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.