June 13, 2007
6:30 P.M.
Main Level Conf. Room
City Hall

Present: Commissioners Matt Bivens, Steve Emer, Dave Brown, Pat Jones, David Meyers, Tom Riggs, and Alan Lamberg (Staff)

1. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from April 11, 2007 meeting were approved as read.

2. Volunteer coordination: none

3. Citizen Comments: No comments offered.

4. Certificate of Appropriateness: Two COA’s submitted from Agape Construction Company, both dealing with new construction in the Meramec Highlands subdivision
1. Case 07-06 - 1075 Barberry Lane, new construction.  Amendment to Case 07-05 (April 11); client wants to modify design for garage.  Applicant: Kevin O'Brien of Agape Construction.  Approved.
2. Case 07-07 – 1051 Barberry Lane, new construction. Single family 1.5 story traditional home, 2600 SQFT.  Applicant: Kevin O'Brien of Agape Construction.  Approved with conditions: Use stucco or other finish rather than fishscales; make leaf to timbering; narrower, squared windows in tower; batten base in tower.  Suggestion: Use stone to grade in tower.

5. Old Business
1. Historic Quinette Cemetery – staff provided hardcopy of Council ordinance that outlines ownership and oversight procedures of the site by the Park Board.   The Commission asked staff to relay to them any notice of work pending for the site.  This would allow the Commission the opportunity to assign a liaison to comment and advise on the pending work at a Park Board meeting.  The Commission would like to meet with the Park Board at one of their meetings to ensure they understand the background materials and history of Quinette.
2. Entrance Signs for Historic Districts – City Council approved the signs after several work sessions and regular meetings.  Alan Lamberg and Public Works Director Ken Yost surveyed potential installation points as suggested by Chairperson Pat Jones.  Installation points were pinpointed on the right-of-way with consideration made for the adjacent property owners; letters of notification were mailed.  Production and installation is set for July.
3. Ordinance Review – Phase III provisions on Design Review, consensus discussion.  Several provisions were reviewed.  They were as follows:

Individual commissioner’s comparison and evaluation of Landmark Ordinances from Kirkwood (K), Webster Groves (W), University City (U), Oakland (O) and Florissant (F) were presented with the goal of arriving at a consensus opinion as to what best fits the planned Kirkwood Landmarks Ordinance revision. Twenty-two ordinance provisions dealing with design review powers, standards and procedures were reviewed and discussed.  Based on the preference of individual commissioners, six provisions were CONSENSUS opinions, meaning the commissioners were in general agreement.  Twelve provisions were judged to be NEAR CONSENSUS, meaning the commissioners needed to clarify some differences in order to form consensus opinions.  Four provisions required DEBATE, which means significant deliberation is required before consensus can be reached. 

Provisions demonstrating CONSENSUS, opinions and concurred with by the commissioners at this meeting included:

• Design Guidelines – Development and availability (adapted from F 445.13)
• Permits, permanent record (adapted from U 34-81)
• Alteration or modification of contributor in historic district (adapted from 445.10; 463.F)
• Alteration or modification of non-contributor in historic district (adapted from 445.10; 463.F)
• New construction – declaration of variety of styles (adapted from W 52.272)
• Public safety exclusion (adapted from W 52.320)

Provisions demonstrating NEAR CONSENSUS, and after discussion was agreed to by the commissioners at this meeting include:

• Joint Review with ARB  (Agreed after considering scenarios where the applicant is approved by one board but denied by the other; and, to lessen burden on commissioners, that joint review occurs no more than once a month; and, a subcommittee, minimum of four, would act in a quorum) (drafted by Kirkwood Landmarks Staff, 2007)
• Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness (Agreed after showing the difference between brief statement versus outlined procedures) (adapted from F 445.10; 463.F)
• Certificate of Appropriateness (Agreed after showing the difference between brief statement versus outlined procedures) (adapted from F 463.J)
• Issuance of Permits (Agreed after showing how the COA is needed for a permit) (adapted from F 463.E.3)
• Issuance of a Stop Work Order (Agreed after showing how the LC would not issue a stop work order; the appropriate city body would, instead, according to building code) (adapted from 445.11; 463.K)
• New Construction in Historic District (Agreed after showing the difference between brief statement versus outlined procedures) (adapted from F 445.10; 463.G)
• Prevention of demolition by neglect or deterioration (Agreed after showing how the LC would advise on this while the appropriate city body would enforce it according to building code) (adapted from U 72.4.14; 80)
• Stay of demolition of landmark and contributor in historic district (Agreed to maintain Kirkwood's provision.  Staff suggests adding brief criteria for determining whether or not demolition would be detrimental to preservation) (adapted from K 12.c; U 78.3)
• Advise on application of demolition for non-designated 100-year property (Agreed after clarifying whether or not this would need a public hearing. There are two options—one is purely advisory, where the LC offers advice to the applicant, the other option is regulatory, where the LC advises the Building Commission whether or not to grant the demo permit, and a public hearing for the applicant would occur.  Also, staff will run a query to determine how many properties are older than 90, 65, and 40 years.) (adapted from W 52.160.m; O 160.13)
• Removal / Relocation of landmark or contributor of historic district (Agreed after clarifying that standards for review should be written, and this provision will cross-reference the rules set elsewhere in Kirkwood Code) (adapted from F 445.10; 463.H)
• Public Improvements near historic landmarks and districts (Agreed after clarifying the need for specific outline of procedures) (adapted from F 463.L)
• Review of Applications for Zoning Amendments, Special Use Permits, Variances (Agreed after clarifying that is this purely an advisory power where the LC would advise other City agencies) (adapted from F 445.15, 16, 17; 463.O)

The following provisions fell in the DEBATE category, and after discussion was agreed to by the commissioners at this meeting include:

• Power to Delegate authority regarding approval of COAs for changes not visible from street frontage (Agreed after clarifying that the LC can and should lessen the burden of the applicant in cases here historic features are not affected by work; for instance, a fence in the backyard may have no bearing on historic preservation and should be immediately approved by the LC and forwarded to the Building Commission for the normal permit process) (adapted from W 270)
• Alteration or modification of landmark (Agreed after showing the difference between brief statement versus outlined procedures, and emphasis was made for the LC to be notified by City agencies when any work is being done on designated historic features) (adapted from F 445.10; 463.F; W 52.280)
• Stay of Demolition of non-contributor in historic district (Agreed to not incorporate language addressing whether or not non-contributors of historic districts should be subject to a stay of demolition; in cases of non-contributors, it is not demolition as much as new construction that concerns the LC) (adapted from K 12.c)
• Maintenance (Agreed after showing the difference an outline of procedures can make) (adapted from F 463.N)

6. New Business
1. Staff report on current preservation efforts for formerly endangered places.  Tabled.
2. Citizens seeking advice to preserve their historic properties.  None.
3. Staff observations, suggestions. None

7. Adjourned at 9:15 PM

Respectfully submitted:

Alan Lamberg, Staff

Persons with disabilities who need accommodations to attend or participate in the meeting should call the City at 822-5801 or 822-5858 (TDD) at least 48 hours before the meeting.