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