Full Agenda Packet
HISTORIC COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010
FOURTH FLOOR TRAINING ROOM 416
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
18 NORTH JACKSON STREET
JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN
5:15 p.m.
1.Call to Order.
2.Comments from the Public.
3.Minutes of the December 14, 2009 regular meeting “C”
4. Continued discussion of proposed amendment to the “Denial of Certificate” section of the
Historic Overlay District section of the City of Janesville Zoning Ordinance, which
provides for a 6 month delay period.
5. Discussion of Events for Preservation Month ( May 2010)
6. Preview of Downtown Projects.
7. Matters Not on the Agenda.
Monday, January 25, 2010.
8. Next Meeting –
9. Adjournment.
** “C” Indicates an item that the Historic Commission will take up under
Consent Agenda.
Please call Tera Barnett (755-3085, barnettt@ci.janesville.wi.us) if you are unable to
attend the meeting.
City of Janesville Historic Commission Minutes
December 14, 2009
rd
Community Development Conference Room 3 Floor
18 N. Jackson St., Janesville, WI
Members Present:
Dan Atwood, Rich Fletcher, Bruce Dennis, Tim Maahs, Janine Peterson,
Others Present:
Susan Thompson, Kenneth Wolf, and City Staff; Brad Cantrell
1. Call to Order:
Rich Fletcher, commission chair, called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
2. Comments from Public:
None.
3. Minutes of the November 9, 2009 regular meeting. “C”:
A motion was made by Susan Thompson,
seconded by Tim Maahs to approve the consent agenda consisting of the minutes of the November 9
regular meeting. The motion carried.
4. Discussion of proposed amendment to the “Denial of Certificate” section of the Historic Overlay
District section of the City of Janesville Zoning Ordinance, which provides for a 6 month delay
period:
Rich Fletcher thanked everyone for attending for public comment meeting for the proposed
ordinance change. He asked Brad Cantrell to provide an overview of the historic overlay district. Brad
reported the Historic Overlay standards are part of the Zoning Ordinance. The overlay was created in the
mid 1980’s and has over 150 properties. The Historic Commission reviews proposed new/remodeled
exterior building plans within the district for a determination of adverse effect. The review is based on
the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Brad stated the goal is for the Commission and building owner to
reach consensus on the plans. If no consensus happens the Commission can deny the application. The
applicant must wait 6 months before going ahead with the project if they so choose. Brad stated this is
the second meeting to hear comment from property owners in the district. The city notified all property
owners so they would be able to review the proposed changes and provide feedback to the Commission.
The next step for the Commission is to take the proposed ordinance change to the City Council for
approval. Rich opened the floor for comments:
Comment: Bill Westfall, 102 Sinclair, asked if the proposed ordinance change would impact
property values with tax and assessment implications.
Response: The commission works with the property owner regarding budget issues. Brad Cantrell
stated the question would be better asked of the City Assessor’s office.
Comment: Bruce Monson, 602 E. Milwaukee Street wanted to know if this was a change based on
revitalization of the historic districts or enforcement tool for the city. Bruce stated
discussion with the owner needs to happen sooner related to potential projects and how
the ordinance would be applied.
Response: Rich Fletcher and Bruce Dennis, Commission members, replied about the process the
Commission goes through with the property owners stating the proposed ordinance
change does not impact the functioning of the commission. The Commission is not
comfortable with the 6-month delay and wants a proactive measure to protect the
integrity of the Overlay District.
Comment: Bruce Monson asked the Commission to consider changing the wording in the ordinance
related to the appeal process and the decision to review the appeal by the City Council.
Bruce stated the wording makes it sound like the City Council can decide not to hear it by
simply not acting. He would like to see the wording state the City Council must review
the appeal or kick it back the Commission for further action. Tom Westfall wondered
about constitutionality of the appeal protocol.
Response: Brad Cantrell stated Madison, Platteville and Beloit have similar ordinances. He stated
the proposed protocol for the appeal and review can be re-worded to reflect the
suggestion of Mr. Monson.
Comment: Roger Merry, 515 St. Lawrence Ave., asked who can be trusted to preserve the
neighborhoods stating the existing ordinance has an appearance of distrust of the owner.
He stated there is no accountability of the Commission and the restrictions would scare
buyers away in that the houses are expensive to maintain and rehab. The owners need
support from the city. This is a negative change.
Response: Bruce Dennis, commission member, responded how effective the commission has been
following the Department of Interior Guidelines. He also reviewed the expertise of the
Commission members. The proposed change reflects the 6-month delay period and
wanted the property owners’ view of the proposed change. Brad Cantrell stated the
Historic Commission reviews the exterior of the property only.
Comment: Kathy Albrecht, 515 St. Lawrence Ave. wondered about the other communities that have
a similar ordinance.
Response: Brad Cantrell stated the following cities have similar ordinances: Platteville, Madison,
Waukesha, and Beloit. He stated there is legal justification as communities have had
these types of ordinances since the mid 1970’s. He stated the protocol in Janesville has
been more collaborative in nature. He referred to the Landmark Commission in Madison
that recently denied the approval of the redevelopment of the Edgewater Hotel.
Comment: Bruce Monson stated this ordinance would work to protect the city from the type of work
that has been done on the Lovejoy home.
Comment: Val Saxer, 217 Atwood Ave., stated she owns her fourth home in the Courthouse Hill
District and supports the proposed change.
Comment: Bill Westfall stated this is a bad time to implement a change when the economy is doing
so poorly. The goal is good but from a property rights position bad.
Comment: Fred Harmon, 721 and 722 Milwaukee Ave. property owner stated he was in support of
the change. He also mentioned that Milwaukee Street has a lot of rental property and the
neighborhood could go either way. This change would help preserve the homes on this
street. He stated the committee is fair and has good representation of property owners
and expertise. What decisions the property owners make or do not make impacts
everyone in the neighborhood, not just the home of the owner making the change.
Comment: Roger Merry stated Janesville will turn in to a Vermont town that made a lot of changes
and rules that will potentially destroy the ability to sell the properties in the area and the
Historic Commission should not have executive power. This change would kill the
property values
Response: Rich Fletcher stated the city of Janesville has 20 years of experience behind us and each
property is looked at individually. Bruce Dennis stated it is good to change the wording
in the proposed change so the City Council would have to review the appeal. This
ordinance is a proactive move that will preserve our historical homes and preserve the
property values.
Comment: Pat Newland, 606 E. Court, stated he understood why the Commission wanted to make
the change but disliked being told what he could or could not do.
The Comment Period was closed by Historic Commission chair Rich Fletcher at 6:28 p.m.
5. Review of REVISED Certificate of Appropriateness 2009-03, 18 Sinclair.
Tim Maahs stated the
owner was residing a potion of the property, reducing the butt joints, and adding more fish scale in the
areas that exceeded 16’. Bruce Dennis stated the revised certificate changes would not alter anything in a
significant way. Craig Pope, owner, stated he would consider the color and found the Historic
Commission very helpful and stated is concern with some of the statements made during the public
comment period for the proposed ordinance change. A motion was made by Bruce Dennis and seconded
by Tim Maahs to approve the proposed changes and grant a certificate of appropriateness. The motion
carried.
6. Preview of Downtown Projects:
None
7. Matters Not on the Agenda:
Rich wanted to put the topic of the May Preservation workshop on the
next meeting agenda.
8. Next Meeting:
It was agreed to cancel the December 28, 2009 meeting. The next meeting of the
Historic Commission will be held January 11, 2010.
9. Adjournment:
Bruce Dennis motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Ken Wolf seconded the
motion and the motion was carried.
18.36.070
2. H - Historic Overlay District.
a. Intent and Purpose
. It is hereby declared a matter of public
policy that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements and sites of
historic significance constitutes a public necessity and are required in the interest of health,
prosperity, safety and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this section is to:
i
. Identify those improvements, sites or neighborhoods which
embody elements of the City's architectural, cultural, economic, social and political history;
ii
. Safeguard, preserve and enhance those improvements,
sites, or neighborhoods containing such heritage with an historic overlay zoning district
designation;
iii.
Stabilize and improve property values and protect and
enhance the city's attractiveness and livability to residents, tourists and visitors;
iv
. Promote the use of such historic districts for the education
and enjoyment of the residents of the city by fostering civic pride in the aesthetic and noble
accomplishments of the past;
v
. Protect the visual and architectural characteristics of
historic structures and sites within the historic districts by reviewing and making
recommendations regarding any construction, alteration or demolition of such improvements.
b. Scope
. The provisions of this section do not apply to the interior
of any improvement or to any alteration or demolition of any interior portion of any such
improvement which would not affect the safety, structural integrity, or appearance of the exterior
of such improvement. The provisions of this section do not apply to the exterior portion of any
improvement not subject to public view.
c. Janesville Historic Commission.
i. Membership
. An Historic Commission is established
which shall consist of seven members who shall be selected by the Council President and be
approved by the Common Council. Such membership representing a cross-section of the
community shall possess pertinent expertise or interest. Of the initial members so appointed, two
shall serve a term of one year, two shall serve a term of two years and three shall serve a term of
three years. Thereafter, the term for each member shall be three years. The Council President
shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Citizen Advisory Committee on
Appointments when making appointments to the Historic Commission.
ii. Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of the Historic
Commission.
The historic commission shall have and
I.
To make recommendations to the common council
that certain areas be designated as historic districts;
II
. To develop an historic overlay district plan for each
district designated;
III
. To establish guidelines and develop criteria for
construction, alteration, or demolition of improvements within an historic district;
IV
. To determine an appropriate system of markers for
designated historic districts;
V.
To advise and assist owners, occupants or persons in
charge of improvements in an historic district regarding physical and financial aspects of
preservation, renovation, rehabilitation and reuse;
18-149 (Janesville 1/09)
18.36.070
VI
. To review any applications for a certificate of
appropriateness and to require the presentation of such plans, drawings, elevations and other
information as may be reasonably necessary for such review;
VII.
To grant or deny a certificate of appropriateness to
any applicant;
VIII.
To issue a statement of waiver when required by this
section.
IX
. To obtain certification of this ordinance title with the
State Preservation Officer and with the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, in
order to permit historic structures to qualify under this title for applicable benefits under the Tax
Reform Act of 1976;
X.
To develop and implement rules of procedure for
hearings and meetings convened by the historic commission;
XI
. To promote community education, interest and
support for the preservation and enhancement of such historic districts.
d. Designation of Historic Overlay Districts.
i.
The common council may designate by ordinance,
individual parcels of land or entire neighborhoods as an historic overlay district.
ii.
The historic commission may select and recommend to the
common council geographically defined areas within the city to be designated as historic overlay
districts.
e. Development of Historic Overlay District Plan.
i.
The historic Commission may, with the assistance of the
city planning department, prepare an historic district plan in ordinance form for each area
recommended to be designated as an historic overlay district.
ii
. The historic Commission may establish guidelines and
develop criteria for the historic overlay district plan including, but not limited to, the following
items:
I
. The height, gross volume, roof design and
architectural details of any new or altered structure;
II.
The proportion between a building's width, height,
and fenestration;
III.
The building masses and the spaces between them;
IV
. Materials, texture, colors and patterns used in
improvement;
V
. The landscaping;
VI
. Visual compatibility with related elements of the
improvement and with other improvements within the historic overlay district.
iii.
The city plan commission shall review an historic district
plan, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the common council.
iv
. The common council may adopt such historic overlay
district plan for a designated historic overlay district.
18-150
18.36.070
f. Regulation of Construction, Alteration, and Demolition of an
Improvement.
i. Application
. Any application for a permit for any
proposed construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement within an historic district
shall be filed with the building official. The building official shall, within three working days of
receipt of the application, forward a copy of the application and plans, if any, to the secretary of
the historic commission.
ii. Certificate of Appropriateness or Statement of Waiver
Required.
No construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement shall be allowed within
an historic district unless a certificate of appropriateness or statement of waiver has been issued
by the historic commission for such construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement.
iii. Permit
. No permit shall be issued by the city for any
proposed construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement within an historic district
unless there has been a certificate of appropriateness or statement of waiver issued by the historic
commission for such proposed construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement.
g. Certificate of Appropriateness.
i. Granting of Certificate
. The historic commission shall
grant or deny a certificate of appropriateness within thirty days of the filing of an application. If
the historic commission grants such certificate, then within three business days of such decision,
a certificate of appropriateness shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed, by regular mail, to
the applicant. If the Construction, alteration or demolition has not commenced within one year
after the date of issuance of the certificate of appropriateness, the certificate shall expire.
ii. Denial of Certificate
. If the historic commission reviews
an application and finds it inconsistent with the criteria in Section 18.36.070 B.2.g.iii it may
deny the application and refuse to issue a certificate of appropriateness. If the Commission
denies the application, then within three business days of such decision, written notice of the
denial shall be mailed, by regular mail, to the applicant. The historic commission may refuse to
grant a certificate of appropriateness for a period not to exceed six months from the date of the
original denial. Within thirty days after the end of the six month period, the historic commission
shall issue either a certificate of appropriateness or a statement of waiver which shall be mailed,
by regular mail, to the applicant.
18-151
18.36.070
iii. Criteria for Granting or Denying Certificate of
Appropriateness.
I
. In reviewing an application for a certificate of
appropriateness, the historic commission shall consider the following items:
(A) The appropriateness to the historic district of the
proposed construction, alteration or demolition of an improvement;
(B) Whether such proposed construction, alteration, or
demolition of an improvement will further the purposes of this section;
(C) The historical significance of the improvement;
(D) The architectural value;
(E) The unique design, arrangement, texture, material, or
color of the building, place or area in question;
(F) The relation of such improvement to other
improvements in the immediate area;
(G) The position of such improvement in relation to the
street or public way;
(H) The appearance of the proposed construction,
alteration, or demolition from the public view;
(I) Such specific design standards as the historic
commission may recommend and the common council adopt as an historic overlay district plan;
(J) Visual compatibility with related elements of the
improvement and with other improvements within the historic overlay district.
II
. The historic commission shall decide upon the
issuance of a certificate of appropriateness by reference to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation," as published in 1979, in section 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 67, and as
amended. The "Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" are hereby adopted by
reference.
III
. The historic commission shall not deny the issuance
of a certificate of appropriateness whenever the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
construction, alteration or demolition of an improvement will enhance or is not inconsistent with the
inherent historic value of the historic district.
18-152
18.36.070
h. Statement of Waiver.
i.
If the historic commission fails to act upon an application
for a certificate of appropriateness within thirty days of filing of the application, unless such time
limit is extended by mutual agreement in writing, such failure to act shall constitute a waiver by
the historic commission of any requirements for a certificate of appropriateness.
ii
. If the historic commission fails to mail to the applicant
notice of the granting or denial of a certificate of appropriateness within three business days of
that decision, such failure shall constitute a waiver by the historic commission of any
requirement for a certificate of appropriateness.
iii
. In the event of any such waiver by the historic commission,
it shall issue a statement of waiver to the applicant within thirty days after such waiver is brought
to the attention of the historic commission.
iv
. If the construction, alteration, or demolition has not
commenced within one year after the date of issuance of the statement of waiver, the statement
shall expire.
i. Appeals.
i
. If the historic commission denies a certificate of
appropriateness, the applicant may appeal such denial to the city council plan commission.
ii.
An appeal of a denial of the historic commission shall be
filed in writing with the building official secretary of the plan commission within thirty days of
the mailing of the notice of denial to the applicant.
iii.
The city council plan commission may affirm, overrule or
modify an historic commission decision within thirty days of the receipt of the applicant's written
appeal. Failure of the city council plan commission to act upon an appeal of an historic
commission decision within such period of time shall constitute a denial of such appeal. If the
city council plan commission overrules or modifies an historic commission decision, such city
council plan commission decision shall have an effective date fifteen days from the date of the
city council plan commission decision. On such effective date, the historic commission shall
issue a statement of waiver.
iv
. Time periods tolled: The six-month time period, following
a denial of a certificate of appropriateness by the historic commission and during which a certificate
of appropriateness or statement of waiver may not be issued, shall be tolled during the pendency of
any appeal by the applicant.
j. Assistance by the Historic Commission
. When the applicant for
a permit for a proposed construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement within an
historic district is denied a certificate of appropriateness, the historic commission shall, at the
request of the applicant, assist the applicant in preparing an application for a certificate of
appropriateness which shall meet the standards and criteria of the historic commission, which
shall comply with the provisions of the historic overlay district plan, if any, and which shall
comply with the provisions of this section. Such assistance may continue during the six-month
denial period. If no certificate of appropriateness has been granted to the applicant by the end of
such period, a statement of waiver shall be issued and the building official may issue a permit as
requested.
18-153
18.36.070
k. Failure Of Applicant to Attempt to Comply with Historic
Commission Criteria.
In the event the applicant makes no attempt to discuss with the historic
commission alternatives to save the subject property or to comply with historic commission
criteria for construction, alteration or demolition, the historic commission may appeal to the plan
commission for one additional stay of construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition.
Such historic commission appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the plan
commission prior to the expiration of the original six-month delay period and shall be acted on
by the plan commission within thirty days after receipt of the written appeal. The plan
commission may deny such appeal or grant such appeal for an additional delay period of not
more than six months. The burden of showing that the applicant has not attempted to discuss
alternatives with the historic commission shall be upon the historic commission. Upon expiration
of any additional delay period, the historic commission shall issue a statement of waiver and the
building official may issue the permit as requested
.