#2 Public hearing and action to establish a HIstoric Overlay District (File Ord. #2011-489)
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: August 3, 2011
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Gale Price, Manager of Building & Development Services
SUBJECT: Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance
establishing a Historic Overlay District on land located in the vicinity of
Downtown Janesville (File Ordinance No. 2011-489).
_____________________________________________________________________
I. RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission has forwarded the proposed ordinance without a
recommendation but suggested that the City Council direct staff to modify the
ordinance to establish the larger district and to require that any exterior modification
be reviewed by the Historic Commission but in a cursory nature unless public funds
are used.
The Historic Commission and Community Development Department recommend
that the City Council adopt File Ordinance No. 2011-489 as currently drafted to
establish a Historic Overlay District on land located in the vicinity of Downtown
Janesville.
II. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
I believe that based on discussion at the Plan Commission that this item should be
referred back to the Historic Commission for further discussion and modification
prior to Council action on the Ordinance.
III. REQUEST
The Community Development Department on behalf of the Janesville Historic
Commission and the Downtown Development Alliance has requested the City adopt
a Historic District Plan for the Downtown area of the City (as the policy document
for review and approval of historic buildings) and an ordinance to establish a
Historic Overlay District for the same area of Downtown Janesville on both the east
and west sides of the Rock River.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposal to establish a historic overlay district within the downtown area
requires two ordinances to be adopted. The first ordinance is to adopt the Historic
District Plan for the Downtown Historic Overlay District. The second ordinance
would establish the district and the boundaries of the district. The plan is the policy
document while the ordinance is the implementation tool which establishes the law.
The City currently has 12 historic districts but only one of those districts is a historic
overlay district (Courthouse Hill). The difference between a historic district and a
historic overlay district is that the overlay district requires Historic Commission
review and approval of exterior building modifications. Other historic districts
makes buildings eligible for tax credit programs and administrative building code
variances.
The proposed district ordinance establishes the geographic boundary for the
overlay district only. The Ordinance does not modify how an application for an
exterior building modification is handled. The current Zoning Ordinance language
has previously established how City Administration handles Historic Commission
reviews. A review in the downtown as currently proposed would be the same as in
the Courthouse Hill Overlay District.
As noted in the report for the Historic Overlay District Plan, the proposed Plan and
its vision for preservation of the historically significant buildings within the downtown
are consistent with the 2007 Downtown Vision and Strategy. Ultimately historic
preservation within the downtown is another step in the implementation of the
Downtown Vision and Strategy and the City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan.
V. PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The plan cannot be implemented without an Ordinance to establish the district. The
proposed district would be handled in the same way as the Courthouse Hill Overlay
District. The Plan Commission has struggled with the recommendation for the
ordinance to establish the district.
The Plan Commission held two public hearings on the proposed plan and ordinance
to establish the district on July 5 and July 18, 2011. The minutes of these meeting
are attached to this memorandum. At the July 5 meeting Commissioners Consigny,
Marklein and Siker had a number of questions that they desired be answered by
staff in the report for the second portion of the hearing. These included the
differences between a historic district and a historic overlay district; the review
process; what makes a property “historic”; contributing versus non-contributing; how
the map was established and the permitting process.
At the July 18, 2011 meeting the Commission did not ask additional questions to be
addressed but did indicate that there were concerns with the lack of appeals
processes for contributing versus non contributing buildings and so forth. (Appeals
of contributing structure designation are discussed later in this report). The
Commission ultimately adopted the plan but remanded the ordinance to establish
the district back to the Historic Commission for consideration to modify the proposal
to only allow the Historic Commission to conduct a cursory review of a proposed
exterior building modification.
At the August 1, 2011 meeting the Commission attempted to make a formal
recommendation to the City Council after considering the recommendation of the
Historic Commission to not modify the proposed ordinance. The Commission did
not make a formal recommendation either for or against as there were six members
in attendance. What the Commission ultimately did was forward the proposed
ordinance without a recommendation but suggested that the City Council direct staff
to modify the ordinance to establish the larger district and to require that any
exterior modification be reviewed by the Historic Commission but in a cursory
nature unless public funds are used. This essentially would expand the current
historic districts in the downtown to one larger district, require Historic Commission
review but a property owner could proceed without making modifications to their
proposed plans. This vote passed 4-2-0.
VI. HISTORIC COMMISSION RECONSIDERATON
At its July 25, 2011 meeting the Historic Commission reviewed the request by the Plan
Commission to consider modification of the proposed ordinance to allow the Historic
Commission review of a project to be a cursory review of the proposal (meaning that the
comments provided by the Historic Commission would not be binding of the applicant)
versus a regulatory review (meaning that the comments of the Historic Commission would
be conditions of approval and to proceed without incorporation of the conditions, applicants
would need to appeal to the Plan Commission and/or the City Council).
The Historic Commission voted unanimously to not modify the proposed ordinance and to
proceed with review of the ordinance by the City Council as it is currently drafted. The
Commission cited the following three reasons for their decision:
1. Track Record: Over the past 20 years that the ordinance has been in effect there have
been only 2 or 3 contentious requests that someone has waited out the Commission.
They feel that their track record of working with citizens speaks for itself regarding their
187
ability to balance an historic look with reasonable cost. There have been certificates
issued over the years with only three contentious cases.
2. Contributing buildings: There are five existing historic districts in the downtown. Of the
145 parcels in the proposed overlay, only 55 additional properties (+/-) are proposed to
be added. Of the existing parcels, almost all properties are already determined to be
contributing structures.
3. Appeals: There are two appeal processes in place to provide relief for any citizen who is
aggrieved by a Historic Commission decision, regardless of the building being
contributing or non-contributing.
VII. APPEALS OF DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES
Staff has discussed the issue of determination of contributing buildings with the State
Historical Society. Through that discussion it was determined that there is one formal point
of appeal for determination of a contributing building, which is at the Federal level when a
historic district is submitted for National Register Designation. When a district is submitted
at the national level, it has been reviewed at the local and state level. Neither of those
processes includes a formal appeal but the submission to the Department of the Interior
(DOI) does. At that time, the DOI can designate a building as non-contributing which
thereby decreases the review scrutiny by the Historic Commission unless the owner
desires to bring the property into contributing status.
VIII. POSSIBLE MOTONS BY THE COUNCIL
The City Council could take one of several options regarding the proposal as
follows:
1. Approve both the Plan Ordinance and Overlay Ordinance as currently drafted.
This would adopt the Overlay District Plan and establish the boundaries of the district
as proposed. The Historic Commission would review each exterior building
modification within the boundaries of the proposed district against the criteria
established by the United States Department of the Interior standards. The Overlay
District would be handled identically to the Courthouse Hill Overlay District. This is the
recommendation of the Historic Commission and Staff.
2. Approve the Plan Ordinance but table the Overlay Ordinance and direct staff to
draft an Overlay Ordinance that limits the Historic Commission review to be
cursory in nature.
In this instance the City Council would support historic
preservation in the Downtown by adopting the Plan, but the implementation ordinance
would allow a building owner to proceed without modifying their building plans to
address concerns of the Historic Commission. In this case Staff would modify the
proposed District ordinance and establish a new kind of district within the Zoning
ordinance that requires the review by the Historic Commission but the
recommendations of the review would not be required to be implemented if the owner
chose not to and the owner would not need to appeal the decision of the Historic
Commission. Although this was not formally recommended by the Plan Commission, it
was suggested within the Plan Commissions motion to forward the proposed
ordinance without a recommendation.
3. Reject both the Plan Ordinance and the Overlay Ordinance.
The Council should
choose this option if it feels that Historic Preservation is not a high enough priority in
the downtown to require Historic Commission review of exterior building modifications.
XI. HISTORIC COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Commission and Community Development Department believe that Historic
Preservation within the downtown area is a priority and should be implemented in a manner
similar to the Courthouse Hill Historic Overlay District. That District has operated
appropriately for many years with close to 200 reviews and few being controversial. The
Historic Commission and Staff believes that the City Council should adopt File Ordinance
No. 2011-489 as currently drafted to establish a Historic Overlay District on land located in
the vicinity of Downtown Janesville.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jay Winzenz
July 5, 2011 Plan Commission Minutes
Public Hearing, Creation of the Historic District Plan for the Downtown Historic
Overlay District and request to establish an Historic Overlay District on land located
in the vicinity of Downtown Janesville.
Chairperson Werner noted that this public hearing would be the first of two chances to
speak as the public hearing would be continued to the July 18 Plan Commission Meeting.
Gale Price, Manager of Building & Development Services, presented the written staff
report.
Commissioner Consigny commented that when historic preservation was discussed years
ago with the adoption of the current ordinance, he was not in favor of it. He stated that
many people equate old homes with historic homes but he doesn’t agree that every old
building should be preserved. He asked staff to further clarify the difference between the
historic overlay and an historic district, and for information regarding whether or not every
building within the boundary is going to be subject to review and how building owners will
be notified that their building is within the boundary and subject to review by the Historic
Commission.
Commissioner Marklein asked what methodology was used to create the district boundary.
He asked for clarification between contributing and noncontributing buildings, if the owners
were aware whether their building is contributing or noncontributing and if there was a
process to appeal the classification. He asked about the permitting process and
suggested a guide for those who may want to restore a contributing building.
Commissioner Siker asked questions regarding the appeals process for those property
owners who didn’t agree with a Historic Commission decision and Price explained the
appeals process outlined in the City’s zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Marklein asked if speakers at the public hearing tonight would be precluded
from speaking at the next meeting. Chairperson Werner confirmed that this was the case.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak:
Jim Alverson, 225 Pease Court, stated that he owns five buildings in the 200 block of
West Milwaukee, that he has a background in preservation restoration and it was the
historic architecture of the buildings in the downtown that drew him to Janesville. He
stated he is in favor of the proposed plan and that historic preservation is both
aesthetically and economically important.
Barry Golden, Representing Odd Fellows at 20-22 N Main St., stated that the Odd
Fellows had a fire four years ago and had to replace a dozen windows but they still
needed to replace several more. He asked if approval of the plan would make the
windows they installed nonconforming and how the plan would affect their building
when they go to replace future windows.
Chairperson Werner stated that Mr. Golden would need to talk to Community
Development Staff to address those concerns.
Jackie Wood, 119 S. Wisconsin St., spoke in favor of the plan. She stated that she
owns a house in the Courthouse Hill Historic Overlay District and treasures the
history that surrounds her home and business (Olde Towne Mall) in the downtown.
She stated that approval of a historic overlay for the downtown would make the
statement that Janesville is a community that cares and respects history and that it
would be the right thing for historic preservation. She stated that the Historic
Commission was there to help owners and that the plan would offer a chance for
people to get educated on the best way to make repairs without altering the historic
look of the building.
Commissioner Consigny asked how involved the Historic Commission members were in
setting the plan boundaries and Wood stated that the boundaries were created following
input from the private sector, the Historic Commission and City Staff.
Commissioner Marklein asked Wood which of the historic buildings that are no longer in
Janesville she missed the most and whether or not the proposed overlay district would
have saved this building. Wood answered the Meyers Opera House and that she felt the
proposed plan wouldn’t necessarily have saved the building but would have given the
mindset and made the statement that it is historic.
Dan Atwood, 215 Division, former Chair of the Historic Commission, stated that he was
on the Commission when this plan was created and clarified the Historic Commission
review process that would occur if the plan were approved. He stated that there would
only be a review if an owner wanted to make an alteration requiring a building permit.
When applying for the building permit, the owner would be informed that because he is
now in overlay district, his project would have to have Historic Commission review
which could occur within one to two weeks.
He added that the Commission rarely denies a project but sometimes offers
suggestions. However, if the project were denied or the business owner was
dissatisfied with the Historic Commission’s decision, they could immediately appeal to
the Plan Commission.
He stated that he agreed with Jackie Wood’s comments on the need to preserve the
downtown. He stated that the Downtown Development Alliance considers downtown
Janesville to be a larger area than the boundary proposed within the plan but that the
Historic Commission focused on the core of the downtown where there are the most
historic properties and then increased the boundary around that core as a buffer to
ensure that the historic downtown would be preserved and protected for future
generations.
He stated that the older buildings are very structurally sound and it would be more
costly to tear them down and build new rather than fix them. He felt that the Historic
Commission had always been adaptable when it came to approval of building
materials as sometimes the old materials are hard to obtain. He stated that in those
instances, the Historic Commission always worked to come to a compromise that
would be appropriate and economically feasible. He stated that he strongly supports
the proposed plan and that during a May Downtown Development Alliance Meeting,
there was 100% support from the attending business owners as well.
Commissioner Marklein stated that it seemed more logical for a business owner to meet
with the Historic Commission prior to applying for a building permit and questioned if the
Historic Commission would be willing to meet with property owners to discuss a proposed
project. Atwood stated that he felt the Historic Commission would be willing to work with a
property owner in this regard.
The public hearing was continued until the July 18 Plan Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Siker asked if there was another city that this plan was based on and Price
stated that Janesville is one of the leaders when it comes to historic preservation and that
he could provide information on comparable cities, the difference between old buildings
and historic buildings, the methodology for the boundary creation and permitting process
in the next staff report.
Chairperson Werner asked if Price could also provide copies of the applicable ordinances
regarding historic overlay.
July 18, 2011 Plan Commission Minutes
Continued Public Hearing, Creation of the Historic District Plan for the Downtown
Historic Overlay District and request to establish an Historic Overlay District on
land located in the vicinity of Downtown Janesville.
Gale Price, Building & Development Services Manager, presented the written staff report.
Commissioner Consigny asked who would be determining which buildings within the
boundary were contributing and noncontributing. Price said that in the near term, staff and
the Historic Commission would make that determination but after the State Historic Society
did their review of and inventoried all buildings within the district, staff would use the
state’s determination. Commissioner Consigny asked if there was a public body that
would approve or disapprove the determination of a building as being contributing or
noncontributing. Price indicated that there was not.
Commissioner Consigny stated concerns that property owners wouldn’t be able to appeal
the determination of whether or not their building was contributing or noncontributing.
Price stated that the determination for contributing versus non-contributing is not arbitrary
but instead there are guidelines established by the United States Department of Interior
who oversees all of the national historic preservation programs which will provide a basis
for determination of architectural style and detail of what should be preserved.
Commissioner Consigny asked if property owners would be notified in advance regarding
whether or not their properties are contributing or noncontributing.
Commissioner Marklein asked about buildings over 50 years old that had been altered
slightly, were on the borderlines between contributing and noncontributing and how staff
would handle these properties. Price stated it would depend on the scale of what they
want to do and the impact it would have. Commissioner Marklein questioned how staff
would handle the Odd Fellows building. Price said that the building is clearly contributing
and would have to go through the process but the intent of the ordinance would not be to
have them replace previously replaced windows. For future windows, staff may suggest a
newer design or more historically significant replacements.
Chairperson Voskuil asked if the reason staff wasn’t notifying property owners whether or
not they were contributing was because the standards are set by the Department of
Interior. Price stated that was correct and if staff were to notify it may come across as
though the City were making that call. Chairperson Voskuil asked if information regarding
who makes that determination was indicated within the ordinance. Price stated that it was
not in the ordinance but was outlined in the Downtown Historic Overlay District Plan.
Commissioner Werner asked what the impetus was for this request. Price explained that
the Historic Commission was approached by the Downtown Development Alliance to
consider developing a process to establish a historic district for the downtown area in
order to preserve the historic character of the downtown. The request also came about
after some issues with buildings in the Courthouse Hill District and potential implications
for that happening within the downtown area without an overlay district in place. Price
explained that the ordinance would give the Historic Commission the ability to work with a
building owner to obtain a balance between what they want and to retain the historic
character of building. Commissioner Werner asked if there was an appeal process
through the Department of Interior regarding the determination of whether a building is
contributing or noncontributing. Price stated that he was not aware of one but that the
ordinance give the applicant a way of appeal if they don’t agree to the conditions of the
Historic Commission review.
Chairperson Voskuil noted a letter submitted by Jackie Wood regarding this item to the
Plan Commission’s attention and then open the public hearing. The following persons
appeared to speak:
Bruce Dennis, 216 N. Terrace St. Stated that he is the Chair of the Historic
Commission and that the Commission has been working on this plan for 3 ½ years
with one of the positive driving forces being the 2007 Downtown Vision & Strategy
Plan. He stated that the historical significance of the downtown is intended and
predicated on preserving the historic integrity of the downtown structures. He
explained that Staff and the Commission use the US Department of Interior Guidelines
when making determinations but added that in every review that he has been a part of
the decision of whether or not a property was contributing or noncontributing has been
extremely obvious. He explained that when the Historic Commission reviews a
project, they make certain recommendations and how to restore the building and that if
the applicant were to disagree, they could appeal to the Plan Commission and then to
the City Council is they still were not satisfied. He added that during the time he has
been on the Historic Commission, they have not flatly denied a project. He said that
the Historic Commission put a lot of work into the plan and he would recommend that
the Plan Commission adopt it.
Nancy Johnson, One East Holmes Street, stated that she was affected by the overlay
and requested that it be denied. She said with the bad economic times, this would be
a roadblock to companies wanting to start up businesses in the downtown causing
buildings to remain vacant which would bring down the value of all other properties in
area.
Jim Grafft, 3723 N. Edgewood, owner of several buildings which would be affected by
the ordinance. He stated that during these difficult economic times, this type of review
could add a lot of cost especially if architects/structural engineers are needed to make
the building compliant. He stated that it is not always more expensive to tear a building
down and start over. He referred to the Olde Towne Mall and felt that it would have
been difficult to go through Historic Commission review for the changes made to that
building. He agreed that there should be an appeal process for contributing and
noncontributing and that building owners who aren’t aware of their buildings are
contributing or noncontributing should be made aware so they’ll know whether or not
they have to deal with this ordinance. He stated that he had looked into obtaining
historic credit monies for a building he owns in the 400 block of West Milwaukee Street
but there were too many restrictions involved. He stated concerns about what may be
required to work on the front of the Monterey Hotel building but he felt the ordinance
would make it a harder project with having to attend meetings, the restrictions and cost
involved.
The public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Voskuil asked Price to explain how ordinance would affect the Old Towne
Mall and 405 West Milwaukee. Price stated that both buildings are currently in existing
historic districts which make them eligible for tax credits. He said that there are
professional historic preservation architects in the state who would determine whether or
not the buildings were actually contributing but that he felt the Olde Towne Mall with it’s
detailed brick work and being part of a whole historic block face would be contributing.
Regarding 405 West Milwaukee, Price indicated that if you look at the general detail, scale
and brick work, he believed it would be contributing.
Chairperson Voskuil asked how permit intensive it would it be for work such as replacing
windows/door. Price stated that in the event that someone wanted to replace windows or
a storefront within the downtown, inspectors would be flagged that there is an additional
review needed by the Historic Commission. He added that the City’s Code allows the
building official to determine whether or not an architect is required for a project and that in
most cases, replacement of a store front where handicapped accessibility is not being
affected would not require an architect. Structural changes, however, would require an
architect.
Chairperson Voskuil asked about the public participation process over the last 3 ½ years
and Price explained that there were Downtown Development Alliance Meetings, a public
meeting at the M&I Bank and notification of everyone within the proposed district and
those within 400 feet of the boundary. Commissioner Consigny asked how many people
attended the public meeting and Price stated there were about 17 people in attendance.
Commissioner Madere asked, in an effort to determine if there were other alternatives to
help with the cost of projects, how the TIF boundaries square up with the historic overlay
boundary. There was discussion regarding the half-mile radius TIF boundaries and small
business loan programs.
Commissioner Marklein asked if a Certificate of Appropriateness was required to obtain
historic funds. Price stated that it depended on the project. If the project would be using
public federal monies, it would need to be reviewed by the Historic Commission for a
certificate.
There was discussion regarding the difference in permitting between those within a historic
district and those that are not. Commissioner Marklein asked if there would be any way
short of requiring a certificate of appropriateness for their project to be reviewed and then
they could make decision whether they would want to proceed. Price stated that staff and
the Historic Commission would be willing to provide architectural guidance to anyone who
wants to come in and discuss a project but aren’t asked to do much of it unless there are
public funds attached.
Commissioner Marklein stated that he would like to see the Historic Commission involved
in downtown projects without requiring the property owner to follow their recommendations
unless the project wants monies from a public source. He added that although he thinks
the goals of the ordinance are admirable, there are also property owner rights involved
and that he was not in favor of the ordinance as written. He felt that if a building owner
was unhappy with the Historic Commission’s recommendation that they may leave the
building as is and not invest in it which would cause further problems down the road.
Price stated that currently, without the overlay district, there isn’t any review for building
permits unless there is Janesville participation financially. Commissioner Werner asked
how the issues at the Lovejoy home occurred within that overlay district. Price stated that,
at the time, there wasn’t anything in the ordinance regarding changes to windows but that
the ordinance has been changed to include that.
Commissioner Consigny asked if there was review by the Historic Commission for projects
within all of the current historic districts and Price stated that the Historic Commission only
reviews permits for properties within the Courthouse Hill Overlay District or if public funds
are involved.
There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner Madere
that this matter be continued and that staff be requested to report back as to a provision
providing for notification to all property owners in the district as whether they are going to
be contributing or non-contributing prior to a determination by the Historic Commission;
and secondly that staff report back so as to provide for a right of appeal on the part of any
person from the determination as to whether they are contributing or non-contributing; and
furthermore that the right of appeal be provided so that a decision by the Plan Commission
and the City Council be appealable to the courts and both the determination of whether its
contributing or noncontributing and also in connection with the appeal as provided in
Section I of the section on the Janesville Historic Commission appeals.
Commissioner Werner asked about the intent of Commissioner Consigny’s motion and he
responded that if there are no rights of appeal to get to the courts and no notification to the
building owner regarding whether or not they are contributory or non-contributory he will
vote against it. He stated that he feels that a vast majority of property owners within the
boundary do not realize it is a zoning change.
Commissioner Marklein stated that he would like to see the ordinances move forward as
presented with an amendment that the if the project does not require funds, it goes
through as purely a cursory review rather than a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0 vote with Commissioners Dongarra-Adams, Madere and
Voskuil opposed.
There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner Werner
to recommend denial of the ordinance.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0 vote with Commissioner Dongarra-Adams, Madere and
Voskuil opposed.
Commissioner Consigny declared that he has a son that works for Jim Grafft but that
information has nothing to do with his recommendation.
There was a motion by Commissioner Marklein with a second by Commissioner Dongarra-
Adams to forward the proposed historic overlay district to be located on land in the vicinity
of downtown Janesville to the City Council with a modified recommendation that the
Certificate of Appropriateness only be required when public fund financing is needed.
Commissioner Marklein stated that his intent is to get the Historic Commission to be more
involved in the review but that if the project involves private funds, the property owners
should be allowed to do what is in their best wishes knowing they’ve had the review and
had facts presented to them in a formal setting.
Price stated that the current Historic Overlay District ordinance has a specific process for
review and the requested amendment would require a larger change to the ordinance. He
stated that the Historic Commission currently donates their time for these reviews and he
would be concerned about making their review just advisory in nature.
Commissioner Werner stated that he appreciates the intent of the ordinance but that he
can’t support it in it’s current form because of concerns about property owner rights and
lack of an appeal process for the determination of contributing vs. noncontributing. He felt
the Commission should vote one way or the other and forward it’s recommendation along
to the City Council to make a decision. He didn’t feel that postponing it another week or
two was necessarily appropriate.
The motion failed 2-4-0 with Commissioners Consigny, Madere, Voskuil and Werner
opposed.
There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner Werner
to not make a recommendation of approval for the adoption of the proposed Downtown
Historic Overlay Plan.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0 vote with Commissioners Dongarra-Adams, Madere and
Voskuil opposed.
Commissioner Madere stated there was a lot of general consensus on the item but that he
didn’t want to throw out the plan just because of disagreement.
Cherek stated that the Plan Commission had three different options: To make a
recommendation to deny the proposed plan and ordinance as presented; to remand it
back to staff and Historic Commission for further modification based on concerns
expressed; or have a separate motion on the plan and separate motion on the ordinance,
that would adopt the plan which sets forth the preservation guidelines but does not have
any implementing authority without the zoning ordinance, and then recommend that the
ordinance establishing the district downtown be remanded back to staff and the Historic
Commission for modification to reflect those concerns or comments reflecting the
Certificate of Appropriateness review being advisory.
Price stated that the Plan Commission’s discussion hasn’t been against historic
preservation and that if the Council rejects the zoning ordinance or remands it back, we
are in a position to create what Commissioner Marklein suggested.
Cherek stated that the ordinance establishing the district itself refers to an ordinance that
currently exists in the City’s zoning code which addresses Historic Commission review and
requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Therefore, a new ordinance would need to be
prepared to deal with that particular aspect in the boundary encompassing the downtown.
There was a motion by Commissioner Dongarra-Adams with a second by Commissioner
Voskuil to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council adopting the Downtown
Historic Overlay District Plan as submitted.
Commissioner Consigny stated he would vote against that motion because the plan does
not contain any notice provisions or appeal provisions.
The motion passed on a 4-2-0 vote with Commissioners Consigny and Werner opposed.
There was a motion by Commissioner Madere with a second by Commissioner Werner to
postpone the request to establish an Historic Overlay District on land located in the vicinity
of Downtown Janesville to allow further consideration by the Historic Commission and
staff.
Chairperson Voskuil asked if the motion to adopt the Downtown Historic Overlay Plan
th
would still go to Council on the 8. Price stated that the Council would have to open the
public hearing on it and staff would let the Council know that the Plan Commission
recommended that the Historic Overlay District zoning request was remanded back to staff
and the Historic Commission.
The motion passed on a 5-0-1 vote with Chairperson Voskuil opposed.
August 1, 2011 Plan Commission Minutes
Gale Price, Building & Development Services Manager, presented the written staff report.
There was discussion about the Courthouse Hill District being both an historic district and
historic overlay district. Commissioner Consigny asked if there was any consideration into
making the downtown overlay boundary area an historic district rather than an historic
overlay district. Price stated that was not considered as there are already several
established historic districts already within that boundary.
Commissioner Consigny asked if it was possible to have a review for federally funded
projects without creating an overlay district. Price answered that when federal funding is
involved for a project within a historic district, the applicant has to go through Historic
Commission review.
Commissioner Siker asked if the Historic Commission has a cursory advisory role and
Price stated that they do only when a property owner chooses to come forward to review a
project on their own discretion.
Commissioner Madere asked if ordinance adoption would require anyone within this
district who makes exterior improvements to have to go before the Historic Commission,
whether they are contributing or non-contributing, and Price answered that was true yet
the Historic Commission would sign off on noncontributing projects.
Commissioner Madere asked if the Historic Commission voted to send the ordinance to
Council and Price indicated that they did.
Commissioner Marklein stated that he supported the requirement of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for federally funded projects but for privately funded projects involving
contributing structures, he felt the Historic Commission should have more of an advisory
role.
There was discussion regarding the appeal process for the determination of contributing
versus non-contributing structures and Price stated that the federal statutes allow for an
appeal of a contributing designation and this is the only appeal. Commissioner Consigny
stated that he’d like to see a local appeals process.
Commissioner Werner said that the role of the Plan Commission is to make a
recommendation to the City Council. Price added that the Historic Commission would like
the Plan Commission to vote on this ordinance to allow for it to be presented to the City
Council.
Commissioner Madere asked if Marklein would be in favor of amending the ordinance if it
made the Commission advisory for privately funded projects. Commissioner Marklein said
that he would and added that he’d like to see a review required for exterior work on
buildings in the overlay but have it be more of an advisory review without the requirement
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
There was a motion by Commissioner Werner with a second by Commissioner Consigny
to not forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the creation of a historic
overlay district.
Commissioner Consigny stated that he’d like to see the boundary area designated as an
historic district rather than an historic overlay district. He also noted that he had concerns
about the notification to residents regarding whether or not they are in a historic overlay
district.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0 vote with Commissioner Siker, Madere and Dongarra-Adams
opposed.
There was a motion by Commissioner Marklein with a second by Commissioner Siker to
forward the ordinance to the City Council with a unfavorable recommendation and asking
staff to amend the ordinance to have the Historic Commission act as a cursory advisory for
non-publically funded projects.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0 vote with Commissioners Consigny, Dongarra-Adams and
Werner opposed.
Price offered language for a motion which was adopted as follows.
The was a motion by Commissioner Marklein with a second by Commissioner Siker to
forward the ordinance to the City Council without a recommendation but suggested that
the City Council direct staff to modify the ordinance to establish the larger district and to
require that any exterior modification be reviewed by the Historic Commission but in a
cursory nature unless public funds are used.
The motion carried on a 4-2-0 vote with Commissioners Werner and Marklein opposed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-489
An ordinance establishing an Historic Overlay District on land located within the vicinity
of Downtown Janesville.
WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance of the Code of General Ordinances allows the City
Council to consider creation of historic overlay districts; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Commission and the Plan Commission have recommended
that an historic overlay district be created within the vicinity of Downtown Janesville
which would recognize this area’s significant historical and architectural characteristics.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
The Downtown Historic Overlay District shall be established in an area as shown on the
attached Map 1.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Common Council, the
public health, welfare, peace, tranquility, good order, public benefit, and police power so
requiring.
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
APPROVED:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
Brunner
Dongarra-Adams
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
Liebert
McDonald
ATTEST:
Rashkin
Steeber
Voskuil
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Proposed by: Historic Commission/Downtown
Development Alliance
Prepared by: Community Development Department