Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-10-07 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, October 7, 2021 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Committee Members Present Glover Brown Bunnie Trickey Cotten Donna Deetz Debra Greene Roger Jungmeyer Brad Schaefer Holly Stitt Steve Veile Stacey Young Committee Members Absent Cassandra Gould Doug Record Council Liaison Present Laura Ward Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Anne Stratman, Neighborhood Services Specialist Guests Present Mike Lester (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. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from September 2, 2021 Ms. Young moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2021 as written. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business A. Local Designation 1. Public Hearing requirements for nomination of local historic district Ms. Senzee explained that during the review process with the City’s Law Department, the City Attorney questioned whether anyone can initiate the process for a establishing a local historic district regardless if that person is local, living within the district or from out of state. He thought that could create an issue when establishing a district if you solely had a public hearing process. He also questioned whether the application process should include a fee to avoid that or if this body should rethink bringing back the property owner signatures. Ms. Greene agreed with the City Attorney, if you are going to tell me how to handle my property th en I need to sign off on that. If there is a public hearing and no one shows up th en by default it goes into effect. 2 Mr. Veile commented that if a local historic district is nominated it still has to go through an approval process. Ms. Deetz suggested 51% of the property owners signatures so that it is a majority, as opposed to 50%. Ms. Stitt explained that at last months meeting the discussion was on the Capitol Avenue Overlay District and how the City involved all of the owners on Capitol Avenue. There were public meetings and hearings to make sure that everyone was aware of the process. That process we nt really well. The reason we are trying this is that if someone does end up owning a majority of the property in that area, they can control that one way or the other. Ms. Ward stated that we also have to remember we are talking about historic areas in o ur City and how we want to maintain the integrity of those areas. The guidelines will create protection. In historic neighborhoods there are guidelines to protect the integrity, the look, the feel, and the character of the neighborhood. It is not anything that the residents of the area would be against anyway. They may not want to get involved in the process and having to write the guidelines, which is how it is now. Neighbors have to get signatures, they have to do the history on the neighborhood, they hav e to write the guidelines. It is so much of a hindrance and time consuming that trying to make the process easier and more streamlined for the neighbors to help give them protections. After additional discussion, the consensus of the Committee is that any property owner within the proposed local historic district shall initiate the process. The Committee also came to a consensus to eliminate the requirement for a percentage of property owner signatures. 2. Archaeology Definition Ms. Senzee read the archaeology definition: “The study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes”. After additional discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to add the Archaeology definition proposed by Staff. Other Business A. Foot Historic District conversation to Historic Preservation Commission Ms. Senzee explained that after conversations that we have had in this body, when talking about the Historic Foot District, it is appropriate to talk about it within the guidelines of establishing code. According to the Bold New Plan that Mr. Brown has discussed the first goal is to have the Historic Foot District listed on the National Register. This body does not have the authority to do that. However this body, by making a motion, can request that the Historic Preservation Commission formally take up this conversat ion. Mr. Brown stated that his goal was to have this area designated as a local historic district first and then nominate it to the National Register. Ms. Senzee inquired whether Mr. Brown would like to go to the Historic Preservation Commission at this time. Mr. Brown replied that he wants the procedure to be whatever needs to be done to get it designated as a local historic district with all of the rights and privileges of a local historic district. Once that has been satisfied than let the Historic Preservation Commission work on the nomination to the National Register. Ms. Senzee explained that whenever a local historic district comes before the Historic Preservation Commission for a National Register nomination it is as a review process only. The State Historic Preservation Office looks to the Historic Preservation Commission as a Certified Local Government to provide a recommendation if that nomination should move forward. There have been instances where the Historic Preservation Commission has appro ved a grant to produce a National Register nomination and 3 that is doable. There still has to be a separation because the Historic Preservation Commission is also a review body. Mr. Brown stated that in the process of rewriting this ordinance a mechanism h as to be put in place so that the body who would be responsible would be able to be approached by a private citizen or neighborhood group. Whenever they do this the lay person is going to have to expend their own funds or apply for a grant to get a consultant to come on board to help with this. Is there a thought towards developing a mechanism to where this can be simplified for someone who wants to make a recommendation. Ms. Senzee explained that if you bring a good, solid draft for a local historic distr ict nomination there will be a staff level review. If there are any issues such as conflicting code or conflicting state law staff will come back and ask you to fix it before it goes to the Historic Preservation Commission. At this time, it is not feasible to initiate the process for a local historic district. Because under the current code you have to have 75% of the property owner signatures to nominate an area for a local historic district. Under the proposed code any property owner within the proposed local historic district can initiate the process. B. Local Landmark Mr. Veile commented that he was surprised to hear that a local landmark and a local historic district have to abide by the same rules and regulations. Until I heard this I thought that a local landmark was an honorary designation and did not mean anything in the terms of any rules and regulations. Ms. Senzee explained that any time a historic property or historic district is under going any type of change and there is a building permit that is getting pulled it is supposed to go to a review by the Historic Preservation Commission. After additional discussion, it was suggested to discuss designation of local landmarks at next month’s meeting. Dates to Remember The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 4, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room. Adjournment Ms. Young moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:03 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.