Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-06-14 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Regular Meeting – Tuesday, June 14, 2022 Council Chambers – John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 E. McCarty Street/Virtual WebEx Meeting 1 Commission Members Present Attendance Record Donna Deetz, Chairperson 5 of 5 Alan Wheat, Vice Chairperson 5 of 5 Gail Jones 5 of 5 Tiffany Patterson 5 of 5 Michael Berendzen 5 of 5 Brad Schaefer 4 of 5 Christine Boston 1 of 1 Commission Members Absent Attendance Record Steven Hoffman 0 of 5 Council Liaison Present Laura Ward (via WebEx) Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Guests Present Robert Freeman, Property Owner of 604 Washington Street Anna Watson, News Tribune Call to Order Ms. Deetz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Format of the Public Hearing Ms. Senzee read the format of the public hearing procedures and order of testimony. There are two public hearing’s regarding the demolitions of 208 W. Elm and 604 Washington Street. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Patterson moved and Mr. Wheat seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes Mr. Berendzen moved and Ms. Patterson seconded to approve the minutes from April 12, 2022, regular meeting as written. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Demolition Review (Under 100 Years Old) A. 112 Pierce Street Ms. Senzee gave an overview of the staff report and explained that the request is to demolish a single-family residence at 112 Pierce Street. According to Sanborn maps, the structure was not present until the 1930s. The property has been declared dangerous by the Property and Housing Inspector. The back half of the house is collapsing into the cistern. The structure does not appear to hold sufficient historical significance in terms of heritage, culture, or architecture. Ms. Senzee explained that the staff recommendation is the approval of the demolition review application of 112 Pierce Street. Mr. Berendzen moved and Ms. Jones seconded to approve the demolition review application for 112 Pierce Street. The motion passed unanimously. B. 110 Fulkerson Street Ms. Senzee gave an overview of the staff report and explained that the request is to demolish a single-family residence at 110 Fulkerson Street. Ms. Senzee stated that the structure did not exist until 1929, according to City Directories Ms. Senzee explained that the property has been vacant for 18 months and has been utilized as storage space by the property owners. The property owners intend to salvage architectural features and donate appliances to charity. On the demolition application, the property owner explained that the house cannot be repaired because there are steps in the interior and the size and location of the steps cause mobility challenges. The outside steps are crumbling despite efforts to repair them. The property owner intends to keep the lot vacant to add more green space. The property is located in the West Main Phase II Survey area and the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant (David Taylor) has deemed this structure as “contributing” due to its age and character. Ms. Senzee stated that in reviewing Section 8-44 C, Criteria for Nomination (as outlined above), the structure does appear to hold sufficient historical significance in terms of heritage, culture, or architecture, and it does embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, and method of construction, and the property does not embody elements of design, detailing materials, and craftsmanship that renders it architecturally significant. Ms. Senzee explained that last year, the HPC approved a demolition application for the same property owners for a structure next to 110 Fulkerson Street. The property owners demolished the structure and rebuilt a bungalow-style house. The property owners designed the new house to accommodate their elderly relatives who have mobility challenges. The demolition of 110 Fulkerson Street does not conflict with future land use or adopted city plans. The staff recommendation is the approval of the demolition review application. 3 Mr. Berendzen moved and Ms. Patterson seconded to approve the demolition review application for 110 Fulkerson. The motion failed. Aye: --, Nay: Mike Berendzen, Christine Boston, Tiffany Patterson, Donna Deetz, Alan Wheat, Brad Schaefer, and Gail Jones. Demolition Clearance Public Hearing (Over 100 Years Old) A. 604 Washington Street Ms. Senzee stated that the request is to demolish a single-family residence located at 604 Washington Street. According to the property owner, the structure has been vacant for 10 years. According to old City-directories, the property was present in 1908. The property owner intends to leave the lot vacant once demolished. Ms. Senzee gave an overview of the staff report and in reviewing Section 8-44 C, Criteria for Nomination (as outlined above), the structure does not appear to hold sufficient historical significance in terms of heritage, culture, or architecture, and it is not an embodiment of the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, and method of construction, and the property does not embody elements of design, detailing materials, and craftsmanship that renders it architecturally significant. Ms. Senzee explained that the Property and Housing Inspector took the photos with the consent of the property owner. According to the Property and Housing Inspector, the building fits the criteria to be considered Dangerous. After reviewing the photos and adopted city plans, Ms. Senzee stated that the staff recommendation is the approval of the demolition clearance application for 604 Washington Street. Mr. Berendzen motioned and Ms. Jones seconded to approve the demolition clearance application for 604 Washington Street. The motion passed unanimously. B. 208 W. Elm Street Ms. Senzee explained that the purpose of the request is to demolish a single-family residence located at 208 W. Elm Street. According to Sanborn maps and old-city directories, this structure was present in 1908. Ms. Senzee stated that the structure has been declared dangerous by the Housing and Property Inspector and the dangerous building packet is included in the meeting packet. Ms. Senzee gave an overview of the staff report and in reviewing Section 8-44 C, Criteria for Nomination (as outlined above), the structure does appear to hold sufficient historical significance in terms of heritage, culture, or architecture, and it is an embodiment of the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, and method of construction, and the property does embody elements of design, detailing materials, and craftsmanship that renders it architecturally significant. Due to the structure’s dangerous condition, the city staff’s recommendation is the approval of the demolition clearance application. 4 Mr. Berendzen asked if most of the structural problems are in the addition of the structure. Ms. Senzee explained that the addition is pulling away from the main structure. Mr. Berendzen asked if portions of the brick walls were taken down to add the addition. Ms. Senzee stated she was unsure because there were no photos. Mr. Berendzen questioned if the addition were removed would the main structure be salvageable. Ms. Senzee said an engineer would be needed to determine that answer. Mr. Berendzen asked if the property owner had considered removing the addition before the complete demolition. Ms. Senzee explained that she did not talk to the applicant and the application does not indicate. Mr. Berendzen questioned if the main structure could be stable if the addition would be removed. Ms. Senzee referenced the corrective action section of the dangerous building packet. The corrective actions are: 1. Secure the site to prevent access to areas with overhead fall hazards. 2. Obtain sealed drawings from a licensed professional, obtain all necessary permits, and using licensed contractors to repair the failing structure per approved drawings. The owner may also choose to obtain permits and demolish the structure to remove hazards. 3. Maintain site security prior to, during, and through completion of repairs and /or demolition Ms. Deetz said the property owner is choosing to demolish the structure instead of repairing the hazardous conditions. Mr. Berendzen does not see why the whole structure needs to be demolished. Mr. Berendzen asked, “how much of the addition needs to be demolished?”. Ms. Senzee explained that city staff can ask the Property and Housing Inspector for more information if that is needed for the commission to decide on this structure. Mr. Schaefer asked if the outbuilding would be demolished as well. Ms. Senzee explained that city staff will find out. Mr. Berendzen motioned and Ms. Boston seconded to table this discussion until the next meeting when additional information will be provided. The motion passed unanimously. New Business A. Historic Legacy District Ms. Senzee explained that this category of district originated from the Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee. Ms. Senzee explained that there was a sentiment that the Foot Historic District was a Local Historic District. Ms. Senzee stated that that is not the case, the Foot Historic District is a mayoral-proclaimed historic district. Ms. Senzee explained that the committee began thinking of ways to preserve the history that has been lost. Ms. Senzee stated that city staff and the Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee decided to pursue a Historic Legacy District. The Historic Legacy District would not have any land-use restrictions, but it would be a formal way of recognizing an area where little to no structures exist anymore. 5 Ms. Senzee explained that this would be an amendment to the existing city code. Ms. Senzee explained that another change to the current code includes moving the definitions from the end of the section to the beginning of the section. Ms. Senzee explained that a definition for a Historic Legacy District has been added to the code. The definition for a Historic Legacy District reads, “is a geographical area of historical and cultural significance for which most of all of the physical attributes (structures, streets, public areas, archaeology, etc.) relevant to the historical or cultural period of significance no longer exist”. Ms. Senzee gave an overview of the process for establishing a Historic Legacy District as found in the meeting packet. Ms. Senzee explained that the public hearing process for the Historic Legacy District would be very similar to the public hearing process for Local Historic Districts. Ms. Senzee explained that the Legacy Districts would be nominated by a public hearing process. Ms. Senzee explained that once the HPC nominates a Historic Legacy District, it would be brought before Council where an ordinance would be required to support the district. Ms. Senzee explained that there is a movement to be more inclusive of history that has been lost. Ms. Senzee explained that Vanessa Adams-Harris from Tulsa spoke to the Code Revision Committee to share what Tulsa has done to honor “Black Wall Street” or the Greenwood District. Ms. Senzee stated that the Historic Legacy District is a way to symbolically recognize areas where history has been lost. Ms. Senzee explained that the Historic Legacy District can apply to other areas and not just the Foot Historic District. Mr. Wheat motioned and Mr. Berendzen seconded to approve the addition of the Historic Legacy District to the current city code. The motion passed unanimously. B. 407 Lafayette Street-New Porch Addition Ms. Senzee explained that the permit was pulled for a new porch addition to 407 Lafayette Street including posts, steps, roofing, and railing. Ms. Senzee stated that this property is located in the School Street Local Historic District and any permit required work must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The School Street Local Historic District does have Design Guidelines. Ms. Senzee stated that work has already begun (without a permit) on the new porch and two of the three posts are nearly completed with brickwork. According to the Design Guidelines, the porch is to conform to the design of the photographed structure as found in the design guidelines. The brick on the post does not mirror what the photographed porch looked like. Ms. Senzee explained the criteria for porch additions in the School Street Local Historic District: 1. Existing porches and their architectural elements such as but not limited to railings, columns, brackets and steps shall be retained through repair. The addition of wood epoxy to make small repairs to damaged elements shall be allowed. Wooden porch elements shall be painted. 2. Should one or more of these elements be deteriorated enough to warrant replacement, replacement materials shall maintain the original materials’ size, shape, pattern, texture and directional orientation or installation. Treated wood may be used for replacement of porch 6 elements, but must be painted after being allowed to weather for a period of at least six months, not exceeding 12 months. Mr. Berendzen stated that a more appropriate porch design would be like 616 where the brick pilaster came up to the porch deck and from there wood columns would go up to the porch roof. Mr. Berendzen stated that the brick columns going up to the roof level is not appropriate for the style of the house (407 Lafayette). Ms. Patterson stated that the current design of the new porch is not appropriate for the house based on the guidelines for the School Street Local Historic District. Ms. Senzee stated that she has communicated with the property owners in the past about the design guidelines. Ms. Deetz asked, “do we stop what they are doing and take down what you have already done and construct the porch in a way that is compatible with the design guidelines, or do we let them finish”. Ms. Senzee explained that the property owners can appeal the HPC’s decision to the city council. Mr. Berendzen motioned and Ms. Patterson seconded to approve the building permit for 407 Lafayette Street. The motion failed. Aye: None Nay: Tiffany Patterson, Christine Boston, Donna Deetz, Gail Jones, Brad Schaefer. Alan Wheat, and Michael Berendzen. C. Historic Revitalization Grant Applications Ms. Senzee stated that the City received $675,000 from the Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Grant through the National Parks Service. The city has established a sub-grant program to restore contributing buildings in the Missouri State Capitol Historic District and the Old Munichburg Commercial Historic District. Ms. Senzee said the program is now open and there are 34 eligible properties. City staff mailed letters to all property owners informing them of this opportunity. A grant workshop will be on June 23 at 5:30 PM. The deadline to submit applications is July 31, 2022. City staff will send out the applications as soon as possible after the deadline. Ms. Senzee stated that the HPC is the best governmental body to review and score the applications and determine the award recipients. Ms. Senzee intends to have the award documents in early August. Ms. Senzee anticipates 3-5 awards. The Commission decided that there will be a special session after the August 9th Regular meeting to discuss awarding the sub-grant funds from the Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization program. Other Business A. Code Revision Committee Update Mr. Schaefer stated that Code Revision Committee discussed the procedure to authorize construction, reconstruction, and alterations to structures and demolition procedures. Mr. Schaefer stated that the proposed code would allow the HPC to review alterations and 7 demolitions. Mr. Schaefer said the proposed code will give the HPC more responsibilities for reviewing purposes. B. Draft Historic Context Review Ms. Senzee stated that the draft Historic Context is in the meeting packet and she asked commissioners to review and send any feedback to city staff. C. E. Capitol Avenue Update Ms. Senzee stated that the city did receive a Historic Preservation Fund grant award to complete structural assessments on additional properties on E. Capitol Avenue. Ms. Senzee stated that the Request for Qualifications is going out soon. Ms. Senzee stated that once all the reports are final, City Council will decide on how to proceed with the properties. Ms. Senzee stated that there is a booklet prepared by City-staff on the City’s website for the public to view. D. Missouri Preservation Conference Ms. Deetz stated that the Missouri Preservation Conference is going on this week. Ms. Senzee stated that the conference has been great so far and that the content is good. E. National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Ms. Senzee stated that the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is June 13-17 in Cincinnati, OH. Public Comment No public comments. Dates to Remember A. Next Regular Meeting Date-July 12, 2022 Adjournment Ms. Patterson moved and Mr. Berendzen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 8