Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-09-01 packetIndividuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Please call 573-634-6410 for information regarding agenda items. Meeting will be canceled if Jefferson City Public Schools is canceled or has a late start: https://www.jcschools.us/ NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING AND TENTATIVE AGENDAi City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Thursday, September 1, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. Boone-Bancroft Room-John G. Christy Municipal Building-320 E. McCarty Street Virtual Option https://jeffersoncity.webex.com/jeffersoncity/j.php?MTID=me31254d93078a20f78ae69f1806e3fbe Password: 1234 Join by Phone: 14043971516 Access Code: 146 198 9745 TENTATIVE AGENDA 1. Introductions and Roll Call 2. Adoption of Agenda (as printed or reordered) 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from July 7, 2022 4. Old Business A. Demolition o Dangerous Buildings B. Fees for Applications 5. New Business A. In General B. Applicability C. Emergencies D. Enforcement 6. Other Business 7. Dates to Remember A. Next Regular Meeting Date, October 6, 2022 8. Adjournment City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, July 7, 2022 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Page 1 Committee Members Present Bunnie Trickey Cotten Donna Deetz Dr. Debra Greene Dr. Roger Jungmeyer Steve Veile Brad Schaefer Committee Members Absent Holly Stitt Gregory Butler Stacey Young Glover Brown Council Liaison Laura Ward Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Ryan Moehlman, City Attorney Visitors Present Brian Bernskoetter, Board of Realtors Call to Order Ms. Trickey Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Veile made a motion to adopt the agenda. Mr. Jungmeyer seconded. The agenda was unanimously adopted. Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 2, 2022 Dr. Greene moved to approve the June 2, 2022 minutes. Mr. Veile seconded but proposed some changes. Ms. Senzee explained that staff had received an e-mail requesting changes on page six, fifth paragraph down, determination should be changed to demolition. Ms. Senzee also apologized to Mr. Veile for the misspelling of his name. The motion was passed unanimously with the proposed changes. 2 Old Business Ms. Senzee began the discussion by explaining the changes made to the demolition code. Page 8, Article V, Section (1) – states “The Historic Preservation Commission shall not review demolition permits for buildings that have been declared hazardous, it was recommended that we use the wording “hazardous.” I don’t know if it’s a declaration for hazardous. What staff initially put there is the dangerous building provision, and stated that if a building were declared “dangerous”, it would not go through the HPC. It was discussed at the last meeting that the HPC should still review declared dangerous buildings. Ms. Senzee requested that the attorney, Mr. Moehlman attend to explain that, due to some recent issues with buildings that have been declared dangerous, and running them through the Historic Preservation Commission. In the past, because of the interpretation of the existing code, the HPC was not reviewing dangerous buildings. We had one instance that came up where it made us examine the code for that specific case and we realized that we didn’t have the authority by the code to “not run” the dangerous buildings through the HPC. We had assumed there was an emergency provision and a dangerous buildings declaration but those are two separate actions. We have it covered for the emergency path. If there is an immediate life and safety issue, we can initiate that emergency path. The issue with the dangerous building path is that if we require dangerous buildings to be run through the HPC, and the HPC denies the demolition, we have conflicting codes. This would put a property owner in a dilemma. On one hand, they are being ordered to abate, with the option to repair or demolish, and on the other hand, the HPC would be forcing them to potentially repair the property. So, that is the conflict we have with our code, and this is something we need to discuss. Ms. Trickey Cotten asked what Ms. Senzee proposed. Ms. Senzee explained that if it is a “dangerous building”, it would be cleaner if the HPC did not review it, but it is up to this committee to discuss that and figure out a smooth process for property owners and staff to understand where to drive the process. Mr. Helmick, Code Enforcement, was at the last meeting and outlined the dangerous building presentation, and he is backed up by state statutes regarding dangerous building declarations. So, if we want to deviate from not having it declared a dangerous building in the code, then we need to figure out something that doesn’t conflict with state statute. Mr. Moehlman explained that the dangerous building declaration is a public safety mechanism, from the standpoint of the legal office, having buildings that have entered the dangerous buildings process, Mr. Moehlman’s recommendation would be to exclude it from the historical review and the demolition process. It is not an aesthetic issue, property values issue, zoning issue, quality of life issue or how buildings fit into the neighborhood issue. The dangerous building process, is a public health and safety issue. Ms. Trickey Cotten stated that at this point, dangerous buildings need to be addressed and taken care of promptly instead of going through the HPC process. Mr. Moehlman stated that while the dangerous building process is slow, it is in fact, one of the more efficient processes. Mr. Moehlman stated that when it reaches the dangerous buildings process it is about conditions that affect the health, life, and safety as opposed to the general aesthetic of the neighborhood. 3 Ms. Deetz stated that she agreed with Mr. Moehlman since she has cleaned out a few dangerous buildings. She explained there should be some way to make the information about proposed “dangerous buildings” available to the public. There could be someone willing to step in and do something about it., Then the HPC could step in and say we will help you along this line as opposed to blocking it. [RK1][KD2]Mr. Moehlman stated this is always the best situation because if someone inherits the property and does not want to mess with it, maybe the city or HPC can find a buyer. Those are the ideal situations. The problem is owners who are unresponsive or uncooperative, and a voluntary transfer is not something they are interested in even talking about. The committee briefly discussed organizations that may help with the buyout of these properties. Ms. Senzee further discussed the “Missouri Abandoned Housing” legislation. It allows non-profits to petition the courts to say, this property owner is not taking care of their property, we would like to care for this property. The courts allow non-profits to make the repairs and fix them. The non-profits can then go back to the court. The property owner has the option to either reimburse the non-profit for the repairs or the non-profit acquires the property, which they could sell. Mr. Moehlman stated that this is an option, but it is brand new in Jefferson City and it is not widely used throughout the state because what is needed is capital and non-profits do not have a lot of money at their disposal. Mr. Moehlman stated that a robust notification on properties that are in historic districts that are being declared dangerous should be considered. Mr. Veile stated that along those lines, a robust notification is great, and he thinks that one way to do that is to make sure that a historic property that is on the dangerous buildings list does go before the HPC, for at least a “review and comment”, so that they are made aware of it, and people on the HPC might know something about the property that other folks don’t or it could be publicized because of their meetings and receive public input. When Mr. Helmick stated in our last meeting that it takes 4-5 months for a building to get through the dangerous buildings process, so surely there would be time to get it to the HPC for their review and comment. Ms. Trickey Cotten stated that since the process takes 4-6 months, why couldn’t staff send it to HPC immediately upon receipt for review and comment? After more discussion, Mr. Moehlman stated that the current language does not work. The question is, does the city want to go through a full permitting process, which he doesn’t recommend, do we want to fully excuse them from the HPC process, which is what is being discussed, or do we want to find some middle ground where we insert a review and comment process, on dangerous buildings in the Historic Districts. Dr. Greene stated that the “review and comment” wording would still feed into courtesy. The HPC can’t stop anything or make a recommendation, but the commission is aware. Ms. Trickey Cotten recommended the committee send this section to city staff to make the changes. The wording should state that instead of going before HPC for approval, declared dangerous buildings would go before the HPC for review and comment. Ms. Senzee next reviewed the updates approved by the committee under Article V, Section 1C – Determination - The Historic Preservation Commission shall decide to approve or deny the application for demolition. The findings of the HPC shall be based on consideration of specified design standards, presented plans, public testimony, related findings of fact, or the following demolition criteria: 1) Whether or not the proposed demolition could potentially adversely affect other historic landmarks located within the historic district or adversely affect the character of the historic district; 2) Whether or not historic events occurred in the building or structure; 3) The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building, because of its design, texture, material, detail, or unique location; 4 4) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the historic district; 5) The condition of the structure and its probable life expectancy; 6) Its association with the life or lives of a person or persons significant in the history of the City, County, State, or Nation; 7) It represents the work of a master designer or architect or possesses high architectural value; 8) The nature of the surrounding area and the compatibility of the structure to existing adjacent structures and land use; 9) The number of similar structures that exist within the City of Jefferson; 10) Whether the property has sustained damage by a natural or man-made disaster and whether or not the building sustained irreparable structural damage; or 11) Whether the property has been declared a dangerous building by the Dangerous Building Inspector. The HPC can deny demolitions based on these criteria. [RK3] After some discussion, Ms. Trickey Cotten moved to remove number 11 in light of rewriting the Dangerous Building structure notifications. Mr. Veile seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee next reviewed - (d) Notification of the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination shall be made to the applicant. The notification shall also be sent to the building regulations division within five (5) days after the determination. The demolition approval under this section will be valid for three (3) years from the date of issuance. Ms. Trickey Cotten asked if three years is standard. Ms. Senzee replied that she thinks our current code is for one year. Dr. Greene asked, “Why was it changed to three?” Ms. Senzee explained on some larger projects, contractors will need more time to complete all of the phases of the project and not have to request extensions of time to complete the demolition and completion of the project. Allowing 3 years to complete the demolition would make the process more streamlined. Mr. Moehlman suggested that since the notification process is covered under the current building regulations, we don’t bring the HPC into it and just allow the building regulations division to take care of it. Mr. Moehlman suggested deleting the last sentence and keep the remaining wording. Mr. Veile made the motion to keep section D, but delete the last sentence. Mr. Jungmeyer seconded it. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee proceeded to review the appeal process - (e) If the application for demolition is denied, the applicant may seek an appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days. Mr. Moehlman stated that the appeal should be in writing. After discussion, Mr. Veile moved to approve Section E with the addition of the wording, “if the application for demolition is denied, the applicant may seek, in writing, an appeal to the City Council within 30 days. The written appeal shall be delivered to the City Clerk.” Dr. Greene moved to accept this amendment. Mr. Jungmeyer seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Trickey Cotten moved on to Section 3, Emergency Repairs. Ms. Senzee explained that in the course of an emergency, like a tornado that goes through and hits our historic districts, do we make the historic districts go through the HPC before they can make repairs to their structures? Ms. Senzee thinks there needs to be something that allows people to make their repairs under the emergency provisions and something should state, if repairs are feasible, they should conform to the design guidelines standards. 5 Citizens should not be waiting 30 days for repairs with their roof falling in. After discussions, it was decided that there would be a section covering Emergency Repairs put into city code. Staff will review other cities’ codes to find precedent on Emergency Repairs. Staff will present their findings to the committee for their review. Next, Ms. Senzee outlined code related to signage and fencing. Ms. Senzee explained, “if there is a historic district from the 1880’s they won’t want neon signs posted across the street or vinyl fencing”. Ms. Senzee explained that the committee can either wrap guidelines up in design standards for that district or they can just put guidelines into the code. Ms. Trickey Cotten asked if there was something already in code about this and Ms. Senzee said that there was not anything in code specifically for HPC. She explained that it would be easier to put guidelines into design standards instead of adding to code regulations because design standards can be written based on the historic district’s needs. City staff will build up the wording for signage and fencing prior to the next meeting. New Business The committee moved on to review the changes proposed at the last meeting. Ms. Trickey Cotten began with “fees for application”, Section C. Ms. Senzee stated that it was discussed how fees would be managed at the last meeting. Ms. Senzee stated that there is a list of fees for all services within the city included in the packet. Ms. Senzee explained that the codes for Historic Preservation are scattered throughout the current code in building, zoning, permitting, etc. Ms. Senzee asked “do we want to keep it scattered or create a new chapter related to Historic Preservation”? The committee decided a new chapter should be created that pertains to fees related to historic preservation. There would be a new fee established specifically for nomination. Ms. Senzee asked that the committee study the fees and think about what they think would be an appropriate fee for nomination of properties Ms. Senzee again asked the committee to study the fees and come back with recommendations for next month’s meeting. Mr. Veile commented that staff would know better than the committee, based on experience, what the expense elements are related to fees. Mr. Veile recommended that staff bring forward recommendations to the committee for the next meeting. Mr. Moehlman stated that finding the appropriate balance between cost to the city and cost to the applicant is what the committee needs to determine. Mr. Moehlman suggested that the committee consider a sliding scale depending on the size and scope of the project. City Staff will work on direct costs/fees and bring them back to the committee for review at the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on August 4, 2022. Ms. Trickey Cotten asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Veile gave the motion to adjourn, and Dr. Greene seconded. The motion to adjourn was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.. 1 Article I. – In General A. The purposes of this article are to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the community by: 1. Providing a mechanism to identify and preserve the distinctive historic, archaeological and architectural characteristics of the City of Jefferson which represent elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; 2. Fostering civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past as represented in the City's landmarks and historic districts; 3. Conserving and improving the value of property designated as landmarks or within historic districts; 4. Providing for economic benefits to encourage business and residential owners to locate and invest in historically significant properties; 5. Protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the City to home buyers, tourists, visitors and shoppers, and thereby supporting and promoting business, commerce and industry, and providing economic benefit to the City; 6. Fostering and encouraging preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of the City's historic structures, areas and neighborhoods; 7. Promoting the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the City; and 8. Promoting the identification, evaluation, protection and interpretation of the prehistoric and historic archaeological resources within the corporate limits of the City. 2 B. Applicability This chapter is applicable to all properties in the City of Jefferson’s local historic districts, National Register Districts, local landmarks, and individually listed National Register properties. C. Definitions Article II. Responsibilities and Procedure Sec. 1 – Historic Preservation Commission Sec. 2 – Planning and Zoning Sec. 3 – Board of Adjustment Article III. Designation of Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks Sec. #-#. – Statement of Purpose. The City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission, City Council, and any participating property owners may identify potential local historic districts and local landmarks based upon the criteria identified in this article and the Secretary of Interior Standards. Sec. #-# - Criteria for Designation A. The Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the following factors when designating a local historic district or local landmark: 1. Whether the proposed local historic district and/or local landmark possesses significant character or value as it relates to the heritage or culture of the community, county, state, or nation; 2. Whether the location of the site and/or landscape is significant to a local, county, state, or national event; 3. Whether the proposed local historic district and/or local landmark has an association with person(s) of significance to the community, county, state, or nation; 4. Whether the proposed local historic district and/or local landmark includes the embodiment of a notable architectural style with the associated distinguishing characteristics; 3 5. Whether the proposed landmark was produced by a significant architect or designer; 6. Whether the proposed local historic district and/or local landmark contains natural or built design elements that make the structure or site unique; or 7. Whether any prehistoric/historic site(s) containing information of archaeological value in that it has produced or can be expected to produce data affecting theories of historic or prehistoric research interest as set forth in the state historic preservation program master plan for cultural resources. Sec. #-# - Applications for Designation A. Nomination Initiation. Nomination of a local historic district or local landmark may be initiated by the City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission, City Council, or any owner of real property within the proposed district by filing the appropriate application with the Department of Planning and Protective Services on a form promulgated by the Director. B. Nomination Requirements. Applications and support material for the designation of a local landmark or local historic district shall include the following: 1. For nominations of a Local Landmark: a. Applicant contact information. b. Signatures of all property owners of record. c. Property narrative, including; historic name (if known), year built or established, and information addressing one or more of the criteria identified in Sec. #-#.A.[SR1] d. Application fee 2. For nominations of a Local Historic District: a. Applicant contact information. b. Map showing the boundaries of the proposed district and name of the proposed district. c. Map identifying contributing and noncontributing sites, buildings, structures, and objects. d. District narrative, including one or more of the criteria identified in Sec. #-#.A. e. Signatures from 33 % of property owners within the proposed district f. Proposed design standards for the proposed district that reflect the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties. g. Application fee. 4 Sec. #-# - Designation Process A. Designation of a local landmark. Application for the designation of a local landmark shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Protective Services no less than 30 days prior to a scheduled City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission meeting date. B. Designation of a local historic district. Application and final proposed design standards for the nomination of a local historic district shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Protective Services no less than 30 days prior to a scheduled City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission meeting date. The nomination shall require a public hearing. C. Design Standards. Applicants shall include proposed design standards that are appropriate for the proposed local historic district and that follow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Application for designation of a local historic district shall not be considered complete until: 1. Design standards are reviewed for architectural/archaeological appropriateness by City staff. The City staff recommendation on architectural/archaeological appropriateness shall be appended to the application and forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission; 2. Design standards are reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties by staff. The City staff recommendation on compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be appended to the application and forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission D. Public hearing requirements for nomination of local historic districts. 1. Public Hearing Required. The Historic Preservation Committee shall conduct a public hearing on all applications for the designation of a local historic district to provide the opportunity for input in decisions that may affect the community and ensure that decisions reflect consideration of the community interest, and ensure that the applicant and other interested parties are provided appropriate opportunity to be heard on an application. 2. Published Notice. Notice of the public hearing shall be published by the City, at least once, a minimum of 15 days before the scheduled public hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the City. The notice of the public hearing shall contain the following: i. The time, date, and place of the hearing; and ii. The physical boundaries of a proposed local historic district. 5 3. Mailed notice requirements. The City shall mail all notices at least 15 days prior to the public hearing, notifying the property owner of the opportunity to be heard. Mailed notice shall be sent, by regular mail, to the last known owner on record of all property within 185 feet from the boundaries of the property for which the application is being considered. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting, and include a general description of the proposal, a location map of the property, the general street location of the property subject to the proposed change, and a statement explaining that the public will have an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing. Failure to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate any action taken on the application. 4. Proof of notification. The City shall retain a copy of the mailed notice and a list of notified property owners with their addresses, along with an affidavit in accordance with this section. 5. Property sign. The Director shall post one or more distinctive signs, with minimum dimensions of 24" × 24" giving notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing and of the action requested. The signs on the subject property shall be posted at least ten calendar days but not more than 15 calendar days prior to the hearing in conspicuous places visible from every street along the frontage of the subject property. The signs shall remain posted on the property until after the close of the public hearing. The failure to post signs upon the property or retain notification signs upon the property shall not be grounds for invalidating any action taken by the responsible decision-making body. 6. Public Hearing Procedure. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director of Planning and Protective Services shall schedule a public hearing on the application before the Historic Preservation Commission. The public hearing shall be scheduled no earlier than 30 days of a complete application, but no later than 90 days. All interested parties shall have the opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing. After the public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation for the designation or rejection of a local historic district based on the criteria set forth in Sec. ##. 7. Approval Procedures. a. Local Landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to either approve or deny an application for designation as a local landmark. Such recommendations shall be forwarded to the City Council. b. Local Historic Districts. Recommendations on applications for the designation of a local historic district shall be a two-step process. i. First, the Historic Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to either approve or deny a designation of a local historic district. 6 ii. If and only if the Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval of the designation of a local historic district, the Historic Preservation Commission shall then make a separate recommendation on the proposed design standards. The Historic Preservation Commission may recommend approval or, amend or modify the proposed design standards. iii. If the Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval of a designation of a local historic district but recommends denial of proposed design standards, then it shall be deemed that the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation is for denial of a designation of a local historic district. iv. If the Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval of a designation of a local historic district and amends or modifies the proposed design standards, the applicant may supplement its application with a plan detailing any objections or counter-proposals to design standards amended or modified by the Historic Preservation Commission C. Action Upon HPC Recommendation. The Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation on an application for designation of a local historic district shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, provided that if the Historic Preservation Commission recommends denial of the application, the applicant may within seven (7) days of such recommendation of denial withdraw the application with a notice that the applicant intends to amend its application. Withdrawn and amended applications shall be processed in the same manner as original applications except that the applicant shall not be required to pay a new application fee, provided that the applicant shall be responsible for any direct costs of the City related to the publication and provision of notice of the required public hearing. [SR2] D. Planning and Zoning Commission Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to approve or deny the designation of a local historic district and on the proposed design standards for a local historic district utilizing the procedures and review criteria applicable to rezonings and historic significance criteria in Sec. ##. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend modifications or amendments to proposed design standards but such recommended modifications or amendments must comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties. E. City Council Decision. The City Council shall by ordinance approve or deny the designation of a local landmark or local historic district and the proposed design 7 standards for a local historic district utilizing the procedures and review criteria applicable to rezonings and historic significance criteria in Section ##. The City Council may modify or amend the design standards but such modifications or amendments must comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties. F. Recording of Local Historic Districts and Local Landmarks. 1. Following the designation of a local historic district or local landmark by the City Council, the City Clerk shall file in the Recorder of Deeds of Cole County a certified copy of the ordinance. Sec. #-# - Procedure to Amend or Rescind[NA3] A. Nomination Withdrawal. An applicant may, in writing, withdraw its application for a local landmark or local historic district at any point prior to ordinance adoption. B. Amending an Established Local Historic District. Once a local historic district is established by ordinance under this article, such local historic districts may be altered by an applicant of subject parcel(s) seeking to be added or removed from an established district. The addition of parcels shall be within reasonable proximity to, and share historic features in common with, the established local historic district. 1. Applications to alter a local historic district shall be reviewed under the same criteria set forth in this article and under the same procedures applicable to the original establishment of the district. 2. Design standards applicable to the original approved local historic district shall apply equally to any added area. The design standards may be amended by ordinance following the process in Sec. ##. C. Rescinding a Local Historic District or Local Landmark. An applicant may submit an application to the City Council to remove the designation of a local historic district or local landmark. 1. A petition signed by no fewer than seventy-five percent of the existing property owners subject to the established local historic district shall accompany the application. 2. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the application, and make a decision regarding the removal of the local historic district on following the findings, a. The building(s), structure(s), or site designated as a local historic district or local landmark no longer meets the criteria for designation set forth in this article. 8 b. Failure to remove the designation would deny the subject property owner reasonable use of their property or prevent reasonable economic return. Evidence includes, (1) Costs to comply with regulations. (2) Income generation. (3) Availability of contractors to perform needed work. (4) Real estate values. (5) Revenue projections. (6) Current level of return. (7) Operating expenses. (8) Vacancy rates. (9) Financing issues. (10) Efforts to explore alternative uses of the property. (11) Availability of economic incentives. (12) Recent efforts to sell or rent the property. c. Failure to remove the designation would have an adverse impact on surrounding historical or cultural resources, specifically whether it would result in the loss of another building(s), structure(s), or site classified as historic set forth in this article. Article IV: Procedure to authorize construction, reconstruction, and alterations to structures. (1) Design review standards, policies and guidelines. (a) The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and design review policies and guidelines (in such form as it deems appropriate) to aid in its review of design review and permit applications. (b) For the purposes of this section "permit" includes building permits. The Historic Preservation Commission shall not review permits for temporary structures or temporary signs. (c) In cases of declared emergencies, permits for temporary or permanent repairs, reconstruction, and alterations shall undergo an administrative permit review process by the Director that may result in a certificate of appropriateness or denial. The Director shall use the same standards that would be used by the Historic Preservation Commission in non-emergency situations. (2) Review of building permit. The Director may administratively approve applications that clearly meet the design standards of a local historic district. All other permit applications shall be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission which shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny said application based on the following acts: 9 (a) Alteration of, reconstruction of, or addition to the exterior of any structure which constitutes all or part of a structure located in a designated local historic district; i) Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions to contributing structures. The Historic Preservation Commission shall base reviews of applications on adopted design standards, policies, guidelines, and information found in the designation application. The Historic Preservation Commission may request additional information as necessary to undertake its review. When dealing with a proposed alteration of, reconstruction of, or addition to the exterior of a contributing structure in a local historic district, the Historic Preservation Commission shall place the emphasis on applying the appropriate design standards to said structure with a view to preserving the historic significance of the basic structure. ii) Action on proposed alterations, reconstruction, or additions to noncontributing structures. When dealing with a proposed alteration of, reconstruction of, or addition to the exterior of a noncontributing structure in a local historic district, the Historic Preservation Commission shall place the emphasis on preserving the historic character of the local historic district rather than preserving the character of the structure to be altered, reconstructed or added. iii) Upon review of the proposed work, the Historic Preservation Commission finds: (1) The requested work is acceptable. Certificate of appropriateness is issued in support of permit. (2) The requested work is unacceptable, the application may be approved with conditions that shall be adhered to. The Historic Preservation Commission shall state the reasons for conditions, citing adopted design standards, policies, and guidelines. (3) The requested work is unacceptable, the application may be denied. The Historic Preservation Commission shall state the reasons for the denial, citing adopted design standards, policies, and guidelines. (4) If the Historic Preservation Commission finds the requested work unacceptable, the conditions or the denial, the applicant may seek appeal to the Board of Adjustment within sixty (60) days. (b) New construction of any structure located within a designated local historic district or National Register Historic District. i) Action of proposed new construction within local historic districts or National Register Historic Districts. The Historic Preservation Commission shall base reviews of applications on adopted design standards, policies, guidelines, and information found in the designation application. The Historic Preservation Commission may request additional information as necessary to undertake its review. When dealing with a proposed application for new construction, the following must be considered: 10 (1) New construction can be any architectural style, however a consideration must be made for the compatibility to maintain the historic character and identity of the historic district; (2) New construction that is either identical to the historic buildings within the historic district or in extreme contrast to historic buildings within the historic district are not compatible; and (3) New construction should be appropriately scaled and fit the existing pattern of development in order to preserve the character of the historic district. ii) Upon review of the proposed new construction, the Historic Preservation Commission finds: (1) The requested new construction is acceptable. Certificate of appropriateness is issued in support of permit. (2) The requested new construction is unacceptable, the application may be approved with conditions that shall be adhered to. The Historic Preservation Commission shall state the reasons for conditions, citing adopted design standards, policies, and guidelines. (3) The requested work is unacceptable, the application may be denied. The Historic Preservation Commission shall state the reasons for the denial, citing adopted design standards, policies, and guidelines. (4) If the Historic Preservation Commission finds the requested work unacceptable, the conditions or the denial, the applicant may seek appeal to the Board of Adjustment within sixty (60) days. (3) Approval of permit. The permit shall not be issued without a COA from the Historic Preservation Commission or the Director. a) Upon approval of a permit, a certificate of appropriateness ("COA") shall be issued which shall state the approved work and any conditions to said approval. A copy of the COA shall be displayed along with and in the same manner as any building permits issued for the same work. The COA shall be valid for three (3) years from the original date of issuance. If construction has not started within said three-year period, or if an active building permit has not been issued by the Department of Planning and Protective Services, the applicant must submit a new application. 11 Article V: Demolition (1) Review of demolition permit. Demolition of any structure which constitutes all or part of a local landmark, or all or part of a structure located in a designated local historic district, or any property listed on the National Register of Historic Places or within a designated National Register District; Application for a proposed demolition must be made to the Historic Preservation Commission. An application for a demolition permit fulfills this requirement. The Historic Preservation Commission may provide comment on dangerous building notices for the purposes of providing property owners with options to mitigate the dangerous building status. In cases where there appears to be an immediate danger to life and safety, the emergency provisions of Sec. 8-90 shall be utilized. The Historic Preservation Commission shall take action on such an application at a regularly scheduled meeting. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director shall forward the application to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. If a public hearing is required, the Director shall initiate notification requirements in accordance with section ##. The Director shall maintain a calendar of filing deadlines associated with the application and review process. (a) If the structure proposed for demolition is noncontributing, the Director may approve the application for demolition or forward the application for demolition to the Historic Preservation Commission with a recommendation for approval or disapproval. (b) The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold a public hearing on all applications for demolition, except as provided in sections ## above. Public hearings of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be conducted at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission may adopt such rules or limits as may be necessary to govern the hearing within the proper context and purposes of this chapter. Written notice of the public hearing shall be sent to the owner of the property and to the demolition permit applicant (if different from the owner), giving the time, date, place and subject of the public hearing, no fewer than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Signs indicating the proposed action and the time, date and place of the hearing shall be posted by the Director, on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission, on the property being considered no fewer than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Such signs shall be prominently displayed and easily readable from abutting public ways. (c) Determination. The Historic Preservation Commission shall make a determination to approve or deny the application for demolition. The findings of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be based on consideration of specified design standards, presented plans, public testimony, related findings of fact, or the following demolition criteria: 12 1) Whether or not the proposed demolition could potentially adversely affect other historic landmarks located within the historic district or adversely affect the character of the historic district; 2) Whether or not historic events occurred in the building or structure; 3) The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building, because of its design, texture, material, detail, or unique location; 4) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the historic district; 5) The condition of the structure and its probable life expectancy; 6) Its association with the life or lives of a person or persons significant in the history of the City, County, State, or Nation; 7) It represents the work of a master designer or architect or possesses high architectural value; 8) The nature of the surrounding area and the compatibility of the structure to existing adjacent structures and land use; 9) The number of similar structures that exist within the City of Jefferson; 10) Whether the property has sustained damage by a natural or man-made disaster and whether or not the building sustained irreparable structural damage; or 11) Whether the property has been declared a dangerous building by the Dangerous Building Inspector. (d) Notification of the Historic Preservation Commission's determination shall be made to the applicant. Notification shall also be sent to the building regulations division within five (5) days after the determination. The demolition approval under this section will be valid for three (3) years from the date of issuance. 13 (e) If the application for demolition is denied, the applicant may seek an appeal, in writing, to the City Council within thirty (30) days. The written appeal shall be delivered to the City Clerk. Sec. 5 – Maybe signs, maybe fences, maybe landscaping, maybe ancillary structures How do we feel about accessory preservation? Article V. Enforcement Enforcement •Municipal Court Action o Municipal court action. The Director may issue a General Ordinance Complaint to the violator requiring appearance in the Municipal Court for abatement of the violation. •Administrative hold on issuing permits for violators. o Violators would be placed on administrative hold from receiving buildings permits for 1 year. o Have an appeal process in which the violator, appears before the HPC for review. The HPC may or may not approve the issuance of the permit under review. OPTIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT