Loading...
Full Agenda Packet CITY OF JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, August 8, 2011 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call. 3. Regular City Council meeting minutes of July 25, 2011. “C” 4. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) “C” 5. Authorization for the Administration to deny a liability claim from Amanda Stewart-Ryan in the amount of $16,740.52. “C” 6. Special recognition: Action on a proposed resolution in commendation of Emil Dallman’s service to the City of Janesville. (File Res. No. 2011-826) 7. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with JNB Signs for the acceptance of a sign donation at the Ice Arena. (File Res. No. 2011-824) 8. Appreciation for support in YWCA Walk-a-Mile in Her Shoes event (Jon Wangerin and Larry Barton). OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. 2. 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 Ord. No. 2011-489) 3. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance which creates the Historic District Plan for the Downtown Historic Overlay District. (File Ord. No. 2011-490) ----------------------- “C” – This designation indicates an item that the City Council will take up under a Consent Agenda. City Council Agenda – August 8, 2011 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 1. Action on a Request from Partners in Prevention to waive special event fees for Family Fun Fest. 2. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acquisition of a municipal utility easement from the Elks Lodge at 2100 North Washington Street (File Resolution No. 2011-827) and authorization for the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Elks Lodge to take ownership of their private force main. 3. Action on a proposed resolution implementing City of Janesville “pick- up” of employee retirement contributions pursuant to internal revenue code §414(h)(2). (File Res. No. 2011-823) 4. Introduce and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance annexing property located at 2006 North County Trunk E. (File Ord. No. 2011-495) 5. Introduce, refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance zoning property located at 2006 North County Trunk E to B2 upon annexation. (File Ord. No. 2011-496) 6. Introduce and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance deleting and recreating electoral ward boundaries. (File Ord. No. 2011-497) 7. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. 8. Matters not on the Agenda. 9. Consideration of a motion to convene into closed session, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85 (1) (e), for the potential acceptance of an offer to purchase lots 6 and 7 at 3207 and 3201 Rockport Park Drive for $15,000 each recently tendered by Jeremy Jorgenson; since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session. The use of audible cell phone ringers and active use and response to cellular phone technology by the governing body, staff and members of the public is discouraged in the Council Chambers while the Council is in session. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2011 VOL. 62 NO. 10 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on July 25, 2011. The meeting was called to order by Council President Brunner at 7:00 PM. Present: Council President Brunner, Councilmembers Dongarra-Adams, Liebert, McDonald, Rashkin, and Voskuil. Absent: Councilmember Steeber CONSENT AGENDA Regular City Council meeting minutes of July 11, 2011 Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee including the Anyvirkamal Bopari and Sarbjit Bopari appeals for an operator’s license. (Refer to separate agenda.) Financial statement for the month of June, 2011. Council President Brunner removed the appeals for Anyvirkamal Bopari and Sarbjit Bopari from the Consent Agenda. He stated that all other items on the consent agenda would be approved if there were no objections. There were none. Council President Brunner stated that #6 would be considered next. Special recognition: Action on a proposed resolution in commendation of Mark J. Mackinnis’ 24 years of service to the City of Janesville. Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2011-822) Based on information provided to the Council, Councilmember McDonald moved to approve the operator’s licenses for both Anyvirkamal Bopari and Sarbjit Bopari, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed by the following vote: Aye: Dongarra-Adams, Liebert, McDonald, Rashkin and Voskuil. Nay: Brunner. OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., asked the Council to use the code of conduct to limit Councilmember terms on a board (NB #5), spoke against TIF #22 development agreement (NB #7) and thanked Rock 5.0 for helping to mentor small businesses. Council President Brunner combined the public hearing and action on NB #2 and NB #3. 2. & 3. Proposed ordinances annexing property (2011-487) and zoning property (2011-488) located at 2120 E. Delavan Dr. to R1 upon annexation received their second reading and public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said ordinances, seconded by Councilmember Rashkin and passed unanimously. (File Ord. Nos. 2011-487 & 2011-488) 4. A proposed ordinance prohibiting the possession of any firearm in any City building or structure except as allowed by law for sworn law enforcement and peace officers received its second reading and public hearing. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., spoke against the ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Council President postponed action on said ordinance until August 22, 2011. (File Ord. No. 2011-493) 5. Discussion and action on a proposed City Council policy establishing a Code of Conduct for members of the City Council; and Commissions, Committees, and Boards. (Revised Council Policy No. 88) Councilmember Voskuil moved to adopt said policy, seconded by Councilmember Dongarra-Adams. Councilmember Liebert stated for the record he was voting against the policy because it was not the best use of the Council’s time. The motion passed by the following vote: Aye: Brunner, Dongarra-Adams, McDonald, and Voskuil. Nay: Liebert and Rashkin. NEW BUSINESS 1. Recommendation of the Transportation Committee: Public hearing and action on a proposed resolution authorizing the removal of traffic control signals at Academy St. and W. Milwaukee St. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., suggested that the traffic signal be replaced with four-way stop signs. Dianna Lund, 329 N. Academy St., Burdette Erickson, 115 S. High St., and Morris Olson, 1814 Rockport Rd., spoke against the resolution. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Liebert moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Rashkin. Councilmember Liebert offered a friendly amendment that the City install signage informing motorists they must yield to pedestrians which was accepted by the seconder. The motion, as amended, failed by the following vote: Nay: Brunner, Dongarra-Adams, McDonald and Voskuil. Aye: Liebert and Rashkin. (File Res. No. 2011-825) 2. Award of Contracts 2011-14 (Evonik Shoreline Restoration), 2011-15 (Sanitary Sewer Lining & Point Repairs), and 2011-16 (Monterey Park Concrete Flatwork) for Public Works Bid Schedule “D” – 2011. Councilmember Rashkin moved to award the following contracts to the low bidders with the intent to include funds for contract 2011-15 in the 2011 Note Issue: Contract Company Amount 2011-14 Valia Excavating, LLC $ 63,150.00 2011-15 Utility Services Authority, LLC. $609,581.00 2011-16 J.B. Johnson Bros. LLC. $ 43,193.15 The motion was seconded by Councilmember Liebert and passed unanimously. 3. Update and possible action on proposed business incubator. Councilmember McDonald moved to approve increasing the City’s matching funds for the construction of a business incubator by $562,000, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. 4. A proposed ordinance amending the City’s Sign Code to allow electronic message signs within Sign District E under specific situations and if approved by the Plan Commission through a conditional sign permit was introduced, referred to the Plan Commission and scheduled for a public hearing on September 12, 2011. (File Ord. No. 2011-494) 5. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., asked the Council to earmark Community Development authority grant money to help individuals maintain their homes. 6. Matters not on the Agenda. Councilmember Rashkin encouraged citizens to “like” the City of Janesville’s Facebook page. 7. Councilmember Voskuil moved to convene into closed session, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85(1)(e), for the purpose of deliberating and setting the negotiation and bargaining strategies, terms, and conditions for a potential industrial site TIF #22 development agreement, since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council convened into closed session at 8:38 p.m. These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council. David T. Godek City Deputy Clerk-Treasurer JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE AGENDA 8/8/2011 RECOMMENDED A. ELECTRICIANS–ORIGINAL Mark A. Hady 445 Hady Ln., Watertown, WI Robert Helback 7124 W. Wind Lake Rd., Wind Lake, WI Michael G. O’Donoghue 615 N. 79 St., Wauwatosa, WI James P. Rugg 21500 W. Greenfield, New Berlin, WI B. ORIGINAL CLASS B BEER ONLY AND CLASS C WINE ONLY LICENSES Italian House Inc. Edmund C. Halabi 1603 E. Racine St. C. ORIGINAL CLASS B INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE Kandu Industries, Inc. d/b/a Pontiac Convention Center Rodney J. Oksuita 2809 N. Pontiac Dr. D. CHANGE IN PREMISE TO ALLOW OUTDOOR LIGHTING ON VOLLEYBALL COURTS AND AN EXTENSION OF VOLLEYBALL HOURS TO 10:00PM MCDJ, LLC d/b/a Sneakers Bar & Grill Connie DeWitt 1221 Woodman Rd. CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 20, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Tim Wellnitz, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorization for the Administration to Deny a Liability Claim from Amanda Stewart-Ryan in the Amount of $16,740.52. On April 2, 2011, a sewer back-up occurred in the basement of the residence of Amanda Stewart-Ryan located at 2021 Frontier Road in Janesville. On June 9, 2011, a claim was received from Amanda Stewart-Ryan for property damage in the amount of $16,740.52. After investigating this incident, and with the concurrence of the City’s Insurance Claims Representative at Cities & Villages Mutual Insurance Company (CVMIC), it has been determined that the City should deny this claim. Resolution 89-1175, establishing our claims administration procedure, states in section 4.3a: The City Claims Administrator shall review, investigate, verify and within ninety (90) days of receiving such claim, prepare and forward a written recommendation to the Common Council for its review, consideration, and action each and every claim in face amount greater than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). I recommend that the City Council deny by consent and authorize the Administration to deny the claim received from Amanda Stewart-Ryan in the amount of $16,740.52. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager J:\Finance & Administration\Finance Administration\Risk\Claims-Word\City Council Memos\Amanda Stewart-Ryan.doc HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION MEMORANDUM July 27, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Susan Musick, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Retirement Recognition Emil W. Dallman Executive Summary At the City Council meeting of August 8, 2011, the following retirement commendation will be considered under the consent agenda: 1. Emil W. Dallman for twenty-eight years of service with the City of Janesville (File Resolution Number 2011-826).  Emil will not be attending the August 8, 2011, Council meeting.  Emil began working for the City of Janesville on April 11, 1983, as a Firefighter/Paramedic with the Janesville Fire Department, and is retiring as a Driver-Operator.  Emil’s retirement date is August 4, 2011. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of File Resolution 2011-826. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-826 Whereas, Emil W. Dallman is retiring from City of Janesville employment after having diligently served the people of the City of Janesville and the community for twenty-eight years; as a firefighter, emergency medical technician, and retiring as a Driver-Operator with the City of Janesville Fire Department; and Whereas, during Emil W. Dallman’s employment with the City of Janesville, he provided exemplary professional service and demonstrated conscientious devotion to the duties of his position, which he performed with skill and ability, sincerity, honesty, and dedication; and Whereas, it is desired that such commendable service to the City of Janesville be properly recognized; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the people of the City of Janesville, through the City Council, do express their grateful appreciation to Emil W. Dallman for his twenty-eight years of loyal public service. th Dated this 8 day of August, 2011. Motion by: ADOPTED: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Dongarra-Adams Liebert ATTEST: McDonald Rashkin Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Steeber APPROVED AS TO FORM: Voskuil Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Human Resources Prepared by: Human Resources LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 2, 2011 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Shelley Slapak, Acting Recreation Director SUBJECT: Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with JNB Signs for the acceptance of a sign donation at the Ice Arena. (File Res. No. 2011-824) DATE: August 2, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ The City of Janesville has a limited and non-exclusive lease and use agreement with the Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC for the Janesville Jets use of the Ice Arena. The Janesville Jets have been working with J.N.B. Signs to arrange for a new sign to be placed outside at the Ice Arena. The current sign is in bad shape, cracked, and does not have sufficient suction for letters. J.N.B. Signs would like to donate a refurbished sign to the City, but the deal is primarily a trade between J.N.B. Signs and Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC. A resolution is attached authorizing the City of Janesville’s acceptance of a new outdoor sign from J.N.B. Signs, Inc. for the Janesville Ice Arena. There is no cost to the City in the adoption of this Resolution. The sign donation is beneficial to the Ice Arena and the various users. Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 2011-824. The City Manager concurs with the Recreation Division recommendation. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Assistant City Manager Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 2011-824 A Resolution authorizing the City of Janesville’s acceptance of a new outdoor sign from J.N.B. Signs, Inc., for the Janesville Ice Arena on Beloit Avenue. Whereas, the City of Janesville (“CITY”) owns building known as the Janesville Ice Arena and certain real property located at 821 Beloit Avenue, City of Janesville, County of Rock, State of Wisconsin 53545 (“ICE ARENA”); and Whereas, the CITY and Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC, (“WHP”) d/b/a the Janesville Jets, a semi-pro ice hockey league team, entered into a certain Limited and Non-Exclusive Lease and Use Agreement Between the City of Janesville and Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC, dated the th 7 July 2009 by the CITY and WHP (“LEASE”) for the ICE ARENA; and Whereas, J.N.B. Signs, Inc., is a Wisconsin domestic corporation conducting its principal business at Suite, 1221 Venture Drive, Janesville, WI 53546 (“JNBS”) and desires, together with its principal Anthony Russotto, desire to donate to the CITY a refurbished outdoor sign (“SIGN”) for use at the ICE ARENA by the CITY, WHP, and the Janesville Jets to replace the current, older, scoreboard sign located there; and Whereas, WHP and the Janesville Jets have been working with JNBS to arrange for a new sign to be placed outside at the ICE ARENA. JNBS is donating to the CITY a refurbished sign that is significantly better than the current ICE ARENA outdoor sign, worth approximately $8,178, but the deal is primarily a “trade” between JNB and WHP, although the CITY shall retain full, free, and clear ownership of both the SIGN and the current sign at all times even after installation (“trade”); and Whereas, a true and correct of the proposed Agreement for the sign is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth verbatim; and Whereas, the Common Council find that the acceptance of the refurbished sign for the Ice Arena will be in the best interests of and benefit to the City, its properties, its residents, businesses, and taxpayers. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that: 1. All above introductions and recitals are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth verbatim; and 2. The City Administration is authorized on behalf of the City of Janesville to accept the donation of the sign and use it accordingly; and 3. The City Administration shall execute the Sign Donation Agreement on behalf of the City, direct and complete the installation and related activities, take any and all other necessary actions to undertake the donation and use of the old sign, and comply with intent of the Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and his designee(s), on behalf of the City of Janesville, is/are hereby jointly and severally authorized and empowered to negotiate, draft, review, revise, modify, amend, execute, enter into, file and/or record additional applications, agreements, amendments, documents, reports, and letters of understanding concerning this matter, and to take whatever additional other actions that the City Manager may determine in his sole discretion, from time to time and at any time, necessary and/or desirable in the public interest to effectuate the intent of this Resolution and/or the public good. 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, Wald Klimczyk Proposed by: Recreation Manager Prepared by: City Attorney J.N.B. SIGNS, INC. NEW OUTDOOR ICE ARENA SIGN DONATION TO CITY OF JANESVILLE Whereas, the City of Janesville (“CITY”) owns building known as the Janesville Ice Arena and certain real property located at 821 Beloit Avenue, City of Janesville, County of Rock, State of Wisconsin 53545 (“ICE ARENA”); and Whereas, the CITY and Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC, (“WHP”) d/b/a the Janesville Jets, a semi-pro ice hockey league team, entered into a certain Limited and Non-Exclusive Lease and Use Agreement Between the th City of Janesville and Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC, dated the 7 July 2009 by the CITY and WHP (“LEASE”) for the ICE ARENA; and Whereas, J.N.B. Signs, Inc., is a Wisconsin domestic corporation conducting its principal business at Suite, 1221 Venture Drive, Janesville, WI 53546 (“JNBS”) and desires, together with its principal, one Anthony Russotto, desire to donate to the CITY a refurbished outdoor sign (“SIGN”) for use at the ICE ARENA by the CITY, WHP, and the Janesville Jets to replace the current, older, scoreboard sign located there; and Whereas, WHP and the Janesville Jets have been working with JNBS to arrange for a new sign to be placed outside at the ICE ARENA. JNBS is donating to the CITY a refurbished sign that is significantly better than the current ICE ARENA outdoor sign, worth approximately $8,178, but the deal is primarily a “trade” between JNB and WHP, although the CITY shall retain full, free, and clear ownership of both the SIGN and the current sign at all times even after installation (“trade”); and Whereas, the City Manager has provided initial approval for immediate replacement in the manner set forth herein given the desire of WHP, the Janesville Jets, and JNBS to complete this replacement as soon as possible now in 2011; and Whereas, the Common Council of the CITY accepted the SIGN donation and replacement in open session th during their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, the 8 day of August, 2011, finding this donation and arrangement beneficial and in the interest of the CITY, its residents, visitors, lessee, and guests; and Whereas, the CITY shall maintain and repair the SIGN just as it would have the current Ice Arena outdoor sign, and at no additional cost or expense to the CITY; and Whereas, all other costs and expenses arising from and/or pertaining to the SIGN, its donation, and installation shall be solely borne, paid, and/or provided by JNBS; and Whereas, WHP, the Janesville Jets, JNBS, and the CITY jointly and severally find the logos, arrangement, and appropriate details of this donation and use acceptable. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, for the good and valuable benefits and consideration arising from this Agreement and inuring to each of the parties hereto, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties, WHP, the Janesville Jets, JNBS, and the CITY promise and agree as follows:  Each of the above recitals is reiterated and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth verbatim.  The CITY accepts the SIGN on the terms and conditions set forth herein.  Pursuant to the Common Council authorization and approval, the City Manager of the CITY was authorized and empowered to negotiate, draft, review, revise, modify, amend, execute, enter into, file, and/or record additional agreements, amendments, documents, and letters of understanding concerning this matter, and to take whatever additional other actions that the City Manager may determine in his sole discretion, from time to time and at any time, necessary and/or desirable in the public interest to effectuate the intent of this Agreement.  Each of the other parties by signing below acknowledges and represents that it is authorized to enter into this Agreement. This _______ day of August , 2011. _________________________________ Eric J. Levitt, City Manager _________________________________ JNB Signs, Inc., Vice President _________________________________ Wisconsin Hockey Partners, LLC. and on behalf Janesville Jets 2 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM August 3, 2011 TO: City Council FROM:Rebecca Smith, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event Request Council President Brunner requested an item be added to the August 8 meeting agenda to provide a moment for Mr. Jon Wangerin and Mr. Larry Barton to discuss the recent YWCA Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event. Specifically, Mr. Wangerin and Mr. Barton would like to recognize the Janesville Police Department and Chief of Police David Moore for their support of the YWCA and of the Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event. Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event The Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event is an annual fundraiser for the YWCA of Rock County, located in Janesville. Proceeds from this event support the operations of anti- violence programming which provides walk-in services for victims, emergency shelter and safety, long-term support, and transitional housing for survivors of physical, sexual, emotional, and other forms of relationship violence. CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager 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 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 LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 2, 2011 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Shelley Slapak, Acting Recreation Director SUBJECT: Action on a Request from Partners in Prevention-Rock County to Waive Special Event Fees for Family Fun Fest ______________________________________________________________________ Summary Partners in Prevention-Rock County, Inc., a nonprofit organization, submitted a Special Event Application to conduct the 2011 Family Fun Fest in Riverside Park to be held on September 10, 2011. This alcohol, tobacco and drug-free event is free and open to the public. Partners in Prevention-Rock County, Inc. have again requested that the City of Janesville waive the special event fee of $120 for 2011. Additionally, they are requesting that the City waive the $148 equipment fee (20 picnic tables, portable stage, trash barrels, recycling bins and bags), $60 pavilion reservation fee, and $25 deposit fee for recycling bins for 2011. Partners in Prevention requests that the City of Janesville co-sponsor this event, and waive all fees. Recommendation Leisure Services is in receipt of all required documents to hold their special event, including, application, certificate of insurance, site map, pavilion permit, recycling plan, and list of venders. This event meets standards for event approval. Family Fun Fest does not meet Council Policy #87 for special event permit fee exemption. City Manager Recommendation Partners in Prevention application does not meet the Council criteria allowing Leisure Services to waive the fees administratively, therefore, I recommend denial of the request to waive the fees. The reason for the recommendation is, while I believe this is a worthwhile event, I believe there are many worthwhile events and this is the reason the policy was established by Council. We continue to attempt to maintain quality parks activities and recreation activities and a part of the reason for the fees is to assist the department in maintaining other quality programs. If we did not have the fees other programs may suffer due to those resources going into supporting the fee waiver. Suggested Motion Staff has no recommendation. Per Council Policy Statement #87 (Special Event Permits), the City Council reserves the authority to waive any portion of any Special Event Permit Fee. Background & Analysis Family Fun Fest has been an annual event since 2003. The City Council waived fees associated with the event in 2009 and 2010. Prior to 2009, special event fees were paid for this event by the event organizer. Per Marv Wopat’s letter dated July 20, 2011, there are many organizations involved in this family friendly event. In the past the Janesville Police Department and Fire Department have had a presence at the event. The Leisure Services Department is now in receipt of the 2011 Special Event Application and a letter from Marv Wopat, Chairman of Family Fun Fest., requesting the City waive the special event fees of $353 (see attached letter). Family Fun Fest provides liability insurance (see attached). Leisure Services is also in receipt of their recycling plan (see attached). This matter is being brought before the City Council because Partners in Prevention- Rock County, Inc. does not meet Council Policy #87 for special event permit fee exemption for Family Fun Fest. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Admin. Services/Assistant City Manager Danny Davis, Deputy Chief of Police Tom Presny, Parks Director 2 Community Development Department Memorandum Date: August 2, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services Jay Winzenz, Dir. of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acquisition of a municipal utility easement from the Elks Lodge at 2100 North Washington Street (Resolution No. 2011- 827) and authorization for the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Elks Lodge to take ownership of their private force main. SUMMARY The property located at 2100 North Washington Street is owned and operated by the Elks Lodge of Janesville. Sewer Service to the existing Elks Club is provided with a privately-owned force main connected to the City’s gravity sewer service system. The force main extends approximately 2,000 feet in length along the Elk’s east property line, crosses the golf course entrance road to Riverside Park, and then extends along the railroad tracks to Burns Avenue where it connects into the City’s gravity sewer system. The force main was installed 25+ years ago to allow for a connection to the City’s public sewer system. Recently, City Staff and representatives from the Elks have discussed the City taking over ownership of the private force main. This would provide the City with the future opportunity to connect the clubhouse at Riverside Golf Course and another intervening property with sewer service. In order to do so, the City would need to acquire a municipal utility easement to allow for future ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the force main on the Elks’ property. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt file resolution 2011-827 authorizing the acquisition of a municipal utility easement on property owned by the Elks lodge located at 2100 North Washington Street; and authorize the City manager to enter into an agreement with the Elks to assume public ownership of their private force main. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that the City Council support a motion to approve Resolution No. 2011-827 authorizing the acquisition of a municipal utility easement on property owned by the Elks lodge located at 2100 North Washington Street noting that the Plan Commission has not reviewed the financial aspects of this transaction. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The Assistant City Manager concurs with the Plan Commission recommendation and also recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Elks to take ownership of their private force main. This will allow Riverside Golf Course to connect to the City’s gravity sewer system when their septic system fails. It will also allow Wedges, whose septic system has failed, to annex and connect to the City’s sewer system. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager concurs with the Plan Commission recommendation. ANALYSIS A. A private force main owned by the Elks is located immediately adjacent to Riverside Golf Course and the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor along the east perimeter of the site. This facility is part of an approximate 2,000 foot long private force main that connects to the City’s public sewer system near the south side of Riverside Park. The land area defined by the proposed utility easement on the Elks property contains approximately 9,000 s.f. in area. The proposed easement would be 15 feet in width centered over the existing force main on the subject site (See Map 1 – Easement Location). The remaining portion of the force main is located on property under City ownership or on intervening land where existing easements are in place. B. The clubhouse building located at Riverside Golf Course currently receives sewer service from a septic system because gravity flow sanitary sewer mains cannot be extended to serve the property. Additionally, an intervening property adjacent to the force main located at 2006 N County Trunk E, also known as “Wedges”, has experienced a failed septic system. This property owner must either replace the system or connect to the City of Janesville’s sewer system. If the City assumes ownership and maintenance responsibility of the private force main, a connection to both properties can be accomplished. Acquisition of a municipal utility easement to allow for those connections is a requirement of this arrangement between the City and the Elks Lodge. C. State Statutes require that the Plan Commission review any proposed easement acquisition to determine if it is consistent with established City plans. Based on staff’s analysis, acquisition of this easement is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Point Source Water Quality Management Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City coordinate the provision of public utilities to support the most cost-efficient and effective facilities for all residents and groups within the community. This includes the provision of sanitary sewer service in areas where connections to public facilities can be made. Additionally, one of the primary purposes of the Janesville Area Water Quality Map Management Plan provides that municipal sanitary sewer service be made available to properties within the City’s urban service limits. This may serve to protect the quality of the environment by eliminating conditions where inadequate sewage collection and treatment facilities may exist. D. The City has reached an agreement with the Elks Lodge for conveyance of a municipal utility easement and transfer of ownership of the force main. This agreement contains the following provisions: 1. Provides for a one-time payment from the City to the Elks of $5,000 2. If the City improves the connection between Riverside Golf Course and the Elks property, under the railroad tracks, the City will pay for any improvements necessary on the Elks property to make that connection. 3. The City will assume ownership of and all maintenance responsibility for the force main beginning 5 feet outside of the Elks storage building, which contains their pump. 4. The Elks will maintain ownership of, and maintenance responsibility for, their pump. 5. The easement provides the City with a future opportunity to connect the golf course clubhouse to the force main as that connection may be necessary. PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – AUGUST 1, 2011 Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services, presented the written staff report. There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner Adams to forward the acquisition of a utility easement from the Elks Lodge at 2100 North Washington Street to the City Council with a favorable recommendation noting that the Plan Commission had not reviewed the financial aspects of this transaction. The motion carried on a 6-0-0 vote. cc: Eric Levitt Jay Winzenz RESOLUTION NO. 2011-827 A resolution authorizing the acquisition of a municipal utility easement from the Elks Lodge located at 2100 N. Washington Street. WHEREAS , sewer service to the existing Elks Lodge located at 2100 N. Washington Street is provided by a private force main approximately 2,000 feet in length and connected to the City of Janesville’s gravity sewer system, and; WHEREAS, the Elks Lodge is currently responsible for maintenance and repair costs of the facility since it is a private force main owned by the Elks, and; WHEREAS , the Elks Lodge and the City have entered into a memorandum of understanding describing the terms and conditions under which ownership of the force main serving the Elks property will transfer from the Elks Lodge to the City of Janesville, and; WHEREAS, the private force main owed by the Elks Lodge is located immediately adjacent to Riverside Golf Course which is owned by the City and the club house building currently receives sewerage service via an on-site septic system, and; WHEREAS , property located at 2006 N. County Trunk E, currently located outside of City limits, known as “Wedges”, is located immediately south of the Elks Lodge property, and; WHEREAS , the Wedges property is served by a private septic system which has failed and can be connected to the force main if the City takes control of it, and; WHEREAS , the acquisition and conveyance of a 15-foot wide municipal utility easement centered over the existing force main on the Elks property allows the City to assume ownership of the force main and provide a future connection to the club house at Riverside Golf Course and Wedges; and WHEREAS , Wis. Stats. §§ 62.22 (1), 62.23 (17) (a), 62.23 (17) (b), 66.0101, 62.11(5) and Chapter 32 and other pertinent Wisconsin Statutes permit the City’s acquisition, development, ownership, and use of land by means of easements and agreements for public purposes including, but not limited to, these set forth herein. WHEREAS , the Common Council hereby find that this easement acquisition and acceptance is in the best interests of, and of benefit to, the City of Janesville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Common Council of the City of Janesville, that they hereby authorize and direct the City Manager and/or his designee, to acquire a utility easement from the Elks Lodge located at 2100 North Washington Street on behalf of the City of Janesville, as the City Manager may deem necessary or desirable to effectuate the intent of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Manager and his designees may, from time to time, negotiate, draft, amend, execute and enter into such changes and other documents to the property acquisition documents, contracts and agreements and take such other action as the City Manager may deem necessary or desirable to effectuate the intent of this resolution. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Dongarra-Adams Liebert ATTEST: McDonald Rashkin Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Steeber Voskuil APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Community Development Department Prepared by: Community Development Department Û´µ­ Ô±¼¹» 窻®­·¼» Ù±´º ݱ«®­» Ю±°±­»¼ ˬ·´·¬§ Û¿­»³»²¬ ïëù o ß½¯«·­·¬·±² ±º Û¿­»³»²¬ É·­½±²­·²ù­ п®µ д¿½» Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» º®±³ Û´µ­ Ô±¼¹» ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ðêðïîðïèðîìð éñîéñïï ÞòÞòô д¿²²·²¹ Í»®ª·½»­ ï þ ã ïðð ù Ú»»¬ ÍæÄЮ±¶»½¬­Äд¿²²·²¹ÄÓ·­½ÄÛ´µ­Ý´«¾Û¿­»³»²¬ò³¨¼ Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Janesville And the Elks Lodge 254 The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to describe the terms and conditions under which the ownership of a four (4) inch private force main currently serving the Elks facility located at 2100 N. Washington Street in Janesville, Rock County, WI 53548 will transfer from the Elks to the City of Janesville. This MOU is not intended to be a complete description of all duties or responsibilities for either the City Administration, the City, or the Elks, but is intended to memorialize the major terms and conditions that have been agreed to. Sewer service to the existing Elks lodge, located at 2100 N. Washington Street, Janesville, WI, is currently provide via a four (4) inch private gravity sewer system. The force main is approximately 2,000 feet in length and currently owned by the Elks. Since it is a private force main the Elks are responsible for maintenance and repair cos The main is of unknown age, repair, and condition and may subject the Elks to an undetermined future liability. The City of Janesville is the owner of property located at 2100 Golf Course Road, Janesville, WI, known as Riverside Golf Course. Upon the Golf course property is a club house that currently receives sewerage service via a septic system. Septic systems have a finite life and at some point in the future it may be in the best interests of the City to connect into the gravity sewer system to service the clubhouse. Bruce Monson is currently the owner of real property located at 2006 N. County Trunk E, outh and adjacent to the Elks property, but is not currently within the corporate limits of the City of Janesville. The private septic system serving Wedges has failed and the property owner must either replace the system or connect to the City of Janesvi The private force main owned by the Elks is located immediately adjacent to Riverside Golf Course and Wedges. A separate parallel force main could be installed to provide sewer service to these two (2) properties; however, it may make more economic sense to connect to the force main owned by the Elks. By allowing these connections and the City to take ownership of the private force main, the Elks will be relieving themselves of an unknown future liability for the maintenance and repair of said force main. In this way all parties benefit from this arrangement. This MOU memorializes certain, but not all, of the basic discussions and understandings that have occurred between the City Administration and the Elks, but it does not provide the \\petey\cojhome\development\engineering\sewer & water\sanitary sewer - miscellaneous\elks lodge 254 mou revised.doc details necessary to implement any understandings or agreements. This MOU is based in large part upon a discussion between Mike Payne, Engineering Manager, and the Elks Trustees during a February 14, 2011, Trustees meeting at the Elks Lodge. The City Administration acknowledges the Elks Trustees are agents of the general membership and are not authorized to make decisions without a vote of the general membership. Similarly, the Elks acknowledge that Mike Payne and the City Administration cannot commit on behalf of the Common Council of the City. It is further understood that Jacob J. Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager, and representatives of the Elks have also discussed creating a paved pathway between the Elks property and the Riverside Golf Course Club House located at 2100 Golf Course Road (Club House), at an existing limestone underpass of the railroad tracks. While specific plans have not been developed and funding has not been programmed, conceptually this would involve the creation of a paved pathway from the parking lot of the Riverside Golf Course underneath the railroad tracks through an existing limestone tunnel, exiting the tunnel and connecting to an existing paved pathway on the Elks property (see attached). This will allow direct access between Riverside Golf Course and the Elks property to facilitate movement during golf outings. . This timing of this improvement is dependent upon the availability of capital funds and the growth of the golf outing business. Any access agreement(s) will be pursued separately from this MOU. The City Administration agrees to: 1.Pressure test approximately (2,000) feet of main which is currently a private sewer lateral owned and maintained by the Elks. Pressure testing may require an excavation adjacent to the Elks storage building containing the pumping equipment. The City will pay for all costs associated with the testing and coordinate lawn restoration upon completion of testing. 2.If, as a result of the pressure testing, the force main is damaged the City shall assume responsibility for restoring the force main to its prior condition at no expense to the Elks. 3.Following a successful pressure test, as determined by the City in its sole discretion, the City will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility of the force main, from five (5) feet outside the Elks storage building to the discharge manhole in N. Washington Street at such time the property at 2006 N. Washington Street (currently known as Wedges) or the Riverside Golf Course Club House desires connection to the force main. 4.Create a minimum fifteen foot (15 wide sewer easement approximately centered upon and over the existing force main route in order to accept the existing force main into public ownership. 5.Prepare legal description(s) for the easement and draft easement documents for prior review and approval by Elks Trustees, and recording at the Rock County Court House. Such easement(s) from the Elks must be approved by all Elks entities having authority over approval of such real property transactions and conveyances. \\petey\cojhome\development\engineering\sewer & water\sanitary sewer - miscellaneous\elks lodge 254 mou revised.doc 6.Pay to the Elks the sum of five thousand dollars and no/100 ($5,000.00) following the execution of the sanitary sewer easement by the Elks and the transfer of ownership of the force main. 7.Only use the easement acquired under this agreement for the purposes of a sanitary sewer easement, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Elks 8.If there comes a time when the easement is no longer necessary to provide sanitary sewer service to both the Elks Lodge and Riverside Golf Course, the City will vacate the easement. 9.Consult with industry representative(s) prior to any future connections to the force main and require private pressure system(s), including backflow preventers, check valves, grease interceptors, etc., to be approved by industry representative(s). 10.Pay all costs associated with testing and converting the existing force main to a public facility. The City will not pay for any required improvements or upgrades to the existing pumping facility which will remain in private ownership. 11.Install clean outs and/or other necessary equipment as part of the public system, as required to meet industry standards. 12.Require the property at 2006 N. Washington Street (currently known as Wedges) to install a check valve of a nature and kind that is acceptable to the Janesville Utility Director, to be located upstream of future lateral connections to avoid a back up at the Elks. 13.If and when, in its sole discretion, the City improves the pathway between the Riverside Golf Course parking lot and underneath the railroad tracks, it will connect said pathway to existing pathways located on the Elks property solely at the expense of the City. The Elks agree to: 1.Allow City and its contractor to perform pressure testing of the existing force main. 2.Water and maintain restored lawn area expense, if excavation is required for pressure testing the force main. 3.Provide to the City copies of any and all plans, specifications, shop drawings, as-built drawings, and operation manuals related to the existing pumping facility. 4.Allow the City or its consultant to come upon the Elks to survey route and alignment of the existing force main. This process may require excavation of pipe. The Elks acknowledge the existing force main pipe location and depth are unknown. Payment, including restoration, for the survey and any associated 5.Allow the City or industry representative(s), familiar with design and operation of private booster pumping stations, to come upon the Elks property to fully inspect the wet well and dry well components of the existing pumping facility to ensure compatibility with future connections to the force main. \\petey\cojhome\development\engineering\sewer & water\sanitary sewer - miscellaneous\elks lodge 254 mou revised.doc 6.Allow the property at 2006 N. Washington Street (currently known as Wedges) and the Riverside Golf Course Club House to extend laterals to connect to force main. 7.Connection of the Riverside Golf Course Club House lateral will require a separate fifteen foot () wide minimum easement upon the Elks property and this easement shall be granted to the City by the Elks. The City will pay for costs associated with establishing and drafting the easement. The Elks are not interested in allowing properties other than Wedges or the Club House to connect without negotiating a future agreement with the City. 8.Agrees to continue future maintenance responsibilities of their private pumping facility, solely at the cost and expense of the Elks and not the City. Dated this ______________ day of ________________, 2011. _________________________ ______________________________ Elks Lodge 254 Representative Jacob J. Winzenz, Asst. City Manager \\petey\cojhome\development\engineering\sewer & water\sanitary sewer - miscellaneous\elks lodge 254 mou revised.doc HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION MEMORANDUM August 2, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Susan A. Musick, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Action on a Proposed Resolution Implementing City of Janesville “Pick- Up” of Employee Retirement Contributions Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 414(h)(2)(File Resolution 2011 – 823) ______________________________________________________________________ The State adopted Act 10 (2009 - 2011 Budget Repair Bill) and Act 32 (2011 – 2013 Biennial Budget Bill amending some provisions of Act 10), which includes a requirement that public employees, not covered under an existing labor agreement, pay 50% of their pension contribution. Act 32 also specifies that the employee pension contributions for public employees be pre-taxed. IRS regulations require that the employer must adopt a resolution making contributions pre-tax. Act 32 serves as that resolution for State employees, but since City of Janesville employees are not State employees we must also adopt a resolution. This Resolution is attached. There is no cost to the City in the adoption of this Resolution. Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 2011 - 823. Thank you. City Manager recommendation: The City Manager concurs with the H.R. Director’s recommendation. The employee contributions will begin in the middle of August. PC: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager & Director of Administrative Services RESOLUTION NO. 2011 – 823 A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING CITY OF JANESVILLE “PICK-UP” OF EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 414(h)(2) WHEREAS , Internal Revenue Code section 414(h)(2) (“Code”) permits public employers to “pick- up” contributions to a governmental pension plan that are designated as employee contributions so that they may be paid for on a pre-tax basis and thereby be excluded from an employee’s taxable income, provided that the contributions are paid by the employer in lieu of contributions by the employee, and the employee may not elect, directly or indirectly, to receive the amounts instead of having them paid by the employer; and WHEREAS , the Common Council of the City of Janesville (“City”) have determined that taking this action does not increase the City of Janesville’s cost of funding the retirement benefits owed to the Wisconsin Retirement System and chooses to take this action in order to allow covered employees to exclude such amounts from their taxable income due to the application of IRS Code section 414(h)(2); and WHEREAS, it is desirable under federal tax law that the execution or modification of a payroll practice to be implemented by the City affecting employee required contributions to a pension plan be approved and adopted by the Common Council as the governing body of the City; and WHEREAS , the Common Council are authorized to make this determination, pursuant to Wis. Stats. Sec. 62.11(5), and other applicable laws; and WHEREAS, the Council desire that those City employees who are required to contribute a portion of their Wisconsin Retirement System (“WRS”) contributions by reduction of their wages or salary, either by state law or in accordance with a labor agreement or employment contract, to make such contributions in a pre-tax manner; and WHEREAS, this Resolution applies to contributions to the WRS include both employee required contributions under Wis. Stats. Sec. 40.05(1)(a) and employer required contributions under Wis. Stats. Sec. 40.05(2); and WHEREAS, the Council recognize that contribution to a pension plan originating through reduction of an employee’s wages or salary are traditionally made on an after-tax basis unless otherwise accepted by the receiving pension plan; and WHEREAS, the Council further recognize that the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, which administers WRS, including, but not limited to Wis. Stats. Secs. 40.05 and 40.05(1)(a)1., as amended from time to time, will accept pre-tax contributions from employees if the employer meets the criteria set forth under federal tax law; and WHEREAS, the Council intend that the actions of the City setting forth the method by which employee contributions to WRS will be made in a pre-tax manner to be in compliance with all applicable rules and laws under the Internal Revenue Code and all supporting rulings, including Internal Revenue Code Section 414(h)(2) and Revenue Ruling 2006-43, as from time to time amended or renumbered; and WHEREAS, the Council intend that the actions of the City setting forth this method to be applied prospectively, from the effective date of the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council find that the adoption of the protocol described herein is in the best interest of the employees and City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE, that the City’s adoption of the procedure to implement the pre-tax contributions to WRS by employees required to make WRS contributions, either by state law or in accordance with a labor agreement or employment contract, is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as they deem necessary or advisable to ensure that all employees required to make WRS contributions will do so in a pre-tax manner by reducing each employee’s compensation by the appropriate amount; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to IRS Code section 414(h)(2), the Common Council, on behalf of the City of Janesville, hereby elects to “pick-up” all contributions designated as employee contributions that its covered employees owe to the Wisconsin Retirement System (“WRS”), and that all contributions that are designated as employee contributions to the WRS will be paid by the City in accordance with the rules of IRS Code section 414(h)(2). These “pick-up” contributions will be withheld from employee wages as a condition of employment with no individual discretion by employees to have some other amount withheld or to have no amount withheld; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as, from time to time and at any time, any or all of them deem necessary and/or advisable to ensure that all employees required to make WRS contributions will not have the option or election of receiving the amount of the WRS contribution in cash or deferred election right within the meaning of Treasury Regulation section 1.401(k)-1(a)(3) with respect to any required employer or required employee contribution to the WRS; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions, from time to time and at any time, as any or all of them deem necessary an/or advisable to ensure that all employees required to make WRS contributions will not have the option of opting out of the pre-tax contribution program and will not have the option of making their contribution in an after-tax fashion; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized to perform all such acts, and to execute and deliver all such agreements, undertakings, documents, instruments, and certificates in the name and on behalf of the City or otherwise as each such officer and/or official from time to time and at any time may individually and/or collectively deem necessary, advisable, desirable, and/or appropriate to effectuate the purpose and intent of this Resolution; and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council reserves the right to modify or terminate any action taken herein if the Council deems that such modification or termination is in the best interest of the City or is required to comply with applicable law. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Dongarra-Adams ATTEST: Liebert McDonald Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Rashkin Steeber APPROVED AS TO FORM: Voskuil Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: City Comptroller and City Clerk- Treasurer Prepared by: City Attorney Community Development Department Memorandum Date: August 8, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Brad Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Introduce and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance annexing property located at 2006 North County Trunk E (File Ordinance No. 2011-495); and Introduce, refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance zoning property located at 2006 North County Trunk E to B2 upon annexation, and rezoning of other adjoining property to B2 (File Ordinance No. 2011-496). _____________________________________________________________________ Bruce & Lynn Monson have submitted a valid unanimous petition to annex property they own at 2006 North County Trunk E in Janesville Township. The property contains a bar/restaurant (Wedges) that has experienced a failed septic system. The property is contiguous with the City limits and can be served with municipal sewer and water. In order to connect to these utility services, annexation is required. Coincident with the annexation ordinance, the Community Development Department has prepared an ordinance to zone the property to B2, Community Shopping District. In addition to the request for B2 zoning of property within the annexation area, the applicants are requesting that a contiguous parcel of land under their ownership be rezoned from its current Conservancy and Parking Overlay zoning to the B2 District (see location map). The Community Development Department recommends that following the first reading of Ordinance No. 2011-495 and Ordinance No. 2011-496, they be set for public hearing on September 26, 2011. While the annexation does not require Plan Commission review, the zoning of the property must be referred to the Plan Commission. We therefore recommend that Ordinance No. 2011-496 be referred to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation. cc: Eric Levitt Jay Winzenz ORDINANCE NO. 2011-495 An ordinance annexing territory in Section 23 in T.3N., R.12E. of the 4th P.M., Town of Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. WHEREAS , a petition signed by the owner of the land within such territory proposed to be annexed has been filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS , there are no electors residing in the territory; and WHEREAS , the necessary notices have been duly prepared, provided and served as required by law to all persons affected; and WHEREAS , this ordinance does not contain temporary zoning; and WHEREAS , the Department of Administration has not found the proposed annexation to be against the public interest; and WHEREAS , the Common Council has determined that this annexation is in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The territory described as follows is hereby attached to the City of Janesville. TH PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, T.3N., R.12E. OF THE 4 P.M., TOWN OF JANESVILLE, ROCK COUNTY, WISCONSIN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Commencing at the West 1/4 Corner of said Section, thence S.88°22’30”E. along the East-West Centerline of said Section, 2241.24 feet to the Centerline of County Highway “E”; thence S.42°32’E. along said Centerline 321.18 feet to the most Southerly Corner of a Certified Survey Map recorded in Volume 1, Page 312, as Document No. 758901; thence N.47°48’E. along the SE Line of said Certified Survey Map, 33.00 feet to the place of beginning for the land to be herein described; thence N.47°28’E. continuing along said SE Line, 224.55 feet to the North-South Centerline of said Section; thence S.1°08’45”W. along said North-South Centerline 325.14 feet; thence N.42°32’W. 235.00 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION II. After this annexation becomes effective, the above described property shall be exempt from and not subject to further taxation and assessments in the Town of Janesville and thence forth shall be subject to taxation and assessment as part of the City of Janesville for any and all purpose provided by law. SECTION III. All the territory attached by this ordinance is hereby made part of Ward 1 of the City of Janesville. SECTION IV. There are no residents in the area proposed for annexation. SECTION V. The annexation is within the Janesville School District. ORDINANCE NO. 2011-495 PAGE 2 SECTION VI. 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: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Applicant Prepared by: Community Development Department ORDINANCE NO. 2011-496 An ordinance changing and establishing the zoning classification of property located at and adjoining 2006 N. County Trunk E. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The zoning classification of the following described property is established as B2, Community Shopping District: TH PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, T.3N., R.12E. OF THE 4 P.M., TOWN OF JANESVILLE, ROCK COUNTY, WISCONSIN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Commencing at the West 1/4 Corner of said Section, thence S.88°22’30”E. along the East-West Centerline of said Section, 2241.24 feet to the Centerline of County Highway “E”; thence S.42°32’E. along said Centerline 321.18 feet to the most Southerly Corner of a Certified Survey Map recorded in Volume 1, Page 312, as Document No. 758901; thence N.47°48’E. along the SE Line of said Certified Survey Map, 33.00 feet to the place of beginning for the land to be herein described; thence N.47°28’E. continuing along said SE Line, 224.55 feet to the North-South Centerline of said Section; thence S.1°08’45”W. along said North-South Centerline 325.14 feet; thence N.42°32’W. 235.00 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION II. The zoning classification of the following described changed from Conservancy/Parking Overlay to B2, Community Shopping District. PART OF THE SW. ¼ OF THE NE.1/4 AND PART OF THE NW.1/4 OF THE SE.1/4 OF TH SECTION 23, T.3N., R.12E OF THE 4 P.M., CITY OF JANESVILLE, ROCK COUNTY, WISCONSIN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Commencing at the west ¼ corner of said Section 23; thence o S.8822’30”E. along the east-west centerline of said Section, 2241.24 feet to the centerline of oo C.T.H. E ; thence S.4232’E. along said centerline, 524.15 feet; thence N.2122’25”E. 133.01 feet to an iron pin monument on the north-south centerline of said section (as monumented), o thence N.108’45”E. along said north-south centerline, 101.1 feet to an iron pin monument at o the place of beginning for the land to be herein described; thence continuing N.108’45”E. along said north-south centerline, 202.82 feet to an iron pipe monument on the southwesterly R.O.W. o (Right-Of-Way) line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad property; thence S.3311’45”E. along said southwesterly R.O.W. line, 151.32 feet to an iron pin monument; thence o S.4846’20”W. 115.55 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION III. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 2011-496 PAGE 2 ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Dongarra-Adams Liebert ATTEST: McDonald Rashkin Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Steeber Voskuil APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Community Development Department Prepared by: Community Development Department Î×ÊÛÎÍ×ÜÛ ÐßÎÕ ÐßÎÝÛÔ ÌÑ ÞÛ ÎÛÆÑÒÛÜ Ñï ÚÎÑÓ ÝÑÒÍÛÎÊßÒÝÇ É×ÌØ ÐßÎÕ×ÒÙ ÑÊÛÎÔßÇ ÌÑ Þî Ý ÌÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÖßÒÛÍÊ×ÔÔÛ ßÒÒÛÈßÌ×ÑÒ ßÎÛß ÌÑ ÞÛ ÆÑÒÛÜ Þî Îí Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÖßÒÛÍÊ×ÔÔÛ q п®½»´ ¬± ¾» ®»¦±²»¼ Þî Ʊ²·²¹ Þ±«²¼¿®§ ß²²»¨¿¬·±² ß®»¿ Ý·¬§ Ô·³·¬­ Ô»¹»²¼ Îï Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ ú Ì©± Ú¿³·´§ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ñí Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ѻº·½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Óï Ô·¹¸¬ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ÎïÜ Ì©± Ú¿³·´§ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Þï Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ݱ²ª»²·»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬Óî Ù»²»®¿´ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Îî Ô·³·¬»¼ Ù»²»®¿´ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Þî ݱ³³«²·¬§ ͸±°°·²¹ Ü·­¬®·½¬Óí Ý»²¬®¿´ Ô·¹¸¬ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Îí Ù»²»®¿´ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Þí Ù»²»®¿´ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬Óì Ý»²¬®¿´ Ù»²»®¿´ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ü¿¬»æ èñïñïï ÎíÓ Ó»¼·«³ Ü»²­·¬§ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Þì Þ«­·²»­­ Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ü·­¬®·½¬ß ß¹®·½«´³¬«®¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Îì Ý»²¬®¿´ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ ͽ¿´»æ ïþã íððù Þë Ý»²¬®¿´ Þ««­·²»­­ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ó Ó·²·²¹ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ñï Ѻº·½» ñ λ­·¼»²½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Þê Ý»²¬®¿´ Í»®ª·½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ý Ý±²­»®ª¿²½§ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ó¿° ݱ±®¼·²¿¬»æ Öóïè Ñî Ý»²¬®¿´ Ѻº·½» ñ λ­·¼»½» Ü·­¬®·½¬ ÞÌ Þ«­·²»­­ Ì»½¸²±´±¹§ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒ ñ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÓßÐ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÖßÒÛÍÊ×ÔÔÛ ßÒÒÛÈßÌ×ÑÒñÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÓßÐ ï ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ îððê ÒÑÎÌØ ÝÑËÒÌÇ ÎÑßÜ Û ÍæЮ±¶»½¬­Äд¿²²·²¹ÄÝ¿­»­ÄÝ¿­»­óîðïïÄÖóïèÁß²²»¨óîððê Ò Ý¬§ μ Û CLERK-TREASURER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 29, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer SUBJECT: Introduction and Schedule a Public Hearing on a Proposed Ordinance Deleting and Recreating Electoral Ward Boundaries (Ord. No. 2011-497) On July 11, 2011, the City Council created 25 wards in the City of Janesville. At the time, the Clerk-Treasurer indicated that the Council may have to revise the ward plan because the State Legislature brought forward their redistricting plan without using wards as a base component to their maps. Subsequently, the State Legislature has adopted the maps and they are on the Governor’s desk waiting to be signed into law. We are proceeding with the assumption that the maps will be signed and that the City will be required to adjust our wards. Therefore, we have prepared this ordinance on the basis of the limited information that we have received so it can be introduced and scheduled for public hearing on August 22, 2011. The public hearing is the last regularly scheduled Council meeting before the County has to adopt their final map on September 8, 2011. When we receive official notice of the redistricting from the State, we will ensure that the data in the proposed ordinance is correct or we will prepare a revised ordinance for Council’s consideration on August 22, 2011. The proposed ordinance creates three additional wards and modifies existing wards 19, 22 and 23. We recommend that the Council introduce Ordinance No. 2011-497, which details our ward plan and schedule it for public hearing on August 22, 2011. City Manager Recommendation: The City Manager concurs with the City Clerk recommendation. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Assistant City Manager and Director of Administrative Services Enclosures Ordinance No. 2011-497 An ordinance deleting and recreating Electoral Ward Boundaries. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. WARD BOUNDARIES. Janesville General Ordinance No. 2001-175, Ordinance 2011-492 and all prior ordinances defining or redefining ward and supervisory district boundaries of and in the City of Janesville are hereby repealed and recreated as follows: The City of Janesville shall be and hereby is divided into twenty-eight (28) wards. Said ward boundaries are shown on a map which is and shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are described herein as follows: Ward 1 Census Block Numbers: 551050005001000 551050005001029 551050005002013 551050005005001 551050005001001 551050005001030 551050005002014 551050005005002 551050005001002 551050005001031 551050005002015 551050005005003 551050005001003 551050005001032 551050005002016 551050005005004 551050005001005 551050005001033 551050005002017 551050005005005 551050005001006 551050005001034 551050005002018 551050005005006 551050005001007 551050005001035 551050005002019 551050005005008 551050005001008 551050005001036 551050005002020 551050005005009 551050005001009 551050005001037 551050005002021 551050005005011 551050005001010 551050005002000 551050005003000 551050006002004 551050005001013 551050005002001 551050005003001 551050012012000 551050005001014 551050005002002 551050005003002 551050012022025 551050005001015 551050005002003 551050005003003 551050012022026 551050005001018 551050005002004 551050005003004 551050012022028 551050005001019 551050005002005 551050005003005 551050012022030 551050005001020 551050005002006 551050005003006 551050012022031 551050005001022 551050005002007 551050005003007 551050012022033 551050005001023 551050005002008 551050005003008 551050012022073 551050005001024 551050005002009 551050005003009 551050012022074 551050005001025 551050005002010 551050005003010 551050012022075 551050005001026 551050005002011 551050005003011 551050012022080 551050005001027 551050005002012 551050005005000 Ward 2 Census Block Numbers: 551050004003000 551050005004009 551050005005007 551050005005025 551050004003001 551050005004010 551050005005010 551050005005026 551050004003003 551050005004011 551050005005012 551050005005027 551050004003004 551050005004012 551050005005013 551050005005028 551050004003005 551050005004013 551050005005014 551050005005029 551050004003006 551050005004014 551050005005015 551050005005030 551050005004000 551050005004015 551050005005016 551050005005031 551050005004001 551050005004016 551050005005017 551050006002005 551050005004002 551050005004017 551050005005018 551050012011000 551050005004003 551050005004018 551050005005019 551050012011001 551050005004004 551050005004019 551050005005020 551050012011002 551050005004005 551050005004020 551050005005021 551050012011003 551050005004006 551050005004021 551050005005022 551050012012002 551050005004007 551050005004022 551050005005023 551050012012003 551050005004008 551050005004023 551050005005024 551050012012004 Page 1 of 11 551050012012005 551050012012008 551050012012012 551050012012066 551050012012006 551050012012009 551050012012064 551050012012067 551050012012007 551050012012010 551050012012065 551050012012068 Ward 3 Census Block Numbers: 551050001001011 551050004001004 551050004002001 551050004004018 551050001001012 551050004001005 551050004002002 551050004004019 551050001001013 551050004001006 551050004002003 551050004004020 551050001001023 551050004001007 551050004002004 551050004004021 551050001001024 551050004001008 551050004002005 551050004004022 551050001001025 551050004001009 551050004002006 551050004004023 551050001001026 551050004001010 551050004002007 551050004004024 551050001001027 551050004001011 551050004002008 551050004004030 551050001001028 551050004001012 551050004002009 551050004004031 551050001001029 551050004001013 551050004002010 551050004004032 551050001001030 551050004001014 551050004002011 551050004004033 551050001001031 551050004001015 551050004002012 551050004004034 551050001001032 551050004001016 551050004002013 551050004004035 551050001001033 551050004001017 551050004002014 551050004004036 551050001001034 551050004001018 551050004002015 551050004004037 551050001001047 551050004001019 551050004002016 551050004004038 551050001001048 551050004001020 551050004004000 551050004004039 551050001001049 551050004001021 551050004004001 551050004004040 551050001001050 551050004001022 551050004004002 551050004004041 551050001001051 551050004001023 551050004004003 551050004004042 551050001001052 551050004001024 551050004004004 551050004004043 551050001001057 551050004001025 551050004004005 551050004004044 551050004001000 551050004001026 551050004004006 551050004004045 551050004001001 551050004001027 551050004004007 551050004004047 551050004001002 551050004001028 551050004004008 551050004004048 551050004001003 551050004002000 551050004004017 551050004004055 Ward 4 Census Block Numbers: 551050001001035 551050003001007 551050003001026 551050003002006 551050001001036 551050003001008 551050003001027 551050003002007 551050001001041 551050003001009 551050003001028 551050003002008 551050001001042 551050003001010 551050003001029 551050003002009 551050001001043 551050003001011 551050003001030 551050003002010 551050001001044 551050003001012 551050003001031 551050003002011 551050001001045 551050003001013 551050003001032 551050003002012 551050001001046 551050003001014 551050003001033 551050003002013 551050001001053 551050003001015 551050003001034 551050003002014 551050001001054 551050003001016 551050003001035 551050003002015 551050001001055 551050003001017 551050003001036 551050003002016 551050001001056 551050003001018 551050003001037 551050003002017 551050003001000 551050003001019 551050003001038 551050003002018 551050003001001 551050003001020 551050003002000 551050003002019 551050003001002 551050003001021 551050003002001 551050003002020 551050003001003 551050003001022 551050003002002 551050003002021 551050003001004 551050003001023 551050003002003 551050003002022 551050003001005 551050003001024 551050003002004 551050003002023 551050003001006 551050003001025 551050003002005 551050003002024 Page 2 of 11 551050003002025 551050003003004 551050003003013 551050003003022 551050003002026 551050003003005 551050003003014 551050003003023 551050003002027 551050003003006 551050003003015 551050003003024 551050003002028 551050003003007 551050003003016 551050003003025 551050003002029 551050003003008 551050003003017 551050003003026 551050003003000 551050003003009 551050003003018 551050003003027 551050003003001 551050003003010 551050003003019 551050003003002 551050003003011 551050003003020 551050003003003 551050003003012 551050003003021 Ward 5 Census Block Numbers: 551050004003002 551050012011008 551050012012011 551050012012047 551050004003007 551050012011009 551050012012013 551050012012048 551050004003008 551050012011010 551050012012023 551050012012049 551050004003009 551050012011011 551050012012024 551050012012050 551050004003010 551050012011012 551050012012025 551050012012051 551050004003011 551050012011013 551050012012026 551050012012052 551050004003012 551050012011014 551050012012027 551050012012053 551050004003013 551050012011015 551050012012028 551050012012054 551050004003014 551050012011016 551050012012030 551050012012055 551050004003015 551050012011017 551050012012031 551050012012059 551050004003016 551050012011018 551050012012034 551050012012060 551050012011004 551050012011019 551050012012035 551050012012061 551050012011005 551050012011021 551050012012042 551050012012062 551050012011006 551050012011022 551050012012044 551050012012063 551050012011007 551050012011023 551050012012046 Ward 6 Census Block Numbers: 551050004004009 551050004004054 551050012013042 551050012013065 551050004004010 551050012012037 551050012013043 551050012013066 551050004004011 551050012012038 551050012013044 551050012013074 551050004004012 551050012012039 551050012013045 551050012013075 551050004004013 551050012013000 551050012013046 551050012013076 551050004004014 551050012013001 551050012013047 551050012013077 551050004004015 551050012013004 551050012013048 551050012013078 551050004004016 551050012013009 551050012013049 551050012013079 551050004004025 551050012013010 551050012013050 551050012013080 551050004004026 551050012013012 551050012013051 551050012013081 551050004004027 551050012013030 551050012013052 551050012013082 551050004004028 551050012013031 551050012013053 551050012013083 551050004004029 551050012013032 551050012013054 551050012013084 551050004004046 551050012013033 551050012013055 551050012013085 551050004004049 551050012013034 551050012013059 551050012013086 551050004004050 551050012013035 551050012013060 551050012013087 551050004004051 551050012013036 551050012013062 551050012013088 551050004004052 551050012013040 551050012013063 551050012013106 551050004004053 551050012013041 551050012013064 Ward 7 Census Block Numbers: 551050011001000 551050011001001 551050011001002 551050011001003 Page 3 of 11 551050011001004 551050011001025 551050011002011 551050011004005 551050011001005 551050011001026 551050011002012 551050011004006 551050011001006 551050011001027 551050011002013 551050011004007 551050011001007 551050011001028 551050011002014 551050011004008 551050011001008 551050011001029 551050011002015 551050011004009 551050011001009 551050011001030 551050011002016 551050011004010 551050011001010 551050011002000 551050011002017 551050011004011 551050011001011 551050011002001 551050011002018 551050011004012 551050011001012 551050011002002 551050011002019 551050011004013 551050011001013 551050011002003 551050011002020 551050011004014 551050011001014 551050011002004 551050011002021 551050011004015 551050011001015 551050011002005 551050011002022 551050011004016 551050011001016 551050011002006 551050011004000 551050011004017 551050011001017 551050011002007 551050011004001 551050011004018 551050011001018 551050011002008 551050011004002 551050011004020 551050011001019 551050011002009 551050011004003 551050011004021 551050011001024 551050011002010 551050011004004 551050011004022 Ward 8 Census Block Numbers: 551050011001020 551050011003009 551050011003022 551050011005009 551050011001021 551050011003010 551050011003023 551050011005010 551050011001022 551050011003011 551050011003024 551050011005011 551050011001023 551050011003012 551050011004019 551050011005012 551050011003000 551050011003013 551050011005000 551050011005013 551050011003001 551050011003014 551050011005001 551050011005014 551050011003002 551050011003015 551050011005002 551050011005015 551050011003003 551050011003016 551050011005003 551050011005016 551050011003004 551050011003017 551050011005004 551050011005017 551050011003005 551050011003018 551050011005005 551050011005018 551050011003006 551050011003019 551050011005006 551050014004009 551050011003007 551050011003020 551050011005007 551050014004010 551050011003008 551050011003021 551050011005008 551050014004011 Ward 9 Census Block Numbers: 551050014004001 551050014004016 551050014004043 551050014004057 551050014004002 551050014004017 551050014004044 551050014004059 551050014004003 551050014004018 551050014004045 551050014004060 551050014004004 551050014004019 551050014004047 551050014004061 551050014004005 551050014004022 551050014004048 551050014004062 551050014004006 551050014004028 551050014004049 551050014004063 551050014004007 551050014004037 551050014004050 551050014004064 551050014004008 551050014004038 551050014004051 551050014004072 551050014004012 551050014004039 551050014004052 551050014004073 551050014004013 551050014004040 551050014004053 551050014004014 551050014004041 551050014004054 551050014004015 551050014004042 551050014004055 Page 4 of 11 Ward 10 Census Block Numbers: 551050010002019 551050010002046 551050014003007 551050014003028 551050010002021 551050010002047 551050014003008 551050014003029 551050010002022 551050014001022 551050014003009 551050014003030 551050010002023 551050014001025 551050014003012 551050014003031 551050010002024 551050014001026 551050014003013 551050014004000 551050010002025 551050014001030 551050014003015 551050014004034 551050010002026 551050014003000 551050014003017 551050014004046 551050010002027 551050014003001 551050014003021 551050014004065 551050010002028 551050014003002 551050014003023 551050014004066 551050010002029 551050014003003 551050014003024 551050014004067 551050010002043 551050014003004 551050014003025 551050014004068 551050010002044 551050014003005 551050014003026 551050014004069 551050010002045 551050014003006 551050014003027 551050014004070 Ward 11 Census Block Numbers: 551050010001000 551050010001026 551050010002009 551050010002050 551050010001001 551050010001027 551050010002010 551050010002051 551050010001002 551050010001028 551050010002011 551050010002052 551050010001003 551050010001029 551050010002012 551050010002053 551050010001004 551050010001030 551050010002013 551050010002054 551050010001005 551050010001031 551050010002014 551050010002055 551050010001006 551050010001032 551050010002015 551050010002056 551050010001007 551050010001033 551050010002016 551050010002057 551050010001008 551050010001034 551050010002017 551050010002058 551050010001009 551050010001039 551050010002018 551050010002059 551050010001010 551050010001040 551050010002020 551050010002060 551050010001011 551050010001041 551050010002030 551050010002061 551050010001012 551050010001042 551050010002031 551050010002062 551050010001013 551050010001043 551050010002032 551050014001002 551050010001014 551050010001044 551050010002033 551050014001003 551050010001015 551050010001045 551050010002034 551050014001004 551050010001016 551050010001046 551050010002035 551050014001005 551050010001017 551050010002000 551050010002036 551050014001006 551050010001018 551050010002001 551050010002037 551050014001011 551050010001019 551050010002002 551050010002038 551050014001013 551050010001020 551050010002003 551050010002039 551050014001014 551050010001021 551050010002004 551050010002040 551050014001045 551050010001022 551050010002005 551050010002041 551050014001046 551050010001023 551050010002006 551050010002042 551050010001024 551050010002007 551050010002048 551050010001025 551050010002008 551050010002049 Ward 12 Census Block Numbers: 551050009001000 551050009001007 551050009001014 551050009002002 551050009001001 551050009001008 551050009001015 551050009002003 551050009001002 551050009001009 551050009001016 551050009002004 551050009001003 551050009001010 551050009001017 551050009002005 551050009001004 551050009001011 551050009001018 551050009002006 551050009001005 551050009001012 551050009002000 551050009002007 551050009001006 551050009001013 551050009002001 551050009002008 Page 5 of 11 551050009002009 551050009002018 551050009002027 551050009002036 551050009002010 551050009002019 551050009002028 551050009002037 551050009002011 551050009002020 551050009002029 551050009002038 551050009002012 551050009002021 551050009002030 551050009002039 551050009002013 551050009002022 551050009002031 551050009002040 551050009002014 551050009002023 551050009002032 551050009002041 551050009002015 551050009002024 551050009002033 551050010001035 551050009002016 551050009002025 551050009002034 551050010001036 551050009002017 551050009002026 551050009002035 551050010001047 Ward 13 Census Block Numbers: 551050001001000 551050001001039 551050002003000 551050002003022 551050001001001 551050001001040 551050002003001 551050002003023 551050001001002 551050002001007 551050002003002 551050002003024 551050001001003 551050002001008 551050002003003 551050002003025 551050001001004 551050002001009 551050002003004 551050002003026 551050001001005 551050002001010 551050002003005 551050002003027 551050001001006 551050002001011 551050002003006 551050002003028 551050001001007 551050002001012 551050002003007 551050002003029 551050001001008 551050002001013 551050002003008 551050002003030 551050001001009 551050002001014 551050002003009 551050002003031 551050001001010 551050002001015 551050002003010 551050002003032 551050001001014 551050002001016 551050002003011 551050002003033 551050001001015 551050002001017 551050002003012 551050002003034 551050001001016 551050002001018 551050002003013 551050002003035 551050001001017 551050002002004 551050002003014 551050002003036 551050001001018 551050002002005 551050002003015 551050002003037 551050001001019 551050002002007 551050002003016 551050002003038 551050001001020 551050002002008 551050002003017 551050002003039 551050001001021 551050002002009 551050002003018 551050002003040 551050001001022 551050002002010 551050002003019 551050008004018 551050001001037 551050002002011 551050002003020 551050001001038 551050002002012 551050002003021 Ward 14 Census Block Numbers: 551050002001000 551050002002002 551050008003003 551050008003015 551050002001001 551050002002003 551050008003004 551050008003016 551050002001002 551050002002006 551050008003005 551050008003017 551050002001003 551050007003011 551050008003006 551050008003018 551050002001004 551050007003012 551050008003007 551050008003019 551050002001005 551050007003022 551050008003008 551050008003020 551050002001006 551050007003023 551050008003009 551050008003021 551050002001019 551050007003026 551050008003010 551050008003022 551050002001020 551050007003027 551050008003011 551050008003023 551050002001021 551050008003000 551050008003012 551050008003024 551050002002000 551050008003001 551050008003013 551050008003025 551050002002001 551050008003002 551050008003014 551050008003026 Page 6 of 11 551050008003027 551050008004004 551050008004009 551050008004014 551050008004000 551050008004005 551050008004010 551050008004015 551050008004001 551050008004006 551050008004011 551050008004016 551050008004002 551050008004007 551050008004012 551050008004017 551050008004003 551050008004008 551050008004013 551050008004019 Ward 15 Census Block Numbers: 551050006001012 551050006002001 551050006002022 551050006002041 551050006001013 551050006002002 551050006002023 551050006002042 551050006001014 551050006002003 551050006002024 551050006002043 551050006001015 551050006002006 551050006002025 551050006002044 551050006001016 551050006002007 551050006002026 551050006002045 551050006001017 551050006002008 551050006002027 551050006002046 551050006001018 551050006002009 551050006002028 551050006002047 551050006001019 551050006002010 551050006002029 551050006002048 551050006001020 551050006002011 551050006002030 551050006002049 551050006001024 551050006002012 551050006002031 551050006002050 551050006001025 551050006002013 551050006002032 551050006002051 551050006001026 551050006002014 551050006002033 551050006002052 551050006001027 551050006002015 551050006002034 551050012022047 551050006001028 551050006002016 551050006002035 551050012022052 551050006001031 551050006002017 551050006002036 551050012022053 551050006001032 551050006002018 551050006002037 551050012022054 551050006001033 551050006002019 551050006002038 551050006001034 551050006002020 551050006002039 551050006002000 551050006002021 551050006002040 Ward 16 Census Block Numbers: 551050006001000 551050006001029 551050012021015 551050012022006 551050006001001 551050006001030 551050012021016 551050012022007 551050006001002 551050006001035 551050012021017 551050012022039 551050006001003 551050006001036 551050012021018 551050012022042 551050006001004 551050012021003 551050012021019 551050012022045 551050006001005 551050012021005 551050012021020 551050012022055 551050006001006 551050012021006 551050012021021 551050012022056 551050006001007 551050012021007 551050012021022 551050012022057 551050006001008 551050012021008 551050012021023 551050012022058 551050006001009 551050012021009 551050012021024 551050012022064 551050006001010 551050012021010 551050012021025 551050012022065 551050006001011 551050012021011 551050012021026 551050012022066 551050006001021 551050012021012 551050012021027 551050012022067 551050006001022 551050012021013 551050012021028 551050012022068 551050006001023 551050012021014 551050012022003 551050012022069 Ward 17 Census Block Numbers: 551050007002000 551050007002015 551050007002020 551050007003014 551050007002002 551050007002016 551050007002021 551050007003015 551050007002003 551050007002017 551050007002022 551050007003018 551050007002004 551050007002018 551050007002026 551050007003019 551050007002014 551050007002019 551050007003013 551050007003020 Page 7 of 11 551050007003024 551050008001011 551050008002008 551050008002021 551050007003025 551050008001012 551050008002009 551050008002022 551050008001000 551050008001013 551050008002010 551050008002023 551050008001001 551050008001014 551050008002011 551050008002024 551050008001002 551050008001015 551050008002012 551050008002025 551050008001003 551050008002000 551050008002013 551050008002026 551050008001004 551050008002001 551050008002014 551050008002027 551050008001005 551050008002002 551050008002015 551050008002028 551050008001006 551050008002003 551050008002016 551050008002029 551050008001007 551050008002004 551050008002017 551050008002030 551050008001008 551050008002005 551050008002018 551050008002031 551050008001009 551050008002006 551050008002019 551050008001010 551050008002007 551050008002020 Ward 18 Census Block Numbers: 551050007001000 551050007001017 551050007001034 551050007002024 551050007001001 551050007001018 551050007001035 551050007002025 551050007001002 551050007001019 551050007001036 551050007003000 551050007001003 551050007001020 551050007001037 551050007003001 551050007001004 551050007001021 551050007001038 551050007003002 551050007001005 551050007001022 551050007001039 551050007003003 551050007001006 551050007001023 551050007002001 551050007003004 551050007001007 551050007001024 551050007002005 551050007003005 551050007001008 551050007001025 551050007002006 551050007003006 551050007001009 551050007001026 551050007002007 551050007003007 551050007001010 551050007001027 551050007002008 551050007003008 551050007001011 551050007001028 551050007002009 551050007003009 551050007001012 551050007001029 551050007002010 551050007003010 551050007001013 551050007001030 551050007002011 551050007003016 551050007001014 551050007001031 551050007002012 551050007003017 551050007001015 551050007001032 551050007002013 551050007003021 551050007001016 551050007001033 551050007002023 551050013041127 Ward 19 Census Block Numbers: 551050012021000 551050012022079 551050012023062 551050012023080 551050012021004 551050012023001 551050012023063 551050012023081 551050012022004 551050012023002 551050012023064 551050012023083 551050012022005 551050012023058 551050012023065 551050012023084 551050012022076 551050012023059 551050012023066 551050013032048 551050012022077 551050012023060 551050012023078 551050013032049 551050012022078 551050012023061 551050012023079 Ward 20 Census Block Numbers: 551050013031011 551050013031046 551050013031051 551050013031056 551050013031015 551050013031047 551050013031052 551050013031057 551050013031019 551050013031048 551050013031054 551050013031058 551050013031028 551050013031050 551050013031055 551050013031059 Page 8 of 11 551050013031060 551050013031070 551050013031081 551050013031090 551050013031061 551050013031071 551050013031082 551050013031091 551050013031062 551050013031072 551050013031083 551050013032032 551050013031063 551050013031074 551050013031086 551050013032041 551050013031064 551050013031078 551050013031087 551050013032042 551050013031066 551050013031079 551050013031088 551050013032043 551050013031067 551050013031080 551050013031089 Ward 21 Census Block Numbers: 551050013032002 551050013032029 551050013032069 551050013041029 551050013032005 551050013032030 551050013041010 551050013041030 551050013032007 551050013032031 551050013041011 551050013041031 551050013032009 551050013032033 551050013041012 551050013041032 551050013032021 551050013032034 551050013041013 551050013041033 551050013032023 551050013032035 551050013041014 551050013041034 551050013032024 551050013032052 551050013041015 551050013041035 551050013032025 551050013032053 551050013041016 551050013041069 551050013032026 551050013032054 551050013041017 551050013041120 551050013032027 551050013032066 551050013041018 551050013032028 551050013032068 551050013041028 Ward 22 Census Block Numbers: 551050013032010 551050013041006 551050013041026 551050013041073 551050013032014 551050013041007 551050013041027 551050013041074 551050013032015 551050013041008 551050013041060 551050013041076 551050013032016 551050013041009 551050013041061 551050013041104 551050013032017 551050013041019 551050013041062 551050013041105 551050013032018 551050013041020 551050013041066 551050013041106 551050013032019 551050013041021 551050013041067 551050013041121 551050013032055 551050013041022 551050013041068 551050013041122 551050013041001 551050013041023 551050013041070 551050013041123 551050013041002 551050013041024 551050013041071 551050013041124 551050013041003 551050013041025 551050013041072 Ward 23 Census Block Numbers: 551050007001000 551050013032036 551050013032050 551050013041040 551050007001001 551050013032037 551050013032051 551050013041041 551050007001002 551050013032038 551050013032064 551050013041042 551050007001003 551050013032039 551050013032065 551050013041043 551050007001004 551050013032040 551050013032067 551050013041044 551050007001005 551050013032044 551050013041036 551050013041045 551050007001014 551050013032045 551050013041037 551050013041046 551050012021001 551050013032046 551050013041038 551050013041047 551050012021002 551050013032047 551050013041039 551050013041048 Page 9 of 11 551050013041049 551050013041057 551050013041082 551050013041090 551050013041050 551050013041058 551050013041083 551050013041091 551050013041051 551050013041059 551050013041084 551050013041095 551050013041052 551050013041063 551050013041085 551050013041096 551050013041053 551050013041064 551050013041086 551050013041097 551050013041054 551050013041065 551050013041087 551050013041126 551050013041055 551050013041080 551050013041088 551050013043000 551050013041056 551050013041081 551050013041089 551050013043006 Ward 24 Census Block Numbers: 551050013042000 551050013042007 551050013043001 551050013043005 551050013042001 551050013042008 551050013043002 551050013043010 551050013042002 551050013042009 551050013043003 551050013043011 551050013042003 551050013042010 551050013043004 Ward 25 Census Block Numbers: 551050013021005 551050013041099 551050013041112 551050013042005 551050013022000 551050013041100 551050013041113 551050013042006 551050013025000 551050013041101 551050013041114 551050013043007 551050013025002 551050013041102 551050013041115 551050013043008 551050013025004 551050013041103 551050013041116 551050013043009 551050013025005 551050013041107 551050013041117 551050013043012 551050013041092 551050013041108 551050013041118 551050013043013 551050013041093 551050013041109 551050013041119 551050013043014 551050013041094 551050013041110 551050013041125 551050013043015 551050013041098 551050013041111 551050013042004 Ward 26 Census Block Numbers: 551050013024004 551050013024077 551050013024079 551050013032059 551050013024005 551050013024078 551050013032058 Ward 27 Census Block Numbers: 551050013021000 551050013021012 551050013021023 551050013022009 551050013021001 551050013021013 551050013021024 551050013022011 551050013021002 551050013021014 551050013021025 551050013022012 551050013021003 551050013021015 551050013022001 551050013022013 551050013021004 551050013021016 551050013022002 551050013022014 551050013021006 551050013021017 551050013022003 551050013022015 551050013021007 551050013021018 551050013022004 551050013022016 551050013021008 551050013021019 551050013022005 551050013022017 551050013021009 551050013021020 551050013022006 551050013025032 551050013021010 551050013021021 551050013022007 551050013021011 551050013021022 551050013022008 Page 10 of 11 Ward 28 Census Block Numbers: 551050013021026 551050013023014 551050013025008 551050013025022 551050013021027 551050013023015 551050013025009 551050013025024 551050013021028 551050013023016 551050013025010 551050013025025 551050013023000 551050013023017 551050013025011 551050013025026 551050013023001 551050013023018 551050013025012 551050013025027 551050013023002 551050013023019 551050013025013 551050013025028 551050013023003 551050013023020 551050013025014 551050013025029 551050013023004 551050013023021 551050013025015 551050013025030 551050013023005 551050013024019 551050013025016 551050013025031 551050013023009 551050013024020 551050013025017 551050013025033 551050013023010 551050013024021 551050013025018 551050013025034 551050013023011 551050013025001 551050013025019 551050013025035 551050013023012 551050013025003 551050013025020 551050013025036 551050013023013 551050013025006 551050013025021 551050013025038 ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Dongarra-Adams ATTEST: Liebert McDonald Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Rashkin APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steeber Voskuil ____ Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: City Clerk-Treasurer Prepared by: City Clerk-Treasurer Page 11 of 11 Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» ß¼±°¬»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² ó Ö«´§ ïïô îðïï ÿø îê þ÷ Ú þ÷ Ç yzx íç } | ëï yzx çð ïç Ø¿®³±²§ Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ } | ïì ç îð þ÷ Û îï } | ïê ïì ïè îî Õ»²²»¼§ Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ç îí ÿø îê ï þ÷ ß ïé É¿­¸·²¹¬±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ïì Ú·®­¬ Ô«¬¸»®¿² ݸ«®½¸Ø¿®®·­±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ç ïë çç îì î } | ïì Ó¿¼·­±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ïî ç Ó«²·½·°¿´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ïí ë ç Ø»¼¾»®¹ Ы¾´·½ Ô·¾®¿®§ ç ÿ ø í ïï þ÷ ÓÓ îë ì ન®§ Ù¿®¼»²­ ÿø ç ïï ïï þ÷ Ñ } | ïì ÿ é ø ïï y xz íç y xz çð Û¼·­±² Ó·¼¼´» ͽ¸±±´ ç } | ÿ ø ëï ïï è ÿ ø ïï þ÷ Ö ç ê ß¼±°¬»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² Ö«´§ ïïô îðïï É¿®¼ ïÉ¿®¼ ïì ÿ ø ïï É¿®¼ îÉ¿®¼ ïë É¿®¼ íÉ¿®¼ ïê ïð É¿®¼ ìÉ¿®¼ ïé É¿®¼ ëÉ¿®¼ ïè É¿®¼ êÉ¿®¼ ïç É¿®¼ éÉ¿®¼ îð É¿®¼ èÉ¿®¼ îï É¿®¼ çÉ¿®¼ îî þ÷ Ù É¿®¼ ïðÉ¿®¼ îí É¿®¼ ïïÉ¿®¼ îì É¿®¼ ïîÉ¿®¼ îë É¿®¼ ïí ò É·­½±²­·²ù­ п®µ д¿½» ðêôðððïîôððð Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» ç ß¼±°¬»¼ б´´·²¹ Í·¬»­ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ï ·²½¸ »¯«¿´­ êôðð𠺻»¬ Ü¿¬»æ éÄïïÄîðïï Õò Þ»²¦ô д¿²²·²¹ Í»®ª·½»­ Ó¿° Ô±½¿¬·±²æ ÍæÄЮ±¶»½¬­ÄÝ´»®µÄÉ¿®¼Äß¼±°¬»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² îðïïðéïï ßÐò³¨¼ Ü×ÍÝÔß×ÓÛÎæ ̸·­ ¼¿¬¿ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» º±® ·²º±®³¿¬·±²¿´ °«®°±­»­ ±²´§ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ©¿®®¿²¬ ±® ¹«¿®¿²¬»» ¬¸» ¿½½«®¿½§ ±® ®»´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼¿¬¿ò ̸» ®»½·°·»²¬ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼¿¬¿ ¿­­«³»­ ¿²§ ®·­µ ±º ·¬­ «­» º±® ¿²§ °«®°±­»ò Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» Ю±°±­»¼ λª·­»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² ÿø îê þ÷ Ú þ÷ îð Ç yzx íç } | ëï yzx çð îð Ø¿®³±²§ Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ } | ïç îï ïì ç îí þ÷ Û îî } | ïê ïì ïè Õ»²²»¼§ Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ îì ç ÿø îê îê îë ï þ÷ ß ïé îê É¿­¸·²¹¬±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ïì Ú·®­¬ Ô«¬¸»®¿² ݸ«®½¸ ç ïë çç îé Ø¿®®·­±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ î } | ïì Ó¿¼·­±² Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ͽ¸±±´ ïî ç Ó«²·½·°¿´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ïí ë ç Ø»¼¾»®¹ Ы¾´·½ Ô·¾®¿®§ ç ÿ ø í ïï þ÷ ÓÓ îè ì ન®§ Ù¿®¼»²­ ÿø ç ïï ïï þ÷ Ñ } | ïì ÿ é ø ïï y xz íç y xz çð Û¼·­±² Ó·¼¼´» ͽ¸±±´ ç } | ÿ ø ëï ïï è ÿ ø ïï þ÷ Ö ç ê Ю±°±­»¼ λª·­»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² É¿®¼ ïÉ¿®¼ ïë É¿®¼ îÉ¿®¼ ïê ÿ ø ïï É¿®¼ íÉ¿®¼ ïé É¿®¼ ìÉ¿®¼ ïè ïð É¿®¼ ëÉ¿®¼ ïç É¿®¼ êÉ¿®¼ îð É¿®¼ éÉ¿®¼ îï É¿®¼ èÉ¿®¼ îî É¿®¼ çÉ¿®¼ îí É¿®¼ ïðÉ¿®¼ îì þ÷ Ù É¿®¼ ïïÉ¿®¼ îë É¿®¼ ïîÉ¿®¼ îê É¿®¼ ïíÉ¿®¼ îé É¿®¼ ïìÉ¿®¼ îè ò É·­½±²­·²ù­ п®µ д¿½» ðêôðððïîôððð Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» ç ß¼±°¬»¼ б´´·²¹ Í·¬»­ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ï ·²½¸ »¯«¿´­ êôðð𠺻»¬ Ü¿¬»æ éÄîçÄîðïï Õò Þ»²¦ô д¿²²·²¹ Í»®ª·½»­ Ó¿° Ô±½¿¬·±²æ ÍæÄЮ±¶»½¬­ÄÝ´»®µÄÉ¿®¼ÄЮ±°±­»¼ λª·­»¼ É¿®¼ д¿² ßÐò³¨¼ Ü×ÍÝÔß×ÓÛÎæ ̸·­ ¼¿¬¿ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ö¿²»­ª·´´» º±® ·²º±®³¿¬·±²¿´ °«®°±­»­ ±²´§ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ©¿®®¿²¬ ±® ¹«¿®¿²¬»» ¬¸» ¿½½«®¿½§ ±® ®»´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼¿¬¿ò ̸» ®»½·°·»²¬ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼¿¬¿ ¿­­«³»­ ¿²§ ®·­µ ±º ·¬­ «­» º±® ¿²§ °«®°±­»ò