#2 Public hearing and action on proposed changes to Historic Overlay District ordinance (File Revised Ord. #2010-453)
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: June 14, 2010
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Duane Cherek, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance
amending Section 15.01.100(B) and various provisions of Section
18.36.070 B.2 (Historic Overlay District) of the Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Janesville (Revised File Ordinance No. 2010-
453).
_____________________________________________________________________
Summary
The Historic Commission is proposing two ordinance changes that apply to the Historic
Overlay Districts within the City of Janesville. The first change requires a property
owner to obtain a building permit for any proposed removal of original architectural
features or design elements affecting the exterior of a structure within the Historic
Overlay District. The second change amends the current ordinance which allows the
Historic Commission to delay the issuance of a building permit for up to 6 months if it
believes an exterior building change would be detrimental to the building’s architecture
and/or inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards of historic preservation.
This change would make the Historic Commission’s decision to deny a permit
application final unless the applicant appeals the decision to the Plan Commission or
City Council, which may affirm or overturn the Historic Commission’s decision.
The revised ordinance was prepared following input and discussion from property
owners within Historic Overlay District, and prior review of a draft ordinance presented
to the Plan Commission at a public hearing held on 5 April 2010. The attached
ordinance has been revised in a manner that provides an interim appeals process to
Historic Commission decisions. If a property owner is aggrieved by a Historic
Commission decision, the owner can first appeal the decision to the Plan Commission
for their review and action. If the appeal is not overturned by Plan Commission, the
owner may then appeal the decision to the City Council.
Department Recommendation
Following the public hearing, the Plan Commission and Community Development
Department recommend that the City Council support a motion to adopt Revised
Ordinance No. 2010-453 amending the Code of General Ordinances that apply to the
Historic Overlay Districts in the City of Janesville.
City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager defers to the Plan Commission.
Suggested Motion
A motion to adopt Revised Ordinance No. 2010-453 amending the Code of General
Ordinances that apply to the Historic Overlay Districts in the City of Janesville.
Analysis
A. The Current Ordinance
The City adopted the Historic Overlay District regulations as part of the 1981 update of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The overlay district includes standards which are
designed to protect the architecturally significant features of historic structures within the
district. The ordinance sets forth a process that requires a home owner to apply for a
building permit to alter the exterior features of their home. The building plans are then
reviewed by the Historic Commission for consistency with established standards. The
purpose for this review is to allow the Historic Commission to provide guidance and
technical assistance to property owners in the alteration process whereby the
Commission acts as an advisor to facilitate those who want to make exterior
improvements but may not know what that involves or how it should be accomplished.
If the Commission finds that the proposed construction, alteration or demolition is
appropriate, it authorizes what is known as a Certificate of Appropriateness and a
building permit can be issued. Consequently, if the building plans are found to be
inappropriate with the preservation criteria established by the ordinance, a permit is not
granted and the Historic Commission will work with the applicant to reach consensus on
an acceptable alternative. If no consensus can be reached and the applicant desires to
proceed with their building plans, a permit can be issued six-months following the denial
and the applicant can move forward with the project.
It is important to note the Historic Commission only reviews exterior adjustments to
historic structures, and that review is limited to properties located within an overlay
district. The Courthouse Hill District represents the largest regulated district in the City
containing 346 total buildings with 274 listed as contributing structures. In addition,
there are 4 individually listed buildings which are in overlay districts including 10 South
High (The Armory Dinner Theater), 221 West Milwaukee (Interior Home Furnishings),
210 Dodge (Kealey Pharmacy) and 201 East Milwaukee (Carriage Works – Allan
Building).
B. History of Commission Action and Appeals
The current ordinance has been in place for 29 years and has a history of performing
very well over that period. Since it was adopted, approximately 126 certificate of
appropriateness applications have been reviewed and only 4 requests have been
denied by the Historic Commission. Two of the four denials resulted in owners following
through with actual exterior building improvements and/or demolition. Only one appeal
to the Plan Commission within the 6 month period occurred and that request was
approved with conditions. The Commission’s record regarding the number of permits
issued and the relatively few appeals filed demonstrate the Commission has been
reasonable in their approach under the current ordinance. It also illustrates that the
Commission has been effective in applying the Department of Interior Guidelines for
Historic Preservation and technical expertise of the Commission members.
C. The Ordinance Amendment Proposal
The Commission is proposing this ordinance change in order to make their decision
final rather than advisory for exterior building alterations. The Commission believes that
a stronger ordinance would provide further protections to historic structures within the
designated overlay districts. A more proactive ordinance would provide a necessary
safety net for the limited number of instances where the Commission is not successful
in protecting buildings (i.e. cases where no agreement on improvements occurs and
the property owner waits the six months). The proposed ordinance would also more
specifically define removal of architectural details or elements that would now require a
building permit prior to removal. This is aimed at preventing the loss of original
architectural features without review.
On April 5 the Plan Commission held a public hearing on a draft ordinance (Ordinance
No. 2010-453). A number of residents from the Courthouse Hill Historic District offered
comments and suggestions during the public hearing, and members of the Plan
Commission expressed various concerns about the proposed amendment. Based on
those concerns, a revised ordinance was drafted, presented to the Plan Commission on
April 19 and then recommended for Council introduction.
D. The Revised Ordinance
The revised ordinance provides an alternative appeals process to Historic Commission
decisions. If the Historic Commission denies a building permit and cannot reach
consensus with an owner on agreeable improvements, the property owner can first
appeal the decision to the Plan Commission. Following a public hearing, the Plan
Commission can affirm, modify or overrule the Historic Commission’s decision. If the
Plan Commission overrules the Historic Commission’s decision, it is final. However, if
the Plan Commission modifies or affirms the decision, the owner may appeal the
decision to the City Council who ultimately would make a final decision on an appeal.
Staff believes the ordinance, in its revised form, includes an appeal process that
provides reasonable recourse for a property owner aggrieved by a Historic Commission
decision. Plan Commission review of appeals as an initial step in the appeal process
would allow the Plan Commission to balance the interests of both the Historic
Commission and property owner in the review of a dispute. Under this approach, Plan
Commission could overturn a Historic Commission decision, and that decision would be
final. It would also provide a property owner with an additional appeal opportunity
before the City Council in the event that Plan Commission affirms or modifies a
decision. Both the Plan Commission and/or the Council could overturn a decision if it
believes the Historic Commission has gone too far in its building permit review authority.
And lastly, based on the Historic Commission’s past practice and record, staff does not
anticipate any appreciable increase in appeals to occur as a result of this action.
Staff supports elimination of the 6-month delay within a Historic Overlay District. Staff
believes that preservation of the City’s significant architectural resources has been
identified in the neighborhood plans (Look West & Old Fourth Ward Neighborhood
Revitalization Plan and the Downtown Vision Strategy) as important to the character of
the City and makes Janesville a special place. Staff further believes that a homeowner
should not have the right to wait 6 months and do whatever they please with these
significant architectural resources. The appeal process as provided gives the Plan
Commission, and the City Council if necessary, the ability to arbitrate whether these
proposed changes go too far and should be denied. Even the opponents agreed that
the recent changes of removal of the architectural details on the Lovejoy House should
not have been done. The proposed amendment would provide a means to have this
type of change thoroughly reviewed by not only the Historic Commission but the Plan
Commission and City Council, if the owner wanted to appeal such an exterior building
change.
E. Impact on Property Values
Questions were asked during the public meeting session about the financial impact of
requiring exterior renovations which are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards. For instance, would property taxes increase if the standards were followed
rather than using vinyl siding, or removing architectural details to make building
maintenance easier. Staff consulted with the City Assessor to gain better insight on the
potential financial impact. In theory, renovating a historic home by repairing, refinishing
or replacing items with like materials should maintain or increase that property’s value.
Logically we should expect to see value differences between historic homes that have
been renovated in a manner to preserve the overall character versus those that have
been renovated in a manner that diminishes or removes the historic detail. Value,
however, is established by the marketplace (sellers and buyers) and it is influenced by
many dynamic factors that ultimately determine how property tax is affected.
Staff believes that implementing the ordinance change will enhance the preservation of
historic properties and property values, as well as serve to further protect this
distinguishing element of the City’s history and community fabric.
F. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of historic preservation and
maintaining the architecture of the City’s downtown and residential neighborhoods. A
plan goal states “Celebrate and preserve the culture and history of the City of Janesville
to advance the City’s quality of life and potential as a destination.” The following
objective and policies function to address this goal.
Objective: “Market the history and culture of Janesville to help build up the area’s
potential as a unique and attractive destination.
Policy: Help preserve historic homes, structures and districts that contribute to the
cultural heritage of Janesville, focusing on existing historic districts and buildings.
The proposed ordinance gives the Historic Commission additional leverage to convince
property owners that significant changes to buildings not only affect their property but
the character of the neighborhood as a whole. The ordinance, however, provides a
safety valve for appeals to the Plan Commission and Council so that Historic
Commission decisions remain reasonable and consistent with the values of the
community.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES – MAY 17, 2010
Duane Cherek, Planning Services Manager, presented the written staff report and
explained the handout that he distributed to the members. Commissioner Voskuil
mentioned that with 126 applicants within 29 years, only 4 had actually challenged an
Historic Commission decision.
The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared to speak on this
item:
?
Dan Swanson, 303 South Parker Drive, stated that he objected to the creation of the
original Historic Overlay District Ordinance and believes that property owners have
rights and should be relied upon to make the right decision regarding their property.
He stated that the historic homes are costly to repair and matching materials are
either not available or too expensive to acquire so he has made his own materials in
the past but not everyone has the ability to do that. He believes that the ordinance
changes would be a roadblock for property owners within the overlay district.
Commissioner Perrotto asked if the work Mr. Swanson did to his home required Historic
Commission approval. Mr. Swanson indicated that he wasn’t sure but thought it may
have required a permit. Mr. Swanson indicated home repairs are the responsibility of
the homeowner and that not everyone is able to craft their own replacement pieces so
it’s an additional burden on the homeowner to require them to restore the homes rather
than repair them.
?
Jackie Wood, 119 South Wisconsin Street, stated that she is in favor of the
ordinance as it will protect historic homes that will never be built again and it’s
important to preserve and maintain the wonderful architecture on Courthouse Hill.
?
Dan Atwood, 215 South Division Street, stated that he is a member of the Historic
Commission and endorses the ordinance as it will allow the commission to continue
to work with homeowners to show them what is appropriate or not for the historic
district; it will provide an appeal process for the homeowners giving them two
chances to present their case and will cover other overlay districts in the future. He
suggested that if the ordinance change was approved, and an appeal was made to
the Plan Commission, that the Plan Commission visit the property before reviewing
and voting on the appeal.
?
Bill Westphal, 102 Sinclair, stated concerns about the changes in technology,
because of the modernizing of techniques by suppliers, that make it difficult for home
builders and home owners to repair historic homes with traditional stick construction.
He asked who would decide when the market for materials isn’t available for these
repairs.
?
Jim Ryan, 117 South Division Street, indicated support for the ordinance and added
that substitute materials are available when repairing the homes and the Historic
Commission works with applicants on that.
?
Roger Merry, 515 St. Lawrence, stated that he is opposed to the amendment and
that the City needs to allow market forces to be at work and resale value will drive
what gets improved on a property.
?
Steven Lyon, 220 E. Van Buren, stated that he was in favor of the ordinance
because the Historic Commission has been reasonable when approving requests
and working with people to maintain the character of their home while allowing
substitute materials. He added that some homeowners are interested in maintaining
the historic character of their homes.
?
Deb Wood, 17 South Atwood, stated that she was in favor of the ordinance changes,
that she moved here from Madison to live in the historic neighborhood and would
like the integrity of the neighborhood maintained. She added that she does not see
this as restrictive to property owner rights but instead believes that the Historic
Commission is supportive to homeowners and have made reasonable suggestions.
She believes the amendment changes would be proactive and positive.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Helgerson stated that she lives in the historic overlay district and recently
had a home project approved by the Historic Commission and that they were easy to
work with. She indicated that she supports the amendment which she believes will
protect all of these homes over multiple years, multiple owners and multiple styles of
architecture
There was a motion by Commissioner Perrotto with a second by Commissioner Voskuil
to forward this amendment to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Commissioner Perrotto added that he was a strong proponent of property owners, that
he believes that their rights are protected by this amendment and that the words
“feasible” and “reasonable” should be applied in all situations when working with the
Historic Commission.
Commissioner Voskuil stated that development of this amendment did not occur
because of past appeals, as there haven’t been many, but instead because of a certain
situation. She stated that the Historic Commission is not the enemy; they want to help
to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood as do the property owners. She believes
that this ordinance is fair for all.
The motion carried on a 6-0-0 vote.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jay Winzenz
Brad Cantrell
REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2010-453
An ordinance amending JGO 15.01.100(B) and various provisions of JGO 18.36.070.2 (H-
Historic Overlay District) to now provide for appeals of Historic Commission decisions to the
Plan Commission or the Common Council, with other changes, with penalties and injunctive
relief for violations thereof, together with the cost of prosecution, all in the manner set forth in
JGO 18.80.150 and Chapter 18.28, respectively.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
Section 15.01.100(B) of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Historic Overlay District. In addition to the permits required for
alterations and changes which affect buildings, any structure included in any Historic Overlay
District shall be required to obtain a building permit for the installation of siding, and windows
and removal of original architectural details representative of an architecture style, a unique
design element or material; however, there shall be no permit fee required.
SECTION II.
Section 18.36.070.2.g.ii. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows:
ii. Denial of Certificate
. If the hHistoric cCommission reviews an
application and finds it inconsistent with the criteria set forth in Section 18.36.070 B.2.g.iii, the
Commission may deny the application and refuse to issue a certificate of appropriateness. If
the Commission denies the application, then within three (3) business days of such decision,
written notice of the denial shall be sent, 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.
I.
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. If the applicant chooses to work with the Historic Commission and no mutually
agreeable method is determined and both parties appear to be deadlocked on the issue, the
applicant may appeal the Historic Commission’s decision to the Plan Commission or Common
Council, as provided for in Section 18.36.070 B.2.i.
SECTION III.
Section 18.36.070 B.2.i. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville are hereby amended to read as follows:
i. Appeals.
i
. If the hHistoric cCommission denies a certificate of
appropriateness, the applicant may appeal such denial to the Plan Commission or to the
Common Council as provided in this section.
ii.
An appeal of a denial of the hHistoric cCommission shall
be filed in writing with the secretary of the Plan Commission within thirty days of the mailing of
the notice of denial to the applicant.
REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2010-453
PAGE 2
iii.
The Plan Commission who, following a public hearing, may
affirm, overrule or modify an Historic Commission decision within thirty days of the receipt of the
applicant's written appeal. If the Plan Commission overrules the Historic Commission, its
decision is final. Failure of the 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
Plan Commission overrules or modifies an hHistoric cCommission decision, such Plan
Commission decision shall have an effective date fifteen (15) days from the date of the Plan
Commission decision. On such effective date, the hHistoric cCommission shall issue a
statement of waiver.
iv.
If the Plan Commission affirms, modifies or fails to act
upon an appeal of an Historic Commission’s decision any owner whose property is affected by a
decision may appeal such decision to the Common Council who, following a public hearing, may
affirm, overrule, or modify a decision within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the applicant’s
written appeal. If the Common Council overrules or modifies a decision, such Common Council
decision is final and shall have an effective date fifteen (15) days from the date of the Common
Council 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.
SECTION IV.
Sections 18.36.070.2.j. and k. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville are hereby repealed:
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.
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.
REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2010-453
PAGE 3
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
APPROVED:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
Brunner
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
McDonald
Perrotto
ATTEST:
Rashkin
Steeber
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
Truman
Voskuil
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
Proposed by: Janesville Historic Commission
Prepared by: Community Development Department