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.