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.