Landmarks
Commission Minutes
March 14, 2007
6:30 PM
Main Level Conf. Room
City Hall
Present: Commissioners Steve Emer, Pat
Jones, David Meyers, Phyllis Ravensberg, Tom Riggs, Wally
Schramm and Alan Lamberg (Staff)
Guests: None
1. Approval of Minutes: Minutes
approved with correction of two spelling errors in the paragraph
dealing with Case 07-02 – Central Place 332.
2. Volunteer Coordination: None
3. Citizen Comments: None
4. Certificate of Appropriateness:
None pending
5. Old Business:
a. Ordinance Review:
Documentation of the following Ordinance review is a
work-in-progress and is being archived by Staff. It is
available for public review at City Hall by contacting Alan
Lamberg.
i. Definitions –
Mr. Lamberg presented a comprehensive list of terms, adapted
from sources of The National Trust for Historic Preservation;
and ordinances of the cities of Webster Groves, University City,
and Sainte Genevieve, MO. Each term was consented or revised
for Kirkwood Landmarks appropriateness. Detailed discussion
centered around definitions of “contributor,” “landmark.” and
“minimum maintenance.”
ii.
Economic Hardship Exemption – Commissioners have stated
reasons for and against, so this provision needed to be
discussed and debated further. The Building Commissioner of
Kirkwood, Tony Carvalho, commented via e-mail that incentives
should be emphasized over exemptions. Landmark owners, assuming
they are properly notified via a title search and Recorder of
Deeds documentation, have a responsibility for their property.
If an applicant is experiencing hardship, (e.g. a senior citizen
on fixed income), then they can be assisted through existing
incentives such as community development block grants, a city
sponsored loan program, tax credits for qualified restoration of
those properties listed on the National Register, etc. The
Commission agreed to not adopt a provision similar to
Florissant’s. Therefore, no provision for economic hardship
will be legislated. The Commission is satisfied that, should an
applicant disagree with the Commission’s decision regarding a
COA, the applicant can seek appeal from the Kirkwood City
Council.
iii. Nomination Review Procedures –
The Commission considered and commented on this provision, which
was derived in part from Florissant 455, 460, 463.D and
University City 73.1, 73.2 ordinance provisions. As the
provision is adapted for Kirkwood, it departs from other
provisions in that a Planning & Zoning Commission does not act
as an intermediary between the Landmarks Commission and City
Council; and motions to approve nominations and designations,
are achieved by simple majorities. Public works Department will
be consulted as to whether or not Historic Districts should be
included in a zoning overlay.
Tangential to
development of this provision, Mr. Lamberg created a “Nomination
Application” packet, which includes guidelines and eligibility
criteria, questionnaire to be completed by applicant, a glossary
and fact sheet on nomination review process.
iv. Analysis of
the reliance on building code to flag review. – A
conversation via e-mail from Alan Lamberg and commissioners
dated March 6th, discusses how current law relies on
the building permit attainment process in the Building
Commissioner’s office in order to flag landmark properties for
design review by the Landmarks Commission. However, Kirkwood
building code lists certain work that is exempt. This means the
Landmarks Commission cannot require review over anything on the
exemption list. This impacts features that may be historic such
as certain accessory buildings, walks patios, exterior paint,
existing walls installed with new siding certain doors and
certain windows.
Mr. Lamberg,
having consulted with City Attorney Mr. John Hessel, suggests
writing the ordinance to require review of work that impacts
specific historic features. This may require a flagging
approach different than the one utilizing the building permit
attainment process. It may require specification of historic
features, by attaching a historic inventory when sending
designations to the County Recorder of Deeds, landmarks
registration.
This brings up
pertinent questions regarding how to enforce design review in
cases where a building permit is not needed and thus does not
flag the landmark property.
v.
Design Review (Phase 3 Provisions) - Mr. Lamberg distributed
to the commissioners material for review regarding Phase Three
Design Review and other useful provisions. Commissioner’s
discussions of the provisions will be added at the April agenda.
6. New Business
a. Citizens seeking advice
to preserve their historic properties – None
b. Staff observations,
suggestions
i. List of
architects, contractors, consultants – It is anticipated the
list would be used by the Landmarks Commission to assist
historic building owners in finding local professionals skilled
in historic preservation, restoration, etc. Preparation of list
is a work in progress.
c. 2007 Favorite Building
Awards Planning – The awards night is set for Wednesday May
9 at the train station. Invitations will go out April 16. The
date for tour of the nominations is either the 4th or
5th of April. Alan Lamberg will poll the commission
to determine which tour date is best for majority of members.
d. Entrance signs for
Historic Districts – Alan Lamberg presented several
conceptual design options for signs to be placed at the entrance
to the following historic districts: Central Place, Meramec
Highlands, East Monroe and Jefferson-Argonne. Approximately 17
signs would be needed. The commission selected four conceptual
designs with instruction to Mr. Lamberg to narrow the selection
to two designs based on commissioners comments made at this
meeting. The commission would then make the final selection and
Mr. Lamberg will present the design along with a firm price
estimate to the City Council for approval.
7. Adjourn – The meeting was
adjourned at 8:48 PM.
|
