Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-06-02 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, June 2, 2022 Boone/Bancroft Room and Virtual WebEx Meeting Committee Members Present Bunnie Trickey Cotten Donna Deetz Roger Jungmeyer Steve Veile Stacey Young Glover Brown Brad Schaefer Committee Members Absent Dr. Debra Greene Holly Stitt Gregory Butler Council Liaison Present Laura Ward Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Anne Stratman, Neighborhood Services Specialist Dave Helmick, Housing/Property Supervisor Call to Order Ms. Trickey-Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Procedural Matters Ms. Trickey-Cotten asked city staff about the status of committee members. Rachel stated that staff has received resignations from Doug Record and Dr. Cassandra Gould. Ms. Senzee also stated that staff is working on contacting potential members. They have reached out to a couple that were recommended and have not heard back yet. Staff will also contact Gregory Butler, who is an alternate, about becoming a regular member. When staff does get new members, said members have to be approved by the Admin. Committee and approved by the mayor and approved by City Council, so it will probably be August before the committee could get additional members. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Deetz moved and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Meeting Minutes from May 5, 2022 Ms. Deetz moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 5 , 2022, as written. There was no discussion. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Old Business Dangerous Buildings Process – Mr. Dave Helmick, Housing/Property Supervisor, and Senior Dangerous Building Inspector, gave a presentation on the dangerous building process the city follows. Mr. Helmick ’s presentation followed City Code in regards to dangerous buildings. “The purpose of a dangerous building ordinance is to provide a just, equitable and practical method for repairing, vacation or demolition of buildings or structures that may endanger life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the occupants of such buildings or the general public. This includes buildings that fall onto the public way, people that trespass into properties, and people that occupy those structures legally as well.” Sec. 8-82. - Dangerous buildings defined  All buildings or structures that are detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City of Jefferson and that have any or all of the following defects shall be deemed "dangerous buildings": A. Those with interior walls or other vertical structural members that list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity falls outside the middle third of its base. B. Those that, exclusive of the foundation, show 33 percent or more damage or deterioration of the supporting member or members, or 50 percent damage or deterioration of the non-supporting enclosing or outside walls or covering. C. Those that have improperly distributed loads upon the floors or roofs, or in which the same are overloaded or that have insufficient strength to be reasonably safe for the purpose used. D. Those that have been damaged by fire, wind, or other causes so as to become dangerous to life, safety, or the general health and welfare of the occupants or the people of the City. E. Those that are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe, unsanitary, or that so utterly fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living that they are unfit for human habitation, or are likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the health, safety, or welfare of those occupying such building. F. Those buildings built in violation of any safety provision of the building code, electrical code, plumbing code, mechanical code, minimum housing standards code, or the fire prevention code of the City, or used in violation thereof. G. Those having light, air, and sanitation facilities that are inadequate to protect the health, safety, or general welfare of human beings who live or may live therein. H. Those having inadequate facilities for egress in case of fire or panic or those having insufficient stairways, elevators, fire escapes, or other adequate means of evacuation. I. Those that have parts thereof that are so attached that they may fall and injure members of the public or property. J. Those that are a fire hazard, existing or erected, in violation of the terms of this article or any ordinance of this City or statute of the State of Missouri. K. Those that because of their condition are unsafe, unsanitary, or dangerous to the health, safety, or general welfare of the people of this City. Mr. Helmick stated that the dangerous building process is very long and in-depth. He stated that Code Enforcement does not go out looking for dangerous properties. Instead, they are alerted by the Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Mental Health, Animal Control, and other agencies that there is an issue at a property. Code Enforcement then inspects the property and issues a notice to the owner of the property which allows them 30 days to commence action on abating the dangerous conditions at the respective property. At that point, the owner has the option of starting repairs. If no action is commenced after 30 days a hearing is called. If the owner is reachable the hearing has to be scheduled out a minimum of 15 days out. If the owner cannot be reached via certified mail then the hearing is published in the newspaper for 4 consecutive weeks at least 45 days in advance of the hearing. 3 Mr. Helmick stated that a written notice goes to all involved parties including banks with liens and others listed on the title report. At the end of the hearing, the finding of fact is issued by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer can find that in fact the property is in violation of the ordinance and gives 30 days for the property owner to commence corrective actions on the repairs. If the owner complies, the case is closed and the City monitors corrective actions. If the owner is non-compliant, the City will take the following steps: The City abates the violations: The City receives bids and commences repairs. • The city secures the structure and prepares for possible future abatement • The owner may receive a summons to appear in Municipal Court for misdemeanor offenses. • If the cost to repair is 50% or more of the assessed value of the structure the City shall demolish the dangerous structure. Sec. 8-87. A & RSMO 67.410 Mr. Helmick stated the entire process takes 4-6 months to get to the point of City action. Due to the lack of funding, many properties sit secured waiting for future abatement. Mr. Helmick stated that from January 2019-January 2022, the City has declared 94 structures dangerous under Chapter 8 Article VI Dangerous Building Regulations. Of the 94 structures:  49 remain active and in some stage of the process.  45 are closed  33 were closed due to the owner of the property commencing action and removing the dangerous conditions  12 were abated by the City after non-compliance from the owners • 2 Fire Burns • 1 Unsanitary Condition • 9 Structural issues – storm damage, neglect, structural failure. Of the 49, we received funding for, two more buildings have been approved to be demolished this year. Mr. Helmick presented example photos of dangerous buildings for example. Questions and answers during Mr. Helmick’s presentation: 1. How do you find out about these? How does it get to this point if these are rentals? Are they actually getting rent? What about the City’s rental program? If it gets to this point because the owners are negligent and don't follow up on their properties. Yes, they get their checks and don’t follow up. Some are local, some are located out of town, or do not care. Overall, there is a lack of responsibility by the owners. As far as the city rental program, the city is only allowed to do exterior inspections of rental properties unless we are alerted to conditions that warrant us coming inside because of concern of violation of the 4th and 14th amendments of the constitution. 2. What about situations with squatters? Unless it is an abandoned property that is posted as “No Trespassing”, squatters, once they are there and have lived there, they have the same rights as any other tenant. 3. The Housing Authority has inspectors. Do they report to you? How does that work? The Housing Authority is a separate entity, I do not have the authority to go into a housing unit unless they ask us to come in. There have been some situations where our assistance has been requested, but normally, they are their own entity. 4 4. Are you the agency, that went in and inspected Ms. Buescher’s property, so to speak, and if any of these conditions were found there, were you the agency that evicted her? Ms. Buescher was not evicted. Her house was deemed uninhabitable under Chapter 8-80. What that means is that she cannot return to occupy that structure until it is under a legal condition. Currently, the status of the building is “uninhabitable, once she gets it back to a habitable state, she is welcome to move back in. Eviction is what happens when you have a legal proceeding through the court, and you remove somebody and tell them they can’t come back. The city does not do evictions, we don’t help with evictions, and we have nothing to do with evictions. We worry about life, safety, and the people that are in that structure. So, yes, I was the one that went into Ms. Buescher’s house with a search warrant and found the conditions that forced her to vacate that structure. She was given notice, she chose not to vacate, so we went there, told her she should leave, stickered it, and she left of her own accord. She walked out and requested that we take her to the police station and that was where she was taken. She wasn’t removed, she wasn’t’ evicted. 5. What happens when an owner “walks away” from a property? Does the city become the owner of that property? After three years, the property will be sold on the courthouse steps. If the city has to do any kind of action on this property, - demolitions, abatement, cutting weeds, stabilization, those things are all applied as a tax lien against the owner of the property. If they don’t pay them with their property taxes. If they are living or local, where we can get to them, we will apply a judgment against them. If they are a shell corp or inaccessible, the city will get any money spent back when the property sells. 6. What is the reasoning behind that three-year wait period after the city acquires the property? The city doesn’t actually acquire the property. What happens is, if the owner doesn’t pay the taxes after three years, the property is offered up for sale on the third Thursday in August. The people that buy them have to spend the next year trying to contact the owner of record. If the owner of record doesn’t come forward, they get a title stating that they are the new owner and they have to pay all of the back taxes and liens on the property. The only time the city actually acquires property is if the owner actually comes forward and says, “I can’t afford to do this, I want you to take it.” And they deed it over to the city. 7. If the cost of repairs is 50% or more, of the assessed value, and the legislature passed something regarding this. What does that mean? The Heritage Rule actually comes down to condemnation and acquiring properties. So, in the past, if an owner owned property for x amount of time, they got paid more money, if it was acquired through the courts. What that bill means, is if it is an issue where it is in a blighted neighborhood or something like that, it decreases the amount over what the fair market value is that would have to be paid, but that is only in cases where blight and things like that. So, it really doesn’t affect that 50% value, this is the standard that everyone uses for floodplains or things where if it is more than 50% of the value, it is not financially feasible to fix it up and that is just the way it has been adopted in the code. That is more for acquiring blighted properties and dilapidated properties. 8. So, the situation is that they would have to pay 50% more if it is a heritage property? So, if you owned a property that you ran into the ground by neglect, you would be rewarded with 50% more when somebody stepped in and tried to do something with it. 9. So would the properties on East Capitol fall under this? Yes, they would fall under this if the governor signs it. 5 New Business The committee reviewed the code updates from the previous meeting. Ms. Senzee outlined the changes made by the committee to several sections on page seven at the last meeting. After reviewing the changes, Ms. Trickey Cotton asked for a motion to approve the changes. Mr. Brown made a motion and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded the motion to approve the changes made to page seven of the code. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee proceeded to outline the changes made to page 8, Article V: Demolition proposed by the committee at the last meeting. As the committee read through the material, they asked how this applies to the properties on East Capitol and expressed their concerns about losing all these properties. Ms. Senzee proceeded to pull up the city’s website regarding East Capitol and the bill that was attached to acquisition/demolition changed the process so that it is now an ordinance, so city staff now have to bring in structural engineers to provide the assessment. So, if you have questions about East Capitol, it is on the main page, under News and Headlines and the staff keeps that updated with all changes. Ms. Senzee asked the committee that as they make decisions in regards to the demo codes, is to make the processes clear and transparent for both city staff to drive the process and also for citizens to know exactly what to do whenever they need to do demolition. Mr. Veile suggested to modify the section to give the HPC the opportunity to provide input to the process by adding, “the HPC shall not review demolition permits for buildings that have been declared dangerous, unless, the building is a designated local landmark or a contributing property in a recognized historic district. In those cases, the HPC will review the demolition permit to provide input and comment on the property, but shall have no role in the demolition process” Ms. Senzee asked that under what is written, does the committee want to strike this section instead of stating this. She then asked if they want to differentiate between the dangerous building process and the emergency process. If it is declared an emergency, there would not be a 30-day waiting period. Mr. Veile changed his amendment to state, “The HPC shall not review “emergency” demolition permits for buildings that have been declared hazardous.” Ms. Trickey asked the question, “If a property is not in a historical area, do they need to go before HPC? She referenced Westview Heights houses that are over 50 years old. Does that need to come before HPC? Is it necessary for everything like that to go before HPC”? Ms. Senzee stated, “that under the existing code, any property, whether it is residential or commercial if it is 50 years or older, it goes through HPC processes. This was discussed in the last meeting that if we have this process to become a local historic district or National Register district, is the property owner going to understand that they would have to go through the historic process if they are not within one of those categories? That was when we switched over the wording to say that HPC would only be reviewing designated historic properties. So, in the draft that was approved in the last meeting, it would state that demolitions will only be reviewed in designated historic areas and local landmarks”. Mr. Veile made a motion to change the language to read, ”The HPC shall not review “emergency” demolition permits for buildings that have been declared hazardous.” Mr. Jungmeyer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 6 Ms. Senzee next addressed Section B regarding contributing and non-contributing structures which the committee agreed to strike at the last meeting. The committee agreed with this strike. Ms. Senzee then outlined Section C which the committee struck and Section D which the committee left. Ms. Trickey-Cotton requested a motion to approve all of the changes made on page 8, as amended. Mr. Brown made the motion and Ms. Deetz seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee proceeded to the next section/page. As staff was reviewing it, they had a question about if they wanted to post the properties as far as a public hearing. That is something that is required in the zoning code and by state statute. So, there is nothing that says that we are required to post the property, so the question is, do you want staff to post the property that is getting demolished at least ten days prior to the hearing. Ms. Trickey Cotton asked what staff would think of that? Ms. Senzee stated that staff posts properties all of the time, so it is standard procedure. Ms. Trickey-Cotton stated that this made sense and the committee agreed with her. The next paragraph covers Determination. This paragraph has been highlighted and at the last meeting, Ryan Moehlman, City Attorney, stated that this paragraph is lacking standards. So, staff looked at other cities to see what their standards are. City staff included proposed criteria borrowed from other city codes for demolition. This covers the standards for what is approved and denied as taken from other cities. Ms. Senzee explained that all or some of these could be used. Mr. Viele stated that the criteria looked good to him and stated that the staff had put together a good list. Committee members read through the criteria closely and carefully. If the demolition is approved or denied, the reason has to tie back to the designated criteria. The HPC will decide to approve or deny. After discussion, it was decided that Sections A, B & and F would cover this under the listed criteria. Ms. Senzee explained that the criteria will be built into letter E as an integrated part of the code. Ms. Senzee reviewed letter F. Mr. Viele moved that the committee approve sections E & F. Mr. Jungmeyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Senzee asked the committee to look at the list of fees for permitting. On page four, there is a note highlighted that states until fees are established. This is for the purpose of the committee deciding what the fees will be which may be decided at the next meeting. Ms. Senzee asked the committee “ do you want a section specifically addressing emergency repairs, natural disasters, fire, and neglect? And this section would cover both buildings and demolitions. The other question staff has is covering “accessory” preservation. Do you want to look at signage, fences, landscaping, and ancillary structures in historic preservation? And how do you want to address enforcement? The committee agreed to put these items on the agenda for next meeting. Ms. Trickey verified attendance at the meeting at the July 7 meeting. Members confirmed their attendance. Mr. Viele asked if someone could send out a verification e-mail the week before. 7 Ms. Young gave the motion to adjourn and Mr. Jungmeyer seconded. The motion to adjourn was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.