Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-06-07 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Council Chambers – John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 E. McCarty Street Commission Members Present Attendance Record Art Hernandez 6 of 6 Mary Schantz 5 of 6 Jane Moore 5 of 6 Sarah Hoeller 4 of 6 Kevin Kelly 4 of 6 Terri Rademan 6 of 6 Doug Record 6 of 6 Commission Members Absent Brent Hemphill 1 of 6 Bill Case 5 of 6 Council Liaison Present Laura Ward Staff Present Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Janice McMillan, Planning and Protective Services Director Drew Hilpert, City Counselor Guests Brian Bernskettor Tammy Boeschen, Historic City of Jefferson Michelle Brooks, News Tribune Steve Veile, Historic City of Jefferson Paul Graham Cathy Bordner Mary Sayers Vicki Schildmeyer Jenny Smith Call to Order: Vice Chair Jane Moore called the special meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Approval of Agenda: Terri Rademan moved the agenda be approved as printed. Kevin Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes: Terri Rademan moved the minutes be approved. Doug Record seconded the motion. Motion carried. New Business a. Heritage Council Representative. Mary Schantz presented a written statement explaining the Heritage Council, its membership, the organization structure and goals. She advised the members that the Heritage Council is requesting an official representative be appointed by each of the charter members of the Heritage Council. The JC Historic Preservation Commission is a charter member and Mary has been attending the meetings of that organization since its inception approximately 2 years ago. Mary is requesting that the JCHPC designate her to be the official representative. She indicted that Bill Case has also been attending the meetings. Terri Rademan moved that Mary Schantz be named as the official representative to the Heritage Council from the JCHPC. Sarah Hoeller seconded the motion. Motion carried. Old Business a. Demolition Ordinance. Drew Hilpert, City Attorney, and Janice McMillian, Director of Planning and Protective Services were present to share with the CJHPC their concerns about the draft proposed Demolition Ordinance. Drew outlined several concerns including: 1. The city has broad power to make decisions to protect the health and safety of citizens. For example, enforcing building codes. 2. Giving the City Council decision making authority for what he sees as an administrative decision is not well-advised. For example, in the past the City Council heard liquor appeals. This became problematic and the process was changed to give that power to the liquor board. 3. Giving the Circuit Court the requirement to hear an appeal De Novo is not the norm for administrative issues. The Circuit Court would be better utilized to make a decision related to the procedures being followed, not on the merits of the case. He recommended that the ordinance should avoid De Novo and rather use the Administrative Procedures Law. 4. The criteria to deny needs to be objective and well defined. Three specific areas that Drew felt needed clarity were: i. “Highest and best use” – what does that mean. ii. “Public interest outweighs” – in this case the city would be taking something from a homeowner and needs to compensate the owner. iii. “Has the economic means” – what does that mean? Drew suggested for this particular issue that perhaps the CJHPC could use a formula or criteria that spells out that if the cost to repair exceeds a certain percent of the value then the economic means may not exist. 5. Drew questioned if the city staff should have the right to appeal a decision. 6. Drew recommended that rather than refer to another section of city ordinance or code that the ordinance needs to cite the reference in the body of the text. Specifically in reference to criteria to be used. 7. Drew recommended that the CJHPC consider defining “in part” which is part of the definition of what needs a permit to be destroyed. Janice McMillan expressed concern about the additional staff burden this proposed ordinance puts on staff, the additional costs and that the procedures for notice are different that with other “notice” requirements such as the Planning and Zoning notice requirements. She recommended that the procedures for notice be the same as other commissions. According to Janice, the fee currently being charged to obtain a demolition permit do not cover the costs and with the additional responsibilities and costs the fee won’t even come close to covering the city’s costs. It was suggested by staff and CJHPC members that the fee could be raised and/or a varying fee structure could be devised such as for permits of structures under 50 years of age and another for structures over 50 years of age. Public comments were made by: Steve Veile – Mr. Veile pointed out that it is rare that a demolition permit is denied currently and there is no reason that this would change. If a permit is denied there is a process to appeal to protect the property rights of the owner. He also pointed out the Planning and Zoning decisions come before the City Council so there is precedence for this to happen. Mr. Veile pointed out that the notice requirements in the proposal gives an opportunity for input from the community and others who may have additional information about the property’s historic value. Finally Mr. Veile wondered if perhaps a specific area of the city could be designated for the more stringent demolition requirements, such as Old Town. Tammy Boeschen, speaking on behalf of the Historic City of Jefferson organization stated her concerns that we need to go forward as a city to protect what we have. That preservation will increase tourism and improve the quality of life for residents. Once a property is gone – it’s gone. She also indicated that many cities across Missouri and the United States have ordinances that take property away from an owner under certain rules and criteria and she felt that Jefferson City could come up with a way to protect property owners and historic properties. Vicki Schildmeyer encouraged the JCHPC to approve this proposal and move it on to the City Council stating that the proposed ordinance gives the City Council tools they need to address the abandoned property problem that the city is experiencing. Paul Graham indicated that the appeal process to the Circuit Court is appropriate and that the property owner will win unless the city can prove that denying the application for demolition is the “best use” of the property or if the owner can prove that it is not affordable for them to maintain or restore. The trial in the Circuit Court is the “due process.” Kevin Kelly inquired as to why the CJHPC was relooking at this ordinance as it had been passed by the Commission two meeting ago. He felt that the CJHPC should not be reopening the proposal but if we did he would like to see comments from the city staff in a timely manner with specific recommendations for each concern. Terri Rademan moved that the CJHPC reopen the demolition ordinance proposal. Jane Moore seconded the motion. After discussion Art Hernandez offered a friendly amendment to the motion adding that at the next regular meeting of the CJHPC the Commissioners develop a time-line for action on the re-working of the proposal. Terri Rademan accepted the friendly amendment and Jane Moore accepted the change to apply to her seconding of the motion. Motion carried. One no vote was given by Kevin Kelly. Dates to Remember: a. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 6:00 pm b. Historic Foot District Commemorative Plaque Dedication Ceremony, Friday, June 17th at 3:00 pm Adjournment: Terri Rademan moved the meeting adjourn. Jane Moore seconded. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.