Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Demolition District Amendments
Planning Services Department 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864 Phone (319) 589-4210 Fax (319) 58%4221 Apdl 11, 2001 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Dubuque 50W. 13th Street Dubuque, lA 52001 RE: Recommended Amendments to Demolition Districts Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Introduction The Historic Preservation Commission recently discussed how we might serve as an advisory review board to the City Council for projects affecting historic properties that are not in historic distdcts. The HPC has reviewed the enclosed reseamh report on the historical development of the City's regulations for demolition districts with City staff. As a result of our discussions, the Commission would like to propose two amendments to Section 11-4 of the City Code regarding demolition districts: (1) establishment of a review process with review criteria, and (2) establishment of a downtown demolition district. Discussion The demolition districts were the precursors to the Histodc Preservation Ordinance and the HPC. They include many older structures in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods that may have historical or amhitectural significance. The building official cannot issue demolition permits in these areas without a review by the City Council. The intent of these districts was to enable the City Council to take up to 90 days to review the potential significance of a building, to determine if it should be demolished. Portions of the seven demolition districts overlap the five historic districts. Under Chapter 25 of the City Code, the HPC reviews demolition requests in historic disthcts. The review cdteda to be applied are the federal standards for review as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Reviews must be completed within 60 days. Establishment of a Review Process with Review Criteria The current regulations in Section 11-4 for demolition districts do not provide for a review process; revibw by the HPC is not mentioned, because the HPC did not exist when the demolition districts were created· Section 11-4 also does not provide any criteria for the City Council to use when reviewing demolition requests in these districts. The HPC recommends that the existing code for demolition districts be amended to provide a review process with review criteria. The HPC would serve as an advisory review body for the City Council for any demolition request in a demolition distdct that lies outside a historic district. The Commission would use the same review criteria as we use for historic districts, the Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Demolition Districts Page 2 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. HPC reviews would be completed within 60 days, as in historic districts. The Commission's recommendation then would be forwarded to the City Council for a decision on the demolition permit, Using the same criteria and time frame will ensure consistency in the reviews. Establishment of a Downtown Demolition District The City Council has directed the Downtown Planning Committee to develop a downtown comprehensive plan. The service boundary for Dubuque Main Street Ltd. is the study area for this downtown planning process. Dubuque Main Street Ltd. has been an important community partner in preservation and revitalization of Downtown. In addition, the existing stock of historic buildings in this study area very likely wilt have an important role in the successful revitalization of Downtown. Given the initiation of this planning study, and the City's long-term commitment to downtown revitalization, the HPC recommends that the study area for the downtown comprehensive plan be established as a new downtown demolition district. Portions of this study area are already in demolition districts or historic districts, which may mean adjusting the district boundaries. Maps of the Dubuque Main Street Ltd. service area and the proposed downtown demolition district in relation to the existing demolition districts and historic districts are enclosed. Individual landmarks, like City Hall and the Courthouse, are also in this study area. In addition, the study area includes the former Buetteli Bros. Building at 841-846 Central Avenue. Since the HPC already has reviewed its planned demolition, the Commission recommends that this building be exempted from further review under a new downtown demolition district. The Commission respectfully requests that the City Council consider theSe two amendments at your eadiest possible convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information from the Commission. Sincerely, Terry Mozena, Chairpeson Historic Preservation Commission Enclosures CC Historic Preservation Commission Michael C. Van Mliligen, City Manager Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Rich Russell, Building Services Manager I ['-1 Recommended Geogra.l~.c Scope of Down~own Comprehensive Plan ~ (Dubuque Main Street Umited Service Area) Location of Historic Districts and l~molition Districts ~ Derrditi°n Dieu icts Historic Districts ORDINANCE NO. 22-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-4 OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PERTAINING TO DEMOLITION DISTRICTS Whereas, the City of Dubuque established demolition districts to allow for the City Council's review of demolition permits that might impact buildings of historic or architectural significance in these districts; and Whereas, the City has appointed a Historic Preservation Commission to review demolition permits in historic districts; and Whereas, the City desires to have the Historic Preservation Commission serve as an advisory review board for demolition permits in demolition districts; and Whereas, the City has initiated a Downtown Comprehensive Planning Process in an area that includes portions of existing demolition districts; Whereas, the City desires to establish a downtown demolition district that encompasses this planning area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA: Section 1. That Section 11-4 of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: 11-4(a)(8) Downtown Neighborhood: Beginning at the intersection of White Street and Fourteenth Street, thence southerly along White Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence easterly along Fifth Street to its intersection the railroad tracks; thence easterly along the reilroad tracks to their intersection with the Mississippi River; thence southerly along the riverfront across the Ice Harbor to the eastern terminus of First Street; thence westerly along First Street to its intersection with U.S. Highway 61/151; thence southerly along U.S. Highway 61/151 to its intersection with the Locust Street Connector; thence westerly along the Locust Street Connector and across Locust Street to Jones Street; thence westerly along Jones Street to its intersection with Bissell Lane; thence northerly along Bissell Lane extended to First Street; thence westerly along First Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence northerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence easterly on Fifth Street to its intersection with Locust Street; thence northerly on Locust Street to its intersection with Seventh Street; thence westerly on Ordinance No. - 01 Page 2 Seventh Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence southerly on Bluff Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence westerly along Fifth Street to the bluff line; thence northerly along the bluff line to Ninth Street; thence easterly along Ninth Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence northerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Tenth Street; thence easterly along Tenth Street to its intersection with Iowa Street; thence northerly along Iowa Street to Its intersection with Fourteenth Street; thence easterly along Fourteenth Street to its intersection with White Street, which is the point of beginning. 11-4(b) Discretionary waiting period and advisory review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Upon receiving an application for a demolition permit for any building located in whole or in part within the neighborhoods described in paragraph (a) of this section, the building official shall immediately notify the Historic Preservation Commission of such application. At its next regular meeting, the Commission must then take formal action to either recommend approval or denial, or to table the demolition permit for additional information for a specified period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department. A failure of the Commission to take action on the demolition permit within the sixty (60) day limitation, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an extension, shall constitute Commission approval thereof. The recommendation of the Commission, if forthcoming, and the demolition permit shall be transmitted to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall transmit the recommendation of the Commission, if forthcoming, and the demolition permit within the sixty (60) day limitation to the City Council for consideration~ At its next regular meeting, the City Council must then take formal action to either approval or deny, or to withhold the demolition permit for additional information for a specified period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an extension. If the Council fails to take action to approve or withhold the demolition permit within the ninety (90) day limitation, notwithstanding an extension requested by the applicant(s), the building official shall issue the permit forthwith. The Council may in its discretion withhold the demolition permit whenever it determines that the building for which the permit is sought may be of historical or architectural significance to the city. The purpose of this waiting period is to enable the Council and the Commission to have time to investigate the historical or architectural value of the building to the community and to take such action(s) as may be appropriate to ensure or encourage its preservation. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the withholding by the building official of a demolition permit for more than ninety (90) Ordinance No. - 01 Page 3 days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an extension. 11-4(c) Guidelines and review criteria. The report, "Heritage of Dubuque" dated March 1974 and filed of record on January 27, 1975, shall be considered as a comprehensive study for the historical preservation of the city and as one of the guides to be considered at such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood. Any subsequent official architectural/historical surveys/evaluations and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places prepared for any buildings located within the neighborhoods described in paragraph (a) of this section also shall be considered as guidelines at such time: Upon receiving an application for a demolition permit for any building located in whole or in part within the neighborhoods described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the requested demolition in accordance with the standards for review set forth in Section 25-10 of this Code of Ordinance, and the guidelines identified above. As set forth in Section 25-10 of this Code, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilita§on and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Histo#c Buildings, and any subsequent revisions of these standards and guidelines by the Secretary of the Interior shall provide the criteria by which the Commission shall review the requested demolition. Section 2. This ordinance shall not apply to an application for a demolition permit for the building located at 841-846 Central Avenue. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication, as provided by law. Passed, approved and adopted this 16th day of April, 2001. Terrance M. Duggan, Mayor Attest: Jeanne F. Schneider, City Clerk Published 4/23/01 in the Telegraph Herald Affects of the proposed amendments on the existing language in Section 1 1-4, with new language shown in bold, and language to be deleted crccccd c'Jt: 11-4(a)(8) Downtown Neighborhood: Beginning at the intersection of White Street and Fourteenth Street, thence southerly along White Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence easterly along Fifth Street to its intersection the railroad tracks; thence easterly along the railroad tracks to their intersection with the Mississippi River; thence southerly along the riverfront across the Ice Harbor to the eastern terminus of First Street; thence westerly along First Street to its intersection with U.S. Highway 61/151; thence southerly along U.S. Highway 61/151 to its intersection with the Locust Street Connector; thence westerly along the Locust Street Connector and across Locust Street to Jones Street; thence westerly along Jones Street to its intersection with Bissell Lane; thence northerly along Bissell Lane extended to First Street; thence westerly along First Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence northerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence easterly on Fifth Street to its intersection with Locust Street; thence northerly on Locust Street to its intersection with Seventh Street; thence westerly on Seventh Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence southerly on Bluff Street to its intersection with Fifth Street; thence westerly along Fifth Street to the bluff line; thence northerly along the bluff line to Ninth Street; thence easterly along Ninth Street to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence northerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Tenth Street; thence easterly along Tenth Street to its intersection with Iowa Street; thence northerly along Iowa Street to Its intersection with Fourteenth Street; thence easterly along Fourteenth Street to its intersection with White Street, which is the point of beginning. 11-4(b) Discretionary waiting period and advisory review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Upon receiving an application for a demolition permit for any building located in whole or in part within the neighborhoods ~rc=s described in paragraph (a) of this section, the building official ccmm. Jccic.qcr shall immediately notify the Historic Preservation Commission City Ccu,",c!] of such application. At its next regular meeting, the Commissionv,.,r';+" ~-_~,,~,,;~ must then take formal action to either recommend approval or denial, or to table =~.prcvc cr w!thhc!d the demolition permit for additional information for a specified period not to exceed sixty {60),,,,,~.~-;--+" ,~v,~n~ days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department. A failure of the Commission to take action on the demolition permit within the sixty (60) day limitation, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an extension, shall constitute Commission approval thereof. The recommendation of the Commission, if forthComing, and the demolition permit shall be transmitted to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall transmit the recommendation of the Commission, if forthcoming, and the demolition permit within the sixty (60) day limitation to the City Council for consideration. At its next regular meeting, the City Council must then take formal action to either approval or deny, or to withhold the demolition permit for additional information for a sPecified period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an extension. If the Council fails to take action to approve or withhold the demolition permit within the ninety (90) day limitation, not withstanding an extension requested by the applicant(s) =*, .,~..."~v+ ,~.~,~ ..... .,.v~...,~,+;~" the building official ccmmlcc!c,",cr shall issue the permit forthwith. The Council may in its discretion withhold the demolition permit whenever it determines that the building for which the permit is sought may be of historical or architectural significance to the city. The purpose of this waiting period is to enable the Council and the Commission to have time to investigate the historical or architectural value of the building to the community and to take such action(s) as may be appropriate to ensure or encourage its preservation. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the withholding by the building official of a demolition permit for more than ninety (90) days from the date of permit application in the Building Services Department, unless the applicant(s) for the demolition permit request(s) an 11-4(c) Guidelines and review criteria. The report, "Heritage of Dubuque" dated March 1974 and filed of record on January 27, 1975, shall be considered as a comprehensive study for the historical preservation of the city and as one of the guides to be considered at such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood. Any subsequent official architectural/historical surveys/evaluations and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places prepared for any buildings located within the neighborhoods described in paragraph (a) of this section also shall be considered as guidelines at such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood. Upon receiving an application for a demolition permit for any building located in whole or in part within the neighborhoods described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the requested demolition in accordance with the standards for review set forth in Section 25- 10 of this Code of Ordinance, and the guidelines identified above. As set forth in Section 25-10 of this Code, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buil~Engs, and any subsequent revisions of these standards and guidelines by the Secretary of the Interior shall provide the criteria by which the Commission shall review the requested demolition. Icar~ten\wp\mvm\demomock:u p,do c CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA MEMORANDUM April 9, 2001 TO: Michael C. Van Miiligen, City Manager FROM: Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: Demolition Districts This memo provides information on demoliti_on districts, as you requested. What is a Demolition District? A demolition district is an area of the city composed of structures that have historical or architectural value. In seven demolition districts, a demolition permit must be reviewed by the City Council before demolition can occur. The Council can refer a permit request to the llistoric Preservation Commission for up to a ninety-day waiting period prior to the issuance ora demolition permit. Portions of Dubuque's five historic districts are located in these districts. Why were they formed? In the early t 970's there was some concern about Dubuque losing some of its most interesting and unique architectural structures. The City Council established the demolition districts in January, 1975. The demolition districts were created as an interim ordinance until a Historic Preservation Ordinance could be drafted. In addition, at a City Council Special Session on April 14, 1975 the City Council passed a Resolution of Policy No. 89-75 that established the Dubuque Historic Preservation Advisory Board to deal with matters affecting Dubuque's historical and architectural heritage. The City Council was to seek the advice of this board in helping them make their decisions. The Dubuque Historic Preservation Advisory Board consisted of persons who had an interest in preservation and whose various expertise was consistent with the requirements of the Charleston, South Carolina ordinance ;vhich served as Dubuque's model at that time. This group was similar to our Historic Preservation Commission. I have attached copies of the City Coancil's February 10, 1975 and April 14, 1975 Special Sessions. Demolition Districts Page 2 A Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1977 and a Historic Preservation Commission was established in 1979. I have attached copies of minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings in 1974 and 1975, which provide additional background discussion. How are they different than a Historic Preservation District? Demolition districts are regulated by Chapter 1 t, Buildings and Building Regxflations, of the City Code. The demolition districts overlap some of the historic districts. In historic districts, the Historic Preservation Commission has the power and authority given to them by Chapter 25 to regulate exterior changes being made to structures located in Dubuque's five historic districts. In the demolition districts where there is no overlap between the districts, exterior changes to the buildings do not have to meet HPC approval. What are the boundaries? There are seven demolition districts identified by the City in Section 11-4. They are: (1) Fourth Street Neighborhood (2) Fenelon Place Neighborhood (3) Third Street Neighborhood (4) Washington Street Neighborhood (5) Jackson Park Neighborhood (6) West Eleventh Street Neighborhood (7) Broadway Street Neighborhood I have attached a map of the demolition districts, a map of the historic districts, and a map that shows the overlapping of the two districts. What criteria does the City Council use to determine if a building can be demolished? Section 1 t-4 requires the Building Services Manager to notify the City Council of any application for a demolition permit for any building in the demolition districts. The Building Services Manager is prohibited by this code section from issu'mg any such demolition permit until the City Council has reviewed the permit request. The City Council can approve the demolition permit or withhold the permit for up to 90 days. The intent of this discretionary waiting period is for the City Council "to have time to investigate the historical or architectural value of the building to the community and take such action(s) as may be appropriate to ensure or encourage its preservation." Demolition Districts Page 3 Section 11-4 does not identify any specific criteria for the City Council to use to determine if a building can be demolished. Section 11-4 (c) references Guidelines, which are defined as: "Heritage of Dubuque' dated March 1974 and filed of record on January 27, 1975, shall be considered as a comprehensive study for the historical preservation of City' of Dubuque and one of the guides to be considered at such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood." The City Planning Office has architectural surveys from 1973/t974 and 1978/1979 that lists the historical and architectural significance of buildings. Do we know why the demolition permit application goes directly to the City Council and not to the Historic Preservation Commission first for comment? The demolition districts were created before the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Preservation Commission, and the historic districts. At the time of adoption, the City Council wa~ the only body ~vho could review the demolition permits because there was no Historic Preservation Commission. The regulations for demolition districts have not been amended since then, so the City Council still reviews the demolition requests in demolition districts. Attachments cc Historic Preservation Commission 7-Broadway Street Neighborhood soo HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS I JACKSON PARK 2 W. 11TH STREET 3 LANGWORTHY 4 CATHEDRAL 5 OLD MAIN Location of Historic Districts and Demolition Districts - ~-~ Demolition Districts ~ Historic Districts ~j DUBUQUE CODE action has been initiated for the purpose of securing a zouiug reclassifica~iom The period of such prohibition shall extend from the date of the officinl act of the Pl~;~g md Zoning Com- mission c~l~i~g for a public hearLug on such zoning reclassification up to and including the date of final ac~ien of the City Council upon such zoning reclassification. (1976 Code, § 10-4) Sec. 11~4. Waiting Perlo~l For Demolition Permits: (a)Application Of Section: The provisions of this Section sh~11 apply to all bui~d~s located in whole or in part w~hi~ the following de- scribed neighborhood areas: Fourth Street Neighborhood: at the intersection of Seventh end Bluff Streete, thence southerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with West Fi.Cr, h Street; t~ence westerly along West FiSh S~rest to its intersection with the north- eriy extension of Raymond Street; thence southerly along Raymond Street and its northerly and southerly extensions to its intersection with West Third Street; thence easterly along West Third Street to its intersection with St. 1W~ry's Street; thence southerly along St. Mary's Street to its intersection witch Emrcett Street; thence easterly along ]~r~e~ S~rest to its intersection with Bluff Street; thence sontherly along Bluff S~reet to its inter- section with First Street; thence easterly along First Street ts its intsrsec~ion with the alley between Bluff and Locust Streets; thence northerly along the Supp. No. 45 660.2 BUILDINGS AND BUILDLNG REGULATIONS § 114 (2) alley between Bluff and Locust Streets to its intersection with West Fifth Street; thence easterly along West Fifth Street to its intersection with Locust Street; thence northerly along Locust Street to its inter- section with Seventh Street; thence west- erly along Seventh Street to its intersec- tion with Bluff Street which is the point of beginning. (3) (4) Fenelon Place Neighborhood' Beginning at the intersection of West Fil~h and Butch Streets, thence southerly along Burch Street to its intersection with West Third Street; thence easterly along West Third Street to its intersection with the southerly extension of Raymond Street; thence north- erly along Raymond Street and its south- erly and northerly extensions to its inter- section with West Fifth Street; thence westerly along West FiSh Street to its in- tersection with Burch Street which is the point of beginning. Third Street Neighborhoo,4- Beginning at the intersection of West Third and Hill Streets thence southwesterly along Hill Street to its intersection with Langworthy Street; thence northwesterly along Long- worthy Street to its intersection with Al- pine Street; thence northeasterly along Al- pine Street to its intersection with West Third Street; thence northwesterly along West Third Street to its intersection with Nevada Street; thence northeasterly along Nevada Street to its intersection with West Fifth Street; thence southeasterly along West Fifth Street to its intersection with Alpine Street; thence southerly along Al- pine Street to its intersection with Melrose Terrace; thence southeasterly along Mel- rose Terrace and its southeasterly exten- sion to its intersection with Winona Street; thence southwesterly along Winona Street to its intersection with West Third Street; thence southeasterly along West Third Street to its intersection with Hill Street which is the point of beginning. Washin~o'ton Street Neighborhood`' Begin- ning at the intersection of Sixteenth and WAshington Streets thence westerly alon=~ Sixteenth Street to its intersection ,vith Jackson Street; thence northerly along Jackson Street to its intersection with Eigh- teenth Street; thence westerly along Eigh- teenth Street to its intersection with Con- tral Avenue; thence southerly along Central Avenue to its intersection with Fourteenth Street; thence easterly along Fourteenth Street to its intersection with Washington Street; thence northerly along Washington Street to its intersection with Sixteenth Street which is the point of be- ginning. (5) Jackson Park Neighborhood.- Beginning at the intersection of Fourteenth Street and Central }kvenue thence westerly along Four- teenth Street to its intersection with Iowa Street; thence southerly along Iowa Street to its intersection with Tenth Street; thence westerly along Tenth Street to its intersec- tion with Bluff Street; thence northerly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Locust Street; thence northwesterly along Locust Street to its intersection with Ellis Street; thence northerly along Ellis Street and its northerly extension to its intersec- tion with Clarke Drive; thence northwest- erly along Clarke Drive to its intersection with Paul Street; thence northeasterly along Paul Street to its intersection with Lowell Street; thence southeasterly along Lowell Street to its intersection with North Main Street; thence southerly along North Main Street to its intersection with Clark Drive; thence southeasterly along Clarke Drive and its southeasterly extension to its intersection with Central Avenue; thence southerly along Central Avenue to its in- tersection with Fourteenth Street which is the point of beginning. (6) West Eleventh Street Neighborhood.' Begin- ning at the intersection of Ninth and Bluff Streets thence westerly along Ninth Street to its intersection with University Avenue; thence westerly along University Avenue to its intersection with Spruce Street; thence northerly along Spruce Street to its intersection with West Eleventh Street; 661. DUBUQUE CODE thence westerly along ',Vest Eleventh Street to its intersection with Walnut Street; thence northerly along Walnut Street to its intersection with Loras Boulevard; thence westerly along Loras Boulevard to its in- tersection with Cox Street; thence north- erly along Cox Street to its intersection with the westerly extension of West Sixteenth Street; thence easterly along West Six- teenth Street and its westerly e~:tension to its intersection with Montrese Terrace; thence northerly along the northeasterly ex- tension of Montrose Terrace to its intersec- tion with West Locust Street; thence south- easterly along West Locust Street to its intersection with BluffStreet; thence south- erly along Bluff Street to its intersection with Ninth Street which is the point of be- (7) Broadway Street N¢ighborhood.' Beginning at the intersection of West Twenty-third Street and Central Avenue thence westerly along West Twenty-third Street to its inter- section with Lewis Street; ~hence northwest- erly along Lewis Street to its intersection with Fulton Street; thence northerly along Fulton Street to its intersection with King Street; thence easterly along King Street and its easterly extension to its intersec- tion with Central Avenue; thence south- erly along Central Avenue to its intersec- tion with West Twenty-third Street which is the point of beginning, (b) Discretionary waitingperiod. Upon receiving an application for a demolition permit for any b~Iding located in whole or in part within the areas desor~bed in paragraph (a) of this section, ~he building commissioner shall immediately no- tify the city council of such application. At its ne~c~ regoalar meeting the council must then take formal action to either approve or withhoId the demolition permit for a specified period not to ex- ceed ninety (90) days. If the council fails to take action to approve or withhold the demolition permit at its next regular meeting, the building commissioner shall issue the permit forthwith. The counci~ may in its discretion withhold the demo- litton permit whenever it determines that the building for which the permit is sought may be of historical or architectural si~onificance to the city. The purpose of this waiting period is to enable the council to have time ]to investigate the historical or architectural valu~ of the building to the com- munity and to take such action(s) ns~ may be prepriate to ensure o~ encourage its preservation However, nothing in ithis section shall authorize the withbe~3i.~ by the building com~iasioner of a demolition permit for more then ninety (90) days following nstLficatieni of council of application for such permit, i (c) Guidelines. The report, "The Heritage of Dubuque" dated Ma~ch 1974 end fried of record on January 27,1975, ~hall be considered as a com- prehensive study for the historical preservation of the ci~;y end one of the guides to be considered at such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood. · (Cede 1976, § 10-5) ~ross reference--Demolition of ~a-~c~ures in hlztoric dis- tricte prohibited, exceptio~ § 25-I2. Secs. 11-5--11-20. Reeerved. ARTICLE ti. DANGEROUS BUrLDINGS* Sec. 11-21. Purpose~ and scope. (a) It is the purposg of this article to provide a just, equitable end p~acticabte method to be cu- mtflative with and in addition to any other remedy prey/dad by the building code, hons/~g code or otherwise available a~ ]aw, whereby building~ or structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public br their occupants may be required to be repairdd, vacated or demolished. (b) The prov/sions of this article shall apply to all dangerous buildings, as herein defined, which are now in existence or which may hereafter be- come dangerous in th~ City of Dubuque. *Cross refere~ces--Buil~ling construct/on, demolition and moving, § I14~ et seq.; pro~dure for abatemen~ of substen- dard build/rigs, dwelling units and lots under housing code, § 26-10 et seq. : 662 CiTY P~;NING PuND ZCNiNG COI.~ISSiON - MINUTES October 16~ 1974 Page - 2 ALLEY VACATI©~;: Pettit Petition lng control on historic and architecturally significant prop- erties MOTION by Sanders, seconded by Pihart that the City Council be advised that the Local Business "B" District classifica- tion is appropriate for the property. Motion carried unani- mously. The petition of M~. Don Pettit for vacation of the ~,asterly 281 feet of a 10 foot wide alley located in the block bound- ed by Avoca, Green, North Algona and North Grandvicw A~enue was brought forward from the meeting of September 18, 1974. The staff reported that it had conferred on the matter with the City Engineer, Snreet Commissioner and the city Solici- tor, and had confirmed that the City would retain no liabil- ity to kmprove a sub-standard alley by permitting it to re- main as platted right-of-way. It was further repo~ted that City policy had been to deny any petition for vacation of right-of-way where such petition is opposed by ~he o'~ers of property se~'ed by such right-of-way. In view of these two circumstances, the staff recommended that the petition of Mr. Petit be denied and that the alley remain as platted right-of-way. There was further discussion of the matter by Co~mission and staff. F~TION by ~napp, seconded by Gies!er that the petition of ~. Don Pettit for vacation of the above described alley be denied. Motion carried unanimously. ~n interim ordinance proposed to control the exterior alter- ations or demolition of building considered historically and/ or architecturally significant was presented by the staff. The intent and application of the ordinance was described, and it was noted that an interest in this type of control had been expressed by persons within the area of its application. Pre- vious Council action to set the ordinance for public hearing was also reported, in its discussion of the proposal, the Commission no'ced the ~ncertain interpretation of the word "significant" as it applied to exterior alterations, and ques- tioned the staff on the scope of application of that provision. It was noted that the extent of exterior modifications that could be permitted lacked adequate precision in the ordinance and the staff was requested to consider appropriate revisions. The philosophy of architectural control as it had been imple- mented in other cities was also reviewed. It was reported that architectural control within specified areas had been upheld where property owners recognized a co~aon interest in maintain- ing such contzo! and where architectural or historical values were known to be a general con,unity asset. October !6, 1974 Page - 3 The staff was advised to secure the approval of the City'Soli- citor for the ordinance, and further that specific notice of the proposed ordinance and of any public hearing be made to each property owner in the area of its application. ~DTION by ~napp, seconded by Sanders to conduct a public hear- ing on the proposed ordinance on November 20, 1974 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council chamber of City Hall, stmbject to conditions no- ted above. Motion carried unanimously. The petition of Mr. Mark Witherali to reclassify Lot 1 of Block· 12 in "Westchester Subdivision" from Two F~mity Residence to >!ultipte Residence District classification was reviewed. It was noted that the pmsentMultiple Residence District in "Westchester Subdivision" south of. Asbury Road was separated from surrounding single family development by a uerimeter of Two F~mily Residence zoning on lots fronting upon Dana Drive and Southway Drive, and that ~h= subject lot also abutted an existing Multiple Residence zone along Dana Drive south of the Asbury Square commercial area. it was reported that the subject lot was sufficient to contain a four-plex. it was also noted that all of the lots in tine ?wo Family Resi- dence District were .~.imi!arly located so that a policy to re- classify the subject lot to Multiple Residence District may also have to be applied to the remaining lots so located. The staff reported its view ~=~.a=, ~ while there was an apparent.~ logic in the use of the ?wo Family Resgdence zone to separate single· · family from higher intensity apartment uses, it had judged that development in tine -~wo F~i!y classification was less feasible because of diminished demand for t-hat type of use. The staff also reported its view that small-scale multiple residence de- velopment within the present ?wo Family Residence perimeter could also serve an i~mediate community need without causing significantly greater hardship to existing single fguni!y resi- dential areas to the south and west. There was a discussion of the matter between the staff and Com- mission. It was noted that the existing platted lots, particu- larly along Sout~ay Drive, were not adapted to Multiple Resi- dence purposes and that replatting of those lots for multiple residence development would not necessarily be subject to re- View by the Commission. The extent of control which thc City migh~ exercise on development of the Southway frontage in the Multiple Residence zone was questioned. Commissioner Carew and others voiced objection to a policy that would compromise the existing zoning in the area in response to a short-term economic condition and voiced their concern that such matters are insufficient basis for land-use decisions of the Commission. ~.~TiON b5' Knapp and seconded by Pihart, to table thc p~-tition for reconsideration at the December meeting and to authorize staff to advertise a public hearing on Multiple Residencu-Pb~ classification on the remaining lots on submission of ~n ac- ceptable plan by the two owT]ers. Motion carried unanimously. The petitioners were advised to consult with staff as seen as possible. Co~nissioner Carew announced at this time that he would not participate in the following agenda item. The affidavit of publication of notice of public hearing and 13 certified mail receipts of notificiation to property ~wncrs were submitted. It was noted for the record that Mrs. Mildred Stoffe! of 3114 Lemon, had informed the Planning and Zoning office by telephone that she had no objection to ~he request as advertised. The receipt of the staff report was also ac- know]edged. The Chair called for persons to speak in favor of th,2 petition. ~%r. Fay Orkin of Northend Auto Wrecking Company stated that the area lacks sufficient off-street parking space for his business and o~ners in the area, and that he f~vored the request. There was no response to the Chairs call for other persons to speak for or against tile petition. MOTION by ~app, seconded by Gies!er, that the petition be approve~. Motion carried unanimously with Carew abstaining fr~ discussion and vote. The affidavit of publication of notice of public hearing was s~mitted and the staff reported that full notification of tho matter had been sent to all property owners within the acea subject to the ordinance had been notified. Certified mail reoiepts of 34 such notifications were submitted. The iettcr of Mary Billington on behalf of the Fourth Street Neighborhood Association was also acknowledged. Th~; staff made a report on the recent history of city regula- tion of deve!opmcnt in thc Cathedral area and noted that the present ordinance was prepared in response to a request for more effective control of building development in that -,icin- it},. The staff also reported its view that historical preser- vation (~,fforts addressed to conservation of siqnificant dis- trzcts or neighborhoods must rest on two independent elements. % The first must be a finding of an historical interest in the ~o neighborhood of com.~unity-wide or regional significance to ~s- ~'arrant public involvement in the preservation process. ~ne ~,,~ second element must be some general acceptance of prese~gat~on :! controls by owner's of property included within those districts. It was the judgement of the staff that thc co,unity interest City Pl~n~g and Zoning Commission Mintues November 20, 1974 Page - 3 area was not of such significance as to warrant an attemFt to override substantial opposition from property o.,.~cfs to the proposed control of exterior appearances of structures. Based On its conversations wi~h neighborhood propc, rty owners, the staff reco.~mended that the ordinance was not acc~.i,tablc to thc neighborhood and should be re_~ectcd in its present form. Mr. Wayne A. Norman, Sr., was present to speak on the impor- tance of preserving Dubuque's unique historical character. He cited remarks made at the Board's and Commission's dinner by Mayor Cal!iard of Charleston, South Carolina, r%.gurdi:~.g the benefits to be achieved in public involvc, mcnt in tht- was poorly dr~fted and too vague. She also stated that the modern building materials or on his right to cstablish a car- ing their buildings but would be discouraged by the rcstric- stated that he had recently acquired pro~=erty ad3oining Mr. preservation of historical buildings but was opposed to the por~ of her group for a volunteer advisory board which might that any mandatory regulation on building repairs are unac- ceptable to her group. She also asked that all seven histor- ical districts should be treated equally. There was a general discussion of the ordinance by the Commission and staff. It was noted that the co-"u~-cnts indicated support for a restriction on demolition of buildings in historical neighbor- hoods and that such a regulation should be made to apply to all similar areas. Nec iON by ~napp, scconded by Tarew that the historical [~feservation ordinance, as appeared in thc hearing nounccment, be rejected. Motion carried unanimously. Thc staff was directed to formulate a new ordinance in line %~ith the. comm{-nts received at the hearing so ~nat the Co:mnission may review such ordinance at the work session at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 26th in thc Planning and Zoning Office. city Engineer's office was assured that appropriate City MOTION by Carew,, seconded by Pihart, that the petition for vc!untary annexation of "Jungwirth's .Morocco" ~ al broved. Motion carried unanimously. Thc petition of Table Mound Park inc. for Local Business "A" classification on a parcel of land containing 64/100ths of an acre and located at the northwest corner of the in- tersection of old U.S. Highway 151 at T~bte Mound ii en- trance road was presented. Mr. Eugene Wright, attorney fo~ the petitioner was present to explain the nature of the request and that it was to accommodate a financial institution. It was reported that Local BuSin=ss "A" classification was necessary for such use. There was a general discussion of Planning and zoning matters in the Key West area. The Commission noted that earlier concern had been expressed regardin~ the lank of a coherent p!~n for com.~ercial and residcntia! decelopment in the Key West area. The status of City and County zoning was reviewed. Thc staff reported that it was difficult to respond to the present petition in the absence of a comprehensive development plan for area. it was ~ne consensus of the Commission that a public hearing date on the petition should be extended uo permit sufficient time to consider such a comprehen- slue plan. MOTION by Y~napp seconded by Carew to conduct a public hearing on the petition at 4:00 p.m. on January 15, 1975 at the Council Chamber of City Hall. Motion car- ried ~nanimously. Tiic Staff presented the amended version of the interim his- torical preservation ordinance restraining demolition of buildings for a period not to excecd ninety (90) days and providing for City Council review of each demolition request within seven neighborhoods identified in the ordinance. Thc Commission determined that the a~end~ts were consistent with ti%c requests it had directed of the staff at its earlier review. ~!OTiON by Knapp, seconded by Sanders that the ordinance as amended be set for public hearing on January 15, 1975 at ~:00 p.m. in ~e Council Chamber of City Hall. .Motion car- tied unanimously. The staff presented a s~T~ary of alternative form~ of treat- ment of group homes in residential districts in a new zoning ordinance. There was a discussion of the alternatives ~nongst the Co~issi~n and staff. On a roll call vote, a majority re- ported its suppout for provisions allowing group homes in all residential districts as a conditional use, supp±e.~ented by explicit standards on off-street parking and lot area per resident and other standards as may be appropriate. ~ne staff ~s instructed to reflect that approach in the revised residen- tial zoning districts standards for the new zoning ordinance. It was announced ~ha~ a planning committee was being formed to consider use ~nd disposition of City property known as Area (city Island), and that representation was sought from the Plan- ning and Zoning Co~mission. Co~missioner Carew announced his willingness to serve on thc committee, and was so appointed. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMHISSION -MINUTES January 1%, 1~75 Page - 2 PUBLIC HEAR]NJ: Historlcal Preset- and street system reorganization was revlc-~ed. The staff re~orted its recommendation that the extension of commer- cial classification to property on the west side of Rock- dale Road would be appropriate subject to the followlng conditions: a) that properties on the west side of Rock- dale Rnad north of Maquoketa Drive be ~ncluded in a strlcted commercial classification which ~uld limit ening activities and high-intensity uses: b) that merclat activities not be permitted to extend southward of the Maquoketa Drive intersection along etd U.S. c) that the Commission and the property owner be a~are of long-range plans to close the present Maquoketa Drive intersection as traffic movement should warrant that change. Mr. Robert Bertsch attorney for Table Hound Park, Inc. was present Co explain the request. He reported that property owners in the vicinity had been contacted and ~hat a petition had been received expressing no objec- tion to the proaosed reclassification. There was a general discussion of the proposal amongst the petitioner, staff and Commission. MOTION by Carew, seconded by Pihart. to recor~mend the Local B~slness "A" classification on property described above. Motion carried unanlrr~us!y. There was a brief discussion of the proposed form of ordi- nance and a question from the floor regarding the extent o= its appllcat[on in the Broadway Street area. Con~nisslon- er Pihart reported that persons in his neighborhood had ported their acceptance of the proposed form of ordinance. MOTION by Pihart, seconded by Giesler, that the ordinance be approved. Motion carried unanimously. The petition of Mr. George Kennedy for Multiple Residence classification on property described as Lot I of Eot I of Lot I of Lot 1 of '~Olds Place"; Lot ! of Lot 1 of Lot ! of Lot I of Lot 1 of Mineral Lo~ 343: and Lot 2 of Lot 1 of Lot 1 Lot 1 of Lot 1 of Lot I of Mineral Lot 342; and Lot 2 of Lot I of Lot 1 of Lot 1 of Lot 1 of Lot I of Lot 1 of of Mineral Lot 342. all in the City of Dubuque. Iowa, was received. The staff reported that the petition included the same area that had been considered by the Co..~'nission in April, )974, but had now been expanded to an additional 4 acre parcel recently acquired by Mr. Kennedy and provid- ing frontage on Kaufmann Avenue. It was reported that the issue before the Corr~nission was to determine if the acqul- sltlon of the additional property had served to alter cir- cumstances of the request to warrant reconsideration at this time. It was noted that much of the objection at the 52 Special Session, .January 27, 1fi75 tions to Governor Pay protesting massage parlors and fu~her re- questing to be heard at the meet- lng aud also presenting copy of Des Moinus Ordinance, presented and read. M. rs. Mary Lee M2rting address- ed the Council relative to the communication. Mayor Justmann moved that the communication be received and filed and referred to the City Attorney. Seconded by Councilman Stacki~. Carried by the following vote: Yeas -- Mayer Justmann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Stackis, January 22, 1975 and City Council ! herewith snbmit the reports of the Finance Director, Deputy Fi- nance Director, Water Superintend- eat, Health Department, as well as a li~t of claims paid, for the month of December 1974. Gilbert D. Chavenelle City Manager Mayor Justmaun moved that the communication be received and fiL ed. Seconded by Councilman Lundh. Carried by the following Yeas -- Mayor Justmann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Tbems. Notice of Claim of Vera ttanley, in an undetermined amount, for personal injuries received in a fall on an icy sidewalk in the Town Clock Plaza on January 2, 1975, presented and read. Mayor Just- claim be referred to the City Sol- icitor for proper proceedings. Sec- onded by Councilman Lundh. Car- tied by the following vnte: Yeas -- Mayor Justmann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Steekis, Thams. Nays~Nonc. -~'o January 24, 1975 The City of Dubuque Planning and Zoning Cetam~sion has held a public hearing on an Ordinance proposing to restrain the demoli- tion of structures within the seven arees ef the City having concen- trations of architeeturelly signifi- cant buildings. The basis of identi- firafion of these areas is contained in the staff report "The Heritage of Dubuque," and copies of it are enclosed foe your review. . The pnblic hearing brought forth no objection to the Ordin- The Planning and Zoning Com- mended your approval of the pro- posed Ordinance herewith attach- ca'l'ff PLANNING AND ZONING CO~'r.~SION Daniel Dittemore Councilman Thorns moved that the communication be received and filed. Seconded by ' Councilman Brady. Carried by .the following Yeas -- MayOr Justmann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Ltmdh, Stachis, Thorns. Nays--None. AN IN'r.~tlM ORDINANCE at!- therizing a ninety (90) day waiting period prior in the issuance of a demolition permit for any building located within The Fourth Street Ncighharhoed, Penelon Place Neighborhood, Third Street Neigh- borhood, Washington Street Neigh- berhood, Jackson Park Neighbor. hood, West Eleventh Street Neigh- borhood and Broadway Street Neighborhood, presented and read. Councilman Thorns moved that the reading just had be considered the first reading of the Ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Brady. Carried by the following vote: Yeas -- Mayor Justmaun, Coun- cihnen Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Nays -- None. the rule requiring an Ordinance be waived. Seconded by Council- man Brady. Carried by the follow- ing vote: Yeas -- Mayor Justmaun, Coun. cllmen Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Thorns. Nays -- None. public hearing be 'held on the Or- dinance on February 10, 1975, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chamber at the City Hall and that the City Clerk be instructed to publish notice of the besting in the manner required by law. Sec- A Special Session, January 27, 1975 ended by Councilmen Brady. Car- ried by the following vote: Yeas -- Mayor Jnstmann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Stacl~, Thams. ~Nays -- None.' Petiiion of V.F.W. requesting permission to hold Buddy Poppy Sales on May 9th and 10th, 1970 presented and read. Councilman Lundh moved that the petition be received and filed and approved end referred to the City Manager for ra~ficatiun. Seconded by Coun- cllman Brady. Carried by the foL lowing vote: Yeas -- Mayor Justmann, Cotm- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Thoms. Nays -- None. January 23, 1975 Honorable Mayor and Members of Cily Council 'l~ha Fischer Realty Company ha~ advised that it will be neces- sary to increase the rentals for the spaces presently under lease in the Fischer Building to house the Department of Community velopment and the Planning and Zoning Office. .. The lest adinstment of rentals for .beth spaces was made six years ago, end it would appear that the operating expenses over which they have no conixol justify the increase requested. The Department of Community Development occupies Suite 10-B containing approximately 750 square feet. Their present rental is $170 per month or $2.75 per square foot, The new rental will be $190 per month at a rate of $3.04 per square foot, per annum. The Planning and Zoning Office ocoupies Suite 411, and their cur- rent rental is $330 per month or $3.27 per square foot. The new remtal will amount lo $350 per month at a rate of $3.47 per square foot, per annum. Both increases are effective April 1, 1975 and we would racom* mend that we be permitted to execute the necessary Amend- ments to the present leases at the :_ . Gilbert D. Chaveaelle City Manager Councilman Stackis moved that the communication be received and flied as amended. Seconded by Councilman Thorns. Carried by the following vote: Yeas -- Mayor Jnstmunn, Coun- el]men Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Nays -- None. RIiSOLtlTION NO. 23-75 AUTHORIZING 'iii.e; EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO LEASES FOR SDI'£J~ 10B AND .411 IN THE FISCHER BLrlLDING WHEREAS, the City of Dubuque leases from the Fischer Realty Suites 10-B end 411 in the Fischer Building to house the Department of Community Development and the Planning and Zoning Office; and V/HEREAS, the Fischer Realty Company has advised *.hat due to the increase in operating costs it for both suites effective April 1, 1975; and WI-IEREAS, said respective leas- es provide for ninety day cancel- lation clause. BE IT RESOLVED BY TiiE CII'~r COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA: ~ec-~io~ l. That the City Manag- er be end he is hereby authorized and directed to execute Amend- ments to the following leases with the Fischer Realty Company. Dep~rtment of Community February 28, 1969 Suite 10B $190.00 per month Planning and Zoning Office Lease dated June 25, 1973 Suite 411--$350.00 per month Passed, approved and adopted this 27th day of January, 1975. C. Robert Justmann Alvin E. Lundh 'arnll St~ckis 3ame~ E. Brady Allan T. Thorns Councilmen Attest: Leo 3?. From.melt City Clerk Councilman Brady moved adop- tion of the resolution as amended. Seconded by Mayor Justmenn. Car- tied by the following vote: Yeas -- Mayor Jnsimann, Coun- cilmen Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Nays -- None. Special Session, February 10,. 1975 Mary Billin~on addressed the Council requesting fo retain the 4~h Street Neighborhood. Patth Nash stated the Ordinance is min- imal. Councilman Brady moved to refer the Ord/nance to the meet- ing of February 24, 1975. 'Second- ed by Counc/lman Thorns. Vo~e on the moti3n was as follows: · _Yeas---Councilmen ~rady, Thorns. Nays---Mayor Justmann, Council- men Lundh, Stackis. MOTION F~. TT ,'~r). Mayor Justmann moved to amend 0rd/nance to read "Heri- tage of Dubuque be considered as a comprehensive study for the his- torical preservation of City of Du- buque and one of the guides to be considered at -such time as a demolition permit is applied for in a reference neighborhood." Second- ed by Counctiman Staekis. Carried by the following vote: Yea..~--Mayer Ju~/znann, Council- men Lundh, Staekii: Nays---Councilmen Th~)ms, Brady. ORDINANCE NO. 7-75 An Interim Ordinance Authoriz- ing a Ninety (90)Day Waiting Perlad Prior to the Issuante of a Demolition Permit ~or. Any Building Located Within the Area Herein Described, Said 0rdlnance having been pre- viously presented and read at the Council meeting of January 27, 1975, presented for final adoption. ORDINANCE/ NC). 7-75 A2q INTERIM ORDINANCE AU- THORIZING A NINETY (90) DAY WAITYNG PERIOD TO TH~ ISSU- ANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR ANY BLrfLDING LOCATED rurally slgz~ficent buLldlngs, ~he con- d~/r~lc that thC d~aolldon of Msto~i~=l- I¥ wa/or ~rctfir~cmr~ll¥ dgnl-g~a~t bailcl- Special Session, February 10, 1975 67 (]7) West Eleventh Street Ninth ancl B/u// Streets Strut which is the poln~ of ~thhold the D~olidon Petit Pe~t when~e~ it dete~n~ that the Special Session, Fcbrur, zy 10, i975 C~ Robet~ Justmaa 5tacki Ca::i,>i by thc following men $:-ad~, L[:ndh, Sklckis. c!~m,n Lsndh Staclds MOTION Commission. Seconded by Mayor Justmaon. Carried by the following Yeas--Mayor Justmonn, Cormcil- mmn Brady, Lundh, Staekis, Thorns. Nays--None. Proof of Publication, certified to by the Publ/sher, of N~ee of Intention to issue Hospital Facil- ify. First Me.gage Revenue Bonds, presented and read. Cotmeilmm~ 'iqqoms moved that the proof of publicaffon be received and filed. Seconded by CouneLLman St. aekis Cazried by the following wore: Yeas--Mayor Jt~stmanu, Council- men Brady, Landh, Staekis, Thorns. Nays--None. Communie'ailan of Pau/ D. Speer & Ass~tates Inc., submitting a resume o£ informational meetings and research done la the matter of bonding for Finley Hospital, presented and read. CotmeLLman Stackis moved that the eommum- eatzon he received and filed. Sec- onded by Councilman Thoms. Car- ried by the following vote: Yeas--Mayor Justmann, Council- men Brad5', Lundh, Stackis, Thorns. Nas, s--None. RESOLUTION NO. 36-75 E ESe L. UT[ON dete rmininll to proceed wifh ['he issuance ~f $4~50,000 Hospital Facility Fir~ PAeef§a~e Reveslue Bonds (The Finley Hospital Project) A, e{ the City of Dubuque, x,~,r[-D~8 the City of Dubuque, m :he COunty of Dubuque, State of I~;a ,(the "City"), proposes to ssue Hospital Facility First Mort- ,gage Revenue Bonds (The lfinley Hospital Project), Series A, of said City' in the principal amOU:at of s~,250,o00 (tho "Bonds") for the purpose of lending the proceeds Ikereoi to The Finley Hospital (the "Corporation") in de,ray the cost, ia tkat sinemet, of the aequhitlon of eort~dn equipment amd improve- monte by the Corporation suitable /or use ia ils voluntary nonprofit hospital (the "Project"), including the repayment of construction loans obtained by the Corporation onti2 permanent financing cmald be ,rrangcd, all to be located on s~e witllin the CAty, all in accord- anco ~ith the proT/slon of Chap- ter 419 of the Code of Iowa, 1973, as amended (the "Act"); and Special Session, February 24, 1975 79 that the communication be re- ceived and ~ed. Seconded by Councilman Lundh. Cart/ed by the following vote: Yeas--Mayor 3ustmann, Council- men Brady, Lundh, Staekis, Thorns. _Nays---None. Communication of Councilman Thorns suggesting the establish- ment of a commission for the bene- fit of individuals seeking assistance to abate {he excessive discrimina- tory authority over individual prop- erty in designated neighborhoods all relative to the recefitiy enacted demoli~ion Ordinance, and request- ing referral of the matter to the pl~n~ng & Zoning Commission,' presenCed and read. Councilman Stackis moved that the communi- cation be referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Seconded by Mayor Justmann. Carried by the followi~g vote: Yeas--Mayor Justmann, CouncAL men Brady, Lundh, S.tackis, Thorns. Nays---None. Communication of Low-Rent Ho,,~g Commission submfitting minutes of their meeting of Feb. mary 18, 1975, presented.and read. Councilman Lundh moved that the rnihutes be received and filed: Sec- onded by Councilman Stackis. Car- tied by the following vote: Yeas-~Mayor Justmann, Council- men Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Thnms. Nays--None.. February 19, 1975 ttonor~ble Mayor and Members of the City Council We hereby subm}t the Iowa Of- ficial Bond of P~ N. l~usso, City Attorney, for term beginning March 1, 1975 and ending March 1, 19~76, ,Bond No. g122316. May we request your approval for filing. Gilbert D. Chavenclle ... City Manager Councilman Thorns moved that the communication be received and filed and filing be approved. Sec- onded by Councilman Stackis. Car- ried by the following vote: Yeas---Mayor Justmann, Oounctl- men Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Thorns. Nays--None. Proof of Publication, certified to by the PubBsher, of Notice of Pub- lic Hearing for the purpose of ob- tnb.lng the views of citizens on Community Developmen{ and Hous- lng needs, presented and read. Councilman Thorns moved that the proof of publication be re- ceived and fle/t. Seconded by Councilman Stackis. Carried 'by the following vote: Yeas--Mayor Justmann, Council- men Brady, Landh, Stack[s, Tbems. Nays--None. Communication of Council of 0rganJzed Nelgi~berhoods and Oth- ers recommending Community De- velopment Block Grant program be used for the rehabilitation of neighborhoods, presented and read. Mr. John "Hank" Waltz, President of Washington Neighborhood Coun- cil, Mary Billington of the 4th Street Neigi~borhood and Dick Var- wald of North Dubuque Improve- ment Association addressed the Council concurrin~ with the com- municatian. Mayor Justmann moved that the communication be received and filed. Seconded_ by Councilman Stack/s. Carried by the ~oBowing vote: Yeas~Mayor Justmann, Cou~cil- men Brady, Lundh, Staekis, ~homs. Nays~Nonc. Communication of Rose Marie Montgomery, on behalg of G.A_I.N., requesting financial support from community for their organization, and also submitting a "Girls Club" model budget, presented and read. Mrs. Montgomery and Edna Thompson addressed the Council relative to the eommunnication and stating a desperate need for a meeting ptaee for the girls. Coun- etiman ~tackSs moved that the communication be received and filed. Seconded by Mayor Just- mann. Carried by the following vote: Yeas--Mayor Justmann, Council- men Brady, Lundh, stackis, Thorns. Nays~None. :_ John Bahl of Dubuque County ttistotical Society addressed the Council requesting and recom- mending revolving funds be used for rehabilitation. Communication of Director of Community Development submit- ting Community Development Block Grant pro.am, presented. Mr, John Grau addressed the Coun- t{1 on Mini~Programs and projects for a plan of action. 142 Special Session, April !4, 1975 sion to eddrasa the Council rela- tive to activities to be conducted dulSng "Beaut/fy Dubuque Week and Month" presented. gobert Day and John Grau, mem- bers of the Beaatificat/an Commit- ~ee, addressed the Council stating *.here are about twenty projects being worked on at the present time. They also introdnaed the following people and the various prelects they have undertaken. Dick Albert, Comiskey Park Area; Barb Faust, Jefferson Park Area; Jhn Gibbs, Madison Park A_~a; Sarry Herbarger and Cindy Weber Overpass at St. Joseph's Church Area; Wilma HeRzman, Flocdwall Marina Area; Ann Schrceder Clean Flora Park Area; Karen .MoMenhanar, All/sen - Henderson Park Area; City ~ide cleanup in .the Kennedy Mall area; Sierra Club, to pick up trash; and Mercy Hospital, Dubuque County Con- servation Society, Chamber of Com- merce & Rotary Club to help where needed. CounciLman Brady moved that the Ci~y Attorney draw up a reso- iai/on endorsing the projects and ~]so ~/ve cons/deratien as to ~the liability involved. Seconded by Councilman $taekis. Carried by the following vote: Yeas--Mayor Justmann, Coundl- men Brady, Lundh, Stack/s, Thorns. Nays---None. Petition of Dubuque Sperms Un- 1/mired requesting that the week of Apr/1 13 thru 19 be declared Baseball Week in Dubuque, pre- seated and read. General Manager, Steve Greenberg, addressed the Council stating the opening game /s April 18, 1975, and presented the Mayor with an off/cial cap. Mayor Justmann moved that the petitiun be received and fi/ed. Sec. ended by Councilman Thorns. Carried by the following vote: Yeas~Mayor Sustmaun, Coune/l~ men Brady, Luncth, g/ack/s, Thorns. April 2, 1975 Honorable Mayor and Councilmen rs1 of Councilman Thorns' letter of Cebruary 20, 1975, the Plamling and Zen/ag Commission has con- sidereal the suggestion/or creating .u panel to advise the CouncB in hi~ter~eal and architec/ural pres- ervalien matters. __ . The Corem/ss/on a~ccd that/he purpose of the Demolit/on Restraint Ordinance No. 7-75 would be pro- tectcd if its application were su'I~ ~ect to independen~ expert advice as Counciinmu Thorns has urged. The Coendhnan,s left. er made specific reference /a the h/stet/cai adviso~.¢ commission es/abl/s~led in [n Charleston, South Carolina, and we have en~esed a copy of the/r specifica~ans for the various areas of expertise to be represen/ad on their cumin/ss/on. The and Zoning Commie,'ion has also a~oreed that ~he role of a preserva- tion advisory panel m/ght a/so be broadened to provide valuable in- put on other architectural and The Commission also fe~t strong. ly that the potential scope of in- volvement for an kistarical pres- ervstion sdv~sary ~renp /s not yet sufflclentiy well established to be f~rma]ly cona~tuted by local erd~- hence. I~ has recommended, as an alternate?e, .that an ad hoc advisory panel be formed now and that Council stipulate a pel/cy of con- su~tin~ ~vith th/s panel as appro- priate hustlers ariso~ We have tached ;~ sample form of lqeselu- flea sh~u~d you find it desirable to off~c~lty articulate that policy. Under separate cover, we will submit ~, l~st of persons whom we know to have an interest in pres- ervation and whose var/ous ex- pertise ~s ~onsistent with the re~ quirements of the Charleston, South C~rollna ordinance. CiTY PLAN/q~TG AND ZONING CO;~3~SSION Daniel Dittemore Development Planner Councilman Thorns moved that the corn~.urdeatien be received and filed. S~onded by Mayor Just- mann. C,~r/ed by the ~llowin~ vo~e: YeaS--)[ayor ~ushnann, Council- men Brady, Lundh, Stackis, Thorns. RESOLUTION OF POLICY No. 8~-75 ~t desh'a~[e that Council ~se~ve Special Ses~ion~ April 1~ 1975 143 the provisions of Ordinance No. 7-75, known as the "Demolition Restrain~ 0rdiua~e," and Whereas, the solicitation of such Lnform~ ad~iee may also be of s~bstanfizl hupertance to the CouncLl Lu regard to other m~ttees concerning the conservation of buque's rich historical and archi- NOW TIa'~flLEFOtLE BE 1T SOLVED BY '£H-~ CITY COUNCIL OF 'J.'.~LE I~£~'~' OF DIYBUQUE, IOWA: ~on 1. That the City Council hereby recognizes the Dub~lue Historic Preservation Advisory Board as a private organization with ~ knowledge and exper- tice in the field of ]~eric cun- Section i. That the City Council hereby declares its intention to solicit the advice of .the Dubuque Historical Preservation Advisory Board on 'matters wiflfin the scope of Ordinance No. 7-75 and on oth- er matters affecting Dubuque's historical and architectural rage az the Council deems apPre- pri~te. Passed, ad.pied and approved this 14th day of April, 1975. C. Robert Jaztmann Alvin E. Lond~ Emil Attest: City Clerk Counci~uon Thoms moved adop- 'don of the resolution~ Seconded by M~er Justmanu. Carried by the following vote: Yeas--Mayer Snsiunann, Council 1Vays--Colm~Uman Brady. ~ommunicatiun cf Dubuque Jay- asea requesting the adoption of a motion endorsing their endeavo~ in ~ task of ranovafi~g Wash- ington Park, prceented and read. Russ Neuwoehaer of the Jaycees addressed the Conrail Councilman Starki~ moved that the commmgeation be received filed. ~-,o~ted by Ma~or Just- m,,, Carried by the following retie: : Yeas---Mayor Ju,~m~nu, Coundl- men ]Brady, Lundh, Stackis, 'Yhems, Nays--None. RESOLUTION NO. 90-1!; Endorsing Washington Park Res- wilealEAS, Wl~aingtou Park in downtown Dubuque is the site of much of the history of Dubuque including the CitlYa first Church, {ail and settlers' meeting ground; W 'P_.~,EAS, much of the park's former beauty and character have been destroyed by the forces of natuxe; and wfii~iiEAS, the Dubuque have undertaken to restore Wash- ington ~ark iu con~unction with the American Revolution Bicen- tennial Colebralion; and WHEREAS, lhe restoration Washington Park will enhance the ha~ge and vitality of the Dubuque Community especially in ti~s centennial era; BE IT itESOLVED BY THE CiTY COLrNCIL OF '£1-il~ t;zl~ OF DUBUQUE that it wholeheartedly eudor~az the efforts of the Du- buque aTaycees to restore Washing- ton Park and pledges its coopera- tion and anppert to their endeavor. Passed, approved, and adopted this lith day of April, 1975. C. Robert Jaztmaun Mayor A_Yvin E. Lundh ~r~il Stackis James E. Allan T. Thorns Atte~ Leo F. Freramelt City C/erk Councilman Staekis moved adop- tion of the re~iution. Seconded by Mayor Jnstmaun. Carried by the foliowlag vote: Ye~%-Mayer Jnsfmann, Council- men Brady, Ltmdh, Stacki~, Nay~-Ngne, April 14, 1975 City of Dubuque Atle~tion: Mr. Gilbert'D. Chavenelle City Manager Re: Finley I-t~sp]ta! We .have heeu fm'-~ished w/th ~ fi~al drafts of the proposed documents ce~t,~I~ed i~ the o! Lee Boye of Chapm;m end C~t- ler dated Ap~l ,5, 19T,5, a~cl we Plann~ng Services Deparh-aent 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864 Phone (319) 589-4210 Fax (319) 589-4221 Apd111,2001 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Dubuque 50W. 13~Street Dubuque, lA52001 RE: Recommended Amendments to Demolition Districts Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Introduction The Historic Preservation Commission recently discussed how we might serve as an advisory review board to the City Council for projects affecting historic properties that are not in histodc districts. The HPC has reviewed the enclosed research report on the historical development of the City's regulations for demolition districts with City staff. As a result of our discussions, the Commission would like to propose two amendments to Section 11-4 of the City Code regarding demolition districts: (1) establishment of a review process with review criteria, and (2) establishment of a downtown demolition district. Discussion The demolition districts were the precursors to the Histodc Preservation Ordinance and the HPC. They include many older structures in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods that may have historical or architectural significance. The building official cannot issue demolition permits in these areas without a review by the City Council. The intent of these districts was to enable the City Council to take up to 90 days to review the potential significance of a building, to determine if it should be demolished. Portions of the seven demolition districts overlap the five historic districts. Under Chapter 25 of the City Code, the HPC reviews demolition requests in histodc districts. The review cdteda to be applied are the federal standards for review as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Reviews must be completed within 60 days. Establishment of a Review Process with Review Criteria The current regulations in Section 11-4 for demolition districts do not provide for a review process; review by the HPC is not mentioned, because the HPC did not exist when the demolition districts were created. Section 11-4 also does not provide any criteria for the City Council to use when reviewing demolition requests in these districts. The HPC recommends that the existing code for demolition districts be amended to provide a review process with review cdteda. The HPC would serve as an advisory review body for the City Council for any demolition request in a demolition distdct that lies outside a historic district. The Commission would use the same review criteria as we use for historic districts, the Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Demolition Districts Page 2 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. HPC reviews would be completed within 60 days, as in histodc districts. The Commission's recommendation then would be forwarded to the City Council for a decision on the demolition permit. Using the same criteria and time frame will ensure consistency in the reviews. Establishment of a Downtown Demolition District The City Council has directed the Downtown Planning Committee to develop a downtown comprehensive plan. The service boundary for Dubuque Main Street Ltd. is the study area for this downtown planning process. Dubuque Main Street Ltd. has been an important community partner in preservation and revitalization of Downtown. In addition, the existing stock of historic buildings in this study area very likely will have an important role in the successful revitalization of Downtown. Given the initiation of this planning study, and the City's long-term commitment to downtown revitalization, the HPC recommends that the study area for the downtown comprehensive plan be established as a new downtown demolition district. Portions of this study area are already in demolition districts or histodc districts, which may mean adjusting the distdct boundaries. Maps of the Dubuque Main Street Ltd. service area and the proposed downtown demolition distdct in relation to the existing demolition districts and historic districts are enclosed. Individual landmarks, like City Hall and the Courthouse, are also in this study area. In addition, the study area includes the former Buettell Bros. Building at 841-846 Central Avenue. Since the HPC already has reviewed its planned demolition, the Commission recommends that this building be exempted from further review under a new downtown demolition district. The commission respectfully requests that the City Council consider these two amendments at your earliest possible convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information from the Commission. Sincerely, Historic Preservation Commission Enclosures Historic Preservation commission Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Barry Lindahl, corporation Counsel Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Rich Russell, Building Services Manager r"-] Recommended Geographic Scope of Downtown Comprehensive Plan (Dubuque Main Street Umited Service Area) Location of Historic Districts and Demolition Districts ~ ~itiOn Districts \ \ CITY lNG bare the! .the as a historical,.. sur~eys/evaluetions and nOml, s at , of the ahd STATE OF IOWA DUBUQUE COUNTY { SS: CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION TAMMY M. FELDMANN a Billing C] Communications, Inc., an Iowa corporation, publisher of the newspaper of general circulation published in the City of D Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby certify that, the attached n, in said newspaper on the following dates , 20 (~ , and for whic~ the charge is Subscribed to before me, a Notary Public in and for Dubuque this ~O~-flZ~ day of .~f 20 ~/. Notary Public ia and for D]