Loading...
#3 Public hearing and action to creat Historic District Plan for Downtown Historic Overlay District (File Ord. #2011-490) 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 creating the Historic District Plan for the Downtown Historic Overlay District (File Ordinance No. 2011-490). _____________________________________________________________________ I. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission and the Community Development Department recommend that the City Council adopt file ordinance No. 2011-490, adopting a Historic District Plan for the Downtown Historic Overlay District. II. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that this item be continued to allow the Historic Commission and the Plan Commission to further refine the Historic Overlay District prior to bringing both ordinances back for Council consideration. 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 and 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 Historic District Plan for the downtown Historic Overlay District outlines the importance of preserving and protecting architecturally and historically significant buildings and sites. Preservation of these structures ensures that the community identity that is created with architecture is maintained over the long term. Implementation of the plan is intended to help stabilize the historical character of the existing building stock and promote revitalization and conservation of the Downtown area. The plan creates a definition for the boundary of the proposed Downtown Historic District area and includes a number of major elements that provides the guidance for conducting architectural reviews for buildings within the area. The plan specifically defines the historic architectural styles in the proposed district area, defines what buildings are contributing to the proposed district and creates guidelines for rehabilitation of buildings and properties within the district. Some of the specific guidelines outlined in the plan discuss alterations to existing buildings and how they should be approved. More specifically the plan discusses how to address specific design elements including; bulkheads, display windows, pilasters, entrances, transoms, cornices and so forth. The plan also outlines the guidelines for new construction, additions and demolitions. The plan like any plan is the policy document to outline how the goals and objectives for preservation for downtown are approached. The proposed Historic Overlay 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. With this plan an Ordinance to allow its implementation through requiring review of exterior building modifications is proposed. The concept of historic preservation in the downtown is not a new concept as there are five existing districts at this time. A requirement for review of exterior modifications and making the Historic Commissions’ decision regulatory in nature is new. This mirrors what exists in the Courthouse Hill Overlay District. As noted in the report to establish the district, the Plan Commission has struggled with making the decision of the Historic Commission regulatory where that board can require modifications of proposed plans. The ordinance to adopt the overlay has been forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation and is further discussed in the report for establishing the district (File Ordinance 2011-489). V. PUBLIC INPUT The Historic Commission created the plan over a three year period which was created at the request of the Downtown Development Alliance (DDA). The Historic Commission in conjunction with the DDA held an open house meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 2011. There were approximately 15 people in attendance with two expressing opposition to the proposal as they felt the additional review of exterior projects was unnecessary. The DDA further discussed the proposed overlay at their monthly meeting in May and unanimously voted to support the proposed overlay district. VI. PLAN COMMISSION HEARING JULY 5 AND JULY 18, 2011 The Plan Commission held two public hearings on the proposed plan and ordinance to establish the district on July 5 and July 18, 2011. A third meeting to discuss the recommendation on the ordinance to establish the district was held on August 1, 2011. The minutes of these meetings 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. The Commission ultimately adopted the plan but remanded the ordinance 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. VI. SUMMARY The proposed plan provides the policy framework for adoption of an overlay district that would allow regulation of the exterior changes to structures within the downtown. Plan Commission believes that historic preservation within the downtown is important as they have recommended adoption of the ordinance to adopt the plan. With regards to the ordinance to establish the official overlay, the Plan Commission could not reach a consensus on a recommendation and has forwarded the ordinance to establish the overlay district to the City Council without a recommendation. Ultimately the plan is a policy document and if the City Council believes that historic preservation of the Downtown is important, the plan should be adopted. The final decision regarding the method for how preservation is achieved will be debated through the review of the proposed ordinance to establish the district. 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 concensus 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. 2011-490 An ordinance which creates the Historic District Plan for the Downtown Historic Overlay District. WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance in the Code of General Ordinances provides for the creation of historic overlay districts; and WHEREAS, the historic overlay district regulations provide that the Historic Commission may, with the assistance of the City Planning Department, prepare an historic district plan for each area recommended to be designated as an historic overlay district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Commission may establish guidelines and development criteria for the Historic Overlay District Plan to serve as a guide for making changes which will be sensitive to the architectural integrity of the structures and appropriate to the overall character of the district; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the Downtown Historic Overlay District Plan is in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN THAT IT HEREBY APPROVES THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT PLAN which is attached to this ordinance and incorporated by reference. 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 DOWNTOWN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT PLAN JANESVILLE HISTORIC COMMISSION August 2010 DOWNTOWN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT PLAN I. INTRODUCTION The City of Janesville realizes the importance of preserving and protecting architecturally and historically significant buildings and sites. The preservation of historic structures helps a community maintain its individuality, uniqueness, and special sense of place. The purpose of the Downtown Historic Overlay District Plan is to direct the preservation, maintenance, and restoration of Janesville’s downtown historic buildings and individual historic districts, four of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. The plan is intended to stabilize and promote the revitalization and conservation of the downtown area, which, in the long run, will benefit the entire city. According to the Downtown Plan and Revitalization Strategy adopted by the Plan Commission in 1988 and also included in the 2007 Downtown Vision and Strategy, “The presence of the Rock River and a substantial number of historically and architecturally significant structures along Main Street and Milwaukee Street help define the image of the city and contribute to the urban fabric of the downtown.” The City is concerned about projects that would destroy the architectural integrity of the District’s historic buildings and the qualities that have given the downtown its special character and identity. The District’s historical buildings and neighborhoods can be safeguarded by the Janesville Historic Commission’s review of both exterior alterations to older buildings and proposed new constructions. Therefore, the City is requiring that alterations to existing historic structures and proposed new constructions be reviewed by the Janesville Historic Commission. Historic Commission reviews can help safeguard against unsympathetic projects that would destroy the quality and integrity of the District’s historic buildings and neighborhoods. Assuring that changes in an area’s physical appearance will be carefully monitored to preserve its unique historical character will also have a positive effect on property values. In addition, Commission reviews would remove many of the uncertainties about future building alterations or changes in land use that might adversely affect adjoining structures. II. WHAT THE PLAN IS ABOUT The City Council has the authority to designate and establish Historic Overlay Districts. When such a district is created, permit requests for new construction, alterations, additions, and demolitions for properties in the designated Overlay District are required to be submitted to the Historic Commission for review. The review process is established to assist property owners in making their desired changes in a manner which is sensitive to the existing building’s architecture and/or that of the surrounding neighborhood. 1 August 26, 2010 III. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT The Downtown Historic Overlay District would include most of the original central business district, that is to say, the four National Register Historic Districts, individually listed buildings or building groups, and the area connecting these. The district is primarily commercial in character. The map shows the boundaries of the district. IV. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. From the beginning, West Milwaukee Street on the west side of the Rock River, and East Milwaukee and North and South Main Streets on the east side, formed the main commercial and retail spine of the city. The buildings on the east side, near the county courthouse, tended to house banking and professional offices as well as merchants, while the west side provided a mixture of shops and services. Various industrial firms were located on both sides of the river but were concentrated near the raceway and dam. A. Significance Downtown Janesville is particularly significant for both its remaining handful of very distinctive buildings and its considerable number of still-intact streetscapes composed of smaller buildings. B. Historic Architectural Styles The earliest commercial structures on both sides of the river were typically one to three story frame buildings that were eventually replaced by those of brick. There are two primary building types representative of the period between 1845 and 1900. The first type is a narrow, party wall store that housed a retail business on the first level and apartments or offices above. Good examples of this building type are found on North and South Main Streets. The second type is a large business block, usually constructed on a prominent corner lot which provided for a number of businesses at the ground level and many offices or apartments above. The Lappin-Hayes Block at 2 South Main Street/20 East Milwaukee Street is the best remaining example of this type of structure. The large business blocks also provided public halls and meeting rooms that served performing groups, fraternal organizations, and a variety of other groups. Large, multi-story hotels were also once an important building type. 2 August 26, 2010 The commercial façade served to advertise the businesses within the building to the passerby. The typical commercial building was provided with a prominent display window. Awnings and a variety of signs also occupied this zone of display space. The architectural treatment of the upper stories was usually concentrated at the windows and roofline. The buildings reflect a number of architectural styles from the earliest Greek Revival to Art Deco and Moderne, as well as a number of Commercial Vernacular and Twentieth Century Commercial buildings. Examples of the various styles include the following: 1. . Greek Revival : 21 ½ North Main Street, 1855 12-16 South Main Street, 1851 The second story window treatment is notable for the characteristic use of simple stone sills and lintels. Locally manufactured cast iron columns are exposed at the entry. Italianate 2. : 33-39 South Main Street, 1868-1869. The heavy hoodmoldings over the regularly placed windows and the deep corbels at the cornice provide a rich surface of light and dark. 113-123 West Milwaukee Street, 1869 This group of blocks has the major elements of commercial Italianate design including cornices with brackets and arched windows. They mirror each other in design with unusual parapets with cornices, giving a distinctive appearance in the district. Second Empire 3. : 38 South Main Street, 1868. The building was designed to accommodate both the First Methodist Episcopal Church on the upper level and commercial tenants on the ground floor. The distinctive mansard roof, a hall mark of the French Second Empire style, is the only commercial example and one of the few examples in the city of this style. Queen Anne 4. : 52 South Main Street, 1895 121 East Milwaukee Street, 1893 The Queen Anne style buildings are known for their irregularity of plan and massing, a variety of surface textures, multiple rooflines, and projections, including oriel windows and turrets. Georgian Revival 5. : 15 North Jackson Street, 1928 3 August 26, 2010 Details on this structure include an entry pavilion, entrance porch with classical columns and a balustrade, multi-paned windows, and an overall appearance of formality and symmetry. Art Deco 6. : 5 South High Street, 1930 The Monterey Hotel has decorative terra cotta trim that is applied in a manner that gives a sense of height to the building. The terra cotta coping flows from the projecting pavilions. Peaked lintels over the top floor windows also suggest height. Commercial Vernacular 7. , Many examples, 1850-1920 These are simply designed commercial buildings primarily of the late nineteenth century. They typically have the large show windows associated with historic storefronts and unadorned doors with transoms. On upper floors there are usually unadorned window openings. Sometimes they have plain cornices made up of brick corbelling or wood or metal moldings. C. Definition of Contributing and Noncontributing The buildings in the district have been classified as being either contributing or noncontributing. Contributing structures fulfill general guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior: architectural/historic significance; representative of a type, method, or period of construction; and at least 50 years of age. The contributing classification includes simpler versions of major architectural styles as well as buildings which have lost some integrity, but which maintain the general form or some of the stylistic features of these styles and which contribute to the overall scale and rhythm of the district. Noncontributing structures are those which have no historic or architectural significance, and/or represent a significant loss of integrity through extensive remodeling. Other noncontributing structures are those which were constructed later than the period of significance and which do not fall within the exception criteria guidelines. The list of properties included within the Downtown Historic Overlay District boundaries also identifies those properties which are contributing, noncontributing, and vacant. V. PRESERVATION GUIDELINES The preservation guidelines which follow represent the principal concerns of the City of Janesville, which recognizes the value and importance of preservation in the downtown historic district. Subsequently, the Janesville Historic Commission has been empowered to make recommendations based upon particular design submissions. 4 August 26, 2010 These guidelines shall be applicable only to the Downtown Historic Overlay District. The Commission will use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as well as the City of Janesville’s Downtown Design Guidelines (DDG), revised edition (May, 2010), for references in determining whether a Certificate of Appropriateness should be issued. Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or restoration and/or replacement of documented original elements. A. Guidelines for Rehabilitation These guidelines are not intended to restrict an owner’s use of his/her property, but to serve as a guide for making changes which will be sensitive to the architectural integrity of the structure and appropriate to the overall character of the district. The following guidelines will be used by the Historic Commission in issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations and additions in the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 1. General Guidelines a). Commercial buildings of historic form are generally composed of a storefront, possibly with an upper façade, consisting of one or more levels. When an upper façade exists, the building should be treated as a whole. When more than one business is located within a building, the building should be treated as a whole, with each storefront having separate signage and awnings, if desired. b.) Alterations to existing buildings should not remove or radically change façade features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. For those properties that are determined to not contribute architecturally to the district, alterations to the existing building will be reviewed for their merit and cohesion with the district character. Age of a property is not the sole factor in determining a building’s contribution to the district, and new construction within the district can also be important to the district’s history and fabric. c.) Alterations to existing commercial buildings or new construction in the downtown district should reflect a commercial rather than a residential character. Residential features, such as doors, windows, and lighting scaled to home use, are inappropriate in the district. Residential uses of upper levels of commercial property are encouraged; however, the architecture should remain commercial especially at the storefront level. d.) The introduction of features to a building that cannot be documented historically and which are not stylistically appropriate should not occur. e.) Repairs to features of an existing building should occur whenever possible. If replacement is necessary, materials should be in kind or of compatible substitute materials. If substitute materials are used for 5 August 26, 2010 replacement, the same visual appearance should be conveyed and the materials should be physically and chemically compatible with original materials. The painting or treatment of unpainted masonry is usually not appropriate. 2. Guidelines for Specific Features of Existing Buildings NOTE: This section is cross-referenced to specific pages or sections of the City of Janesville’s Downtown Design Guidelines (DDG), revised ed., May 2010. a. Bulkheads (): These are the bases on which the large DDG, p. 8 plate glass panels rest. Repair or replacement should be made in kind or with compatible substitute materials. Common materials originally used include wood, brick, and metal. b.Display Windows (): These are generally composed DDG, pp. 8-10 of large sheets of plate glass for purpose of display. These should not be reconfigured in order to alter the rhythm of the fenestration or to increase or decrease the window area. The use of colored or tinted glass is generally inappropriate. Highly mirrored glass, regardless of the tinting hue, is not appropriate in this district. If the framing material was wood, it should be retained. In some cases replacement with painted metal frames may be appropriate. Unpainted metal is not an appropriate finish for frames. c.Pilasters and Columns (): These features provide DDG, p. 6, p. 8 the support necessary for the weight of the upper façade. Repair and/or replacement should be made in kind or with compatible substitute materials. Common materials originally used include: decorative cast iron, brick, and wood. Removal of these features and the resulting alteration of the rhythm of the façade is not appropriate and may cause structural problems. These features are integral to the form of commercial buildings and should not be covered up as part of a remodeling or renovation. d.Entrance (): This feature was historically composed DDG, pp. 7-10 of either single or double doors and located on the same plane as the façade, recessed, or angled on corner properties. The alteration of the original entry configuration of a building is generally inappropriate. Recessed entries should be maintained. The addition of recessed entry is not appropriate without historical documentation of its original existence. Restoration of the historic configuration is recommended for those properties previously altered. Existing appropriate entryways should be maintained regardless of use or non-use by the business. Glazed, paneled, wooden doors are generally most appropriate. Metal doors of the same configuration can be painted to achieve a similar appearance. 6 August 26, 2010 Unpainted metal doors are not appropriate. Solid wood or metal doors are not appropriate for street facades. Entrances at alleys should use the same type of glazed panel doors as at the street if the entry is for public use. e.Transoms (): These are window panels often found DDG, pp. 8-10 over entryways and display windows. Historically they served to allow light and air into the building. Repair and/or replacement of a transom should be in kind or with a compatible substitute material. Common materials originally used include: clear glass, stained or colored glass, and textured glass. This feature was often stationary, but sometimes configured to tilt open, especially over entryways. The removal of this feature due to lowered ceilings is inappropriate. When installing lowered ceilings, this feature can remain intact with no alteration. If the visibility of mechanical equipment is a problem, the windows can be painted black or a dark gray from the inside of the window to achieve a look of darkness. Another option is to recess the lowered ceiling at least 1.5 feet from the transom area. f.Upper façade windows (): These features serve to DDG, p. 10 promote the rhythm of the building as well as offer light and air to the upper levels of the building. Upper floors were often used for housing and offices. The enclosing or bricking-in of this feature is inappropriate. If the space is not to be used, it is recommended that plywood, painted black, be mounted behind the windows from the inside. This will allow the space to appear dark and prevent storage areas from being visible. Small holes in the plywood may be needed for air circulation. Repair or replacement of this feature should be in kind or with appropriate substitute materials. The alteration of the number of windowpane divisions original to each window is not appropriate in most cases. Any decorative materials such as hood moldings should be retained. Introduction of these features without historical documentation is not appropriate. Windows should not be increased or decreased in size or shape. Preserve the window frame, sash, and surrounds. Repair rather than replace the original windows wherever possible. If repair is not feasible, replace with windows that match the existing windows as closely as possible. Size, shape. frame and trim material, method of operation, size of sash members, window frame elements, and the pattern of divided lights are important features to replicate. The window opening itself should be carefully preserved. It should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a differently sized window. In some circumstances, metal-clad or vinyl-clad wood windows may be utilized provided they replicate the shape, detailing and form of the original windows as closely as possible. g.Cornices (): This feature serves as a visual cap to the DDG, p. 9 building and may include features such as built-in gutters. Repair and/or 7 August 26, 2010 replacement of this feature should be in kind or with compatible substitute materials. Common materials used include wood, terra cotta, and metal. The removal of this feature is not appropriate. If this feature is missing or lost, it can be replaced with simple stylized designs. Complex or unique designs are not appropriate without historical documentation of the original appearance. h.Roofs (): This feature is most often flat; though double DDG, p. 9 pitched roofs were sometimes used. Parapet walls were often found on the front or sides of historic commercial buildings. These should be repaired or replaced in kind. Masonry is the most common material for this feature. Removal of this feature is not appropriate. Mechanical equipment should be placed where the equipment cannot be seen from the right of way. i.Masonry (): This generally refers to brick or stone used DDG, p. 11 as the construction or facing material for a building. Generally, this involved individual pieces being placed together with mortar. Masonry can be kept clean with low-pressure washing as needed. Sand-blasting is never an alternative since it permanently damages the material and hastens deterioration. Mortar joints tend to deteriorate over time, generally at a faster rate than bricks. When repointing is needed, the same bricks should be used, if possible, or bricks matching the original. The mortar type used should also match the original mortar type and be of the same color, consistency, and spacing as the original. The joint finish should also be similar to the original. The use of new or non-blending bricks and unmatched mortar is not appropriate. The painting of unpainted masonry is not appropriate. The removal of paint from those structures originally unpainted is recommended only if the process can be successful without harming the material. The gentlest means possible should be used. Masonry walls should never be covered by another material such as wood or artificial siding. 3. Signage () DDG, pp. 12-14 All signs shall comply with the City of Janesville Sign Ordinance. Signs should be oriented toward pedestrian traffic and not vehicular traffic. Wall signs should be mounted above the storefront display windows and below the second-story window sills. They should not extend past the storefront opening. Window signs should not obscure the display area. Signs should be placed so that architectural details and ornamental features remain uncovered. Signs for multiple storefronts within the same building should align with each other. Sign materials should be consistent with or complement the original construction materials and architectural style of the building façade. Wood and metal are more appropriate than plastic. 8 August 26, 2010 Awnings and Canopies 4. () DDG, p. 14 The canvas awning was an important design element in the traditional storefront. An awning can be attached above the display windows and below the cornice or sign panel. Or it could be mounted between the transom and the display windows allowing light into the store while shading the merchandise and pedestrians from the sun. An awning should not cover the piers or the space between the second-story window sills and the storefront cornice. Fixed aluminum awnings and awnings simulating mansard roofs and umbrellas are generally not appropriate for older commercial buildings. Soft canvas or vinyl materials are appropriate, while wood or metal are generally not appropriate. “Long dome” or convex awnings are usually not appropriate. Awnings should be in proportion to the overall building façade and should match the width of the storefront or window opening. The awning should not extend into the second story façade. B. Guidelines for New Construction andAdditions 1. General (): DDG, pp. 3-6 and A.5, p. 7 Additions and new construction should be evaluated as they relate to their surroundings as well as for design. Infill construction should reflect some of the detailing of surrounding buildings in window shape, cornice lines, and brick work. The new building should not stand out from others. 2. Specific areas to consider include the following: a. Height: The height of infill new construction should reflect the height of adjacent buildings. The new building should not be too high or too low. b. Width : For an infill building, the façade width should fill the entire space and reflect the characteristic rhythm of façades along the street. If the site is large, the façade should be broken into a number of smaller bays. c. Relationship to Street : The setback of infill buildings should be similar to those around it, generally built to the lot line. An exception could be granted if the setback is pedestrian-oriented and contributes to the character of the streetscape. A parking area abutting the street should have the edge materially delineated (e.g. with brick wall, fencing, or landscaping). Building entrances should be located so that pedestrians can reach the front door from both the street and the parking areas. d. Roof Forms : Roof lines of new construction should be similar to those of adjacent buildings. A flat roof is generally preferred. 9 August 26, 2010 e. Proportion : Proportion refers to the relationship between height and width. New construction shall have massing and configuration similar to other buildings in the area. Factors which affect a building’s mass are total height, floor height, width, and roof lines. f. Proportion of Openings: The size and proportion of window and door openings of new construction should be similar to other buildings on the block. The ratio of window area to solid wall for new construction should be similar to other buildings in the block. g. Windows : On upper floors, the windows should be vertically oriented. Arched tops, columns framing the windows, and decorative lintels are encouraged. The openings should appear as “punched openings” within a solid wall, rather than as windows separated only by their frames. A solid wall must appear to be the main supporting element. h. Rhythm: Refers to the size, proportion, and spacing of window and door openings. These should be similar to other buildings on the block. The ratio of window area to solid wall for new construction shall be similar to other buildings on the block. : i. Materials Traditional materials including brick, stone, and stucco should be used as the primary building materials. : j. Colors The color of buildings should complement the adjacent buildings’ colors. 3.Utilities and Utility Areas () DDG, p. 12 Small utilities and utilitarian features should be situated so as to minimize their negative visual impact. Larger utility areas should be screened from view of pedestrians and street traffic. 4. Parking Lots (DDG, pp. 15-16) Parking lots should not be placed in front of a new building, but should be located behind or to the side of buildings. In general, surface parking lots should be contained within the interior of a block. There should be a clear separation between vehicular parking areas and pedestrian areas. Pedestrian scale landscaping, fencing, and/or walls should be provided to delineate the parking area from the pedestrian sidewalk. Generally, parking structures should have commercial, retail, or office uses on the ground floor. The primary façade of a parking structure should be designed to be compatible with neighboring buildings. 10August 26, 2010 5.Additions () DDG, p. 7 Additions to existing buildings should respect the existing relationship of buildings to the street, including setbacks. Additions should use materials sizes, details, and proportions that are compatible with the existing structure. If possible, the original building’s primary street façade should remain clearly delineated while the addition is set behind or to the side. C.Guidelines for Demolition () DDG, Sec. D, p. 16 Any demolition request shall be accompanied by additional documentation indicating the existing condition of the building and the proposed use of the site. Documentation should include proposed elevations and an explanation of why it is not feasible to use the existing building. 11August 26, 2010