Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-12-02 packetIndividuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Please call 573-634-6410 for information regarding agenda items NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING AND TENTATIVE AGENDA i City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Commission Thursday, December 2, 2021, ~ 4:00 p.m. Boone Bancroft Room - John G. Christy Municipal Building-320 E. McCarty Street CLICK HERE TO JOIN VIRTUALLY Password: 1234 Join by Phone: 14043971516 Access Code: 2495 540 6125 TENTATIVE AGENDA 1. Introductions and Roll Call 2. Procedural Matters • Determination of quorum • Call for cases • Receive and review requests for continuance • Receive requests for reordering the agenda • Format of hearing • List of exhibits 3. Adoption of Agenda (as printed or reordered) 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 4, 2021 5. Old Business • Nomination Process o Public Hearing requirements for nomination of local historic districts o Design Standards • Procedure to Amend or Rescind 6. Dates to Remember • Next Regular Meeting Date, January 6, 2021 7. Adjournment City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, November 4, 2021 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Committee Members Present Glover Brown Bunnie Trickey Cotten Debra Greene Roger Jungmeyer Brad Schaefer Holly Stitt Steve Veile Stacey Young Committee Members Absent Donna Deetz 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 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. Greene moved and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 7, 2021 The following corrections were made and duly noted: Ms. Greene agreed with the City Attorney, if you are going to tell me how to handle my property than then I need to sign off on that. If there is a public hearing and no one shows up than then by default it goes into effect. Mr. Viele 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. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. New Business A. Nomination Process Ms. Senzee gave a brief recap of sub-sections previously discussed under Nomination Process. She explained that nomination of a Local Landmark is currently open in February. The intent is to have the award ready for Historic Preservation Month in May. Ms. Senzee suggested receiving nominations year- round, so that the applicant or the person nominating a property can take their time on the nomination process. 1. Design Standards Ms. Senzee explained that our City Attorney’s main concern is that a nomination of a district should be separate from the design standard process. He recommends that the district nomination 2 process and design standard process be de-coupled from each other. That way, the technical work drafting design standards can be held off until the nomination process is fully complete. Also, a de- coupled approach would make the Planning and Zoning Commission involved only on the topic in which it is deemed to be an expert, land use regulations (i.e. design standards). Once the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council approves a district nomination, the nomination can be deemed provisional until design standards are drafted and approved by City Council, using the Planning and Zoning Commission process. The intent is to give the applicant and staff one year to get design standards approved, otherwise provisional nomination lapses. Committee Discussion: -Mr. Veile commented that separating the nomination process and design standards is fine. That way the nomination process can progress in the initial stages, and actually have time to do the design standards. -Ms. Young commented that one year for an investor is a long time. It needs to be shortened to 30 to 60 days. We need investment in Jefferson City. Investors have to know that they can purchase a property, come to a committee and get their plans and specifications agreed upon, and move forward in a meaningful way that is not going to compromise the economic feasibility of the project. -Ms. Stitt expressed concerns of sitting on a property for a year and not being able to operate during the design standard process. -Ms. Greene commented that the City Attorney is talking about how it goes through your process. You are not talking about the other side, which is the people putting together the district. If I am putting together the nomination for a district and the design standards at the same time, it is a benefit for me. If you de-couple this process, than I might have an application and a year possibly to put together the design standards. We are talking about our neighbors who we may see periodically. That is a long time to deal with people who may not be interested or even tangentially interested. -Mr. Schaefer commented that it seems risky to rush the process for the design standards. That is something that will be in place for a very long time. Ms. Cotten inquired why is the 12 month time period needed. Ms. Senzee explained that design standards restrict what you can and cannot do with your property. I understand that one year is a long time, because your property is in limbo and you do not know what those design standards are going to be like. This type of timeframe would allow for the back and forth process. My division will review for its historical aspect, the Planning Division would review to ensure it does not conflict with an existing land use, and the Building Regulations Division will review, as well. Mr. Brown commented that if staff is responsible for drafting the design guidelines, it would be prudent to have someone who has experience. That way you can streamline the process, because they would know the requirements and that may save time. Ms. Ward explained that the property owners within a district do not have the knowledge to draft design standards. The Director of the State Historic Preservation Office wrote the design standards for the Lower Jefferson Conservation District. A lot of neighborhoods within that district do not have the knowledge to be able to do the research and know the architecture. There are different guidelines and design standards for different types of architecture. Ms. Cotten reiterated that the Committee is recommending not separating the district nomination and design standard process. Ms. Senzee commented that staff should not move based off of personal choices. The nomination process should be dictated from City Code, the community or City Council. When staff goes to revise this section, a process should be established before the district nomination and design standards goes to a review body. 3 Ms. Stitt likened the design standard process to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process where it is the applicant’s responsibility to write the application and narrative, however there is technical assistance available from City staff. Ms. Senzee stated that City staff will revisit this section and a draft will be presented at the next regularly scheduled meeting. B. Procedure to Amend or Rescind Dr. Greene inquired whether City staff could initiate rescinding a local historic district, for example in the case of a natural disaster. Ms. Senzee explained that City staff would be not be able to initiate the process, either Council would have to assign it or there would have to be something written in the City Code. It was recommended to add additional wording under C.1 (Rescinding a Local Historic District or Local Landmark) that also includes a process initiated by the City in addition to existing property owners. Old Business A. Nomination Process 1. Public Hearing Requirements for nomination of local historic districts This section will also be revisited during the revision of the nomination process. No discussion or action was taken. Other Business Mr. Brown requested to bring in a guest speaker for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The guest speaker has been working with Tulsa, OK, on the issues that they have been having on the local preservation side and on the National Register side. It was recommended to postpone the guest speaker until the January 6, 2021 meeting. Mr. Brown moved and Ms. Young seconded to create a special category or district that would cover the Lafayette Street Historic District or any other similar situation around the City. Ms. Stitt commented that this Committee cannot establish a historic district. Ms. Senzee explained that this Committee cannot establish a historic district but they can incorporate what it is currently in the draft as an archeological district or something that is in name only to where it does not have any ties such as land use. Mr. Brown explained that the guest speaker has brought up racial discrimination that caused areas during urban renewal. Since there is no architecture on the site, then it is not going to follow any of the guidelines whether it is local or on the national level. What they are proposing is that groups such as ours create language to recognize these areas. Currently we are proposing it under the archeological aspect. If we can do that and with her input from Tulsa then we know how to structure the language because we have a consensus on how we want to write that. Our guest speaker will give everyone a more succinct idea of how we need to approach this. Mr. Brown withdrew his motion. Dates to Remember The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 2, 2021 at 4:00 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.