Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-03-03 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, March 3, 2022 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Committee Members Present Glover Brown Bunnie Trickey Cotten Donna Deetz Debra Greene Roger Jungmeyer Holly Stitt Steve Veile Stacey Young Committee Members Absent Cassandra Gould Doug Record Brad Schaefer Council Liaison Present Laura Ward Staff Present Ryan Moehlman, City Attorney 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 5:30 p.m. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from January 6, 2022 Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2022 as written. The motion passed unanimously. New Business A. Discussion of Meeting Procedure (Voting) Ms. Cotten asked whether the Committee would consider following parliamentary procedure where each discussion point has a motion and a second. Ms. Senzee explained that originally, we talked about not brining the group to a consensus, that way we decide in the same conversation or later in the conversation to make the changes instead of voting. Mr. Moehlman explained that he has encountered this with the Charter Committee. He understands the concern that you want to ensure that the consensus is actually reflected by a vote. I will caution you that you will bog down progress. The best way I found to handle this with the Charter Committee was try to get everything that everyone agreed on generally set back and where there is a need for further discussion and maybe a vote decision, staff can give options and that way it is clear what is being voted on. Ms. Greene commented that we need to follow some type of parliamentary procedure because following Robert’s Rules of Order gives us structure. This allows us to go on the record and in addition it gives us limitations. If we go too long in a discussion under parliamentary procedures someone can call for the question. 2 Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Young seconded to have the Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee use parliamentary procedures to conduct business. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business A. Designation of Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks Statement of Purpose and Criteria for Designation: Staff briefly discussed the sections on Statement of Purpose and Criteria for Designation. Staff will make grammatical changes where necessary. Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to approve the Statement of Purpose and Criteria for Designation sections. The motion passed unanimously. Applications for Designation: Nomination Initiation. Nomination of a local historic district or local landmark may be initiated by the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission, City Council, or any participating owner of real property within the proposed district by filing the appropriate application with the Department of Planning and Protective Services on a form promulgated by the Director. After discussion, the Committee agreed to remove participating as it appears redundant. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to approve the proposed changes to this section. The motion passed unanimously. Nomination Requirements. Mr. Moehlman recommended a minimum threshold of property owners in a neighborhood initiated process. He stated that signatures from 75% of property owners within the proposed district is too high. Generally, 50% is a typical percentage when forming a district. In situations where you have a large amount of rental property and it is difficult to gather property owner signatures, that is where either the City Council or Commission driven process is appropriate. Mr. Veile suggested 33% of the property owners. Ms. Ward suggested removing the notary seal requirement. Ms. Greene questioned whether in a previous article the Committee defined a percentage under definitions. Ms. Deetz moved and Mr. Veile seconded to require 33% of signatures from the property owners within a proposed local historic district. The motion passed with Ms. Greene voting nay. Ms. Deetz commented that the previous motion regarding the percentage of signatures from property owners should have been an amendment to the original motion. The discussion occurred after the original motion regarding the Nomination Initiation process. Ms. Deetz moved and Mr. Veile seconded to amend the original motion requiring 33% of signatures from the property owners within a proposed local historic district. Motion passed unanimously. Designation Progress. Staff explained that most of Mr. Moehlman’s changes were grammatical. Staff will make those changes. Ms. Stitt moved and Mr. Brown seconded to approve the section on Designation Process subsections A through D.6. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Approval Procedures. • Local Landmarks. Ms. Senzee commented that Local Landmark applications are not currently forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Moehlman explained that as long as Local Landmarks are mostly honorary then it can proceed to City Council. If the code amendments are looking to use the local landmark designation as a vehicle to enact land use standards, design standards, or performance standards then it would need to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Veile stated that historically Local Landmarks should be honorary. Ms. Stitt commented that in the current ordinance and application local landmark recipients have to approval ahead of time from the Historic Preservation Commission to get building p ermits. She stated that she was unaware that the buildings she owns were local landmarks. That needs to be possibly stated on the title especially when a property changes ownership. This should be an honorary designation. Ms. Deetz suggested to grandfather existing local landmarks. Going forward new local landmarks should adhere to the new guidelines. Ms. Deetz questioned whether local landmark applications should go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Moehlman explained that it depends on what this Committee does with local landmarks. If you want to use the designation and exercise the powers of government to dictate what a person can and cannot do with their property, then it must go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the designated hearing place under Chapter 89 of the State Statutes. If a local landmark is honorary it does not have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. If a local landmark is regulatory then it has to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve that local landmarks are honorary and local historic districts remain regulatory. The motion passed with Ms. Greene voting nay. • Local Historic Districts. Ms. Senzee explained that since this is a legislative process, an application will go through the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission will make a separate recommendation on the proposed design standards. • Action Upon Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation. Ms. Young commented that this section needs to be more specific and uniform when referencing that the applicant is responsible for any direct costs of the City related to the publication and provision of notice of the required public hearing. • Planning and Zoning Commission Review. Mr. Moehlman explained that the way this is currently set up has the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewing the determination of a historic nature which is not appropriate. The Historic Preservation Commission is the expert in determining historic nature. The Planning and Zoning Commission does have a say in how a local historic district affects development overall in the city. A designation of a local historic district is similar to a rezoning, it is almost like an overlay district, using those standards for rezoning is an appropriate way to review these designations. • City Council Decision. Staff will make minor changes to this section. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to direct City staff to rewrite Section 7 and bring back a draft to review at next month’s meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 4 Dates to Remember The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 7, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room. Adjournment Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Young seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.