AUGUST 23, 2010
LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES

The Landmarks and Historic District Commission (LHDC) of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall on Monday August 23, 2010 in the second floor conference room at 6:30 p.m., with Howard Nimmons presiding.

On roll call the following members were present: Edward Keil, Joe Schulte, Howard Nimmons, & Gary Meyer. Rob Hoffman arrived at 7:00. Also in attendance were Tracy Voss, Recording Clerk and Philip Lum, Building Commissioner of Florissant., Bernie Stienbrugge, Rosemary Davison, from Historic Florissant Inc, and Sandy Delcoure, member of the Shrine arrived at 7:00.  A quorum being present, the Chair declared the Landmarks and Historic District Commission (LHDC) was in session for the transaction of business.

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME

Mr. Nimmons introduced Rosemary Davidson and Bernie Stienbruegge and welcomed them to the meeting. Later Mr. Nimmons introduced Sandy Delcoure and welcomed her to the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

APPROVAL OF 6/28/2010  MINUTES

Mr. Nimmons stated that he would like to amend the minutes to change under discussion of Landmark properties there was about the middle of the first paragraph Nimmons stated that in the black cabinet were all the files – I would it to be a little more definitive about the black cabinet, black cabinet in the second floor meeting room maybe if we could add to that.   Any other additions or changes, would anyone like to make a motion to approve the minutes with the changes. Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kiel, all members concurred. minutes were approved as amended.

MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS

Discussion of the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at #1 St Ferdinand to allow for an archaeological dig.

The first item is the discussion of the application for a COA at #1 St. Ferdinand to all for an archaeological dig. Mr. Nimmons requested that he would like for Mr. Lum to gives us the executive summary as to where we stand would be the best place to start. Mr. Lum agreed. In his Executive Summary, Mr. Lum stated that he did find and offer help to the shrine by contacting Washington University and UMSL. At our last meeting we had decided that a meeting would be set up between Mr. Bill Bray, member of Friends of the Shrine, and Dr. Patty Wright, of UMSL, who is an archeologist, and familiar with the area who had returned from a 2 year stint in Las Vegas and she was interested in having some undergraduates to do field work here or somewhere else like Chesterfield. A meeting was arranged between the Shrine members and the teachers at the invitation from Mr. Bray, although Mr. Lum had been told that the teachers would not be at the meeting. There seemed to be some disagreement between the teachers and the professor; the teachers felt attacked by the wider archeological society groups and others criticizing what they have been doing, therefore really they did not get along too well. Dr. Wright stated that she would not like to expose her undergrad students to the environment because the teachers did not seem to have respect for her credentials, which Mr. Lum thought was a shame. The help did not seem to be wanted and they seemed to have the impression that the City wanted to come in and take over, which is not the intent. We were just trying to offer free help which was unwanted. According their boss the site is off limits to the teachers. The site continues to deteriorate. I received a two-page letter from Geri Debo to the Mayor copied to me (Mr. Lum) asking a question “Should we even be getting a Certificate of Appropriateness?” Mr. Lum re-read the code book and Ms. Debo was correct on one point and that she thought I was requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness to one item which states “Any construction, alteration or removal involving earth-disturbing activities that affect designated archaeological resources”, as you know, there are no designated archaeological resources – not designated by this Commission. Mr. Lum’s recommendation was to require a COA though because down at the Shrine you have an open excavation for which the City went down and did the inspection and required a construction fence that they partially completed, put all the way around. Discussion regarding the fence that is currently erected at the shrine as to whether it is on the Knights of Columbus property or the Shrine even though it is just a temporary construction fence. Mr. Lum stated that as an architect he can not say that have not affected the architectural appearance of their property. Mr. Nimmons questioned the August 12th date and Mr. Lum explained that was the date it arrived at the Mayor’s office.

Further discussion was held regarding the Shrine, COA and the handouts that were presented to LHDC Commission members.

A question was raised regarding what the Shrine has submitted and Mr. Lum informed the LHDC Commission that the Shrine has submitted a brief description of a high school program. When you say Shrine, who is this referring to and Mr. Lum informed them that he believes Mr. Bray has been the contact person. Geri Debo has identified herself as secretary in her letter. Mr. Nimmons went on say that we have received the attempt at a COA. Mr. Nimmons stated that at this time he does not believe that the board has stated that a COA was necessary. The Building Commissioner and his office thought that there was, we (the board) saw no problem. We did not instruct him not to, now we need to decide is a COA necessary based on all the documents that are in front of all of us. Mr. Lum stated that he felt if they take no action, then the “Stop Work Order” remains. If they complete a COA application then the LHDC commission rules on that certificate. Mr. Nimmons stated that he would like to see the Shrine back to some sense of normalcy, since the current state is just piles of dirt and appears to be a construction site. Mr. Lum stated that is exactly why he enlisted help and applied for the grant. The intent was that after the regulations from the grant were reviewed that maybe we would be able to work with the Shrine and get it back in to shape or be able to help somehow.

Mr. Nimmons recognized Mr. Bernie Stienbruegge, who just arrived. Mr. Stienbrugge gave his credentials as to his interest in the shrine and that he would just like to listen in on what is going on with the excavation of the Shrine.

Mr. Schulte gave some history regarding the Shrine and the other buildings that used to surround the Shrine. He explained that when the people left they destroyed all but the one building and that building stood until 1976 when it burnt to the ground. It was the only building that had a basement in it so they dumped some of the brick in the basement and filled it up. Anything that they uncover is from 1920 or since. If they found something historic you would not know where it came from because the dirt was hauled in and dumped into the basement as of 1976. Mr. Nimmons stated that was exactly the kind of stuff that we would need to know in a COA. Mr. Schulte I think from what I remember is that the intent of this dig is to find the basement. They have found stairs the intent is to find these old buildings. For years there has been a trench hole around with some stone that was apparently a foundation for a crawl space building. If that is what they are going to do then the permit is necessary. Mr. Meyer stated that he thinks we are making this more difficult than it should be and that we should invite someone from the Shrine to the next meeting. All were in agreement that they are trying to educate the students. Mr. Nimmons stated that we have asked the teachers to come to this meeting and they did not come. Mr. Nimmons stated that we should have a special meeting inviting the members of the Shrine for further discussion. Mr. Nimmons suggested that we write a letter to the Friends of Old St. Ferdinand. Mr. Hoffman did not think that was a good suggestion. Mr. Hoffman thought that we should not be the ones telling them what to do and what not to do. Mr. Hoffman questioned the credentials of the LHDC commission. Mr. Nimmons stated that is why we want to see a proposal; we are even ahead of that, where they have given us a proposal but the scope of what is being done was not on the proposal. Further discussion among the members took place regarding what the LHDC Commission should and should not be telling the Shrine. Also appropriateness of what they can and can not dig and what tools can and can not be used. Also, comments were made by Mr. Hoffman as to the credentials of the commission in regards to telling the Shrine what can and can not be done during the dig.

Mr. Schulte made a motion that they invite the teachers as soon as possible. Mr. Meyer seconded the motion. Mr. Hoffman questioned exactly what would be said in this meeting. Mr. Nimmons stated that he would want the teachers to come with something in hand even if a brief something. Geri Debo has taken the stand that a COA is not necessary and I think we need to have some correspondence as to why we need the COA for example the Shrine being a re-designated Landmark, the City Attorney believes it may involve the entire property, “earth-disturbing” activity, fencing, signage, etc… and the bullet points that we currently have is why we as the commission believe a COA is necessary. The belief is not because it is not an archeologically designated sight it is because of the bullet points that the commission believes a COA is necessary. Mr. Nimmons stated that he would like the recording clerk to draft a letter.

Mr. Nimmons stated that he felt in order to have the dig site closed by the winter that a plan of action should be presented sometime this summer. Mr. Schulte stated that they should let the Shrine submit their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and then address the issues.

Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Nimmons if they could have the opinion of Sandy Decloure, since she works for the Shrine. Mr. Schulte asked if she was a member of the board of directors or just a member of the organization. Ms. Delcoure explained she is a member of the shrine. Mr. Schulte explained that he is also a member of the Shrine but not on the board. Mr. Schulte then thanked Ms. Delcoure but explained that they would need to deal with a member of the board not just a member of the shrine, since Ms. Delcoure did not have the authority to give them the answers they needed. Mr. Nimmons explained that they needed to do some house cleaning due to all the motions that were out on the table. Mr. Hoffman asked to have the motion to suspend the rules so that we can ask questions of Ms. Delcoure, Ms. Davidson and Mr. Stienbruegge. Mr. Schulte 2nd motion, all in favor. Ms. Delcoure explained that she is not sure as to what the Shrine is looking for but a COA should be what the Shrine should require. Do they know what the COA entails? Mr. Lum stated to Mr. Nimmons that he could answer that Mr. Nimmons asked Mr. Lum to proceed. They received a packet from Public Works, Mr. Bray received the packet –there was some confusion by Mr Bray as to what all needed to be filled out. The application was the only thing filled out with a brief description. There was no map of the area or a proposed plan of action of any kind so we asked for additional information. Mr. Nimmons believed in the past we had a point by point as to exactly what was needed in the COA. Mr. Lum told him yes we do have that and it is the August 10th letter which is in the packets.

There was further discussion regarding a previous meeting with the teachers, Mr. Lum, Mr. Hoffman and the Mayor about the COA. Mr. Nimmons explained that he knows that Mr. Huit (Ferguson-Florissant School District) has stopped the work for the teachers. Mr. Nimmons explained that we need to be dealing with the Friends of the Shrine to see what they are wanting from this dig and not the teachers. Mr. Nimmons explained that we need to get the answers to the 6 questions that are in the letter from Mr. Lum. Mr. Nimmons made a motion to send a letter of invitation to the friends of St. Ferdinand Shrine to meet with us at their earliest convenience. Mr. Nimmons stated that he feels very strongly that we need to meet with them and address the 6 points that were identified as information necessary to be added to their COA. Mr. Nimmons asked the recording clerk to read back what was just stated. Mr. Meyer 2nd the motion, Mr. Schulte 3rd the motion. Motion passed.

Mr. Hoffman asked why we are even involved in this since we are not the owners. Mr. Nimmons explained because it is a re-designated landmark. Mr. Meyer asked several questions as to how far do we want to take telling the Friends of Shrine what they can and can not do in the COA. Mr. Hoffman then proceeded to explain that don’t we want the best quality of archeology for something like this. Mr. Meyer stated we need to make sure that it does not become an eyesore. Mr. Hoffman then went over the duties of the LHDC commission especially duty #1. Mr. Nimmons explained that he felt that the discussion was getting off track and that we need to go ahead and continue with the original motion of having a meeting with the Friends of the Shrine. Mr. Lum gave code information regarding the Secretary of  Interior Standards explaining that it only states that it needs to be preserved, it does not state how, that is up to the Commission to decide. Further discussion between members regarding how much detail are we are going to have the Friends of Shrine do on a COA.

Mr. Nimmons asked if there were any further discussion. Being none Mr. Schulte made a motion to continue this item to the following meeting.

 

Discussion of Route 66.

Mr. Nimmons stated that the next order of business was the discussion of Route 66. Mr. Nimmons asked Mr. Schulte what he found out about a COA for a Contributing Resource of Route 66. Mr. Schulte said that he thought it was a good idea – Dunn Road is Route 66, however I spoke with JoAnn Redic who said the only thing that she knows that they have dedicated a Route going through an existing a Historic District. If it was going through St. Francois Street it would be appropriate, but since it is on the outskirts of town it is not appropriate. Mr. Schulte said there is no reason to do a COA. Item #2 is a done issue and this item was removed from the agenda.

 

Discussion of Landmark Properties.

Mr. Nimmons stated that the next order of business was the discussion of Landmark Properties.  Mr. Nimmons spoke to Mr. Hoffman regarding the fact that he expressed interest in knowing how to entice, and make more attractive to new property owners to be designate as a Landmark property. Do you have any proposal, suggestions or idea? Mr. Hoffman went on to say we have 120 contributing resources. Anyone know if that is correct. Mr. Schulte said about 108. Mr. Nimmons said that is beside the point. We need to get back on the subject of how to entice more people to be designated.  Mr. Hoffman stated that we need to be more creative when enticing people to designate there homes, instead of just sending out letters. Mr. Hoffman spoke with several different people who are on board with the idea of enticing people to redesignate their homes. Mr. Hoffman stated we should get the manpower of Rosemary Davis and other people who are into preserving historic Florissant. Mr. Schulte asked Mr. Hoffman one more time why he has not recertified his home. Mr. Hoffman asked if this commission even cares if the people of Florissant certify there homes. We have fewer than half on the list. Mr. Hoffman went over the fact that Casa Alvarez is not on there. Mr. Nimmons said that we are getting off the subject. We need to get back to the discussion at hand which is how do we entice people to certify there homes. Mr. Nimmons said the question at hand is how we can be more creative than just sending out letters. Mr. Hoffman said do we really want to add more homes. Mr. Schulte made a point of order that Casa Alvarez is on the registry for both Federal & State ordinance 7261. Mr. Hoffman asked if it was a designated landmark and Mr. Schulte said yes both Federal and State. Mr. Hoffman again repeated he does not understand if no one wants to have Landmarks. Mr. Nimmons stated you could withdrawal your motion. Mr. Hoffman stated no. Mr. Hoffman asked what can we do? Mr. Hoffman stated that we need help and said that we needed to focus on those properties that can be designated as Landmarks. Mr. Nimmons stated to proceed on that then. Mr. Hoffman stated that he has not worked out the “nuts and bolts” on how to do this – I don’t know what it would take. We need to do something so that people feel it is a good thing to designate their homes. Mr. Nimmons stated one of the things that we have to overcome is the stigma that comes with designating their homes, because if you do not designate you are not under the same guidelines as whether or not you can put new windows in or not, just an example. 

Vigorous discussion and argument ensued regarding the Commission addressing concerns over properties designated as a Landmarks and entertaining options to encourage property owners to designate their property as a Landmark. Mr. Schulte stated that he did not want to force anyone to designate their property as a Landmark but, when asked, Mr. Hoffman said he did not want to register his home and wanted to know what business was it of Mr. Schulte’s. Mr. Schulte stated he wanted that in the minutes. Mr. Hoffman said never mind I want to register my home. Mr. Nimmons stated that the commission should table this discussion; Mr. Meyer seconded motion & Mr. Curtis agreed. All in favor say Aye – all aye.

Mr. Nimmons informed Mr. Hoffman that when you have ideas we will listen. Mr. Hoffman said to the committee – “Excuse me but I have ideas and I would like to generate other ideas that’s how we get a consensus and agreement instead of bickering, it’s just like you come up with ideas “OKAY” but nobody here feels it is incumbent upon them to do that – Read article 2 here that’s what we are suppose to be doing”. Mr. Schulte said: “Well why don’t’ you do it”. Mr. Hoffman said: “Why don’t you do it you’re on this commission that’s what your are suppose to be doing.” Mr. Schulte said: “Why don’t you register your house and shut up.” Mr. Nimmons is there a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hoffman said: “I don’t want to register my house – why is that any business of yours.” Mr. Schulte said: “I want that in the minutes”. Mr. Hoffman said “Fine I want to register my house.” Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Schulte why don’t you come here and talk to me about registering my house. Mr. Nimmons made a second motion to adjourn. Mr. Meyer seconded the motion all in favor aye – all aye.

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTS

Mr. Nimmons asked if anyone had any further business. Being none, Mr. Nimmons made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Meyer, all members concurred, meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Respectfully submitted:

 

Tracy Voss
Recording Clerk