Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-04-07 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, April 7, 2022 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* *Came in late 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 Dawn Kirchner, Neighborhood Services Specialist Guests Present Cameron Gerber, News Tribune Grant Palmer, KRCG Call to Order Ms. Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. without a quorum present. Committee members, staff and guests introduced themselves. Committee members discussed the need for additional members since at least two members are no longer living in the area. Ms. Young arrived at 5:40 p.m., a quorum is now present. Mr. Jungmeyer arrived at 5:45 p.m. Ms. Greene arrived at 6:16 p.m. Ms. Young left at 6:42 p.m. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Stitt moved and Mr. Brown seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from March 3, 2022 Ms. Stitt moved and Mr. Veile seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2022 as written. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business A. Designation of Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks Ms. Senzee explained that the process entails submitting an application and designs standards to the City in a final draft form before it goes to the Historic Preservation Commission for final review. City staff would not write the design standards, however they review the design standards to ensure they are appropriate for a local historic district, they do not conflict with zoning laws and they are in line with the 2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Staff will create guidelines to assist applicants step by step through the application process. Ms. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve the previously proposed changes to this section. The motion passed unanimously. Published Notice – Local Landmark. Ms. Senzee asked whether a public hearing is required since a local landmark is an honorary designation. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to remove the requirement of a public hearing for a local landmark. The motion passed unanimously. Action Upon HPC Recommendations Ms. Senzee explained that there was some confusion at the last meeting regarding direct costs that are the responsibility of the applicant related to the publication and provision of notice of the required public hearing. She explained that direct costs are the hard costs an applicant would be responsible paying for such as the cost of postage and the cost of advertising a public hearing notice in the newspaper. Ms. Cotten commented that requiring an application fee is one thing but having open ended costs would be confusing. Ms. Senzee explained that staff will look at the fee schedule in the City Code to establish an application fee. Ms. Stitt commented that this is only applicable if an application is denied and the applicant has to resubmit their application. Ms. Senzee explained that if the Historic Preservation Commission denies the application the applicant can withdraw or they can amend and resubmit their application. Instead of collecting a second application fee, they applicant would pay for the hard costs of postage and advertising. Ms. Stitt commented that once an application fee is established we can see which option is more feasible. Ms. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to table this section until application fees are established. The motion passed unanimously. New Business A. Procedure to Amend or Rescind Rescinding a Local Historic District or Local Landmark Ms. Senzee explained that section pertains to the City Council’s ability to initiate the process to rescind or amend a local historic district or a local landmark. An applicant, as well, can submit an application to the City Council to remove a local historic district or local landmark. Ms. Cotten commented that the City Council an rescind or amend a local historic district or local landmark without this being in the Code. Ms. Ward commented that a local historic district or a local landmark should only be rescinded by those that have ownership in a property. The City Council should not initiate rescinding or amending a Local Historic District or a local landmark. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to remove the highlighted language that allows the City Council to initiate rescinding or amending a local historic district or a local landmark. Also remove the 3 language in red and underlined that allows the City Council to initiate rescinding or amending a local historic district or a local landmark without a petition. After additional discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee explained that currently the Code stipulates that a petition signed by no fewer than 50 percent of the existing property owners shall accompany the application. Committee members stated that the percentage to rescind or amend a local historic district or local landmark should be higher than 50%. They suggested increasing that percentage to 75 percent. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Young moved to increase the percentage to rescind or amend a local historic district or local landmark to 75 percent. The motion passed unanimously. B. Procedure to Authorize construction, reconstruction, alterations to, or demolition of structures 2(a)i – Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions Ms. Senzee explained that once your design standards are in place and you want to do an alteration, reconstruction or addition within a local historic district and you come in for your building permit, if your project clearly fits in with the design standards your permit can be issued administratively by staff. If you fall within a gray area or are wanting an exception to the rule, the Historic Preservation Commission will make that determination. For clarity, committee members suggested moving the following sentences to the beginning of 2(a)i– Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions: City staff may administratively approve applications that clearly meet the design standards of a local historic district. All other applications shall be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission which shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny said applications. Ms. Stitt moved and Ms. Young seconded to move the last two sentences in 2(a)i; to the beginning of that paragraph. The motion passed unanimously. 2(a)ii-Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions Ms. Stitt commented that this paragraph seems like it is the same as the last paragraph. Ms. Senzee explained that the first paragraph s establishing what goes to the Historic Preservation Commission and what is administratively approved. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to direct staff to edit this paragraph especially the last sentence. The motion passed unanimously. 2(a)iii- Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions No changes were suggested. 2(a)iv- Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions No changes were suggested. Action on proposed demolition of a structure for preservation of a structure in a district for preservation. Mr. Veile suggested tabling this section until the next meeting. C. Historic Heritage District Ms. Senzee explained that since we are creating a Historic Heritage District there needs to be a definition in the Code. 4 Mr. Brown commented that the definition for historic is history passed down through edifices. Heritage is passed down through tradition of the area. Urban renewal was a systemic way of eliminating a lot of black communities. Since then edifices were destroyed and 50 years later they cannot form a historic district because it will not meet the criteria. If we can create a template for this, other minority communities can replicate what we are doing. Mr. Veile suggested changing the last part of the definition as follows: relevant to the historical, cultural or traditional periods of significance which no longer exist. Ms. Senzee reiterated that a Historic Heritage District is a geographical area of historical, cultural, or traditional significance for which most of all of the physical attributes (structures, streets, public areas, archeological, etc.) relevant to the historical, cultural or traditional periods of significance no longer exists. Mr. Veile moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to amend the Historic Heritage District as noted above. The motion passed unanimously. Dates to Remember The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room. Adjournment Ms. Stitt moved and Mr. Brown seconded to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.