Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-09-01 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Code Revision Committee Minutes Regular Meeting – Thursday, September 1, 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 Holly Stitt Stacey Young Committee Members Absent Gregory Butler Glover Brown Council Liaison Laura Ward Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Dawn Kirchner, Neighborhood Services Specialist Call to Order Ms. Trickey Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Young made a motion to adopt the agenda. Ms. Stitt seconded. The agenda was unanimously adopted. Approval of Meeting Minutes from July 7, 2022 Ms. Veile made a motion to approve the July 7, 2022 minutes. Mr. Schaefer seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 2 Old Business Ms. Senzee began the meeting with a wrap-up of the demolition and dangerous building process. After meeting with Dave Helmick and Ryan Moehlman to discuss changing the HPC code to state that the HPC would be notified ahead of time when they start the dangerous building process, instead of reviewing them after the process begins. The Code Enforcement Dangerous Building code already includes the HPC in its notification process under “other entities.” This would create the action of Code enforcement notifying the HPC. Ms. Deetz moved to adopt the wording as written, and Ms. Young seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee moved on to discuss Article V, (1) second paragraph which states, “The Historic Preservation Committee 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.” This is for immediate dangers like fire and building collapse. Ms. Deetz moved to accept the addition, and Ms. Young seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Senzee discussed fees for applications. The committee discussed setting fees for applications. The committee decided that each defined historic designation should have a different fee. Setting fees for local historic districts, local landmarks, and historic legacy districts were discussed. After considerable discussion, Ms. Trickey-Cotten proposed that city staff put together a fee structure for these applications and bring it before the Committee at the next meeting. New Business Ms. Senzee discussed Article I, Section A – In General – There was a discussion about moving number 5 to the beginning and changing the wording on number four to state, “as funding may be available, provided for economic benefits to encourage business and residential owners to locate and invest in historically significant properties”, and change the wording on number 7 to state, “promoting the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, enjoyment, and welfare of the people of the City.” Mr. Veile made a motion to accept the changes proposed above. Ms. Stitt seconded the motion. The committee passed the motion with one “Nay” from Dr. Greene who stated that she thinks the wording is fine the way it is and does not see the need to make the changes. The next item on the agenda was Article I, Section B – Applicability – This chapter and applies to all properties in the City of Jefferson’s local historic districts, National Register Districts, individually listed National Register properties and local landmarks. There was discussion about what to do about properties that do not fall into these categories, but the committee could not come to a resolution. The HPC would have to find funds to make them registered historic properties. Mr. Veile moved that this item be held until the next meeting, and Ms. Stitt seconded it. The motion was carried by the Ayes. Ms. Trickey-Cotten and Dr. Greene voted “Nay” on the motion to wait because they think this process needs to be moved along. Ms. Senzee moved on to Article II – Responsibilities and Procedures was removed because these are already well represented under the Responsibilities and Procedures within each section of the code. 3 Dr. Greene moved to accept the removal of Article II. Ms. Deetz seconded it. The Ayes carried the motion. Ms. Senzee moved on to Article IV, Section (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. This is a mechanism for people to move quickly to repair their property in case of emergencies. Ms. Stitt made the motion to approve. Ms. Deetz seconded it. The Ayes carried the motion. Ms. Senzee moved on to page 12. It was requested at the last meeting that number 11 be removed because it is redundant. It was also recommended that the last sentence in letter (d) be removed because this is covered in Chapter 8 of the Building Codes. On page 13, (e) was updated to state, “If the application for demotion 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.” Section 5 regarding signs, fences, and landscaping was discussed at the last meeting and it was decided by this committee to incorporate those items into the design standards of the local historic district. Ms. Deetz moved to accept these changes as stated. Ms. Stitt seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. The last article covered was Article V. Enforcement – Staff worked on two options to present to the committee to determine which way they want to enforce this action. Option 1 – Municipal Court Action – The Director may issue a General Ordinance Complaint to the violator requiring an appearance in the Municipal Court for abatement of the violation. Option 2 – Administrative hold on issuing permits for violators – 1) Violators would be placed on administrative hold from receiving building permits for one year. 2) 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. Ms. Senzee explained that the committee could choose one or both of these options. There was a discussion on preventing people from getting their permits for one year. The committee discussed changing the wording in Option 2 to read – Violators will be placed on administrative hold from receiving building permits for “up to” one year and let the administrator decide. The committee discussed putting violators through the Administrative Hold as the first option and then going through the Municipal Court Action if they do not follow the Administrative process. Mr. Veile made a motion to recommend two options – Option #1) Administrative hold as written but amended to improve the language to state “up to” one year and include both points; and Option #2) Municipal Court Action, as discussed above and bring it back to the committee. Ms. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Trickey-Cotten opened it up for discussion and Mr. Schaefer asked who determines the “up to” one year. Ms. Trickey-Cotten requested that staff look at how other cities do this. 4 The motion was passed with the conditions to look at other cities’ policies, reordering the policy, and rewriting the language. The next meeting will be held on October 6, 2022, in the Boone Bancroft Room at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Trickey Cotten asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Deetz gave the motion to adjourn, and Ms. Young seconded. The motion to adjourn was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.