Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-05-05 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, May 5, 2022, 2022 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Committee Members Present Bunnie Trickey Cotten Donna Deetz Debra Greene (arrived at 5:43) Roger Jungmeyer Holly Stitt Steve Veile Stacey Young Committee Members Absent Glover Brown Cassandra Gould Doug Record Brad Schaefer Staff Present Ryan Moehlman, City Attorney Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Anne Stratman, Neighborhood Services Specialist Call to Order Ms. Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Procedural Matters The committee discussed replacing Doug Record and Cassandra Gould. Staff will be contacting them for official notice of resignation. Staff will contact potential candidates for these positions. Rachel has reached out to Eric Landwehr and he is considering it. Another candidate, Christine Boston, anthropologist at Lincoln, has reached out for consideration. Staff will also reach out to Gregory Butler, who sits on Planning and Zoning Commission. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Young moved and Ms. Stitt seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from May 5, 2022 Mr. Veile moved and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2022 as written. There was no discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Call for cases NA Requests for continuance NA Reordering of the Agenda NA 2 Old Business A. Article IV – Recommendations from the last meeting The Committee reviewed changes made by staff to Article IV, page 6 of the packet, Section 2.a.1 & 2.a.2 regarding the differences in permitting of contributing and non-contributing structures as opposed to having both of these covered in one section. Ms. Senzee explained that City Staff would approve all permit applications that clearly meet the design standards of a local historic district. All other permit applications would be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission which shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny said application based on the following acts: a. Action on alterations 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 HPC 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 HPC 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 non-contributing 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. Donna Deetz moved to approve these sections as written and Holly Stitt seconded the motion to approve the changes to the code. The motion passed unanimously. The committee moved on to discuss the changes made to page 7 of the guidelines which outlines what the HPC will do with the permits. (1) When the requested work is acceptable-a certificate of appropriateness is issued in support of the permit. (2) When the requested work is unacceptable-the application will be approved with conditions that shall be adhered to. The Historic Preservation Commission shall state the reasons for the conditions, citing adopted design standards, policies and guidelines. (3) When 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. Rachel pointed out a comment regarding the denied applications regarding whether or not there would be an appeal process. Ms. Trickey-Cotton asked General Counsel Ryan Moehlman for guidance on this process. Ryan stated that these type of appeals, by statute, would go to the Board of Adjustment. Whether it is written in or not, these appeals would automatically go to the Board of Adjustment, so it is best to write it in. Ms. Greene asked how this process would work with the permitting process. Would the permit go to them after it is approved or denied to be issued, or not. The best way to think about this is that this is a component of the building permit process. Likely, what would happen is a concurrent work from the building code permit staff and Historic Preservation staff working on an application at the same time. 3 Ms. Deetz made a motion to approve the first three conditions and add fourth section to this process, and Ryan said that it would be best; (4) If the HPC denies the application, and or asserts conditions to the application, any appeal of the HPC decision should go to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Stitt seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Rachel explained that 2(b) should be altered to specify “new” construction. Ms. Trickey Cotton requested a motion on the corrected verbiage. Miss Young made the motion to change the verbiage to state “New construction of any structure located within a designated local historic district or National Register Historic District.” Ms. Greene seconded the motion. Before it was passed, Ryan stated that there are no standards attached to this and that it should be similar to what is in 2(a) which will apply to 2(b) as well. It could probably be word for word as to what is in 2(a). The Committee unanimously agreed to pass the amendment as modified to include the word “new”. Holly made a motion to add the sections (i) and (ii) below section (2)(b) to include standards. Donna seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Greene asked, “When a permit comes in and its for new construction and it meets all the guidelines, then it does not go to HPC?” Rachel stated that we will have to know what those guidelines are. Rachel pointed out that the Secretary of the Interiors Standards has a section on new construction and that we could adopt what they do. Rachel stated that staff would add the language and review it at the next meeting. The next section discussed was (3) “Approval of the Permit” - The permit cannot be approved without a certificate of appropriateness by the commission or its designated staff liaison. 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. After discussion by the committee, it was agreed to change the term “staff liason” to “director”. Holly motioned to change staff liaison to director. Donna seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. New Business 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 in a designated local historic destrict, 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 shall not review demolition permits for buildings that have been declared dangerous, per Section ##. 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. 4 This language pertains to buildings that are specifically located within a district or designated landmarks as opposed to somebody just sitting in 100 year old house. Ryan pointed out that, two meetings ago, the committee took an action that separated out the local landmarks from the historic districts and were treating the landmarks as honorary only, so that calls into question as to whether or not you want to continue that distinction in this section as well. Steve Veile suggested that “local landmark” be kept in this section. Steve Veile moved that Article V, Section 1 be approved as presented. Debra Greene seconded the motion. The committee approved the motion with the exception of Holly Stitt. When asked why she had opposed, Ms. Stitt replied that she does not think “declared dangerous” in a historic section should be allowed to not be put in front of a review. Review of Demolition Permit Section (1) (b) Review processes without a public hearing. (c) (d) (e) (f) were also reviewed for the committee. Ryan explained that he does not understand why this is not a two-meeting process, because the HPC can approve without a public hearing certain things. What happens if it becomes a problem and they determine that they don’t want to approve it, then you have to have a public hearing. And if you have to have a public hearing, you have to come back and it becomes a two-meeting process. In reference to b & c. Ryan stated that he does not think there would be a demolition process that exceeds 60 days. He stated that there should be a hearing on everything. After discussion it was decided to add back a, and add some administrative staff level review. And instead of having the difference between having a public hearing for all demolition unless it has been determined that there is no need. And it does say non-contributing accessory structures or outbuildings, so it would not be if it is the main structure. It would have to be a detached building, or an accessory structure. Non- contributing structures would have to go through the hearing process. After much discussion, it was decided that the committee would send this section back to staff for edits. Is any activity within a historic district related to historic preservation of that district? Even if that activity mainly involves noncontributing structures. Rachel reminded the committee that during the criteria for designation process, they deliberately did not assign an age to the property, so if you had a new construction building that went in and you felt like it fit the historic value, you could amend the district to receive that new construction. Rachel asked if the committee wanted it to say noncontributing everything or just noncontributing accessory structure at a staff level review? Rachel also clarified that just because staff is getting it doesn’t for a public hearing does not mean it will not go before HPC. The committee decided that if it goes to HPC, there will need to be a public hearing. Unless it is a staff level review, then it just gets its demo permit. Is that for contributing structures or accessory structures? Ryan suggested that staff review other city codes on contributing structures and accessory structures and structure code accordingly. Rachel next reviewed (e) and (f). Determination and appeal to demo Steve Veile asked (f), about does the appeal go to the City Council or to the Board of adjustment. Ryan stated that in this type of situation, where the HPC is making a decision after a public hearing process, sending it to the City Council would be appropriate. It is not acting in place of the building permit official. 5 Mr. Veile next asked about the three-year time span. Rachel explained with the example of Central Electric. They had three structures. They wanted to drop one, move all those folks into that building and construct the structure they are working on now and then, when they get everybody moved into that new building, drop the other two structures. Instead of stopping and going, they will have enough time to finish without an extension. After an extended discussion, the committee decided to have staff add specific criteria for demolition that will qualify structures for demolition. The committee asked for boxes to check. Ryan stated that a court, in the absence of established criteria, the court is bound to err on the side of the property owner. Rachel asked if the committee would like economic factors play into the criteria they are requesting, (i.e. it is too expensive to make the repairs vs. demo). Ryan thinks you have to, because if you don’t, a court will have to analyze it under a regulatory analysis. It is the property owner’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence so that the HPC can make a reasonable decision. Mr. Veile asked about Article 5, section 1, that last part about dangerous buildings. What kind of a review does it get, if the city staff says, that is a dangerous building, is that it, or does the City Council have to review it. What is the definition of a dangerous building? Ryan stated that it is a staff determination that a property owner can seek a quasi-judicial hearing to appeal the determination. Rachel proposed that the committee put the “dangerous buildings” conversation on the next agenda. Rachel offered to ask Dave Helmick to come to the next meeting to explain the process to the committee. Dates to Remember The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 2, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room. Adjournment Ms. Stitt moved and Mr. Veile seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.