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.