Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-07-07 minutesCity 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. 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. 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..