er mmeval sllall eo soojost te
a siJll)' (€iG) Elay roviow J3BrieEl ey tllo ClliPC, BXSBJ31 ""l' HJ3J3lisatieR maElo te Elomelisll er mmevo
aR)' euilEliRg, strusturo er llumooly 68flS1rustoEl eBjost euilt loss tRafl fifty (3Q) yoars j3Fier te tllo
Elate sf ElflfllieatisR, ;vflieR sRall have BeeR EletermffieEl ts Rave RS Ristsrie sr EH"eRiteett:H-al
sigRifieafl:ee B~/ the Deflar1:m:efl:t sf PlElffiliRg aRElPrsteet-ive §JeRriees mEier t-Re eriteria set sut iR
flEH"agFElflR C. 1\R:;r reesmmeRElatisR B~/ t-Re CJIIPC sRall Be aElvissry sRly. Nothing in this section
shall be construed so as to prohibit the building esmmissisRer official from acting under any
emergency provisions of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Jefferson, Missouri. (Ord. No. 12941,
§1, 6-21-99; Ord. No. 13106, §1, 9-5-2000)
An application for permit to demolish or relocate any principal and /or accessory building(s) that
falls under part A of this section must contain the following:
1. A copy of the historic preservation checklist
2. Photo2:ranhs as digital files of all extenor sides interior rooms and stairwells taken within
the last ninety (90) days. Photographs must show all areas and characteristics of the
principal and/or accessory building(s) not just those areas in disrepair. Interior
photographs may be waived if the principal and/or accessory building(s) is determined
structurally unsound by the Department of Planning and Protective Services;
3. A map identifying the location of the property
4. A plot plan showing the principal and/or accessory building(s) footprintCs)"
5. A statement from the owner addressing why the property cannot be rehabilitated or sold at
a reasonable price to private or public bodies interested in restoring the site and principal
and/or accessory building(s).
After examining an application and finding that it is in proper form contains all necessary
information and complies with all applicable provisions of city ordinance the department shall
Rev. 3/31/2009
2
PWPC Memo Page 6
initiate the review process.
F. Review Process. The Director of Planning and Protective Services shall determine within ten (10)
working days after the Department has accepted a completed permit application if the principal
and/or accessory building(s) falls under the description of Part A of this section. The applicant shall
be notified within ten (1 0) working days of this decision.
I. Issuance of a Permit: The permit application shall be referred to the City of Jefferson
Historic Preservation Commission (CJHPC) for review. The CJHPC shall provide a
recommendation on the issuance of the permit within sixty (60) days from the date that a
completed application is accepted.
2. Notice of Meeting: The Department of Planning and Protective Services shall:
a) Post the property subject to indicate that a demolition permit review has been
requested. J\1inimurn dimensions for the sign should be 24" x 24" given notice of
the date, time, and place of the hearing and action requested. The sign shall
remain posted on the propertv until after the close of the public hearing. The
failure to post signs or retain notification signs on the property shall not be
grounds for invalidating any action taken by the responsible decision making
body;
b) Notice of all public hearings shall be posted in City Hall at least 24 hours prior to
any public hearing·
c) Written notice shall be sent by regular first class mail to each affected property
owner at the mailing address listed in the official records of the Assessor's Office
in the county in which the property is located. Affected propertv owners shall
include the subject property and property within one hundred and eighty five
(185) feet of the boundaries of the subject property drawn parallel to the
boundaries excluding intervening streets, and other public rights-of-way. The
mailed notice shall include a statement explaining that this is a courtesy notice
and not required by law. The failure of property owner(s) to receive notice by
mail shall not be grounds for invalidating any action taken by the responsible
decision making body-
d) Posted notice and mail notification shall include the time date and place of the
public hearing the location of the property including a legal description and a
statement that interested parties shall be given a chance to be heard;
e) The City shall post the notice on the City's website.
3. Commission Review: The CJHPC shall hold a public meeting on the permit application
within sixty (60) days after the Department of Planning and Protective Services accepts a
completed application. If the CJHPC fails to hold a public meeting within sixty (60) days
after the Department of Planning and Protective Services accepts a completed permit
application, the Department of Planning and Protective Services shall issue the permit if
all other requirements of the permit process have been met. The CJHPC shall consider and
base its recommendation upon any of the following criteria:
Rev. 3/31/2009
a) The historic value of the principal and/or accessonr building(s) or by reason of
age or association with important figures or events· or as evidence of aspects of
the history of Jefferson City the State of Missouri or the United States· or as an
embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of
construction· or as a representation of the work of an historically notable
3
PWPC Memo Page 7
architect designer or draftsperson-
b) The visual and spatial relationship of the principal and/or accessory building(s) to
designated or potential historic landmarks or historical districts;
c) The state of deterioration or disrepair as it relates to the historic integrity of the
principal and/or accessory buildingCs)"
d) The Commission may also consider the number of similar principal and/or
accessory building(s) that still exist within the City of Jefferson.
4. Recommendation of The ClliPC: If the ClliPC finds that the principal and/or accessory
building(s) to be relocated or demolished do not have historical significance under the
criteria set forth in subsection (3 a-d) of this article, the ClliPC shall recommend the
Director of the Department of Planning and Protective Services issue the permit if all other
requirements of the permit process are met. If the Cll-IPC finds that the principal and/or
accessory building(s) have historical significance under the criteria set forth in subsection
(3 a-d) of this section, the application shall be recommended for denial and forwarded to
the City Council. The applicant shall be notified in writing within ten (I 0) working days of
the ClliPC recommendation.
5. Decision of the City Council: City Council by ordinance may affirm or reject the
ClliCP's recommendation to deny the application. If the City Council rejects the
Cll-IPC' s recommendation to deny the application. the application shall be suspended for a
period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the date the Council makes a final
determination.
6. Thirty Day Stay Period: During the period of a stay of the issuance of a permit for
demolition or relocation, the Cll-IPC may take any action that it deems necessary and
consistent with this chapter to preserve the principal and/or accessory building(s)
including but not necessarily limited to: consulting with civic groups, public agencies and
interested citizens recommending acquisition of the moperty by private or public bodies
or agencies exploring the possibility of moving the principal and/or accessory building(s)
that would otherwise be demolished and salvaging materials. If an individual landmark or
district designation has not been initiated during the thirty (30) day stay period the
Department of Planning and Protective Services shall issue a permit if all other
requirements of the permit process have been met.
7. Appeal of City Council Decision: The applicant may appeal the City Council's decision to
deny issuance of a demolition permit to the Circuit Court of the county in which the
principal and/or accessory building(s) is located. The decision of the City Council is a
final decision for the purooses of the appeal.
I. De~a-efll. All ~~lieatiens fer ~ermissieR Is Elemelisfi a ll»ilai»g er slrueffire sfiall lle
maElo Is lllo Do~.-ofll efPlan:liRg ana Preloelivo gorvieos. fer any slmeffiro lllat is fifty
(5G) yoars elEl er elElor, lllo a~~liealieR m»sl eefllaiR lllo fellewiRg: l) ~lielegr~lis, oilllor
iR B-arEl eery er as Eligital files, ef all B?Rsrier siElss, ir-ltsrier reems, aREl stairvvslls, takeR
williiR lllo las! RiRoly (9G) Elays; aREl 2) a slalomofll frem lllo GVC'BBF aEIElrossiRg wily lllo
rrersrty eaAAet Bs rshaBilitatsEl er rsstersEl witH a rsasel'l:a8ls seeRemie rsttH"R te tRs
ewRer. After enamiRiRg aR 8:J3J3lieatieR 8:fl:El fiREliRg tHat it is in J3rGJ3er Berm, eefl:taiRs all
Reeessary iRffiFLTI:at-ieR, aREl eemJ3lies wit-R all aJ3J3lieaBle J3revisieRs ef eity erElifl8:fl:ees, tHe
EleJ3ai41Tlefl:t sHall Ber;varEl a GGJ3Y ef tHe 8:J3J3lieatieR te CJIIPC. EOrEl. ±'Je. 15181, § 1,
1Q 21 2Ql3.
Rev. 3/31/2009
4
PWPC Memo Page 8
2. CJIIPC. IRe CJIIPC lTI:ay Rave a si:~y Ei3Qj Ela:/ 13erisEl Bar review sf every ElflfllieatisR Bar
a ElelTI:sliiisR fleFlTI:it sl±Bjeet ts Hlis seetisR. IRe CJIIPC sRall estaBlisH: flFSeeEl-ewes ts
eJEfleElite Hle review sf aflfllieatisns Bar fleFLTI:its ts ElelTI:slisR strl:ieti:H"es.
(Ora. }Je. 12941, §2, €l 21 99)
G. §JtElfl:ElEH"Els sf Review Bar a PeFLTI:itts DelTI:slisR.
1. IRs Ristsrie valtLB sf Hls Bt~:ilEliA:g sr strn-ett:ws B)' rsassfl: sf age sr assseiatisR witJ:i
imj3erl8flt figtlfss er svsflls; er as sviasRGS ef aSJ3SGis ef Ills llislery ef Jsffsrsefl City, Ills
~tats sf },4issstH"i sr Hls UE:itsEl ~tatss; sr as arJ: BlTI:BsElilTI:Bflt sf Hls ElistiReiivs
eRaraetsristies sf a tyj3B, flBFisEl sr lTI:BtJ:isEl sf esRstrtLetisR; sr as a FBflFBSBRtatisR sf Hls
werlc ef oollislerioally Relaels arohilsol, assigRsr er Elraflsj3srseR;
2. IRe viSHal aREl Sflatial relatisRSRifl sf the Bt~:ilEliRg sr strtLeti:H"e ts ElesigA:ateEl sr flSteRtial
Ristsrie lElflEiFrlaFlcs sr histsrieal Elistriets;
3. IRs state sf Elstsrisratisfl: sr ElisFBflair sr strnett:wal tmsstLnElnsss sf Hls Bl±ilEling sr
slruohlrs, ooallls J3raolioaeilily ef rsffieililaliefl. Ills ClliPC may rs'l"sslllls aj3J3liGafllle
suemil aeoumsfllaliefl BS)'8flalllal wllioll is Sj3SGifisa iflllls aj3j3liGaliefl iRa ferm Sj3SGifisa
ey Ills ClliPC er elllsr iRfermaliefl Rsosssary le aslsrmifls wllslllsr Ills J3rBJ3srly GaR es
rsffieililalsa er rsslersa willl a rsaseRaels soeRemio rsltlfflle Ills ewRsr. (Ora. Ne. I? I g 4,
§I, IG 21 2GJ:l)
H. Aflflrsval sr EliSElflflFSval. V/i#HR five E51 Elays after eitJ:ier:
I. Ills ClliPC' s aslsrmiRalieR: er
2. Ills Sl'f'iraliefl ef Ills siJll)' (€JG) aay rsvisw J3Sriea, >~<fliollsvsr eGGtlfs firsl, Ills airsoler ef
PlaAAiRg Elfl:El Prsteetive §JeR'iees sRall ElflflFSve sr Rst ElflflFSve Hle ElflfllieatisR. A Regative
re eslTI:lTI: eRElatisR B)' Hle CJIIPC sRall Rst Be grstl:Fl:Els Bar EliSElflflFSval sf Hle ElflfllieatisR.
(Ord. No. 14691, §2, 6-21-2010; Ord. No. 9154, §I, 8-21-78; Ord. No. 10397, § 7, 4-1-85; Ord. No. 11737,
§ I, 5-4-92; Ord. No. 12794, §2, 8-17-98)
Sec. 8-33. Penalties & permit fee for historic buildings.
A Penalties: The penalty for the unlawful demolition of a principal and/or accessory building(s) in
violation of this article is a fine of one thousand dollars ($1 000.00) or by imprisomuent not to
exceed one hundred eighty (180) days or both. By ordinance Council may impose a one (1) year
ban on the issuance of any building or structure permit to be built on the parcel of land on which the
unlawfully demolished principal and/or accessory building(s) were located as well as to
individual(s) who demolish a principal and/or accessory building(s) that fall under 8-32 Part A
without first obtaining and fully complying with the provisions of a demolition permit.
B. Fees: No permit to remove or demolish a building shall be issued until a fee as set out in Appendix
Y shall have been paid/submitted to the Department of Planning and Protective Services.
±'Js fleFLTI:it ts relTI:sve sr ElelTI:slisR a Bt~:ilEliRg sRall Be isstLeEl HRtil a fee as set stLt iR AflfleRElin Y
shall Rave BeeR 13aiEl ts the Elef1EH41TleRt sf PlElffiliRg Elf1Ell2rsteetive §JeR'iees sr stfier El-l:<ltRsrir:eEl
lTltmieiflal ageRSJ'.
Rev. 3/31/2009
5
PWPC Memo Page 9
(Ord. No. 9154, § 3, 8-21-78; Ord. No. 9534, §I, 10-20-80; Ord. 14272, §5, 10-15-2007)
Sec. 8-.J;I. 34. Permit to demolish buildings not meeting the definition of Historic Buildings in Sec. 8-32.
I. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful to demolish or remove without first filing an application
with the Director of Planning and Protective Services or his or her designee in writing and
obtaining a demolition permit. Demolition shall be construed to include an act or process which
destroys, in part or in whole, a structure or which threatens to destroy a structure by failure to
maintain it in a condition of good repair and maintenance. The demolition application shall be in a
form promulgated by the department. Beginning work to demolish or remove shall not commence
until a release is obtained from the utilities having service connections with the building. The
release shall state that service connections and appurtenant equipment such as meters and
regulators, have been removed or sealed and plugged in a safe manner. Nothing in this section
shall be construed so as to prohibit the building official from acting under any emergency
provisions of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Jefferson, Missouri. (Ord. No. 12941, §I, 6-21-
99; Ord. No. 13106, §I, 9-5-2000)
Sec. 8.35. Permit fee
No permit to remove or demolish a building shall be issued until a fee as set out in Appendix Y shall have
been paid/submitted to the Department of Planning and Protective Services.
(Ord No. 9154, § 3, 8-21-78; Ord. No. 9534, §I, 10-20-80; Ord. 14272, §5, 10-15-2007)
Sec. 8-;}4. 36. Maintenance of vacated premises.
Whenever a building is demolished or removed, the premises shall be maintained free from all
unsafe or hazardous conditions by the proper regulation of the lot, restoration of established grade and the
erection of the necessary retaining walls and fences in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the
city's building code.
(Ord. No. 9154, § 4, 8-21-78)
Sec. 8-~ 37. Grading of lot.
When a building has been demolished or destroyed by fire or other natural causes and no building
operation has been projected or approved, the vacant lot shall be filled, graded and maintained to conform on
all sides to the existing grades and elevations of the adjacent property. Adjoining walls shall be left in an
acceptable condition to prevent the harboring of insects, rodents or pigeons. The lot shall be maintained free
from the accumulation of rubbish and all other unsafe or hazardous conditions which endanger the life or
health of the public; provisions shall be made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to any
foundations on the premises of the adjoining property. Upon completion of the demolition, the lot shall be
left in a state that is aesthetically acceptable to the director of Planning and Protective Services. In the event
of a disagreement over the term "aesthetically acceptable," the matter shall be referred to the city council for
final determination.
Rev. 3/31/2009 6
PWPC Memo Page 10
(Ord. No. 9154, § 5, 8-21-78)
Sec. 8-.J& 38. Suspension of permit.
Any demolition permit shall become invalid if the aufhorized work is not commenced within thirty
(30) days after the issuance of the permit, or if fhe authorized work is suspended or abandoned for a period
of ten (I 0) days after the time of commencing the work All work including grading and lot re-construction
must be completed wifhin ninety (90) days after the time of commencing the work unless a written extension
of time is issued by the Director of Planning and Protective Services.
(Ord. No. 9154, § 6, 8-21-78)
Sec. 8-.J+ 39. Penalties.
Any person who shall violate any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not more fhan five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days, or bofh such fine and imprisonment Each day that a violation continues shall be
deemed a separate offense.
(Ord. No. 10397, § 8, 4-1-85; Code 1983, § 7-38; Ord. No. 11201, § 4, 4-17-89)
Sees. 8-.JS 40-8-48. Reserved.
Rev. 3/31/2009 7
PWPC Memo Page 11
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
Summary of Written Comments: (comments received from 49 people, list of names are attached along
with full comments)
A. Opposed Comments: Thirteen (13) comments were received opposing the proposed demolition
ordinance. Below is a summary of responses.
• This proposal will add time, cost, and uncertainty to developing older structures in the city limits
making them less attractive to developers and causing these structures that are in need of rehab
from being done because of the risks associated.
• A developer could be caught in a government created Catch 22 with a structure that
unbeknownst to them has "historic value" according to HPC but because of state of the property
isn't redeemable.
• Determining "historic value" is a completely subjective exercise which means that the
enforcement of the proposed law will be arbitrary and arbitrary laws can be enforced
effectively.
• The supporters of this proposal argue that it's in the public's benefit to keep these structures
but enforcement of this ordinance would place the burden of public benefit (i.e. roads, street
lights, public safety) on a single taxpayer instead of everyone that enjoys those benefits.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated
future events. This is a solution in search of a problem.
• Realtors® want to preserve the history of their communities because these properties are
valuable. When you place unnecessary restrictions on structures you make them less
valuable. No government edict can escape fundamental economic principles
• I believe it is confusing to have two ordinances, one for the normal demolition and one
for the historic district. I believe it should be one process, in one place in the City
Ordinances. If Special Districts have differing requirements based upon age (or other
conditions) it can be plainly stated and in the one ordinance and become less confusing
for the general public.
• Timeline is too long. The area is a very expended area. A 50 year old house covers 1960
ranch houses.
B. Supporting Comments Thirty-five (35) comments were received supporting the proposed
demolition ordinance. Below is a summary of responses.
• To be a Certified Local Government, JC was required to establish a Historic Preservation
Commission. Part of their duties are to review demolition applications of buildings over 50 years
old and "recommend" approval or "not". This is non-binding and does not prevent a developer
from demolishing a building in 60 days after review regardless or recommendation. Really!
What a waste of everyone's time. The HPC is asked for their opinion but it has no teeth
whatsoever.
The HPC rarely denies recommendation of a permit and when they do, you can be pretty sure it
is warranted and the buildings were historic. The realtors argue that "historic" is a subjective
term but the definitions used by the HPC follows that of the NPS for the National Register of
Historic Places. Five things:
PWPC Memo Page 12
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
1. Really old places, like the Parsons house (1830s) and Lohman's landing is automatically
historic,
2. places that represent an architectural style that is largely lost, like Ivy Terrace, or a lost
era like Viets wayside Inn torn down in 2005 at the corner of Mo Blvd and Dix (and still
vacant!)
3. a place where a famous person lived, like the Lohman House (on Broadway, now
demolished)
4. A house that is part of a historic neighborhood and whose loss would diminish the
historic context of that neighborhood (like Dr. Sanders concrete/steel house on
Hayselton).
5. A house that is a contributing member of a district on the NRHP, like the Bassman house
in the 200 block of W. McCarty now gone.
It is not a subjective determination!
The HPC should be able to make a binding determination. It seems like a waste of many people's
time and talent to make these meaningless reviews.
In the proposed ordinance there is a recourse for a developer! It is not final. The city council
could reverse any decision, as could the court. Realtors argue this could mean costly delays. I
argue this would be in the public interest for the city to be good stewards of our historic past. A
balance needs to struck. Currently there is no balance because developers can do anything they
want.
• From October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2016, Historic Preservation Commission reviewed
111 cases, 101 cases were recommended for approval, 4 cases were recommended for denial,
and 6 cases had 60 day holds put in place. All10 of the cases in which the HPC did not
recommend approval were demolished. It is apparent that the current ordinance does not result
in avoiding the demolition of buildings, even in the very rare cases where the HPC did not
recommend approval. The data also shows that over 7 years, with many different people on the
HPC, in 101 out of 111 the HPC recommended approval of the applications. So there is little
chance that a "rogue" HPC would start blocking demolitions.
With the Capitol Ave. Urban Renewal Plan moving forward, it is incredibly important that we
have in place tools to increase the likelihood that the beautiful architecture and buildings in that
area are rehabbed and re-used, and not demolished so that a developer can build an apartment
building for lobbyists close to the Capitol. Another real threat is that the County Commission will
acquire multiple parcels to clear the lots and build a new courthouse. This was actually
discussed during a county commission meeting about a year and a half ago.
Although many in Jefferson City would say projects like those would be great, the city council, as
well as the Housing Authority Board, have assured our community that the goal in the Capitol
Ave blighted area is to preserve the historic buildings. In order to do that, to follow through on
that promise, we must have a more effective demolition ordinance. I believe that the ordinance
proposed by the HPC will do that. By providing more effective notice to the public members of
the community will have the opportunity to comment. By forwarding applications that the HPC
PWPC Memo Page 13
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
recommends for denial to City Council for the final decision, that body will have the opportunity
to make the final determination as to whether to approve or deny an application.
This revised ordinance was drafted by the HPC over many months, and reviewed by city staff,
and people in the community that have been involved in preservation. A lot of input from
people who have rehabbed and reused historic properties was provided. A staff member from
the SHPO provided guidance. The HPC reviewed ordinances from other communities to find best
practices to use here in Jefferson City. This ordinance should be viewed as a tool to improve
historic preservation in our city. It should not be viewed as a tool for realtors to sell properties
or for large developers to do what they want to in the historic neighborhoods of Jefferson City.
There are many economic development tools available to encourage investment in Jefferson
City. This ordinance should be passed to provide a tool to encourage historic preservation in the
older neighborhoods of our city.
• You have the opportunity to provide the City with a new tool to help protect the historic
buildings in most of Old Town Jefferson City. The new powers it provides are limited, but
certainly appropriate. The bill is respectful of private property rights, but also allows the City to
look at the bigger picture in certain and very specific cases.
• Historic buildings and neighborhoods cannot be rebuilt. More effort is required to preserve a
community's history. It's the one thing that makes a city a unique place. No other place has our
history. Much of that history is reflected in our buildings. Great caution should be exercised
when changing your history. The demolition ordinance makes it harder to erase the past. I favor
that.
C. Comments providing suggestions
1. It would be helpful to add language to the proposed Demolition Ordinance to address partial
demolitions, as related to rehabilitation efforts. For example, in case of a fire or other act of
God, a property owner desiring to rehabilitate a building that has over 50% of its roof or any
wall damaged would likely have to remove all the damaged portion (perhaps even more) before
repairs can begin. If a building permit has been approved by city staff, the property should be
exempt from the demolition review process, even though over 50% of a roof or wall would be
removed during rehab. Or, if a roof or wall is so deteriorated that partial (or total) removal of
that portion of the building is necessary during rehab, issuance of a building permit should
negate the requirement for a demolition review. (This situation may arise during rehab of some
of the Capitol Avenue properties.)
There is a concern that a property owner might apply for a building permit to avoid the
demolition review process, then stall on the rehabilitation effort until further damage makes
rehab financially infeasible (a form of demolition by neglect). So there should be a time limit on
replacement of the portion of the building damaged over 50% before the demolition review
process would be initiated, preferably 30 days, to allow city staff to quickly confirm the property
owners' rehabilitation plans are sincere.
The proposed Demolition Ordinance should also address the process for review of buildings
deemed as a threat to public safety by city staff, whether due to fire or other act of God or
PWPC Memo Page 14
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
deterioration over time. In years past, there was no demolition review of such buildings by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Instead, city staff informed the HPC that a property
was going to be demolished, so that pursuit of other options was not possible. The proposed
ordinance should also clarify that the proposed demolition review process applies to all owners,
including the City of Jefferson and other government entities such as Cole County. (Typically the
State of Missouri has been exempt from city regulation, but if this is no longer the case, then the
ordinance should clarify this issue.)
2. Section 8-32 ES requires "a statement from the owner addressing why the property
cannot be rehabilitated or sold at a reasonable price to private or public bodies
interested in restoring the site and/or accessory building(s)." The process appears to
me to be entirely subjective and beneficial to the property owner. Should not there be
some external entity either offering a supporting our a counter-assessment? As it is
written now, the weight is given to the owner who might have allowed the property to
run down without penalty to determine what is a "reasonable price" or to the city that
has taken over the property through court proceeding. I would think the historical
preservation interests should be protected by an outside assessment of value and/or
costs and suggest wording be added to protect that interest.
F2c. Written notice does not include written notice to Historic City of Jefferson, Cole
County Historical Society, or other kindred groups. I see no reason to exclude those
organizations from the ordinance that otherwise is inclusive of specific requirements.
I see nothing in this proposed ordinance that addresses what happens to this property after
demolition, other than the requirements for grading and maintenance. Perhaps the issue is
covered in another ordinance but if not, it seems to me a logical extension of this proposal
would include limits on the design of any structure that replaces a structure demolished in the
historic district. A case might be made for exceptions, particularly in the outer limits of the
district that have not developed with the continuity we see on Capitol Avenue. But a historic
district cannot be preserved or maintained if new structures are built that do not retain the
character of the district. One Chamber of Commerce building is more than enough if we are
serious about retaining and developing the historic character of that particular area. I would be
comforted by extension of this proposal or enactment of a separate ordinance requiring any
new structures to reflect the historical context of an area.
The new structure might replace two older demolished buildings---a necessity, perhaps, to
attract business and development to the area. But Wymore Place or the Tergin Apartments
wouldn't retain the historic nature of East Capitol Avenue (and I like both Wymore Place and the
Tergin Apartments---where they are.). Any new structure should look like it belongs there.
3. Suggest removal of requirement on the owner providing digital files of all interior rooms and
stairwells. This appears to be government intrusion.
Unnecessary for a private property owner to be required to provide statement on how or what
they choose to do with their personal property. Suggest to strike this requirement or amend to
suggest owner provide a statement on costs or future plans for site.
Suggest the removal of 8-32.F.2.c. Unnecessary to go through time and costs of mailing notice
to all "affected" property owners as the ordinance already requires the posting at the physical
location and at city hall.
PWPC Memo Page 15
Historic Preservation Commission Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Planning & Protective Services Staff analysis of comments received through April 12, 2017
8-32.F.6 suggest clarification on language "CJHPC may take any action that it deems necessary"
as we would not want to provide too much authority to an unelected board on how they may
potential take property from a private property owner. The CJHPC should only provide
recommendations to the City Council and it should be the job of city staff to ensure compliance
only upon direction from the City Manager with the blessing of City Council.
8-33.A Remove the penalty of "imprisonment not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days" as
this seems excessive. Remove the penalty against the construction contractor and only place the
one year ban on issuance of the permit on the permit applicant or property owner. The City
should not penalize a local or out-of-area contractor for any violation as they may be unaware of
this ordinance or have not been provided accurate information by the property owner.
Specifically, remove "as well as to individual(s) who demolish a principal and/or accessory
building(s) that fall under 8-32 Part A without first obtaining and fully complying with the
provisions of a demolition permit.
We appreciate the newly created boundary establishment, however the area seems pretty large
and staff may want to consider reducing the size even more so the ordinance truly applies to
historically significant areas, and not just areas where the majority of the homes are simply
older.
Staff Time & Cost Analysis:
The current cost for a demolition application is $53.00. The demolition application is reviewed by
multiple staff persons from Department of Planning and Protective Services and Department of Public
Works. Historic preservation one of nine areas reviewed prior to issuing a permit for demolition.
The proposed demolition ordinance would add additional steps in preparing the demolition application
for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The following are staff time and cost estimates:
Staff Time Estimate Per Demolition Application
30 minutes Consultation with applicant and acceptance of application
30 minutes Preparation of "185' buffer" and mailing list.
30 minutes Copy, envelope preparation, and mailing.
30 minutes Preparation of sign.
30 minutes Placement of sign on property.
150 minutes Review of application, research Landmark Listing, National Register Listing, Surveys,
preparation of staff report/analysis.
30 minutes Staff time at meeting.
30 minutes Preparation and mailing of notice of decision.
Total: 6 hours of staff time.
Cost Estimate Per Demolition Application
$240.00 6 hours of staff time at $40 per hour.
$20.00 postage
$20.00 supplies (especially laminator for the sign)
Total: $280.00
PWPC Memo Page 16
NAMES SUPPORT OPPOSE
Blake Werner, Action Realty of JC ABR, e-Pro, RSPS, SRS ./
Carlene Bax, Member of JCABOR ./
Chris Wood, Senior Vice President, Jefferson Bank of Missouri ./
Chris Yarnell ./
Darrel Gordon, Gordon Builders ./
Donna Porter, Associated Real Estate Group ./
Donna Stone, RCE, ePRO, Jefferson City Board of Realtors ./
Hank Vogt, Licensed Missouri Realtor, GRI, MGRI, e-PRO ./
Jerry Knollmeyer ./
Kathy Cremer, ePRO, GRI, RELO, Broker-Owner, Key Choice Realty LLC ./
Larry Kolb, Kolb Properties ./
Margaret Rehma ./
Anonynmous ./
Cliff Keeler, Keeler Photography ./
Dana Miller, Asst. Chief Clerk, MO House of Representatives ./
Dave & Kathy Bordner ./
David Griffith, Executive Director, American Red Cross ./
Debbie Goldhammer ./
Gary Rackers, Citizen of JC ./
Heather Priner, Citizen of JC ./
Holly Stitt, Avenue HQ ./
Jackie Trippensee ./
Jane Beetem, Historic Preservation ./
Janet Hirschman, Flotron & Mcintosh, LLC ./
Janet Mauer ./
Jenny Smith ./
Jim Kreider, MRTA Executive Director ./
Jolene Feeler ./
Kathy White, Committee Records Coordinator ./
Katie Owens ./
Kay Harden ./
Kelly Branstetter, Citizen of JC ./
Kevin McHugh ./
Kim Rademan ./
Lynn Osvold ./
Marie Colvin ./
Mary Casey ./
Mary Sue Higgins ./
Maryilynn Medley ./
Maryln Plassmeyer ./
Pam Taylor ./
Steve Veile, past City Council Member ./
Tammy Boeschen, President of HCJ ./
Tim Morrow ./
Tony Smith ./
PWPC Memo Page 17
NAMES SUPPORT OPPOSE
Walter Schroeder ./
Individuals Where Did Not Outright Indicate Opposition or Support
Bob Priddy
Cynthia Quetsch, Executive Director, Housing Authority City of Jefferson
Heath Clarkston, Home Builders Association of Central MO
PWPC Memo Page 18
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MARGARET REHMA BOULCH <magicmarg@embarqmail.com>
Monday, April 10, 2017 10:55 AM
Stratman, Anne
Donna Stone
Demolishing older properties.
Properties that are over 50 year of age and in bad shape should be demolished. It is better to see a
vacant lot with potential than an old building that has no historial value. We have too many older
homes in Jefferson City that the owners do not care for. It is time to move forward.
1
PWPC Memo Page 19
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Larry Kolb <kolbproperties@embarqmail.com>
Monday, AprillO, 2017 4:07PM
'Cynthia Quetsch'; 'Larry Vincent'
Abbott, Jayme; J Pletzlaw@ao I. com
RE: We want to hear from you!
Follow up
Flagged
Cynthia & Jamie, I have several comments:
Under Section E. 1. What is the historic preservation checklist. We should know what that says. Is it lengthy?
Under E. 1 & 5-If an owner wants to tear his building down and has a different use for it but doesn't want to sell it. Can
this just be a sentence or is the Department Official or CJHPC going to say "we need more info" and keep holding up the
process.
If I'm reading this right the timeline is to long:
To submit the application the owner has to spend a considerable amount of time to prepare ( possibly 2 weeks.)-14
days
City has 10 working days to review (2 weeks) time to review.
days
CJ H PC has 60 days to review
days
CJHPC rejects the application on the 59th day-the city has to notify the owner within 10 days
days
It goes to city council for review -at least a two week window
days
The city council rejects the CJHPC recommendation-they now have a 30 day stay period
days
days Nothing has been resolved and it gets messy after this.
I think this is way over written. The area is a very expanded area. A 50 year old house cover 1960 ranch houses.
I don't think that is the intent but that's what is says.
Thanks, Larry Kolb
-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Quetsch [ma ilto :Cyn thia@ jc hamo.o r g]
Sent: Monday, April10, 2017 2:03PM
To: 'Larry Kolb (k o l bprope rt ies@e m barg ma i l.com )' <ko l bp r o pe r t i es@emba rg ma il.co m >; Larry Vincent
< LVi nc e nt @colec o u nt y.o r g>
Subject: FW: We want to hear from you!
Th links here show the proposal on the demolition ordinance. Not sure if you saw it.
1
PWPC Memo Page 20
-14
-60
-10
-14
-30
142
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
Kathy Cremer <Kathy@ keychoicerealty.info >
Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:21AM
To: Stratman, Anne
Cc: Donna Stone
Subject: Demolition of Older Structures in Jefferson City
To whom this concerns:
As a Jefferson City Realtor®, I wish to weigh in to the discussion on changes to the demolition permit
processes regarding homes older than fifty years old. I believe the current processes are sufficient to discern the
possible historic value of these homes and to determine their fate. To add ...
• This proposal will add time, cost, and uncertainty to developing older structures in the city limits making
them less attractive to developers and causing these structures that are in need of rehabbing from being
done so because ofthe risks associated.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated future events.
• Realtors® want to preserve the history of their communities because these properties are
valuable. When you place unnecessary restrictions on structures you make them less valuable.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
Regards,
Kathy Cremer, ePRO, GRI, RELO
Broker-Owner
Key Choice Realty, LLC
1103 D Southwest Boulevard
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573-634-4249 (Office)
573-353-2980 (Cell) Call or Text
866-374-7741 (Fax)
www. KeyChoiceRealtyLLC . com
Sent from my iPad
1
PWPC Memo Page 21
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jerry Knoll meyer< Knollmeyer.Jerry@reagan.com>
Tuesday, April 11,2017 3:21 PM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
This is just another example where the government know better that its citizens. We a just too stupid.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
h tt ps://www.avast .c o m/ant iv irus
1
PWPC Memo Page 22
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
hankvogtremax@gmail.com on behalf of Hank Vogt <hank@hankshouses.com>
Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:21AM
Stratman, Anne; Donna Stone
Subject: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
Over the last two years we have been closely monitoring the proposed changes to the demolition ordinance for buildings
50 years or older in Jefferson City. Proponents of historic preservation are pushing to put binding recommendations
concerning new requirements for submission of the application, longer t:imelines for review and consideration, and stiff
penalties for non-compliance. As a REAL TOR I would like to voice my concern for property rights and rmdue hardship on
o\Vllers. investors, developers and contractors that would like to improve properties with buildings and homes over 50
years of age. I do support and embrace our beautiful historic buildings and their preservation, but the proposed changes
would prohibit or significantly delay progress for those seeking to improve properties that could, in turn, increase property
value, create economic stability, safety, and grovvth. The following points are of great concern to me
• This proposal will add time, cost, and rmcertainty to developing older structures in the city limits making them
less attractive to developers and causing these structures the are in need of rehab from being done because of the
risks associated.
• A developer could be caught in a government created Catch 22 with a structure that rmbelmo\Vllst to them has
"historic value" according to HPC but because of state of the property isn't redeemable.
• Determining "historic value" is a completely subjective exercise which means that the enforcement of the
proposed law will be arbitrrny and arbitrrny laws can be enforced effectively.
• The supporters of this proposal argue that it's in the public's benefit to keep these structures but enforcement of
this ordinance would place the burden of public benefit (ie roads, street lights, public safety) on a single taxpayer
instead of everyone that enjoys those benefits.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated future events. This is
a solution in search of a problem.
• Realtors® want to preserve the history of their communities because these properties are valuable. When you
place rmnecessrny restrictions on structures you make them less valuable. No government edict can escape
frmdamental economic principles
Thank you for your time in reviewing my concerns and will be happy to address any questions
you might have.
1
PWPC Memo Page 23
0 ----------
Hank v ogt-Licensed Missouri REALTOR, GRI, MGRI, e-PRO
2015 President, Jefferson City Area Board of Realtors
RE/MAX, Jefferson City-2316 St. Mary's Blvd -Jefferson City MO 65109
Office: 573-761-3485 -Fax: 573-761-3421
Mobile: 573-353-7371 -Email: hank@hankshou ses.com
Click HERE to visit my website
To connect with me, follow me on your favorite social media. 0 -----------
2
PWPC Memo Page 24
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Donna Stone <donna@ jcabor.com >
Monday, April10, 2017 1:1S PM
Stratman, Anne
Cc:
Subject:
brian b@ swllc.u s.com; Donna Stone
Proposed Dem ol iti on Ordinance Comments
Over the I ast two years we have been closely monitoring the proposed changes to the demolition ordinance tor
buildings 50 years or older in Jefferson City.
The Jefferson City Area Board of REALTORS, Inc. would submit the to I lowing points tor consideration:
• This propo sa I will add time, cost, and uncertainty to developing older structures in the city I imits making them
less attractive to developers and causing these structures the are in need of rehab from being done because of the risks
associated.
• A developer could be caught in a government created catch 22 with a structure that unbeknownst to them has
"historic value" according to HPC but because of state of the property isn't redeemable.
• Determining "historic value" is a completely subjective exercise which means that the enforcement of the
proposed law will be arbitrary and arbitrary laws can be enfo reed effectively.
• The supporters of this proposal argue that it's in the public's benefit to keep these structures but enforcement
of this ordinance would place the burden of public benefit (i.e. roads, street lights, public safety) on a sirgletaxpayer
instead of everyone that enjoys those benefits.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated future events. This
is a so I uti on in search of a problem.
• Realtors"' want to preserve the history of their communities because these properties are valuable. When you
place unnecessary restrictions on structures you make them less valuable. No government edict can escape
fundamental eco nomic princi pies.
Any specific questions on these comments should be directed to our Governmental Affairs Director, Brian Bernskoetter,
at brianb@sv.•llc.us.co m
Donna Stone, RCE, ePRO
~JC'1Z ERSON
ITY A Rf :A
BOARD of REALTORS: INC.
1906 Bubba Lane
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Phone: 573/636-6721; Fax: 573/636-6723
M ailto :do nna@jcabo r.co m
Jcabor.com
F acebo ok .co m/J efferso natyAreaRealto rs
The mission of the Jefferson Oty Area Bocrd of REALTORS, In c. is to strengthen the business en \4ronmen t for our
members.
I
PWPC Memo Page 25
Abbott, Jayme
From: Donna Porter <donn aportersells4u@ gm ai I. com>
Wednesday, April 0 5, 2 017 7:54AM Sent:
To: Stratman, Anne
Cc: Donna Stone
Subject: Proposed Dem ol iti on Ordinance Committee
• A developer could be caught in a government created Catch 22 with a structure that unbeknownst to
them has "historic value" according to HPC but because of state of the property isn't redeemable.
• Determining "historic value" is a completely subjective exercise which means that the enforcement of
the proposed law will be arbitrary and arbitrary laws can be enforced effectively.
• The supporters of this proposal argue that it's in the public's benefit toke ep these structures but
enforcement of this ordinance would place the burden of public benefit (i e roads, street lights, public
safety) on a single taxpayer instead of everyone that enjoys those benefits.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated future
events. This is a solution in search of a problem.
• Realtors® want to preserve the history of their communities be cause these properties are
valuable. When you place unnecessary restrictions on structures you make them less valuable. No
government edict can escape fundamental economic principles.
Donna Porter
5 73-680-5 391
3219 Emerald lane, Suite 800 Jefferson City, MO 65109
Office: 573-632-8500 Fax: 573-632-6877
a reg hOI11eS .C0111 Lic•ns.d in Missouri
I
PWPC Memo Page 26
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPhone
dgordon957@aol.com
Monday, April 10, 2017 10:58 AM
Stratman, Anne
Demo ordinance. Gordon Builders oppose. Darrel Gordon
1
PWPC Memo Page 27
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Stratman, Anne
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:58AM
Abbott, Jayme
FW: Demolition ordinance
Follow up
Flagged
From: Chris Yarnell [mailto:cyarnell@ess-inc .com] On Behalf Of cwy1309@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:18 PM
To: Stratman, Anne
Subject: Demolition ordinance
I continue to disagree with separate ordinances for demolition. I believe it confusing to
have two ordinances, one for the normal demolition and one for the Historic District. I
believe it should be one process, in one place in the City Ordinances. If Special Districts
have differing requirements based upon age (or other conditions) it can be plainly stated
and in the one ordinance and become less confusing for the general public
Respectfully,
Chris Yarnell.
1309 Moreau Drive
1
PWPC Memo Page 28
Abbott, Jayme
From: Wood, Chris <Chris_ Wood@j efferson -bank.com >
Wednesday, April 05, 2017 2:24PM Sent:
To: Stratman, Anne
Cc:
Subject:
'Donna Stone (donna@jcabor.com)'
Proposed Dem ol iti on Ordinance Comments
Please consider the to llowi rg points with regard to the pro posed Demo I itio n Ordinance:
• Added time, cost, and uncertainty to develo pi rg older structures. This will make these properties less attractive
to developers.
• A developer could be cat.ght in a government -created Catch 22 with a structure that, unbeknownst to him, has
historic value according to HPC, but because of the state of the property it isn't redeemable,
• Determinirg "historic value" is subjective, which makes it difficult to enforce the ordinance
• Supporters argue that it's in the public's best interest to keep these structures; enforcement of this ordinance
would place the burden of public benefit (streets, I ights, public safety) on a si rgl e taxpayer instead of all those
who enjoy those benefits
• Based upon recent history and anticipated future events, there is no need for this proposed ordinance
• These properties are valuable to our community. Unnecessary restrictions make them I ess valuable.
Respectfully submitted,
~1967 -2017 ~
Chris Wood I Senior Vice President I Jefferson Bank of Missouri
~ASoutlwle~t Boulewud l•effersoncrty, MObHOO I PHONE B 573.b340!b3 I FAX ~573-bSb-7178 1 NMlS1f543b!7
GET STARTED. APPlY TODAY!
******************************************************************************************
**
Note:
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, eli stributi on or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
******************************************************************************************
**
I
PWPC Memo Page 29
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
baxatremax@aol.com
Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:44 AM
Stratman, Anne
donna@jcabor.com
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I believe the current ordinance for the demolition of structures 50 years and older should remain in place and not be
replaced with the new proposed ordinance. I think the proposed ordinance gives the Historic Preservation Commission,
which is an unelected commission, too much authority over the private property rights of individual owners. The
determination of "historical value" is subjective in many cases. While I believe in historical preservation, I do believe if too
many properties are deemed "historical" without real historical significance, then it waters down the meaning of "historical"
for those properties that truly do have historical value. I think "age" does not necessarily mean "historical". There is a
cycle of life for buildings just as there is for human life. I think if you place too heavy a burden on property owners of all
"old" buildings then you will find they will diminish in value and cause more and more of them to become cost prohibitive
to renovate and/or convert to other uses.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
Carlene Bax
Member of the JCABOR
Political and Economic Activity Committee
1
PWPC Memo Page 30
Abbott, Jayme
From: Blake Werner <blake@blakewithaction.com>
Monday, AprillO, 2017 5:59 PM Sent:
To: Stratman, Anne
Cc: Donna Stone
Subject: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
Over the last two years we have been closely monitoring the proposed changes to the demolition ordinance for buildings 50
years or older in Jefferson City. At this time, the City is soliciting comments from public regarding the proposal.
This memo will briefly detail the situation, provide insight as to why this is an important issue for Realtors® to engage on, and
include some ideas for your own comments to submit to the city. We are encouraging everyone (even those outside the city
limits) to comment because this effect everyone that conducts real estate business in our City.
Currently in Jefferson City if you are seeking to demolish a structure 50 years or older you must submit an application to
Planning and Protective Services which is then reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). HPC will then make a
non-binding recommendation with regard to the permit. After 60 days, you can do what you wish with regard to demolishing a
building regardless of HPCs recommendation. This process allows Jefferson City to meet certain requirements to be a Certified
Local Government.
Proponents of historic preservation are pushing to put binding recommendations to this committee's decisions, new
requirements for submission of the application, longer timelines for review and consideration, and stiff penalties for non-
compliance.
The following points are items for you to consider including in comments you submit to the City per their request:
• This proposal will add time, cost, and uncertainty to developing older structures in the city limits making them less
attractive to developers and causing these structures the are in need of rehab from being done because of the risks
associated.
• A developer could be caught in a government created Catch 22 with a structure that unbeknownst to them has "historic
value" according to HPC but because of state of the property isn't redeemable.
• Determining "historic value" is a completely subjective exercise which means that the enforcement of the proposed law
will be arbitrary and arbitrary laws can be enforced effectively.
• The supporters of this proposal argue that it's in the public's benefit to keep these structures but enforcement of this
ordinance would place the burden of public benefit (ie roads, street lights, public safety) on a single taxpayer instead of
everyone that enjoys those benefits.
• There isn't a need for this proposed ordinance based upon the recent history or anticipated future events. This is a
solution in search of a problem.
• Realtors® want to preserve the history of their communities because these properties are valuable. When you place
unnecessary restrictions on structures you make them less valuable. No government edict can escape fundamental
economic principles.
Thankyoul
1
PWPC Memo Page 31
Blake Werner 1 Action Realty of Jefferson City, Inc
Professional Realtor®, ABR, e-Pro, RSPS, SRS 1 \1\M/W.bla kewitha ct ion .c om
1119 Big Horn Drive 1 Jefferson City, MO 651 09
Office: (573) 893-6295 Ext. 111 I Cell: (573) 690-4197 I Fax: (573) 893-6243
Action Realty of Jefferson City, Inc. made the following annotations
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be,
covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature.
If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining,
using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please
reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete
it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
2
PWPC Memo Page 32
Abbott, Jayme
From: Abbott, Jayme
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:18 AM
Stratman, Anne
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4 , an AT&T 4G L TE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: walterschroeder@centurytel.net
Date: 4/12 /1710:16 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Abbott, Jayme" <JAbbott@jeffcitymo .org>
Cc: Tammy Boeschen <tboeschen@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
Jayme Abbott:
I understand comments about the Proposed Demolition Ordinance are due today. As you know, I am not a
resident of Jefferson City, but I have, for decades, been actively involved in the revitalization of the Old
Munichburg district, including preservation of its landscape of historic buildings.
I support this proposed ordinance.
I am fearful of the fate of some specific buildings.
First is the log cabin residence at 310 West Elm, built in the 1860s as the parsonage of the German Methodist
Church. It may be beyond saving, but it is a poster child of what happens to neglected historic buildings.
Adjacent to it on the west side, is the perfectly good, brick Ernst Schmidt residence, ca. 1900, which I
understand the owner wants to demolish when the log cabin is demolished.
I am also concerned about the fate of two buildings I am very familiar with personally. One is stonemason
Geisler's residence, atop the rock-wall terrace at 511 Broadway. Geisler built many rock walls, including the
wall of the City/Woodland Cemeteries along McCarty Street. He was also involved in building the rock walls
accompanying the construction ofthe new Capitol. The second building is the historic Renner residence, 218
West Elm, rapidly deteriorating and in line to be demolished when the nearby Groner properties are disposed of.
The Renner residence , typical of Munichburg residences, was built in 1891 and shows up prominently in Carl
Deeg's panoramic 1892 photograph from the old state Capitol.
Of course, there are many other properties in the Munichburg district that would benefit from the protection of
the proposed ordinance.
A success to show what can be done instead of demolition: The historic (1890s) 3-story Nieghorn
House/Southside Hotel/Southside Apartments , 110-112 East Dunklin, was being considered for demolition until
1
PWPC Memo Page 33
Larry Kolb and Steve Rollins stepped in, bought the building and adjacent properties, restored them, and
created a vibrant commercial block, which has been put on the National Register of Historic Places.
Walter A. Schroeder
2
PWPC Memo Page 34
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tony Smith <tpsmithster@centurylink.net>
Monday, AprillO, 201711:39 PM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I very much agree with the proposed changes to demolition practices in Jefferson City. Far too many
properties have been destroyed with far too little insight. There is no doubt that commercial interests
very much prefer little hindrance to their plans.
Historic buildings and neighborhoods cannot be rebuilt. More effort is required to preserve a
communities history. It's the one thing that makes a city a unique place. No other place has our
history. Much of that history is reflected in our buildings. Great caution should be exercised when
changing your history. The demolition ordinance makes it harder to erase the past. I favor that.
Tony Smith
1211 Elmerine Ave
Jefferson City, MO 65101
1
PWPC Memo Page 35
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tim Morrow <tmorrow3006@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:33 PM
Stratman, Anne
Demolition Ordinance
I am in whole-heart support of the proposed demolition ordinance updates. To help preserve and protect the
charisma and charm of Jefferson City we need an ordinance "with some teeth." I believe the proposed changes
will yield a fair and effective ordinance without trampling the rights of property owners. I feel we have often
been short-sighted when it comes to making Jefferson City an attractive place to live and do business. As the
capital city of this great state we should be leading by example; not playing catch up with other cities. The
ordinance changes will help us keep Jefferson City beautiful.
Thank you,
Tim Morrow
190 5 Brookgreen
Jefferson City, MO 65101
1
PWPC Memo Page 36
Abbott, Jayme
From: HCJ President <hcjprez@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:12 PM Sent:
To: Stratman, Anne
Subject: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
Regarding the Proposed Demolition Ordinance:
The Historic City of Jefferson started drafting a Historic Preservation Ordinance (also called the
Demolition Ordinance) two years ago, with the serious threat of demolition of the old County Jail and
Sheriffs Residence. The scope of the final Historic Preservation (Demolition) Ordinance being
brought to you now is not as broad as HCJ originally proposed but it would at least give preservation
a "foot in the door" in Jefferson City. Right now, there are no ordinances at all to protect our
historic property treasures. Many other towns in Missouri and the nation have preservation
ordinances, and their communities have benefited from that in many ways (think Hannibal in Missouri,
Paducah in Kentucky, Savannah in Georgia)-Jefferson City needs to do the same.
Within certain conditions, this ordinance would:
1. Give public notice of a demolition request similar to what is done now for zoning matters,
which might produce a buyer for the property instead of demolition, or might help generate funds
to save the property. If a property can be restored instead of destroyed, this may result in higher
property values for the neighborhood, as well as the preservation of craftsmanship that is no
longer available. It may also be a labor of love-of giving back to the community for others to
enjoy. It has been proven that there is a major renewed interest-nationwide-in historic
buildings and places.
2. Allow a request to be denied if the property meets certain historical criteria. Right now, the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews demolition requests but cannot deny so the
building is demolished anyway. Over the past 7 years, of the 111 property demolition requests
submitted, only 10 were recommended to be denied by the HPC. If this ordinance had been in
place, those 10 truly historic structures might still be standing for us to enjoy. We are not talking
about denial of a significant number of demolition applications. And if a request is denied, the
City Council, who are elected officials-representatives of the people -would have the chance to
study the demolition application and have the final say.
3. Provide greater penalties for those who demolish without going through the established
procedure. The current fine of $500 is just a slap on the wrist-too easy for owners and
1
PWPC Memo Page 37
developers to absorb if they take down an older structure without following the current
procedure. This ordinance would also raise the fee for demolition permits, to more closely align
with the actual costs of processing such requests.
4. Provide stipulations to prevent ongoing "demolition by neglect." Comments are constantly
being made about the travesty of the deterioration of the Buescher properties along Capitol
Avenue. We need an ordinance with more "teeth" to prevent this from happening in the future.
5. Many subdivisions already have covenants in place that dictate what a property owner can do,
even down to the type of post the mailbox must rest on! Don't our older properties and older
neighborhoods deserve protections to their historical integrity? A review of structures 50 years
and older is not a new concept-it is a procedure that has been followed here for many years,
and is followed in many cities and towns in the country. A historical designation has no legal
effect on a property's title-it is only an "honorary" designation. But if a property has received
such a designation, the honor was given because the community felt that the property is truly
historic and deserves to remain and be enjoyed by current and future generations. Don't these
buildings deserve protection?
A preservation ordinance can also increase property values, generating more money for city services
and bringing back neighborhoods. This could also result in a boost for tourism in our city. Look at the
Missouri State Penitentiary-there were calls to demolish the whole complex yet, fortunately, 3
buildings were saved and opened for tours-that "gamble" has grown from 3,000 visitors a year to
33,000 a year-what an increase in tourism dollars poured into our community-a boost for
restaurants, gas stations, retail sales, hotels, and other related activities!
Isn't it worth taking a little extra time to research a property to determine its historical value before
destroying it? Once a building is destroyed, you cannot replace its architectural details and
craftsmanship, nor its historical significance or meaning in the community (a plaque that says "here
stood ... " just isn't the same!). It would be a terrible shame to lose such historical gems as Ivy
Terrace, the Parson's House, the old County Jail/Sheriffs Residence, the Marmaduke House, and
others because there are no laws to protect them. Let's not repeat the tragedy that befell the old City
Jail in 1982-under the guise of darkness. We should embrace our historic places, and showcase
them.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tammy Boeschen
2
PWPC Memo Page 38
President
Historic City of Jefferson, Inc.
P. 0. Box 105056
Jefferson City, MO 65110
www .historiccityofiefferson.org
573-893-4121
3
PWPC Memo Page 39
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Veile <stevev@communiqueinc.com>
Monday, AprillO, 2017 2:46 PM
Stratman, Anne
carrietergin@gmail.com; Laura Ward (wardla@missouri.edu); Rick Mihalevich
Comment on the Proposed Demolition Ordinance
To Members of the Planning and Public Works Committee, City Council Members, and City Staff:
Please accept these written comments for the record as you consider the proposed new ordinance regarding the
demolition of historic buildings.
As a member of the City Council representing the Third Ward in the late 1980s, I sponsored the bill that created the
City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Later, after leaving the City Council, I served on that commission and
chaired it for a couple of years. Creating the commission was a good thing for the City, but one thing I learned very
quickly when I actually became a member of the commission was that the ordinance was woefully inadequate. Now,
finally--nearly a quarter century after the commission was created--you have before you a proposed ordinance to fix
this problem.
In reading over the staff summary of the proposed ordinance, what is missing from that digest is an accounting of all the
research, time and effort that was put forth to get this bill where it is today. I was president of the Historic City of
Jefferson when our organization got the ball rolling in 2014. We hired legal counsel and spent many months researching
the issue and drafting legislation that we thought would be effective. At the suggestion of members of the City Council,
we then brought that draft ordinance to the City's Historic Preservation Commission for their review and comment. It
was quite frustrating to us, but the HPC took our work and went through it line by line and seemingly word by word.
Over a series of months they did their own research and completed a meticulous rewrite of the bill. They spent many,
many hours and held many subcommittee meetings and full meetings of the commission working through every detail.
What you have before you now is really the work of the HPC and these commission members deserve the community's
thanks for taking this very seriously and crafting a new approach to this problem that does seem to provide the City with
the tools it needs-tools that have been missing when it comes to the possible demolition of an historic building.
Is this proposed demolition ordinance perfect? Far from it. I believe the 60-day application review period should be
extended to 90 days. If a building has been part of our community for 50, 75 or 100 years, why can't we take an extra 30
days to make sure a huge mistake is not being made by allowing the building to be torn down? When the building is
gone, it is gone forever. We have lost so many historic buildings over the years; it is our responsibility to keep the
historic fabric of the City intact, at least what is left of it.
But, at least the proposed ordinance does allow the HPC to recommend to the City Council that a demolition permit be
denied, if the commission finds the application to be inappropriate, or that the loss of the building would be too great a
loss for the community. At that point, then you-the elected representatives of the City-could review the application
yourselves and either uphold the application denial, or override the recommendation of the HPC. That extra measure of
review and protection is what has been missing since the ordinance was first passed 25 years ago.
You have the opportunity to provide the City with a new tool to help protect the historic buildings in most of Old Town
Jefferson City. The new powers it provides are limited, but certainly appropriate. The bill is respectful of private property
rights, but also allows the City to look at the bigger picture in certain and very specific cases.
After meticulous review, this bill has been approved by both the HPC and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Now it is
your turn. I urge you to support it and to allow it to become law to help protect our historic City of Jefferson.
1
PWPC Memo Page 40
Sincerely,
Steve Veile
1025 Adams Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
2
PWPC Memo Page 41
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
pamtaylor2000@embarqmail.com
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:30 AM
Stratman, Anne
HPC revised demolition ordnance
I would encourage the City Council to pass the revised demolition ordnance forwarded by the city's HPC to the city
Council.
All historic buildings are valuable, but especially the Capitol Avenue area, from The Capitol to the prison.
Unfortunately, people that have not been outside of Jeff City and some who have, do not realize what a jewel we have
in the CapitoiAvenue area. The houses, architecture and history are amazing and irreplaceable !
There are many areas ,other than the Capitol Avenue area, where apartment developers and city government buildings
can be built. We must save this area.
Thank you to the City and the City Council for all you have done and will do to preserve our city.
Respectfully submitted,
Pam Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
1
PWPC Memo Page 42
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marilynn Medley <Whipp2010@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, April12, 2017 3:07PM
Stratman, Anne
demolition ordinance
Dear Public Works And Planning Committee,
I, as a Jefferson City citizen, write today that I am in favor of the proposed Demolition Ordinance in an effort to prevent
loss of buildings of historical nature. We have so many historical residences and some buildings that present a glimpse
into our past. Some of these structures have been well maintained while others have not.
The Marmaduke House, as an example, received the restoration needed to preserve a structure that is part of the
history of Jefferson City as well as the state government having housed the warden of the MO Penitentiary. Thank you
to those who had appreciation for our past!!
The old County Jail is a structure that, just by looking, can be seen to resemble the Cole County Court House so you can
visibly see there must be a story from our past that can be told from within its walls. It is my understanding that this
proposed ordinance would at least give possibility for interested groups to have time to do some research into the
historical value of a property before the structure can be destroyed.
The MO Penitentiary has turned out to be an economic opportunity for Jefferson City. Wouldn't it have been sad if the
state would have just started attacking it with a wrecking ball?
Please error on the side of possibility and pass this ordinance.
Sharing a concern for history,
Marilynn Medley
1524 Ridgewood Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Sent from Ma i l for Windows 10
1
PWPC Memo Page 43
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Higgins <mshiggins46@gmail.com>
Thursday, April13, 2017 10:53 AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed demolition ordinance
Mayor Tergin, Jefferson City Planning Committee, City Cormcil Members,
I support the proposed historic preservation ordinance also called the demolition ordinance and request that you also support it This
ordinance will not only help preserve our historic buildings but can also increase property values, generating more money for city services
and bring back neighborhoods. Business and tourism will benefit as people want to visit and shop in historic areas.
Please support not only Jefferson City's history but also it's future by supporting the proposed demolition ordinance.
Thank you,
M Sue Higgins
1
PWPC Memo Page 44
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Casey < marycasey@morecordsearch.com >
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:05 AM
Stratman, Anne
Capitol Avenue/East High Street Comments
I believe in the preservation of Jefferson City, Missouri. Every structure tells a story about the past.
I would like to see every possible possibility utilized to save a structure. In my 30 years living in
Jefferson city I have seen many houses demolished. An ordinance that would stop and make us think
before doing is very needed.
Terry Casey
1
PWPC Memo Page 45
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marilyn Plassmeyer <plassmeyerm@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:31AM
Stratman, Anne
Demolition Planning
Please be cautious when making any new laws concerning demolition of aging properties in Jefferson City and make
every effort at preservation, Particularly if the properties have any worthwhile or historic value. Every time I drive
Jefferson Street I cringe at the fact that a beautiful old mansion was razed for the Salvation Army headquarters. Capitol
Avenue with one grand old home after another sliding into dust makes me physically ill
I know everything old is not automatically valuable but let's don't let a possible new lot for the city destroy part of the
history of this grand old city. High Street looks so much better now than it did IS or 20 years ago, thanks to all the
restoration work. Let's take pride in our old buildings and save them for the next generations of Jeffersonians.
Just as an afterthought I was amused at your email address. What happened to the plans to break us from using "Jeff"
for our grand old name?
Thanks for your consideration, Marilyn Plassmeyer 1535A Cedar Ridge Place, Jefferson City, MO 65109
1
PWPC Memo Page 46
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lynn Osvold <lynnosvold@gmail.com>
Thursday, April13, 2017 12:17 PM
Abbott, Jayme
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Dear Sirs, As a long-term member of the Historic City of Jefferson organization, I have been asked to contact
you regarding their critical concerns regarding demolition procedures of historic buildings . .I am not a resident
of Jefferson City, nor one currently of Missouri, but my roots to your beautiful city go back to the 1850' &
1860's .. Some of my ancestors are buried in historic Woodland-Old City Cemetery on E. McCarty
Street. .. Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Lynn A. Osvold, Wylie, Texas
1
PWPC Memo Page 47
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kimrademan <kimrademan@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:06 PM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I am in support of the new demolition ordinance.
Sent from my iPhone
1
PWPC Memo Page 48
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kevin McHugh < kmchugh9@icloud.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:20 AM
Stratman, Anne
"Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments"
Please adopt the proposed demolition ordinance to offer some measure of protection to Jefferson City's historic
architectural resources!! This will result in increased tourism dollars and pride in our community.
Thanks!!
Kevin McHugh
1924 Hayselton
1
PWPC Memo Page 49
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelly Branstetter <okellykel@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:52AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance by Jefferson Historic Preservation (CJ HPC)
As a paid member of the Historic City of Jeff, a citizen of Jefferson City since the age of five and now 73 years young. I
LOVE Jefferson City. I want what is best for this fine town. I pay my taxes and I vote. Please take the CJHPC preservation
commission draft, review and known that it is a fine piece of work. Thank you. Pat Mantle 409 Mesa Ave. Jefferson
City, Mo.
Sent from Ma i l for Windows 10
1
PWPC Memo Page 50
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abbott, Jayme
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:46AM
Stratman, Anne
Fwd: Demolition ordinance
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4 , an AT&T 4G L TE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Kay Harden <horsiekay@ gmail.com>
Date: 4/12 /17 7:59AM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Abbott, Jayme" <JAbbott@jeffcitymo.org>
Subject: Demolition ordinance
Hi Jayme,
I understand that you want more feedback from the neighborhoods about the proposed demolition ordinance. I
am very much in favor of the ordinance. I moved here from Petersburg, VA a couple years ago (you helped me
get the prop tax rebate for turning a rental back into single occupancy, many thanks!) and saw how necessary it
is to have such ordinances in order to preserve the historic character of an old city. In the places where old
houses were demolished, before any regulations, the infilled dwellings really affected the current ambiance of
the neighborhood. It is not only for now that we need to preserve the historic buildings, but it is also for the
future. Our kids and grandkids will thank us for not demolishing our past and the neighborhoods in the future
will not be a mishmash of conflicting designs.
Briefly, I want the ordinance.
Thanks!
Kay Harden
106 Fulkerson St
Jeff City
Gmail address.
1
PWPC Memo Page 51
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Katie Owens <ktydid93@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:59 PM
Stratman, Anne
Demolition Ordinance
I am in support of the demolition ordinance as proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Jefferson City has lost
to many historic structures to outright demolition, especially in the name of careless "progress", and from demolition
by neglect.
Currently it is to easy to demolish a structure in Jefferson City when doing so without a permit is punishable by a meager
fine that is nothing in the eyes of a developer hell-bent on pushing their project forward.
This ordinance will give the City Council the power to preserve the most compelling examples of Jefferson City history
without infringing on the rights of the owners of the average property that happens to be 50 years or older and without
negatively impacting future sales. I believe that HPC currently approves some 99% of demolition permits without
question. That# is not going to decrease drastically with this ordinance. What it will do is give the city the tools it needs
to save that 1% that is truly worth preserving.
I know the Board of Realtors is against this ordinance because they feel it places an undue burden on them to ensure
potential buyers are aware of the age of the property and thus potential demolition restrictions. This idea that competent
realtors are unaware of the approximate age or that determining the age of a property is hard is nonsense. There are
many publicly accessible resources available for determining an approximate age of a structure. When in doubt the
realtor or potential buyer could also contact the Historic City of Jefferson and their members would be happy to help
document the property's age. Besides the prominent historic districts within Jefferson City are fairly obvious and any
realtor or buyer/developer looking in those areas will have a pretty good sense of the property's age and thus should have
ample opportunity to be aware of this ordinance.
The preservation of historic properties and particularly historic districts have proven to be an economic stimulus and
marketing asset to cities and towns across the country. That is something Jefferson City can certainly benefit from.
For the reasons stated I support passing this demolition ordinance as proposed on to the City Council for review and for a
vote. Thank you for your time.
Katherine Owens
11 08 Adams St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
1
PWPC Memo Page 52
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathy White < Kathy.White@house.mo.gov>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:33 AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed demo ordinance comments
I support the Historic Preservation Demolition Ordinance. Thank you.
Kathy White
Committee Records Coordinator
522-3139
1
PWPC Memo Page 53
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
HCJ President <hcjprez@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April12, 2017 9:27PM
Stratman, Anne
Subject: Fwd: Proposed demoliation ordiance
Technically, it is still April 12! Please accept this email that I received regarding the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Thank you,
Tammy Boeschen
President
Historic City of Jefferson, Inc.
P. 0. Box 105056
Jefferson City, MO 65110
www.historiccityofiefferson.org
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Jolene Feeler <jolenefeelerl@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 12,2017 at 5:38PM
Subject: Proposed demoliation ordiance
To: hc jprez@gmail.com
Please record that I support the proposed demolation ordicance.
We must perserve our City and it's History for future generations.
How will they know we were here?
Jolene Feeler
1
PWPC Memo Page 54
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
Jane Beetem <jbeetem@embarqmail.com>
Tuesday, Aprilll, 2017 9:05AM
To: Stratman, Anne
Cc: Jim Kreider
Subject:
Attachments:
Fwd: Please Pass The New Demolition Ordinance
Capitol Mile Article.pdf
Please see comments below.
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: Jim Kreider <mrtadirectorkreider@mrta.org >
To: Carrie Tergin <carrietergin@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Ward <wardla@health.missouri.edu>
Sent: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:59:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Please Pass The New Demolition Ordinance
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council of Jefferson City
I am a member of the Historic City of Jefferson Board of Directors. I ask for the passage of the new
demolition ordinance. This is extremely important to the economic future of Jefferson City. Jefferson City is
unique in the entire state of Missouri because of its extraordinary history and being the Capitol City. Now is the
time to take advantage of this
asset. Everyone will win. To do so we must preserve our historic buildings and homes. ATTACHMENT.
With the Capitol Ave. Urban Renewal Plan moving forward, it is incredibly important that we have in
place tools to increase the likelihood that the beautiful architecture and buildings in that area are rehabbed and
re-used, and not demolished so that a developer can build an apartment building for lobbyists close to the
Capitol. Another real threat is that
the County Commission will acquire multiple parcels to clear the lots and build a new courthouse. This was
actually discussed during a county commission meeting about a year and a half ago.
Although many in Jefferson City would say projects like those would be great, the city council, as
well as the Housing Authority Board, have assured our community that the goal in the Capitol Ave blighted
area is to preserve the historic buildings. In order to do that, to follow through on that promise, we must have a
more effective demolition ordinance.
I believe that the ordinance proposed by the HPC will do that. By providing more effective notice to the public
members of the community will have the opportunity to comment. By forwarding applications that the HPC
recommends for denial to City Council for
the final decision, that body will have the opportunity to make the final determination as to whether to approve
or deny an application.
This revised ordinance was drafted by the HPC over many months , and reviewed by city staff, and
people in the community that have been involved in preservation. A lot of input from people who have
rehabbed and reused historic properties was provided. A staff member from the SHPO provided guidance. The
HPC reviewed ordinances from other communities to
find best practices to use here in Jefferson City. This ordinance should be viewed as a tool to improve historic
preservation in our city. It should not be viewed as a tool for realtors to sell properties or for large developers to
1
PWPC Memo Page 55
do what they want to in
the historic neighborhoods of Jefferson City. There are many economic development tools available to
encourage investment in Jefferson City. This ordinance should be passed to provide a tool to encourage historic
preservation in the older
Jim Kreider-CELL-417-849-5185
MRTA Executive Director
3030 DuPont Circle
Jefferson City, MO. 65109
mrtadirectorkreider@mrta. org
573-634-4300 -Office
2
PWPC Memo Page 56
i
4
i
APITHI q111
Preserving rich history on a mile stretch from the Missouri
State Capitol to the Missouri State Penitentiary.
BY JIM KREIDER
PHOTOS BY KEITH BORGMEYER
t
i
0
N
w
�" �¢a wao I�111
may.
i.
n
�
a
`ro•
t
i
0
N
w
r
CAPITOL l\IIILE 0 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
If you step out onlo the 500 block of Capi tol
A1·c nu e, alone end you sec the l\l issouri Stat e
Capitol, o ne of the mos lmagn ificcnlea pilols
in Lhc nation. AL the othe r end, you sec a gua rd
t ower orthc o ld est pr iso n 11esl of the l\l iss is si ppi
Ri1 ·er. I've \\1tll;cd thi s a rea m:my, many Limes,
es pecia ll y al dark . It is mag niH cc nt.
Thi s mi le, load ed wilh h is tory and once
beauty, is anundcruscd and und crapprcciatcd
asset o f th e Cily of.Jt:Ocrson. With reve rence and
r cs pccl, some yea rs ago r coined this area the
~cap it o l ;vl ilc."
ll has b een said , "O ne nms l sec th e histor);
t ouch the his lory, fee l the histo ry." You can
encou nter all oft ho se aspects within the Capitol
~lile, and I believe th e world would lo,·e the
experience.
At one time, the Capitol Mi le held the:
•wealth
•power
•la bor (The penitentiary, the Ca pitol an d
othe r bus inesse s t here employed most of
the city.)
I BELIE VE TH IS SPECIAL AREA shou ld be embraced
by both our city's La xpayc rs lln d a ll levels of'
government. If' prope rl y d eve loped, il co uld
hceo mc not on ly n un iqu e op por lliJl ily of
eco nom ic de velop ment hul also a piece of
hi st ory to ex peri ence unlike any other place in
tl1e world .
IL has been said, "One must see
the histm·y, touch Lhe histm·y,
feel the history." You can
encounter all ofthose asj>ects
wi Lhi n Lhc Capi tol Mile, and 1
believe lhc wm ·ld would love the
expct·i ence.
RECENTLY, I BECAME EVEN mo re passionate abo ut
promoting the possibility oflhc Capitol l.[i]c
because of an attempt thi s past year lo tear
dmm t he Old Co le County .Jail and Sh eriff's
Residence. \\'l1y on earth wo ul d we demolish
s uch an importan t piece of our history for a
par king lot and n co u rtroom? Do we not sec th e
potentia l of such history beco ming an a sse t fo r
tou r ism a nd econom ic development'? Once it's
l orn down, it \\~II be losl lorevcr. l:nfo r tunatcly,
w e have alrcnd.v lost so me important hist oric
sites. No mo re!
PWPC Memo Page 58 Jdt'c rson City Magazin e 17 1
A few treasures within the capitol mile :
1. Capitol Building
J efferson City has been home to t he
Missouri St ale Ca pit ol since 1826. The
present b u il di ng was co mpleted in 1917
and pos itioned on a bh 1ff' overlook in g t he
M iowmi l{ive r. The orig inal Capitol b u mecl
in 1 8:~7. as did its replace ment in 19 11. T h e
currcnl build ing houses world-ren ow ned
a r twor k, arc hi tecture a nd stained gl ass.
2. Ep hriam B. Ewing House
This ho use was buil t in 1873 by W. C. You ng,
who sold illo Ephra im B. Ewin g. It is
co ns id ered <l Ver nacu lar Vict ori an brick with
llalianale fea tmes . It was b ui ll wilh p riso n
labor us ing ha nd made b r icks.
3. Houchin Ho use
T h is gra nd house became one of the city's
most t alke d-abou t social gathering p laces. ll
was bu il t in 19 00 by .l ames A. Ho uchi n. I lc
led drives to a id the untlcrpri vilegcd there
and he ld a n an nu al ClHistmas party fo r
Lhc poor.
4. Marmaduke Hou se
This lwo-sl ory red b rick was buil l from
1887 to 1888 <tn d was lirsl occup ied by
Co l. Darwin W. M a r mad u.ke, wa rden of
t h e l:VIissouri Slate Pcnite nliary. The h ouse
remained in t he h and s of prison oltlcials
u n lll sold in th e late 1980s.
5. Lewis and Clark Monument
This monument, at t he KaLy Trailhead
Pl aza, comme morates J une 4, 180 1~, when
lh e Co r ps of Disc overy e ncam ped nc ar the
fu Lure s ight of JefFe rson Ci ly.
G. Lohman's Landing
Bu il t in 1883, t h is buildi ng has had manr
uses over the years, in clud ing headquarters
for rh·er trade, a hotel, general store and
"·archo use . In 1976 t he s it e became a part of
th e histo r ic .Jcfi e rson la nding.
7. Gover nor's Mansion
E rected in 1871, th e m ansion of red b r ick
with il s e legant m ansard roof is the home o f
Missou ri :~ gove rnor. A grand staircase greet s
·visi t ors as they enter t he su mptuous parlors
fea tming ornate fireplaces and
17-foo t ceil in gs .
8. Governo r's Hotel and
Carnahan Me morial Garden
T l1c gard en beh ind t he Governor 's lVIansio n
was started in th e !ale 1930s as a W PA
proj ect. The gard e n was renamed t he
Carn aha n .Me morial Garden in 2001 a lt er
Gov. Mel Carnahan.
9. Cole Coun ty Jail-Sheriff's
House
The Jail-Sheriff's H ouse was built in 1 9.'~6 in
Lhe Roman es que Reviva l style to blend with
t he Cou rlhousc, wh ich is atlachccl at the jail 's
south wall. It is u n ique because il is on e of the
lew re maini ng examples of a combine d jail
and sheriff's res idence in th e state of Missou ri.
The n at u ral s to ne fiu.;ade a nd architectural
style mrtkc th is structure a n appealing asset to
down town J efferson Ci ty.
10 . Ca rnegie Li brary
n u ill in 190l using nmds from a grant f ro m
Andrew Camcgic, t he buildi ng was des ig ned
by Jefferson City architect Frunk 13 . M ill er.
:tvJil ler <tlso designed m a ny ot her p rom inent
p u bl ic buildings in t he .J efferson City area.
11. Parso n's Hou se
Perhaps t he oldes t bu il din g in the ci ty,
Parson's I l ouse d at es back lo the early
1830s. ll was t he ho me of President Thomas
J efferso n's last personal secr etary and was
used as a hospital in th e Civil Wa r.
12. Wm . Q. Da llmeyer House
The large Victorian -style h ouse was built
around 18 75 by vVm . (~. D nllm eycr a nd
remained in t he Dall m eyer +ftm ily fo r three
generations. llwas remodeled in 1920 in a
Neoclassic s lylc and remodeled aga in recen t ly
by t he current mmcrs.
13. Missouri State Penitantiary
and Gas Cha mber
The penitent iary o pene d in 18.'36 . I lou s in g
Uni t No.1· was built in 1868 and is t he oldest
of lhe p rison buildinl:,<s still in existence. The
native li mestone was q uarried using in mat e
labo r. T his m ~Lxi m um -sccurity instit ution is
infitmously re lcrrcd t o as t he "bloodiesl4·7
acres in America." Tourbts come from all
parts of t h e wo rld t o Yis it t h is litcilit.v. JC
PWPC Memo Page 59
CAPITOL NliLE 0
.J efferson City Magazi ne 17.'3
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear JC Planning,
Tony/Jenny Smith <tpsmithster@centurylink.net>
Tuesday, Aprilll, 2017 8:56AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
To be a Certified Local Government, JC was required to establish a Historic Preservation Commission.
Part of their duties are to review demolition applications of buildings over 50 years old and
"recommend" approval or "not". This is non-binding and does not prevent a developer from
demolishing a building in 60 days after review regardless or recommendation. Really! What a waste
of everyone's time. The HPC is asked for their opinion but it has no teeth whatsoever.
The HPC rarely denies recommendation of a permit and when they do, you can be pretty sure it is
warranted and the buildings were historic. The realtors argue that "historic" is a subjective term but
the definitions used by the HPC follows that of the NPS for the National Register of Historic Places.
Five things;
1) Really old places, like the Parsons house (1830s) and Lohman's landing is automatically historic,
2) places that represent an architectural style that is largely lost, like Ivy Terrace, or a lost era like
Viets wayside Inn torn down in 2005 at the corner of Mo blvd and Dix (and still vacant!)
3) a place where a famous person lived, like the Lohman House (on Broadway, now demolished)
4) A house that is part of a historic neighborhood and whose loss would diminish the historic context
of that neighborhood (like Dr. Sanders concrete/steel house on Hayselton).
5) A house that is a contributing member of a district on the NRHP, like the Bassman house in the
200 block of W. McCarty now gone.
It is not a subjective determination!
The HPC should be able to make a binding determination. It seems like a waste of many people's
time and talent to make these meaningless reviews.
In the proposed ordinance there is a recourse for a developer! It is not final. The city council could
reverse any decision, as could the court. Realtors argue this could mean costly delays. I argue this
would be in the public interest for the city to be good stewards of our historic past. A balance needs
to struck. Currently there is no balance because developers can do anything they want.
We should never lose sight of the economic impact of historic preservation. Just look at Boonville,
Hermann and St. Charles!
Jenny Smith
1211 Elmerine
230-8245
1
PWPC Memo Page 60
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janet Maurer <janetmaurerOS@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:54 AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments -janet maurer
Attn: City of Jefferson Planning & Protection Staff
Re: Comments regarding Proposed Demolition Ordinance
My name is Janet Maurer. I have just retired from the Historic City of Jefferson Board after 1 0 years
of service. I have lived in Cole County all my life (65 yrs.) and in Jefferson City for the past 38 years.
My residence was in my Grandparent's home which is now 1 01 years old. I had to sell the home this
past year and move to my parents home place in Cole County. I tell you this to understand my heart
and soul is for keeping Jefferson City a respectable town for appreciating and respecting the past,
present and future.
I am very proud that Steve Veile headed HCJ down this path to preserve the historic homes for our
future economical growth and our children's legacy. I have attended many of the Historic Preservation
Commission meetings over the last several years and recently many of the HPC subcommittee
meetings dealing with the demolition ordinance. I have seen the committee and subcommittee put in
countless hours of research getting advice from other towns and SHIPO and individuals who have
expertise in these matters. No, this demolition ordinance is not what HCJ started with to get the ball
rolling but it is a strong reasonable start to give the Commission more teeth to help them carry out
their mission.
I saw the subcommittee discuss and give & take when setting boundaries for a historic area rather
than making the demolition ordinance be for the whole Jefferson City area. I heard them state that
locations and events happen that change a town and they would be willing to go back and re-evaluate
the boundaries as need be. That is being pro-active.
I saw the subcommittee after having the three versions of the ordinances (the original, City's version
and HCJ) go over them word by word and create what they have now. They discussed thoroughly
various guidelines and how they relate to our town and state guidelines.
I am happy to see this ordinance will give HPC the authority to deny a request for demolition based
on their historic criteria list which they are not able to do at this time. With this ordinance they sat
boundaries instead of making the whole city a part of the demolition ordinance. I am very glad to see
the penalty fee for unlawful demolition is stronger than in the past. I am also glad to see this
ordinance gives the public notice of a building being consider for demolition so neighbors or previous
owners can express their thoughts as to the historical significance of the building and to the
neighborhood to the HPC.
I am glad to see the Housing Authority, & Planning and Zoning working together in each of their areas
to help in protecting the historic properties of Jefferson City. Jefferson City has a strong history all
around the town that is in need of being saved. I am hoping this is just the start to keep the history
preserved.
1
PWPC Memo Page 61
There is a quote by Emerson :Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail.
I would very much like to see Jefferson City take the path to be a leader in this area and show other
communities that the Capital City of Missouri believes in its historical character and economic
development for the present and future for its citizens and children.
Sincerely ,
Janet Maurer
3804 Wardsville Rd,
Jefferson City, MO 65101
2
PWPC Memo Page 62
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
Janet Hirschman <janet@govconsultants.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:36 PM
To: Stratman, Anne
Subject: Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
On behalf of Flotron & Mcintosh, LLC, I am in favor of the proposed demolition ordinance.
J a:net :J-{irscliman
Flotron & Mcintosh, LLC I The Mcintosh Company, Inc.
janet@govconsultant s .com I www .govconsultants .com
office: 573.635.7 570 I fax: 573.636.2564 I cell: 573.257.1047
612 East Capitol Avenue I Jefferson City, MO 65101-3010
P.O. Box 2051 I Jefferson City, MO 65102-2051
CONFIDENT IALITY STATEMENT: The infamation cont ained in t his e mail has been sent fa the sole vse of the int ended recip ient (s). If tre reader of ths
message is not an in t e n d ed redpie nt, yov are rereby n o tified that a ny vna v t hori zed re vi e w, vse , d isclo svre , d isserri n a tion, d istri b v tion a copyin g o f
th is c ommvrication a any of its c ontents is stri ctly p roh ib ited . If yov h a ve received th s c o m mvn ication in erra , please c onta ct the send er by rep ly
email and dest roy a ll copies o f tre a ig inal message.
1
PWPC Memo Page 63
Attn: City of Jefferson Planning & Protection Staff
Re: Comments regarding Proposed Demolition Ordinance
Thank you for allowing an opportunity to comment on the proposed Demolition Ordinance. This
ordinance has been drafted to provide certainty for property owners, as only buildings meeting certain
requirements will be covered by this ordinance and reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC). I would like to point out that these comments are for the proposed revised Demolition Ordinance
which has been in development for the last two years, not the Capitol Avenue Overlay District. Similar
terminology and subject matter in these two proposals, both being discussed in nearly the same
timeframe, may be confusing.
Need for Revised Ordinance
The current ordinance provides an inconvenience for those wishing to demolish a historic building, but
does not consider the wishes of the community at large in those rare instances when the community
desires to maintain a historic resource. Looking to the future, there is currently no mechanism in city
ordinance to prevent demolition of Ivy Terrace (500 Capitol Ave.), the Marmaduke House (700 Capitol
Ave.), the Parsons House (105 Jackson St.), the former Cole County Jail or any other building on High
Street or elsewhere in the city.
Passage of the revised ordinance does not mean that no older buildings may be demolished in the
future. Instead, it provides an opportunity for the community to express their wishes to the HPC and the
City Council before a demolition permit is issued, particularly for those few historic resources that the
community believes are significant to the history of Jefferson City. For property owners, the review
allows them to hear community comments on their proposal, and perhaps find another way to profit on
the project without demolition. To put this in perspective, in the last seven years, under the existing
ordinance, 111 demolition applications were submitted and in 101 of those cases demolition was
allowed to proceed immediately.
Applicability
This proposed ordinance only applies to those buildings that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, designated as city landmarks or historic districts or those determined as historic that are
located within the boundary established in the proposed ordinance. All existing National Register listings
for Cole County are published on the web at http://dnr.mo.gov/shpo/co le.htm City designated
landmarks and districts are listed on the city website, so identification of existing historic resources is
not difficult. In addition, the proposed ordinance describes an area designated by the HPC (HPC
Boundary), so that any building not already designated as historic, no matter what age, outside that area
would not be covered by the revised ordinance. This language provides predictability for owners as to
what properties the revised ordinance may (or may not) regulate.
For properties not already designated as historic but within the HPC Boundary, the revised ordinance
outlines 4 criteria for HPC to use in determining whether a building is historic in our community. These
follow the 4 criteria established by the National Park Services for listing of a property on the National
Register of Historic Places. These criteria have been used since 1966 nationwide to evaluate whether
historic resources are worthy of preservation.
PWPC Memo Page 64
So the number of buildings that the proposed ordinance would apply to is a fairly small number.
Historically, the HPC has released almost all buildings proposed for demolition. In the last 7 years, there
have been 111 demolition applications reviewed by the HPC. Of those, 101 were released immediately
for demolition, 6 were held for 60 days before demolition could proceed, and 4 were recommended for
denial of the demolition permit.
The demolition ordinance only applies once a property owner submits a demolition application to the
city. Any property owner, including individual or corporate developers, may rehabilitate a structure
under existing city regulations and building codes without applying for a demolition permit.
Benefit of Revised Ordinance
The existence of the demolition ordinance will provide assurance to potential rehabbers of historic
buildings that their investment will not be diminished by demolition of a neighboring property without
thorough review by the HPC and the City Council. Those wishing to invest in historic neighborhoods
understand that the presence of other rehabilitated historic houses nearby increases the desirability of
their rehabilitated property. Who would want to invest thousands, possibly millions of dollars in
rehabilitating a house, only to have a nearby historic property demolished and replaced by a building
that starkly contrasts with the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood? This is why newer
subdivisions have regulations on what can be constructed in their area-to avoid such contrasts. Older
neighborhoods do not have such protections in place, so the revised ordinance is needed to protect
property owners from demolition and construction of inappropriate infill.
Studies have been conducted on the impact of historic districts on property values. In most cases,
property values have increased in neighborhoods after a historic district has been listed on the National
Register. This has not been the case in Jefferson City in the Capitol Avenue area and in Munichberg due
to deterioration of historic properties. Investors have been hesitant, or in a number of cases, unable to
invest in rehabilitation efforts in these areas due to sellers who refuse to sell, and the impact the
resulting deterioration has had on the surrounding properties. The Marmaduke House, which was
appraised at around $600,000 after rehabilitation in the 1990s, sold at auction a couple of years ago for
nearly half that amount. Providing more certainty about the demolition review process will encourage
more investment in rehabilitation by individuals and by developers, as will the city and the housing
authority's efforts to enforce existing building codes.
Concerns re: Loss of Structural Integrity
A concern has been expressed that developers may find themselves owning a historic house that is "not
redeemable." Anyone investing in an older home should hire a home inspector, or have the home
evaluated by their contractor, something which professional realtors should recommend. Especially in
neighborhoods where levels of deterioration are high. Of course, an owner always has the right to sell
the property should they decide against pursuing rehabilitation. In the event of an "act of God," such as
fire, flood, earthquake, etc. city staff may consider a building as dangerous and demolition will result to
protect public safety.
The proposed ordinance has provisions regarding "demolition by neglect," a problem the city has been
wrestling with for years. This includes demolishing a portion of a building in order to claim it cannot be
rehabilitated. By including demolition by neglect, the city will have another tool to encourage property
PWPC Memo Page 65
owners to maintain their properties according to standards established in the building codes. The
penalties for allowing a building to remain with a wall or roof partially demolished, whether by intent or
by a tree falling on the house, give the city a means to enforce code compliance when houses are
allowed to deteriorate to the point that structural instability may be a concern.
Designation as Historic
There are four criteria described in the proposed ordinance to be used by the HPC in considering
whether a property is to be considered as historic. By establishing these criteria in an ordinance, the HPC
will have specific guidance to use in determining which buildings are historic, something the present
ordinance lacks. These four criteria are:
1) This historic value of the principal and/or associated building(s) by reason of age or association
with important figures or events; or as evidence of aspects of the history of Jefferson City, the
State of Missouri or the United States; or as an embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period or method of construction or as a representation of the work of an historically
notable architect, designer or draftsperson. Normally only buildings 50 years old or older may be
considered as historic (there are rare exceptions-the Arch in St. Louis was one).
2) The visual and spatial relationship of the building(s) to designated or potential historic
landmarks or historic districts.
3) The state of deterioration or disrepair as it relates to the historic integrity of the building(s).
4) The HPC may also consider the number of similar building(s) that still exist within the City of
Jefferson.
Costs of Maintaining City Services in Older Neighborhoods
The City of Jefferson must maintain fire, police, streets, sewer, code enforcement and other services in
all areas within the city limits, whether these neighborhoods are fully populated and contributing to the
community's tax base or not. By maintaining the historic character of our older neighborhoods, making
them more attractive to residents and investors, the cost of supporting services in these areas will be
covered by adequate tax revenue. If widespread demolitions and construction of buildings that conflict
with the historic character of the neighborhoods becomes common, taxes contributed by these
neighborhoods may not cover the cost of city services. (Think of areas in St. Louis and Kansas City, where
the number of vacant lots and abandoned houses are greater than the number of occupied buildings.)
Should this happen, taxpayers in other areas of the city will have to contribute more to cover the costs
attributed to older neighborhoods.
Demolition Review Process to be Made More Transparent and Similar to Other Review Processes
Under the proposed revised ordinance, demolition review will be made more transparent, as the
ordinance:
1) requires posting of a sign by the city at the subject property and notice to property owners within
185' of a proposed demolition (similar to proposed zoning changes);
2) requires all decisions by the HPC to be confirmed or denied by the city council (just like decisions by
Planning & Zoning, etc.);
3) provides a 30-day stay if the council overturns HPC's denial of a demolition permit;
4) points out a property owner's right to appeal a city council decision to circuit court;
PWPC Memo Page 66
5) states that demolition permits are valid for 30 days;
6) provides penalties for unlawful demolitions, including a ban by city council on new construction at the
location for 1 year.
Our community had to show state government that MSP was a valuable historic resource by conducting
tours there, and we've seen the tours grow from 3,000 visitors in 2009 to 33,000 in 2016, with visitors
contributing $3.065 million to our local economy. Just think how much more monies could be generated
by revitalizing our historic neighborhoods. This issue impacts owners of historic property directly, but is
an opportunity for our entire community to benefit from increasing expenditures by visitors related to
heritage tourism. More historic places for these visitors to spend the night, to eat in quaint restaurants
and shop in beautiful older buildings will result in them spending more money in our community,
generating more taxes to support our city. Before they leave town, they may buy gas and shop in other
areas of the city, generating even more economic benefit-a benefit that owners of non-historic
properties will also receive. And we all benefit when the taxes these visitors pay support our
community's ability to continue to improve our streets, address storm water issues, and support our fire,
police and parks departments. But this won't happen if we end up with historic neighborhoods
decimated by demolitions and inappropriate infill-these visitors have been to other historic
communities, and desire an experience greater than just a visit to a single historic building. They want to
be immersed in history-to see it all around them, and that's why our historic neighborhoods need
protection. Now, everyone recognizes Capitol Avenue as a historic neighborhood (the Capitol Avenue
Historic District was established in 2005). In 15 -20 years, what neighborhood will we wish had been
recognized?
Thank you for allowing comment on the proposed revision to the Demolition Ordinance as provided in
current codes of the City of Jefferson.
Sincerely,
Jane Beetem
PWPC Memo Page 67
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jackie Trippensee <jackietrip@embarqmail.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:32AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I am writing to voice my support for the demolition ordinance proposed for Jefferson City. Now is the time to follow the
lead of many other communities with preservation ordinances to protect our historic properties. The potential for
restoring neighborhoods, boosting tourism, increasing property values, etc. is huge and a definite step in the right
direction for Jefferson City. I strongly urge the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you,
Jackie Trippensee
1020 Satinwood Ct.
Jefferson City, MO 65109
1
PWPC Memo Page 68
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Holly Stitt < holly@avenuehq.space >
Tuesday, Aprilll, 2017 11:48 AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I am writing this to speak in favor of passing the Proposed Demolition Ordinance that has been worked on by the
Historic Preservation Commission. As someone who has put a great deal of money into one of our historic areas, as well
as someone who has a vested interest in preserving the integrity of our historic past of this community, I feel we would
not be doing our city any justice by allowing the demolition policy that is currently in place to continue. There is no due
diligence to granting a demolition permit on historic properties, and although I understand that some properties may be
beyond repair, I do believe that many can and will be saved. I also feel it is our duty to preserve the past history for our
future generations and we would not be doing that by allowing some of these buildings to be destroyed.
I have shown that buildings can be repurposed to current facilities as have several others on this block of Capitol
Avenue. I am asking you to please give the rest of these historic buildings in our community, wether on Capitol Ave or
any other street in Jefferson City, a chance at a new life.
Thanks you for your time ,
Holly Stitt
Avenue HQ
573-635-9199
holly@aven uehg .space
1
PWPC Memo Page 69
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Morning,
Heather Pirner <hetopeeno@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:28AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
I strongly believe in the preservation of the historic areas of Jefferson City. So much of the historic aspects of
JC have already been lost and we must do what we can to preserve what we have left. It is important that any
home or property should NOT be allowed to be demolished without due diligence first. We must stop needless
demolitions and preserve the history of our home town.
Thank you for your time,
Heather Pirner
Citizen of Jefferson City Since 1980
1
PWPC Memo Page 70
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Rackers <gary@rackersmo.com>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:17 PM
Stratman, Anne
"Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments"
As a lifelong resident of Jefferson City I support and believe we should have the ordinance. We have already lost history
due to questionable behavior, such as losing the old jail.
Gary Rackers
1
PWPC Memo Page 71
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie Goldammer <dgoldammer@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, Ap ri I 11, 2017 10:22 AM
Stratman, Anne
Demolition ordinance
I encourage the city council to pass the revised Demolition Ordinance forwarded by the city's Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) to the city council.
A lot of good work and input went into the proposed ordinance. I believe it is a balanced approach for the City
in determining how to consider the historic aspects of the community and gives the City tools to protect its
historic assets.
Please approve the ordinance. Thank you.
1
PWPC Memo Page 72
Abbott .Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good afternoon,
Griffith, David <David.Griffith@ redcross.org >
Wednesday, April 12 2017 12:48 PM
Stratman, Anne
"Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments"
I am writing in support of the ordinance. While the scope of this final proposal is not as broad as I would like, it would at
least give preservation of these historic sites an opportunity to protect this treasures. After traveling to Germany a little
over a year ago I gained a new appreciation of preserving our history with the buildings in our midst. While there we
visited many buildings built in the 1200's and they are still functional and STILL used. They survived World War II and
those that were bombed and many I eft in rubble, they rebuiltthem using many of the stones that made up the building
in its original state. It would have been easier to simply to I eave them but that was not their choice.
I heard a story not I o ng ago about a foreign exchange who was visiting our fair city and noticed a building being raised.
She asked her sponsor family why we would be doing this instead of repairing the building. For that her sponsor did not
have a relevant answer. Once we have demolished a building the history is lost along with the stories that go along with
it. Preserving our heritage and history in this beautiful hi sto ric city is vital to the generations that will fo II ow us. If we
have visitors we are showing our city to and we go by an empty lot and say that'swhere .... used to be and you should
have seen it, they can only imagine what it must have looked I ike. Very sad!!
Lastly, after this ordinance was proposed the News Tribune ran an article along with pictures of some of the historic
houses along Capito I and Jackson streets and I was am a zed at the history of those houses and stories I had NEVER heard
of until the article was published. When looking at economic development and attracting new folks to our city, these
types of stories help in the growth of our city and more importantly perhaps retain the history of Jefferson City. Once
they are gone, they are GONE!!
David Griffith
Executive Director
American Red Cross of Central & Northern Missouri
431 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, Mo. 65101
Tel (573) 635-1132
Cell (573) 301-6259
David.gr iffith@ redcro ss.o r g
Redcro ss.o rg/cnm o
Emergency:
B lood & p l atel et donor s needed now!
Plwt JcWJJ.J. A-h~14. .lf,~Wf .
I
PV\IPC Memo Page 73
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave & Cathy Bordner <davecath2@embarqmail.com>
Monday, AprillO, 2017 9:49 PM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordinance Comments
chart of demo apps 3-29-17.docx
I encourage the city council to pass the revised Demolition Ordinance forwarded by the city's Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) to the city council.
Attached is a chart on the last 7 years of applications for demolition permits reviewed by the HPC. This data is taken
from the annual reports submitted by the HPC to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and covers October 1,
2009 through September 30, 2016.
As you can see from the information, 111 cases were reviewed, 101 cases were recommended for approval, 4 cases
were recommended for denial, and 6 cases had 60 day holds put in place. All10 of the cases in which the HPC did not
recommend approval were demolished. It is apparent that the current ordinance does not result in avoiding the
demolition of buildings, even in the very rare cases where the HPC did not recommend approval. The data also shows
that over 7 years, with many different people on the HPC, in 101 out of 111 the HPC recommended approval of the
applications. So there is little chance that a "rogue" HPC would start blocking demolitions.
With the Capitol Ave. Urban Renewal Plan moving forward, it is incredibly important that we have in place tools to
increase the likelihood that the beautiful architecture and buildings in that area are rehabbed and re-used, and not
demolished so that a developer can build an apartment building for lobbyists close to the Capitol. Another real threat is
that the County Commission will acquire multiple parcels to clear the lots and build a new courthouse. This was actually
discussed during a county commission meeting about a year and a half ago.
Although many in Jefferson City would say projects like those would be great, the city council, as well as the Housing
Authority Board, have assured our community that the goal in the Capitol Ave blighted area is to preserve the historic
buildings. In order to do that, to follow through on that promise, we must have a more effective demolition ordinance. I
believe that the ordinance proposed by the HPC will do that. By providing more effective notice to the public members
of the community will have the opportunity to comment. By forwarding applications that the HPC recommends for
denial to City Council for the final decision, that body will have the opportunity to make the final determination as to
whether to approve or deny an application.
This revised ordinance was drafted by the HPC over many months, and reviewed by city staff, and people in the
community that have been involved in preservation. A lot of input from people who have rehabbed and reused historic
properties was provided. A staff member from the SHPO provided guidance. The HPC reviewed ordinances from other
communities to find best practices to use here in Jefferson City. This ordinance should be viewed as a tool to improve
historic preservation in our city. It should not be viewed as a tool for realtors to sell properties or for large developers to
do what they want to in the historic neighborhoods of Jefferson City. There are many economic development tools
available to encourage investment in Jefferson City. This ordinance should be passed to provide a tool to encourage
historic preservation in the older neighborhoods of our city.
1
PWPC Memo Page 74
3/29/17
Cathy Bordner
The following data is taken from the HPC's annual reports, which are submitted to the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The reports run from 10/1 through 9/30. The period
covered by the 2009-2010 report was 10/1/2009 -9/30/2010.As you will see from this
information, the HPC very rarely recommends denial of an application or puts a 60 day hold on
an application.
Year Reviewed Total Reviewed Recommended Recommended Other (60 day
Approval Denial hold or other
action)
2009-2010 9 9 0
2010-2011 16 15 11
2011-2012 21 17 0 42
2012-2013 6 4 0 23
2013-2014 13 12 14
2014-2015 17 17 0
2015-2016 29 27 5 2
Totals 111 101 4 6
1207 W. Elm, HPC recommended denial, building was demolished.
2620 State and 622 State: HPC asked city staff to discuss demolition with owner, owner reconsidered,
then demolished buildings; 913 Harding and 313 E. Ashley HPC put 60 day hold, buildings demolished.
3310 W. Elm HPC tabled due to historic significance of building, building is still standing, but in very
poor condition and will probably have to be demolished eventually; 406 Washington and 408
Washington were two buildings listed on one application for a demolition permit, HPC tabled due to
historic significance (buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places), buildings were
demolished.
43221 N Ten Mile Drive: HPC recommended denial of application, building was demolished.
5 0f the 27 buildings recommended for approval in 2015-2016, 6 buildings fell under the Dangerous
Building Regulation.
In the four cases where the HPC recommended denial of the applications, the buildings were
demolished. In the six cases in the "Other" column, five ofthe six buildings were demolished.
PWPC Memo Page 75
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members:
Dana Miller< Dana.Miller@house.mo.gov>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:54AM
Stratman, Anne
Proposed Demolition Ordiance
I wish to lend my support for the demolition ordinance proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission for the City of
Jefferson. It is important to save our community's historic structures now, in order to ensure their integrity and
significance is preserved for future generations. This is especially critical now, with the redevelopment of the Capitol
Mile.
I appreciate your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
-Dana
DANA RADEMAN MILLER
Assistant Chief Clerk !:Missouri House of Representatives
Chair I Missouri State Capitol Comm iss ion
(573) 751-4503 I office
(573) 690-8154 I mobile
1
PWPC Memo Page 76
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom,
Cliff Keeler < keelerp hoto@yhti.net>
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:10 AM
Stratman, Anne
Historic City of Jefferson demolition ordinance
Preserving old decaying buildings allowed to fall into serious disrepair poses expensive recoveries from a financial
standpoint. However, risking losing those historical roots representing the foundation of our local culture's existence as
we know it today, is ultimately a form of total bankruptcy-not just a financial"bump-in-the-road." The latter, if allowed
to happen, can never be recovered. Such abandoned history that our ancestors spawned, and often died for, is lost
forever whether the roots involved are in a building representing significant people that used them in significant ways to
make Jeff City a productive community and nation builder-or their final resting places -like the desecrated cemetery in
the Apache Flats area holding the remains of significant ancestors that helped build the community and were
responsible, among many other historical acts, for major decisions from nation building to sorting out the city's presence
during the Civil War. The latter graves have been carelessly abandoned in the name of "progress" and an upscale
housing addition built over the top of their relics.
If we don't protect our community's roots (including its ancestral relics laid to rest in the community they served) for
generations yet to come, why should those future generations continue to respect roots that in effect should establish
pride in who they are, where they came from -and, who they can strive to be?
Cliff Keeler
210 Arden Drive
J.C., MO 65109
Cliff Keeler
Keeler Photography
kee le r p h oto @y h t i . net
1
PWPC Memo Page 77
Abbott, Jayme
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
blingblingbabe2@gmail.com
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:08 PM
Stratman, Anne
Demolition ordinance
Just to let you know I support the demolition ordinance proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Than you
Sent from my iPhone
1
PWPC Memo Page 78
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right -of -Way
November 1, 2013 -April 18, 2017
Date work:
done
Date called
in
Date
Completed
Days
Active
Location
:permit
No
- *
oesoriptlori '
3/27/17
3/27/17
4/17/17
16
1220 W High Street
21583
Closed
3/13/17
3/14/17
3/16/17
4
1405 Moreland
21582
Closed
3/13/17
3113/17
329/17
13
103 E Cirlce
21581
Closed
3/10/17
3/10/17
3/15/17
4
716 W Main
21580
Closed
3/9/17
319/17
4/17/17
21
Adams/Ca Rol
21579
3/1/17
3/3/17
3/10/17
8
2409 Hyde Park
21578
Closed
3/1/17
3/1/17
526 E Capitol
21577
2/23/17
2/27/17
3/7/17
9
1011 Industrial
21576
IClosed
2/27/17
2127/17
E Cirlce
21575
2/27/17
2/27/17
3/13/17
13
603 Linn
21574
Closed
2/19/17
2/19/17
109 Bluff
21573
2117/17
2/17/17
205 Clay St
21572
1/13/17
217/17
2/14/17
22
West Tanner Way
21541
Closed
1/13117
2!1!17
2/17/17
25
1031 Buna Vista
21540
Closed
2/3/17
2/3/17
2/17/17
11
1810 Stadium
21539
Closed
12/18/16
1/6/17
1200 Elmerine
21535
12/14/16
1/6/17
1/12/17
17
Had/ W McCarty
21534
Closed
12/13/16
12114/16
714 Michi an
21531
12112/16
12/14/16
1923 Dockery St
21530
12/10/16
12/10/16
4/17/17
88
11323 Karen
21529
Closed
12/9/16
12/9/16
1708 Belair
21528
12/8/16
12/8/16
11609 Bevelry
21527
10/27/16
10/26/16
10/26/16
6
11010 Rosewood Circle
21478
Closed
10/20/16
10/21/16
10/25/16
4
1 Edmunds/Buna Vista
21477
Closed
1020/16
10/21/16
10/25/16
4
Edmunds/Elizabeth
21476
Closed
10/20/16
10/21/16
10/25/16
4
Edmunds/Myrtle
21475
Closed
9130/16
9/30116
112/16
24
701 Belair
21474
Closed
9117/16
9/17/16
112/16
35
1618 E Miller
21473
Closed
9/14/16
9/14/16
11/2/16
36
909 E Capitol
21472
Closed
9/14/16
9/14/16
1112/16
36
200 Hub Sl
21471
Closed
9/9116
919/16
10/6/16
20
1901 Glenwood
21470
Closed
8/19/16
8/19/16
927/16
28
1105 and 106 Card Ann
21469
Closed
8/15/16
8!15/16
9/12/16
21
200 Block Clav Street
21468
Closed
8/13/16
8/13/16
9/14/16
23
1810 Stadium
21467
Closed
7/25/16
8/11/16
8/29116
26
Rosewood/Carol
21466
Closed
8/8116
8/8/16
8/24/16
13
611 Hibernia
21440
Closed
726/16
726/16
7129/16
3
Stadium and Carter
21439
Closed
726116
726/16
7/29/16
3
1228 Carter
21438
Closed
726116
726/16
1 8/12/16
14
Rosewood/Carroll
21437
Closed
7/25/16
725/16
8/12/16
15
1011 Winston
21436
Closed
720/16
720/16
8/12116
18
East Ashley and Madison
21435
Closed
7/8116
7/8/16
826/16
37
2653 Sue Drvie
21434
Closed
W7116
7!1/16
729/16
17
1613 Michi an
21433
Closed
716/16
7/16/16
812116
12
1701 E McCaty
21432
Closed
7/5/16
7/5/16
8/29/16
40
901 E Capitol
21431
Closed
7/4/16
7/4/16
7/11/16
4
901 Madison
21430
Closed
7/3/16
7/3/16
8/26/16
40
2201 Marilyn
21429
Closed
72/16
72/16
7/11/16
5
104 Jackson
21428
Closed
7/1/16
7/1/16
8/23/16
37
824 SW Blvd
21427
Closed
6/30/16
6/30/16
917/16
49
908 Westwood
21426
Closed
6/30/16
6/30/16
7/20/16
14
1816 Green Meadow
21405
Closed
628116
6/28/16
7/11/16
11
1401 E Elm
21404
Closed
628/16
6/28116
8/2/16
24
613 Waverly
21403
Closed
626116
626/16
720/16
17
2406 James Street
21402
Closed
6/19/16
6/19/16
7/11/16
26
Cotta a Ln/ Gordon
21401
Closed
6/14/16
6/14116
8/12/16
44
Adams/Slate
21400
Closed
6114/16
6/14/16
720/16
25
1101 Maplewood Ct
21399
Closed
526/16
5/26/16
6/28/16
23
1805 W Main
21398
Closed
5/10116
5/10/16
5/31/16
14
1115 E Miller
21397
Closed
5/5116
5!4/16
1827 Mississippi
21396
Closed
5/5/16
5/5/16
5/18/16
9
617 Houchin
21395
Closed
Page 1 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right -of -Way
November 1. 2013 -ADrll 18. 2017
Date work-
done
Date called
in
Date '
Completed
Days
Active
'Location
Rertnit
No
Description
512/16
5/2/16
1900 Summers Way
21394
Closed
5/1/16
5/1/16
5/10/16
8
938 Fairmont Blvd
21393
Closed
4/21/16
4/21/16
5/4/16
9
1209 West Main
21392
Closed
4/20/16
4/20/16
5/4/16
10
127 W Cirlce
21391
Closed
4/19/16
4/19/16
4/27/16
7
1210 Moreland
21390
Closed
4/15/16
4/15/16
2207 Merlin
21389
Closed
4/12/16
4/12/16
4/19116
6
1620 Ohio
21388
Closed
4/12/16
4/12/16
4/19/16
6
1608 Ohio
21387
Closed
4/11/16
4/11/16 1
4/15/16
5
High Street ram /MO Blvd
21386
Closed
417/16
4/7116
4/15/16
7
207 Vista
21365
Closed
4/5116
4/5/16
5/3/16
21
2015 Tower
21364
Closed
329/16
3/29/16
5/4/16
28
2026 W Main
21363
Closed
325/16
325/16
7/11/16
73
1428 Bald Hill
21362
Closed
3/25116
3/25/16
4/6/16
10
513 Gi fert Ln
21361
Closed
3/23/16
323116
4/6/16
10
1805 Bald Hill Rd
21359
Closed
3/18116
3118/16
4/6116
12
1014 Laurel
21358
lClosed
3/10/16
3/10/16
4/6/16
20
333 Old Gibbler
21357
Closed
3/10/16
3/10116
4/6/16
20
2210 MelodyDr
21356
Closed
3/10116
3/10/16
3115/16
4
400 Donna Bella
21355
Closed
317116
3!7/16
3/9/16
2
618 E Hi h
2154
Closed
32/16
32/16
2025 Ed ewood (Hydrant)
21353
Closed
226/16
2/26/16
4/6/16
28
2025 Ed ewood
21352
Closed
223/16
2/23/16
8/24116
130
1415 Stadium
21351
Closed
2/19/16
2/19116
1217/16
300 blk E State St
21320
Closed
2/18/16
2/18/16
2/29/16
8
Union/Jackson
21319
Closed
2/12/16
2/12/16
3/9/16
19
2109 Ed ewood Drive
21318
Closed
2112116
2/12/16
3/9/16
19
818 Air View
21317
Closed
2/11/16
2/11/16
3/9/16
20
2500 Orchard Ln
21316
Closed
2111/16
2111/16
225/16
11
1722 South Ride
21315
Closed
2/5116
215/16
3/9/16
23
2000 Meadow Ln
21314
Closed
2/3/16
2/3/16
2115/16
9
2128 Green Meadow Dr
21313
Closed
2/1/16
2/1/16
2/15/16
11
1308 Moreau
21312
Closed
1/29/16
1/29/16
2/1/16
1
1709 Francis
21311
Closed
128116
1/28116
2/1116
2
710 Belair
21310
Closed
1/28/16
1/28/16
2/1/16
2
Hou h Park and Kolb
21309
Closed
126/16
126116
2/1/16E37
122 Boonville
21306
Closed
126/16
126116
1/27116126
E Circle
21307
Closed
122/16
122116
3/9/16
2124 Lowell
21306
Closed
121/16
121/16
2/4/16
1200 Moreland
21305
Closed
1/17/16
1/17/16
3/9116
1822 Tanner Bride
21304
Closed
1/15/16
1115/16
125/16906
Broadwa
21303
Closed
1111/16
1/12/16
1/14/16810
Stadium
21302
Closed
1/11116
1/12/16
1/13/16Rid
ewood and W McCa
21301
Closed
12/16
1/12/16
129/16
Southwest and Survally
21211
Closed
12/16
1/12/16
1/14116
9
1837 W McCarty
21210
Closed
1224/15
12/30/15
1/6/16
8
1812 W Stadium Blvd
21209
Closed
1221/15
1223/15
1/6/16
10
1228 West Ed ewood
21208
Closed
12/4/15
12/7/15
12/21/15
12
W. McCarty and Manilla
21207
Closed
12/4/15
1217/15
1221/15
12
1808 Greenberry x2
21206
Closed
1128/15
11/30115
223/16
60
2224 Oakview
21205
Closed
11/19/15
11/18/15
223/16
Oakview/Hillsdale
21204
Closed
1028/15
10/28/15
12/4/15
25
2619 Schellrid a
21203
Closed
1023/15
10/26/15
12/4/15
28
319 Meier
21202
Closed
10/102015
10/122015
1023/2015
10
400 E Cedar Way
21201
Closed
10/72015
10/82015
10/92015
3
1409 Moreland
21200
Closed
/32015
1E9/2
10/5/2015
10222015
14 MO Blvd and Stadium
21199
Closed
91152015
91222015
6
213 E Elm
21198
Closed
91142015
9/22/2015
8
1025 Westwood
21197
Closed
9/8/2015
9/22/2015
9
2601 Schellrid a
21196
Closed
9/82015
922/2015
11
1901 Bassman
21195
Closed
9/8/2015
10/30/2015
43
804 Adams
21194
IClosed
Page 2 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right -of -Way
November 1, 2013 -April 18, 2017
9afangnrk
,��=v�•�
Rate�alled Dafe
+fir �„,E
r o%mPiete-'d,
AdyS
Wc1G!R
, , ; Lbcanon
Permit
Na
Description -
8/18/2015
8/20/2015
8/20/2015
2
E Elm/Linn
21193
Closed
8/10/2015
8/202015
9/22/2015
31
933 Leslie
21192
Closed
8!7/2015
8/20/2015
9/15/2015
25
1312 Lynnwood
21141
Closed
6/302015
6/30/2015
7/6/2015
5
313 Hart
21139
Closed
6/302015
6/30/2015
722015
3
100 E Cedar Way
21140
Closed
6/222015
622/2015
6/25/2015
3
1707 West Main
21137
Closed
6/192015
6222015
7172015
13
1800 Adams
21138
Closed
6/17/2015
6/18/2015
6/2412015
6
Satinwood/Brandy Lane
21136
Closed
6/102015
6/10/2015
6/15/2015
3
100 Jefferson
21135
Closed
6/2/2015
6/32015
6/9/2015
5
2406 James Street
21134
Closed
529/2015
5/29/2015
6/9/2015
8
623 Ohio
21133
Closed
526/2015
5/262015
6/9/2015
11
1313 Moreland
21132
Closed
5/21/2015
5212015
624/2015
25
Hibernia/Mokane Road
21130
Closed
5/21/2015
5212015
6/3/2015
10
1900 Stadium
21131
Closed
5/1512015
5/152015
6/3/2015
13
319 Stadium
21129
Closed
5/14/2015
5/14/2015
6/3/2015
14
205 Boonville
21128
Closed
5/62015
5/62015
5/112015
3
1317 Monroe
21127
Closed
428/2015
4/282015
50/2015
8
312 E Capitol
21126
Closed
4/19/2015
4/202015
5/4/2015
10
1110 Lee Street
21125
Closed
4/152015
4/152015
5/7/2015
17
1711/1713 Ha selton
21124
Closed
4/3/2015
4/102015
5/7/2015
25
217 Stadium Blvd
21123
Closed
3272015
3/27/2015
6/24/2015
66
1419 Hough Park
21122
Closed
326/2015
326/2015
3/30/2015
3
209 E Atchison
20982
Closed
3/26/2015
326/2015
5772015
31
Jackson/Stadium
20983
Closed
3/192015
3202015
4/24/2015
26
419 Oak Valley Ct
20980
Closed
3/19/2015
3/20/2015
5/21/2015
45
1902 Stadium Blvd
20981
Closed
3117/2015
3/182015
3/30/2015
10
Dunklin/Jefferson
20979
Closed
3/62015
3/9/2015
3112/2015
5
909 Indiana
20978
Closed
3/5/2015
3/6/2015
VOID
1104 Madison Sl in all
20977
VOID
3/32015
3/312015
1806 Crader Dr
20973
Closed
3/3/2015
3/4/2015
3/262015
18
110 block Jackson
20974
lClosed
2272015
3/4/2015
4/152015
33
Boonville and Norris
20975
Closed
2/272015
3/4/2015
4/1512015
33
W. McCarty and Hart
20976
Closed
2/2412015
225/2015
3/24/2015
21
1719 Jefferson
20972
Closed
2/22/2015
2232015
1212 Moreland Ave
20971
Closed
2/11/2015
2/112015
3/12/2015
22
2717 Lola Dr
20970
Closed
2/92015
2/912015
3/3/2015
17
1924 Ha selton
20968
Closed
2/92015
2/9/2015
32/2015
32
525 E High
20969
Closed
1/292015
1/29/2015
3/30/2015
44
Dunklin and Jefferson
20967
Closed
1252015
1/262015
1/302015
4
104 N. Taylor
20966
lClosed
1/21/2015
1/21/2015
1/30/2015
7
400 E Hess Way
20965
1 Closed
11202015
1/21/2015
1/272015
5
117 E Circle
20958
Closed
1/192015
1212015
12712015
7
412 E Cirlce
20960
Closed
1/19/2015
121/2015
324/2015
47
1401 Capitol
20963
Closed
1/19/2015
1212015
2/6/2015
14
1319 Meier
20964
Closed
1/17/2015
1/21/2015
2/6/2015
15
1823 Primrose
20957
Closed
1/172015
1212015
127/2015
7
917 Moreau
20961
Closed
1/162015
1212015
1/30/2015
11
414 Hess Way
20959
Closed
1/11/2015
1/11/2015
1/21/2015
8
Boonville and West Main
20956
Closed
1/102015
1/11/2015
1/27/2015
11
Moreland and Moreau
20953
Closed
1/10/2015
1/11/2015
1/20/2015
7
1320 Moreland
20954
Closed
1/10/2015
1/112015
2/62015
20
2306 Hillsdale
20955
Closed
1/7/2015
1/92015
1/142015
6
2503 Industrial Drive
20952
Closed
1/6/2015
1/6/2015
1/21/2015
12
300 Berry St
20951
Closed
1/1/2015
1/5/2015
2/62015
26
11902 MO Blvd/Beck St
20949
Closed
1/1/20151
1/15/2015
2/112015
30
413 Beck St
20950
Closed
12/26/2014
1229/2014
1/202015
16
1308 Houchins
20947
Closed
1226/2014
12292014
1202015
16
Dunklin and Houchins
20948
Closed
122/2014
12/3/2014
12/15/2014
12
Donald Dr
20946
Closed
1127/2014
121112014
12/152014
14
Donald Dr
20945
Closed
11/182014
11/192014
12/15/2014
18
1924 Ha selton
20944
Closed
Page 3 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right -of -Way
November 1, 2013 -April 18. 2017
_._...
Date work:
done -
......._
Date called
in
_ _.....
Date <.
Completed
..._..
Days
Active
_ _
-
.Location
_ _ ....
Permit
No
.... .... ....... ...............
......................
Description
11/14/2014
11/17/2014
12/2/2014
18
837 Creslmere
20943
Closed
11/13/2014
11/17/2014
501 Mesa
20942
Closed
10/28/2014
10/29/2014
12/2/2014
22
2600 Schellrid a
20941
Closed
10/16/2014
1020/2014
11/4/2014
13
1605 Bald Hill Rd
20940
Closed
10/132014
10/16/2014
11/42014
15
Do wood/Buehrle
20939
Closed
10/7/2014
10/9/2014
10/19/2015
10
212 Broadway
20938
Closed
9/162014
9/172014
10/12014
10
12500 Country Club
20937
Closed
9/82014
9/82014
9/17/2014
9
1 Ridqeway and Oakview
20936
Closed
8222014
8262014
10!7/2014
East Miller and Marshall
20934
Closed
8212014
8222014
9/15/2014
14
421 Union
20935
Closed
8/162014
8/1/2014
11/4/2014
65
1827 W. McCarty
20933
Closed
7130/2014
7/31/2014
West Ashle and Mulberry
20860
Closed
7/28/2014
7/26/2014
200 block of S. Bluff Street
20859
Closed
71232014
7/23/2014
8/112014
19
1319 E Elm Street
20856
Closed
7/23/2014
7/25/2014
8/1/2014
10
103 East Circle
20857
Closed
7/23/2014
7/25/2014
8/11/2014
19
700 Block of Michi am
20858
Closed
7/17/2014
7/22/2014
2025 West Ed ewood Dr
20854
Closed
7/172014
7/22/2014
Hiebernia
20855
Closed
7/13/2014
7/22/2014
8/192014
37
1429 Dixon Drive
20853
Closed
7/7/14
7/8/14
7/15/14
1502 Greenberry
20852
Closed
7/5/14
7/8/14
10/3/14
58
114 Ridgeway
20851
Closed
7/1/14
7/3/14
8/14114
21
1120 Lee Street
20850
Closed
6/30/14
7/1/14
7/15/14
400 Block Jackson
20848
Closed
6/30/14
7/3/14
7/15/14
1306 West Main
20849
Closed
620/14
6/23/14
7/15/14
1505 Stadium
20847
Closed
616/14
6/9114
327 Fox Creek
20845
Closed
614/14
6/5/14
4/20/15
West Main and MO Blvd
20844
Closed
527/14
528/14
Industrial and Jaycee Dr
20842
Closed - New Main
521/14
5/21/14
6/4/14
14
321 Wilson Drive
20841
Closed
520/14
5/20/14 1
6/4/14
15
4411 Industrial
20840
Closed
5/13/14
5/14/14
1101 Industrial Drive
20839
Closed
5/8/14
5/13/14
5/14/14
6
Hillsdale and Binder
20837
Closed
5/1/14
505 Meier Dr
20836
Closed
4/29/14
4/29/14
5/6/14
7
421 Ladue Rd
20835
Oen - Driveway Issues
4/28/14
11/17/14
700 Block SW Blvd
20830
Closed
4/28/14
4/29/14
5/15/14
17
1102 Vista
20832
Closed
4/28/14
4129/14
5/1/14
3
1308 Cottage Lane
20833
Closed
428114
4/29/14
5/6/14
8
2215 Hillsdale
20834
Closed
426/14
206 John St
20831
Closed
4/24/14
300 Block East Hi h
20829
Closed
423/14
606 Washington Street
20828
Closed
4/16114
2107 Buehrle Dr
20825
Closed
4/16/14
1010 Holly
20826
Closed
4/16/14
Maryland and Lowell
20827
Closed
4!7/14
2940 Valley View Drive
20824
Closed
42/14
11215 Ed ewood
20822
Closed
4/2/14
1801 Notre Dame
20823
Closed
3/18/14
104 W. Franklin
20821
Closed
3/7/14
Hiberia/Mokane Road
20820
Closed
2/28/14
Locust /Walsch
20819
Closed
2/24/14
Edmonds / Dulls
20818
Closed
221/14
2708 Twin Hills
20817
Closed - Driveway uestion
2/18/14
306 N Lincoln
20815
Closed
2/18/14
Pondarosa Street
20816
Closed
2/13/14
100 Blk East Ashley
20814
Closed
2/11/14
1317 Stadium
20813
Closed
2/4/14
216 - 218 McKinley Street
20811
Closed
2/3/14
1408 East High(Alley)
20812
Closed
120/14
1314 Moreau Drive
20751
Closed
120/14
1/20/14
5/6/14
106
311 E High Street
20752
Closed
1/12/14
Douglas/ Wane
20749
Closed
1/12/14
130 Boonville Road
20750
Closed
117114
1120 Carol Street
20748
Closed
1/5/14
1515 Rosewood
20747
Closed
Page 4 of 6
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right -of -Way
November 1, 2013 -April 18, 2017
Date work
done
Date called
in
Date ' Days --
Completed Active Location
.
Permit
No
....... . ....... ..............
..............................
.............
...
- Oescriptiori .
"' '
1/3/14
708 Wicker Lane
20746
Closed New Main
1/2/14
710 Wicker Lane
20745
Closed - New Main
111/14
McCarty Street/Manilla
20743
Closed
1/1/14
Pierce/ Edwards
20744
Closed
12/26/13
1504 Bald Hill Road
20742
Closed
12/23/13
1122 East Atchison
20741
Closed
12/18/13
1
11505 Southwest Blvd.
20739
lClosed
12/18/13
Marilyn / Oakview
20740
Closed
12/11/13
1306 Emmience
20737
Closed
12/11/13
623-625 W McCarty Street
20738
Closed
12/10/13
709 E McCarty Street
20734
Closed
12/10/13
2107 Rear Mo. Blvd.
20735
Closed
12/10/13
200 Blk Filmore
20736
Closed
12/8/13
719 Wicker Lane
20733
Closed
12/3/13
2109 Ed ewood Drive
20731
Closed
12/3/13
1119 Darlene
20732
Closed
11/28/13
636 Belmont
20730
Closed
11/27/13
11210 Ed ewood
20729
Closed
11/19/13
1310 East High Street
20728
Closed
11/14/13
603 Meir
20726
Closed
11/14/13
Westwood /Wood Cliff
20727
Closed
11/13/13
3032 Oak Valley Drive
20723
Closed
11/13/13
1901 Bassman
20724
Closed
11/13/13
11/15/13
5/14/13 316 Ash Street
20725
Closed - New Main
11/5/13
Satinwood Drive / Melody
20722
Closed
11/4/13
2207 Schell Ride
20720
Closed
11/4/13
1822 Cedar Ride
20721
Closed
5/30/13
6/3/14
6/4/14 370 12212 Oakview Drive
20843
Closed
5112/13
5/13/14
2600 Jason Road
20838
Closed
138 Forest Hill
20753
Closed
1225 High Cliff
20754
Closed
1551 Bald Hill Road
20755
Closed
6/11/14
6/9/14 619 Houchin
20846
Closed
Page 5 of 6