MINUTES FROM SUPPLEMENTAL MEETINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS

 July 12, 2007, via e-mail, from staff to commissioners

Drafting revised ordinance:  How to prevent demolition of non-designated property of certain age.   The Commission considered adapting a provision used by other municipalities, empowering the commission to review all applications for demolition permits pertaining to structures in excess of a certain age, including those not yet nominated as landmarks and those not yet designated as part of a historic district.  Staff recommended that the Commission not adapt the provision because it has no legal footing.  The Commission cannot regulate non-designated historic resources; instead, target them with public outreach and education.

July 13, 2007, City Hall, conversation with Ken Yost, Director of Public Works

Drafting revised ordinance: Input from office of Building Commissioner and Director of Public Works. Director Ken Yost reviewed excerpts of the draft of revised ordinance inter-related with rules and procedures of the Building Commissioner and Code Enforcement. His expertise yielded sound guidance on the practicalities and appropriate interactions between the Landmarks Commission and the Building Commissioner.  His notes and recommendations were incorporated into the draft.

July through August, City of Kirkwood.  Entrance Signs to Historic Districts

Twenty entrance signs quality-produced by Grimco at a cost of $47 each were installed by Mr. Doug Thrasher and his crew at the City of Kirkwood Sign Shop.  For signs that required new posts, Mr. Thrasher took the initiative to obtain aesthetically-pleasing black posts.  Each sign location was planned with consideration for preferences of adjacent property owners, with the help of Commissioner Jones, Public Works Director Ken Yost and mapping by Alan Lamberg.

August 13, 2007, via letter from the State Historic Preservation Office to Landmarks Staff

Staff received notice that the Osage Hills School at 1110 South Glenwood Road was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Staff forwarded this information to the Commission, the City Public Communication Officer, and Mr. Esley Hamilton of St. Louis County Department of Parks.

August 16, 2007 - KMOX radio interview with staff about Local and National Historic Districts

A five minute KMOX Total Information AM interview with staff explaining the differences between local and national historic districts.  One can access KMOX Total Information AM from iTunes podcast directory.   On a related matter, information on the architectural significance of the National Register districts was shared with Marry Harris, Editor of the Kirkwood-Webster Times.

August 20, 2007, Community Center, 7 p.m.  Parks Board Meeting for review of monument plan for Historic Quinette Cemetery

Commissioner Phyllis Ravensburg was in attendance and reported to staff that the Parks Board will form a subcommittee to study the monument plan by Youth in Action and long-term goals for the cemetery. 

August 21, 2007, City Hall, main level conference room, 6:30 p.m.  Special Meeting for review of application for Certificate of Appropriateness.

Case 07-09 – 312 Central Place, new construction (garage). Mr. Robert Ferber.  (Note: garage design is similar to previously approved design for 332 Central Place, case #0702, February 2007).  Unanimously approved.  The meeting adjourned around 7:30 p.m.

August 23, 2007, City Hall, via e-mail from staff to buyer of landmark property

Staff read the Landmarks Commission's historic inventory of the Biggers house (landmark #87) and verified that the Commission defined the boundary of the landmark as having frontage 100 feet wide on Woodlawn Avenue.  The implication being that the other lot adjacent and south of the landmark is not under the purview of the Commission.   Staff updated the legal description in the official landmark description form and submitted it to the County Recorder of Deeds, at the buyer's request.

August 28, 2007, City Hall, conference room, 9 a.m. Procedures for proposal and designation of local historic district clarified

Present: Commissioner Pat Jonse, Council Liaison Art McDonnell, Mayor Mike Swoboda, City Attorney John Hessel and Alan Lamberg (Staff)

Mr. Hessel was helpful by clarifying appropriate procedures for proposal and designation as governed by the Landmarks ordinance. The Mayor directed Commissioner Jones and Mr. Lamberg to list the "action steps" for the designation process.  It will help the coalition of property owners seeking preservation anticipate the designation procedures and work smoothly with the Landmarks Commission during a public hearing.  The Mayor wants to make sure that citizens feel that they are part of the process.  The action steps will be ready for public dissemination at the September 12 meeting.

August 28, 2007, Brownhurst House at 1201 South Kirkwood Road, committee meeting on rehabilitation of the building

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

Michael Cox, who is part of a committee mandated by the property owners (Society of Mary), invited commissioners to attend an information session where there was a tour of the Daniel S. Brown House, (landmark #79).  A brainstorming session followed, where the committee sought information on the implications of the landmark status and how the commission can help with preservation and restoration.  Matt Bivens, who is skilled at writing nominations to the National Register, offered to help.  It was generally stressed that qualified restoration may offset the costs through attainment of tax credits.  Since the Society of Mary is a religious, non-taxable institution, it was suggested that the Socierty of Mary lease the property to a trust that would sell the tax credits.  For further information, please contact Mr. Cox at 314-650-6968 or mike.cox@kirkwoodtrading.com

August 29, 2007, via e-mail to Mr. Tad Skelton (Coalition) and Commissioners. Are additions to exteriors of buildings considered alterations or new construction?

Mr. Skelton posed the above question to Staff so property owners in a proposed local historic district will be clear on this issue while being petitioned.  Staff spoke with an engineer in the Public Works Department, who explained that, generally, new construction is understood as building a whole structure from scratch, be it a primary or outbuilding (garage, etc.)  Therefore, additions to existing buildings are considered alternations.

Additions aren't specifically defined in the current ordinance.   So you have to fall back on the verbiage of "alterations" and "new construction." Alterations to landmarks are governed under section 12 ½ - 12.a.  "No building permit for the alteration or modification to the exterior or site of a landmark shall be issued  ..."  New construction of buildings in historic districts are governed under section 12 ½ - 12.b.  "No building permit for new construction within a historic district shall be issued ..."  Since additions are considered alterations, then in the case of buildings in a district (that are not landmarks), it is not under the purview of the Landmarks Commission.

It is true that, in practice, property owners in Meramec Highlands and Central Place have sought advisement from the Commission regarding additions.  Legally, they were not required, but in seeking guidance from the Commission, we had cases where owners were pleased with the results.  Some of our favorite additions were made to 24 Ponca Trail and 312 Central Place.

If the Landmarks Commission wants to treat certain kinds of additions as new construction, then it has to be defined and legislated in the new ordinance.  It is understandable that, in principle of preservation, certain kinds of additions should be treated as new construction.  For example, if an addition exceeds 50% of livable square footage, it might be reasonable to approach design review as new construction.  This will be considered during the future public hearings for the revised ordinance, where property owners will have the opportunity to comment on this idea.

As for keeping petitioners informed, they should understand that additions for any building within a historic district (that isn't a landmark) is not required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness.

August 30, 2007, Commissioner Jones instructs Staff Alan Lamberg to produce maps of Jefferson-Argonne with sectors marked for survey of historic inventory

In case a proposal for district designation moves forward, Staff updated maps for Jefferson-Argonne to facilitate surveying the district in order to update its historic inventory.  Commissioner Jones drew a diagram of how to survey the district in 8 sectors.  Assuming the proposal moves forward, the Commission could enlist members of the coalition for their assistance.  8 teams of 3 (a commissioner, a photographer, and a scribe) would survey each sector.   Three maps were developed and will be made available after September 12: 1 overview that shows older data for contributing and non-contributing properties, and two maps that are close ups with more details.  It should be noted that the south side of Argonne (sector D) has about 10 additional properties to be considered as part of the local district.  Jones suggested this because it would represent a more complete historic streetscape.  Commissioner Bivens should survey this sector, due to his expertise in writing nominations to the National Register.  Jones is also fleshing out a list of architectural styles from the National Register nomination documents. 

August 31, 2007, via e-mail to commissioners. Status reports on business.

1. Pending proposal of local designation to Jefferon-Argonne historic district

Mr. Tad Skelton and colleagues from the property owner coalition for historic preservation have been very active.  In addition to the 300+ red yard signs they have distributed, their organization has block captains who are petitioning property owners for support of local district designation.  They will present their letter of interest / petition to the Landmarks Commission on September 12.  They understand that local districts will be governed by current ordinance. They want Landmarks purview over demolitions and new construction sooner than later.  They also understand that the law will change in the future once they ordinance is revised, and that they will have the opportunity during public hearings to be a part of that process.

2. Controversy conveyed in the news media. 

Staff Liaison Alan Lamberg offered this commentary: "As you may know, the demolition of 407 East Argonne has stirred emotion in citizens, but at least galvanized support for preservation in Jefferson-Argonne, and possibly elsewhere in the city.  While it is great to see citizens making their voices heard and working with the city to see their needs met, each of us must be mindful of the emotions that bubble up from time to time, whether it is from within or from people you know or meet.  Everyone --citizens, commissioners, developers, city employees-- have something to gain or lose from what happens in Kirkwood, but the commonality seems to be that we all want what's best for Kirkwood.  As staff liaison, my advice is to support your objectives and assertions with facts-- cooler heads prevail.  For example, there was a recent article in the Central News Magazine that interviewed Councilman Tim Griffin, and he told me today that the article reported his comments out of context.  The coalition, landmarks commission and city council can work together, not against each other.  If you hear or read something that you find troubling, don't jump to conclusions until you verify it from the source."

September 6, 2007, City Council work session in City Hall.  Status report from Landmarks Commission liaison.

Council Liaison Art McDonnell apprised the Council of the preparedness of the Commission in anticipation of a coalition of property owners request for proposal of a local historic district.

September 7, 2007, Kirkwood-Webster Times, letters to the editor

Commissioner Pat Jones submitted a letter that clarifies criteria for determining landmark status, the number of contributing properties (115 out of 143) in the National Historic Disrict of Jefferson-Argonne, and the number of properties that were demolished (12, 9 of which were contributing).  It was also stated that Jefferson-Argonne and East Monroe represent the first residential settlement in Kirkwood.  The variety of architectural styles in the districts reflects three distinct historic periods: a planned railroad community from 1851-1864; growth of the city during the late 19th Century; and the transition into an automobile suburb through the mid 20th Century.

September 10, 2007, via e-mail from Staff Liaison Alan Lamberg to State Historic Preservation Office.  Can a non-contributor that was once a contributor be restored?

Mr. Lamberg spoke with Mr. Gaus, a property owner near the Jefferson-Argonne district.  Mr. Gaus generally supports preservation and wanted to know if he could restore his house to its original historic integrity.  Mr. Lamberg formulated relevant questions and directed them to Ms. Kristin Zapalac of the SHPO.  Her colleague, Tiffany Patterson, a specialist on National Register, will be able to answer his question, which is Can he modify his home so that the exterior resembles its original features and thus restores historic integrity?  

September 11, 2007, City Hall conference room, Coalition representative Mr. Tad Skelton and Staff Alan Lamberg.  Orderly procedures for coalition's meeting with Commission on September 12.

Mr. Lamberg met with Mr. Skelton for a few minutes to explain the general procedures of the Septemer 12 meeting.  With the coalition knowing what to expect from the official meeting, this will encourage order.