HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-09-02 minutesCity of Jefferson
Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes
Regular Meeting – Thursday, August 5, 2021
Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting
Committee Members Present
Glover Brown
Bunnie Trickey Cotten
Cassandra Gould (via Webex)
Debra Greene (via Webex)
Roger Jungmeyer
Brad Schaefer
Holly Stitt
Stacey Young
Committee Members Absent
Donna Deetz
Doug Record
Steve Veile
Council Liaison Present
Laura Ward
Staff Present
Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor
Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist
Anne Stratman, Neighborhood Services Specialist
Guests Present
Brian Bernskoetter (via Webex)
Call to Order
Ms. Cotten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked those in attendance to introduce
themselves.
Adoption of Agenda
Ms. Young moved and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed
unanimously.
Approval of Meeting Minutes from August 5, 2021
Ms. Young moved and Mr. Schaefer seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 5,
2021 as written. The motion passed unanimously.
Od Business
A. Local Designation
1. Property Owner Signatures (75%)
Staff researched other cities for property owner signatures needed to establish a Local Historic
District. Examples include: Arlington, VA requires 25%, each property counts as one vote (two owners of
one property equals one vote); Town of Brookhaven, NY requires a minimum of 20%; Fort Worth, TX
requires 50% of the property owners and 50% of the parcel owners; Glendale, CA requires more than
50% of the properties; and St. Louis, MO requires at least 10% of the property owners.
Ms. Young inquired what happens when one person owns 75% of properties in that district because
that one individual would have a lot of power to create a historic district. There needs to be some thought
in the future that if one individual in a district holds a certain percentage it needs to be weighted in a way
that is not detrimental to the other property owners.
2
Rev. Gould inquired how we would add language that indicates where one owner with multiple
properties is equal to one signature.
After additional discussion, Ms. Senzee suggested tabling this agenda item to establish a process.
Ms. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to table this agenda item. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Definitions – Local Landmark & Local Historic District
Ms. Senzee read the revised definition of a Local Landmark and a Local Historic District. The revised
definitions included an archeological component. Committee members agreed by consensus that they
liked the revised definitions. She suggested creating a definition for a National Register District since
there is a definition for a National Register.
She explained that, for example, Lee’s Summits application process for a landmark or historic overlay
district or an amendment is considered a rezoning. Their Historic Preservation Commission goes through
a public hearing process whereby they mail notices to affected property owners and hold a public hearing
for each local landmark or local historic district designation.
Ms. Ward commented that if there is interest from a neighborhood and that neighborhood goes to the
City, can the City initiate it such as they did with the Overlay District. T here was a lot of vetting and a lot of
public hearings. I know that Ms. Senzee wants it to come from the area which I agree, but do we have to
put a hindrance on the neighborhood to get signatures, do their own guidelines, research all of the historic
buildings and get photos. That might deter the creation of a historic neighborhood in our City because it is
such an undertaking.
Ms. Cotten commented that a public hearing process is a more viable option because the property
owners are notified and have the opportunity to be heard.
Committee members discussed the processes for the Capitol Avenue Overlay District and the School
Street Local Historic District.
Reverend Gould stated that these definitions are very important. “At that time the School Street Local
Historic District process was an issue not only for City staff but for a community member, as well. At that
time, I was the Pastor for Quinn Chapel and we were left out of this district because we were in a new
building. They are the oldest black entity in the entire city and have been here for over 170 years. Having
a definition that goes beyond archeolog y actually helps to eliminate some of these issues. There should
have been no reason, particularly with School Street, when they were talking about black history leaving
the oldest black entity out. That is why having definitions and updating definitions to be more inclusive
than how a building looks or what it is constructed out of will also be helpful.”
Ms. Young commented that what if it is not what we think as historic, but a new build in a historic
district.
Reverend Gould stated that the reason Quinn Chapel was excluded was because their building was
new. We were still an entity that has been in this city for over 170 years and has historic ti es. Particularly
when you think about what it meant to be on Lafayette Street for black people historically and a building
that was initially constructed by those who were enslaved. You could not deny the historical aspect, but
because the architecture did not fit in we were told that we excluded for that reason. That is why
expanding the definition of what is designated as a landmark or even included in a historic district would
eliminate a lot of the confusion and the issues that a lot of us experienced.
Mr. Brown stated that one of the problems Quinn Chapel had at the time, was that it was new
architecture. We did research and it was in Pennsylvania, I believe, where there was a new church and
they incorporated relics of the old church into the new architecture. That was what gave them the footing
to be included in a historic district.
3
Reverend Gould stated that there were pieces of the original structure previously located on Miller
Street that were incorporated into the new building. It may not be stru cturally sound to incorporate pieces
of an existing structure into a new structure. That is why I like that the definition is not just limited to
architecture but also includes historic connections. I think that would eliminate the problem.
Ms. Stitt inquired why could not it be a noncontributing building but still a part of the local historic
district.
Ms. Senzee explained that there is confusion between a National Register District and a Local
Historic District. A National Register District has a 50-year threshold whereas a Local Historic District
does not have an age threshold in our code.
Ms. Stitt commented that if a building is a noncontributing building it is still considered a part of the
historic district. Even though the building is a newer structure, it is still a historic piece of that area.
Ms. Senzee commented it is up to this body to decide whether you want to put a timestamp on a
structure or on an area and that is its qualification or do you want to stick the criteria for designation.
Currently we do not have a timestamp, it is just historical relevance, or architectural relevance, or
landscape significance or archeology.
Mr. Brown stated that in checking with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Department of
the Interior historic preservation is in a flux and is being looked at. A lot of what is on the national level is
being revised and so whatever we are acting on is antiquated information that may change in the future.
When I started on this I was looking at the fact that the Historic Foot District was not receiving the
designation that we were told it was supposed to in 2017. I have since had conversations with Columbia,
MO and they are in the same flux because they were under the same impressions that we were. In
Reverend Gould’s situation he had a structure. The fact that The Foot could not get a designation is that
there were no buildings on the site. Ms. Ward suggested looking at a different classification. Adding
another category to the City Code would resolve the issue and adding verbiage would make it all work.
Ms. Reinkemeyer gave a presentation on archeological sites. She used the African Burial Grounds
and the Commons Historic District in New York City. She also put together a timeline on The Historic Foot
District.
Ms. Senzee stated that the following items will be included in the October 7, 2021 meeting packet:
1. Draft public hearing requirements for nomination of local historic districts;
2. Draft outline for the Historic Preservation Code;
3. Mr. Brown’s Bold New Plan;
4. Archeology Definition.
Dates to Remember
The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 7, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room.
Adjournment
Ms. Young moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:21 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously.