Historic Preservation Ordinance
Planning Services Department
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
Phone (319) 589-4210
Fax (319) 589-4149
D~
~~~
April 10, 2000
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
SUBJECT:
Review and Update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Enclosed again for your review and discussion at our April 17th work session is the
Initial Report an the Review and Update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which
the Historic Preservation Commission transmitted to you in February.
Since February, the Commission has met with City staff to develop parameters for the
proposed historic preservation homeowner grant program and historic preservation
revolving loan fund described in the report. Our suggested parameters for these two
programs are found in the new attachment at the end of our report,
We look forward to our work session, and to receiving your direction regarding the
review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ken Kringle, Chairperson
Historic Preservation Commission
a
Q
þ
"
Ã1
Q
Q'<
[2 f
N
Enclosures
cc
Historic Preservation Commission
Michael Van Milligen, City Manager
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
James Burke, Community and Economic Development Director
James O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
Pam Myhre, Associate Planner
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
J.o
c'
c",
-:"'_0
:'> ~;
CD
§
J:"
W
5:
Se'Yke
People
Integdty
R"ponsibiI;ty
Innovation
Teamwork
::.0
;'n
C)
íl
:::::-
---...
m
0
Planning Services Department
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
Phone (319) 589-4210
Fax (319) 589-4149
D~
~~~
February 4, 2000
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 W 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
SUBJECT:
Process for Review and Update of Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
On April 5, 1999, the City Council directed the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to
review and update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, On June 21, 1999, the City Council
reviewed the process recommended by the Commission for conducting an ordinance review
and update, At that meeting, the Commission had requested a work session with the City
Council to discuss the recommended process, to clarify the City Council's expectations,
and to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed,
At that meeting, the City Council recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission
complete the five problem solving process steps, and then request a work session with the
Council. The Commission has completed the attached report that addresses the five
problem solving process steps, Those steps were:
A
B,
C,
D,
Review historic preservation ordinances from other cities,
Review historic preservation incentives used by other cities,
Identify ways to streamline the current ordinance with more sign-offs by staff,
Review court cases and case law for definitions of economic hardship for
commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential properties,
Review Iowa code pertaining to historic preservation,
E.
As part of these problem solving steps, the Commission has identified possible changes to
the Historic Preservation Ordinance in response to the City Council's direction, Our report
includes recommended amendments to this ordinance,
In addition, the Commission has surveyed HPC design review applicants. current and past
HPC members, and City staff in the Planning Services, Building Safety, Housing Services,
Fire and Community and Economic Development Departments, Survey recipients were
asked to identify perceptions and problems, Survey results are included in the attached
report,
Service
People
Integrity
R"ponsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
VI 'Gni:x1C¡no
eo1JJO I\)()
00 :7 Hd 91 8J.:I 00
03/\13:J3tJ
Letter to the Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 4, 2000
Page 2
The Commission requests a work session with the City Council to discuss our report, to
review our recommended ordinance changes, and to determine the process for obtaining
public input in the review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, We believe
that a work session would enable Commissioners, Council members, and staff to have a
meaningful dialogue on the rationale behind our recommendations, If the City Council
prefers not to hold a work session, then the Commission would like the City Council's
direction to proceed with the public input phase of the ordinance review and update,
The public input phase of the ordinance review and update process involves five develop
partnerships steps, These steps are listed on the attachment, and are summarized below:
A
B,
C,
D,
Meet with City Council.
Create a Historic Preservation Ordinance Task Force,
Form Focus Groups,
Obtain input, assistance and review of proposed ordinance changes and
incentives from the State Historic Preservation Office,
Hold at least two focus group meetings (Task Force),
E.
We look forward to working with the City Council on the review and update of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance,
Sincerely,
Ken Kringle, Chairperson
Historic Preservation Commission
KKlmkr
Attachments
cc:
Historic Preservation Commission
Michael C, Van Milligen, City Manager
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Jim Burke, Community and Economic Development Director
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Tim O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
Pam Myhre, Associate Planner
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
Historic Preservation Ordinance Review/Revision: Develop Partnerships Process Steps
A,
Meet with City Council
Initial work session
.I Test process and get direction
.I Clarify problems and opportunities
.I Discuss: what is our goal for historic preservation?
Second work session
.I Present data and information gathered by task force
.I Review process used and results
.I Present recommendations for ordinance changes and incentives
B.
Create an Historic Preservation Ordinance Task Force:
Voting Membership:
.I 3 HPC Commissioners (Task Force Chair and Vice-Chair)
.I 2 historic district property owners
.I 2 contractors who work on historic properties
.I 1 representative from Dubuque County Historical Society
.I 1 representative from Dubuque Main Street Ltd.
Non-voting Membership:
.I Planning Services staff: Laura Carstens, Mark Noble
.I Community and Economic Development staff: Pam Myhre
.I Legal staff: Tim O'Brien
.I Facilitator: City staff or other
Duties:
.I Review collected data and other information
.I Conduct focus group meetings
.I Develop recommendations for ordinance revisions and possible
incentives after review with focus groups and SHPO
Meet with HPC to share information, and to test proposals
Meet with HPC and City Council at work session to share
information, and to test proposals
.I
.I
C.
Form Focus Groups representing/inviting:
Neighborhood organizations
Residents and property owners in historic districts
Contractors
Building supply businesses
D.
Obtain input, assistance and review of proposed ordinance changes and
incentives from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
E.
Hold at least two focus groups meetings (Task Force):
Identify perceptions and problems
Review and respond to new ordinancelchanges and potential/proposed
incentives
.
.
.
PJ.mnin~ S",ices Der,utment
3<1 Il'est L'th Street
Dubuqu,-, I""" 5:,\11-\'0-1
Ph,'nc ,31"15'9-1:10
F,n ,31'" "-"'-414"
D~
~~~
April 10,2000
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
SUBJECT:
Review and Update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Enclosed again for your review and discussion at our April 17th work session is the
Initial Report an the Review and Update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which
the Historic Preservation Commission transmitted to you in February.
Since February, the Commission has met with City staff to develop parameters for the
proposed historic preservation homeowner grant program and historic preservation
revolving loan fund described in the report. Our suggested parameters for these two
programs are found in the new attachment at the end of our report.
We look forward to our work session, and to receiving your direction regarding the
review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ken Kringle, Chairperson
Historic Preservation Commission
Enclosures
cc
Historic Preservation Commission
Michael Van Milligen, City Manager
Bmry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Lnura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Jnmes Burke, Community and Economic Development Director
James O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
Pam Myhre, Associnte Planner
Mmk Noble, Assistnnt Planner
-----,
';"I"k,'
1\"'1'1,'
I""'~"II)'
1{"'I""hibility
l",\\<,',lti""
r".11""""k
8
8
.
Planning Services Department
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
Phone (319) 589-1210
Fax (319) 589-4149
D~
~~~
February 4, 2000
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
SUBJECT:
Process for Review and Update of Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
On April 5, 1999, the City Council directed the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to
review and update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, On June 21, 1999, the City Council
reviewed the process recommended by the Commission for conducting an ordinance review
and update, At that meeting, the Commission had requested a work session with the City
Council to discuss the recommended process, to clarify the City Council's expectations,
and to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed,
At that meeting, the City Council recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission
complete the five problem solving process steps, and then request a work session with the
Council. The Commission has completed the attached report that addresses the five
problem solving process steps, Those steps were:
A
B,
C,
D,
Review historic preservation ordinances from other cities,
Review historic preservation incentives used by other cities,
Identify ways to streamline the current ordinance with more sign-offs by staff,
Review court cases and case law for definitions of economic hardship for
commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential properties,
Review Iowa code pertaining to historic preservation.
E.
As part of these problem solving steps, the Commission has identified possible changes to
the Historic Preservation Ordinance in response to the City Council's direction, Our report
includes recommended amendments to this ordinance,
In addition, the Commission has surveyed HPC design review applicants, current and past
HPC members, and City staff in the Planning Services, Building Safety, Housing Services,
Fire and Community and Economic Development Departments. Survey recipients were
asked to identify perceptions and problems, Survey results are included in the attached
report.
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
Letter to the Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 4, 2000
Page 2
The Commission requests a work session with the City Council to discuss our report, to
review our recommended ordinance changes, and to determine the process for obtaining
public input in the review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, We believe
that a work session would enable Commissioners, Council members, and staff to have a
meaningful dialogue on the rationale behind our recommendations. If the City Council
prefers not to hold a work session, then the Commission would like the City Council's
direction to proceed with the public input phase of the ordinance review and update,
The public input phase of the ordinance review and update process involves five develop
partnerships steps, These steps are listed on the attachment, and are summarized below:
A.
B.
C.
D,
Meet with City Council.
Create a Historic Preservation Ordinance Task Force,
Form Focus Groups,
Obtain input, assistance and review of proposed ordinance changes and
incentives from the State Historic Preservation Office,
Hold at least two focus group meetings (Task Force),
E.
We look forward to working with the City Council on the review and update of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ken Kringle, Chairperson
Historic Preservation Commission
KKlmkr
Attachments
cc:
Historic Preservation Commission
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Jim Burke, Community and Economic Development Director
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Tim O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
Pam Myhre, Associate Planner
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
.
.
.
C.
D.
E,
Historic Preservation Ordinance Review/Revision: Develop Partnerships Process Steps
A.
Meet with City Council
Initial work session
.I Test process and get direction
.I Clarify problems and opportunities
.I Discuss: what is our goal for historic preservation?
Second work session
.I Present data and information gathered by task force
.I Review process used and results
.I Present recommendations for ordinance changes and incentives
B.
Create an Historic Preservation Ordinance Task Force:
Voting Membership:
.I 3 HPC Commissioners (Task Force Chair and Vice-Chair)
.I 2 historic district property owners
.I 2 contractors who work on historic properties
.I 1 representative from Dubuque County Historical Society
.I 1 representative from Dubuque Main Street Ltd,
Non-voting Membership:
.I Planning Services staff: Laura Carstens, Mark Noble
.I Community and Economic Development staff: Pam Myhre
.I Legal staff: Tim O'Brien
.I Facilitator: City staff or other
Duties:
.I Review collected data and other information
.I Conduct focus group meetings
.I Develop recommendations for ordinance revisions and possible
incentives after review with focus groups and SHPO
Meet with HPC to share information, and to test proposals
Meet with HPC and City Council at work session to share
information, and to test proposals
.I
.I
Form Focus Groups representing/inviting:
Neighborhood organizations
Residents and property owners in historic districts
Contractors
Building supply businesses
Obtain input, assistance and review of proposed ordinance changes and
incentives from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Hold at least two focus groups meetings (Task Force):
Identify perceptions and problems
Review and respond to new ordinancelchanges and potential/proposed
incentives
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of the
.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
January, 2000
.
.
.
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance
January, 2000
INTRODUCTION
This is the initial report from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to the City
Council pertaining to the review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
On April 5, 1999, the City Council directed the HPC to review and update the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. On June 21, 1999, the City Council reviewed the process
recommended by the Commission for conducting an ordinance review and update, At
that meeting, the Commission had requested a work session with the City Council to
discuss the recommended process, to clarify the City Council's expectations, and to
receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed,
At that meeting, the City Council recommended that the HPC complete the five problem
solving process steps, and then request a work session with the Council. This initial
report addresses the five problem solving process steps, Those five steps were:
A.
B.
C,
Review historic preservation ordinances from other cities.
Review historic preservation incentives used by other cities,
Identify ways to streamline the current ordinance with more sign-offs by
staff.
Review court cases and case law for definitions of economic hardship for
commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential
properties,
Review Iowa Code pertaining to historic preservation.
D.
E.
In addition, the HPC has completed the three input oriented steps of the Ordinance
review process. These steps were:
A.
B,
C.
Survey HPC design review applicants from 1995 -1999.
Survey current and past HPC members,
Survey City staff in the Planning Services, Community and Economic
Development, Building Safety, Housing Services and Fire Departments.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The last revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance was completed in 1989, This
review process took over a year, and involved HPC members, Planning Services staff
and Legal staff, The 1989 revision clarified and simplified the original 1977 Ordinance
by:
More clearly explaining the powers, duties and functions of the HPC;
Providing for staff sign-offs on projects through a Determination of No Material
Effect; and
Creating the Certificate of Economic Hardship for projects that would prevent the
property owner from earning any reasonable economic return,
Based on input from the City Council, City staff and citizens, the HPC considered the
following issues in the current review and update of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance:
The appeal process needs to be revised; a different process should be available.
The HPC should more clearly define economic hardship,
The issue of economic hardship for home ownership should be clarified with an
application appeal.
The HPC should look at other changes to make the job of the Commissioners
easier and more efficient.
There are problems with the existing Ordinance that are causing conflicts; the
HPC needs to identify changes that could resolve these conflicts,
What are the limitations placed on the Ordinance by the State code?
.
.
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 3
DISCUSSION
The City is investing millions of dollars in our riverfront, creating opportunities for
economic growth and revitalization, tourist attractions, recreational facilities and
attractive gateways. The riverfront is a key to Dubuque's economic prosperity and
quality of life, It is Dubuque's No.1 tourist attraction.
The historic, architectural and cultural resources of Dubuque's historic landmarks, sites,
districts, downtown and neighborhoods also are a key to Dubuque's economic
prosperity and quality of life, These resources, like the Mississippi River, help form
Dubuque's unique identity, They are Dubuque's No, 2 tourist attraction,
Like its investment in the riverfront for economic reasons, the City needs to invest in its
historic areas for economic reasons. Many property owners in historic districts are low
or moderate income households for whom home and property improvements can be
expensive, The cost to make these improvements to historic structures and in historic
districts can be more expensive in the short term than using conventional, historically
inappropriate measures. The City needs to make investments in its historic districts
that bridge the gap that owners of these historic properties face due to their income, the
cost of historic rehabilitation, or both,
By providing incentives for people to own, renovate and maintain historic structures, the
City invests in our second most important visitor attraction - our historic architecture, In
addition, the City retains and upgrades its existing housing stock, helps revitalize
neighborhoods, and improves the quality of life in Dubuque,
Besides providing incentives for rehabilitation of historic properties, the City needs to
reduce the red tape that property owners encounter when making improvements to
historic properties. More design reviews need to be done at the staff level, without the
necessity of a Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Like the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, the Historic Preservation Commission should review only those cases
where the proposed improvements did not conform with the design guidelines.
The City needs to develop design guidelines to streamline permit reviews in historic
districts and for historic landmarks. With design guidelines developed for each historic
district and landmark, staff would be able to review and approve projects that meet the
guidelines, and fewer projects would need to go to the Historic Preservation
Commission. Staff also could use the design guidelines to help property owners in
preparing their plans and obtaining their building and sign permits.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Through our review and discussion of the research and analysis provided by City staff
in addressing the input oriented and problem solving process steps, the Commission
has identified possible changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance in response to
the City Council's direction, Our report includes recommended amendments to this
ordinance in Attachment #1,
1. Problem Solvina Process Stees
The HPC has worked through the five problem solving process steps, as discussed
below. HPC recommendations are highlighted in italics.
A.
Review historic preservation ordinances from other cities.
The attached report by the Planning Services staff compares Dubuque's Historic
Preservation Ordinance with historic preservation ordinances from other cities (see
Attachment #2), Key points of the review of Dubuque's ordinance and ordinances from
other cities included: standards for design review, standards for economic hardship,
number of commissioners, number of historic districts and number of meetings.
Kerry McGrath, Local Governments Coordinator for the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), has indicated that the best examples of historic preservation ordinances
in Iowa are from Dubuque and Iowa City. Iowa City used Dubuque's ordinance as their
model, and has made some improvements, She also said that the HPC may want to
include design guidelines that are district specific as part of the review and update of
the ordinance,
HPC recommendation: Amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance as shown in
Attachment #1, and develop design guidelines (see C. below),
B.
Review historic preservation incentives used by other cities.
The attached report by the Planning Services staff compares Dubuque's historic
preservation incentives with those of other cities (see Attachment #3). Among the
City's historic preservation incentives, some programs are more successful and utilized
more that others, The HPC recommends that the City Council alter the existing
incentives and adopt new programs to make historic preservation an economic
development tool for downtown and neighborhood revitalization and investment.
HPC recommendation:
8
8
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 5
1)
Approve a low interest (3%) Historic Preservation revolving loan fund with: a)
$200,000 available at conception; b) $20,000 added each year for the next five
years; and c) that the City make a commitment to raise $100,000 through private
contributions (see Attachment #10),
2)
Approve a neighborhood support grant in which the City provides
incentives to do streetscape elements such as landscaping and lighting,
3)
Approve a revised Historic Preservation Grant that would increase the grant
amount from $2,000 up to $5,000 (see Attachment #10).
4)
Approve an expansion of the Urban Revitalization Program to include all historic
districts in this program, Presently, only the West 11th Street and Jackson Park
Historic Districts are part of the Urban Revitalization Program.
5)
Approve the allocations of funds for creating a full-time Historic
Preservation Planner in the Planning Services Department,
c.
Identify ways to streamline the current ordinance with more sign-offs by
staff.
Commissioners and staff discussed that design guidelines could make the job of the
Commissioners easier and more efficient. The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) has funds available for cities to hire a consultant to prepare a historic
preservation plan and to develop design guidelines, An example of design guidelines
from Elgin, Illinois is attached (see Attachment #4).
Staff believes that design guidelines for each district also would make the job of staff
easier and more efficient. Design guidelines would provide opportunities for streamlined
staff sign-offs on certain types of projects that meet established criteria.
Staff and the Commission have discussed cases in which staff sign-off is appropriate.
An example is the replacement of an aluminum porch with a wooden porch that
matches a porch shown in a old photograph of the building and that is appropriate for
the structure's period of significance,
HPC recommendation: That the City Council budget a local match, and then apply for a
grant to hire a consultant to develop design guidelines for the historic districts.
D.
Review court cases and case law for definitions of economic hardship for
commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential
properties.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 6
The City Council directed the HPC to more clearly define economic hardship, and to
clarify the issue of economic hardship for home ownership with an application appeal.
Planning Services, Community and Economic Development, and Legal staff have
evaluated design review cases and case law. Commissioners discussed how to
address various types of applicants, including: persons on fixed income, low/moderate
income households, commercial/business property, multi-family residential property,
owner-occupied single-family residential property, owner-occupied duplex and multi-
family properties, and owner-occupied mixed use residential/commercial property,
The term "economic hardship" as it appears in our Ordinance in Sections 25-7, 25-8
and 25-9 is a misnomer and perhaps the subject of some confusion. Our ordinance
uses the term "certificate of economic hardship," but our ordinance requires significantly
more than a showing of hardship in order to qualify for the Certificate of Economic
Hardship, Instead of a showing of economic hardship, an applicant must show that
"disapproval of the proposed work would prevent the property owner from earning any
reasonable economic return from the property," This is a very strict standard of proof
for the applicant to meet, but is legally defensible under the decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
One method of resolving the possible misunderstanding would be to delete the term
"economic hardship" and substitute some other term. One term that the Commission
and staff discussed would be to substitute "non-viability" for the word "hardship,"
Another problem area has been the determination of what level of economic return is
"reasonable," Our ordinance contains no definition of the term "reasonable economic
return." There are other ordinances that do define the term. For example, New York
City defines "reasonable return" to be a net annual return of 6% of valuation where net
annual return is defined as net operating income excluding mortgage payments and
deducting for depreciation. There is nothing particularly magic about "6%," but rates
lower than 6% could create openings for challenge in the courts,
Another possible deficiency in the ordinance is our use of "reasonable economic return"
as the standard when dealing with non-profit organizations who are owners of historic
properties and also with residential ownership. Other ordinances use the term
"reasonable use" in addition to reasonable economic return, which gives the
Commission the latitude to permit a change where the change is proven to be
necessary for the reasonable use of the property. This takes the judgement away from
the realm of economics and creates a standard which would be more difficult for the
Commission to interpret. Naturally, the term reasonable use could be defined to reduce
the level of discretion,
The Commission also considered the possibility of excluding from the demolition and
alteration provisions, structures which are non-historic andlor non-contributing. This
.
.
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 7
would eliminate the need for certain demolition requests to come before the
Commission.
In addressing this step, the HPC reviewed how other cities dealt with economic
hardship in their historic preservation ordinances (see Attachment #5), The
Commission also discussed how we could define "economic hardship" more clearly in
an attempt to clarify the issue for home ownership, and how best to address various
types of applicants, We also raised the issue of "demolition by neglect", and reviewed
numerous ordinances from other cities (see Attachment #6),
HPC recommendation:
1)
2)
Amend the wording for a Certificate of Economic Hardshiv to read Certificate of
Economic Nan-Viability throughout the ordinance,
Add a new Section 25-14 to the ordinance, pertaining to demolition by neglect,
as fallows:
Sec. 25-14. Demolition by neglect prohibited.
The owner of real property in any historic district or of a landmark shall preserve
and keep from deterioration all structures located on such real property. The
owner must repair the structure to correct any of the following defects found by
the City's designated enforcement officer:
(a) parts which are improperly or inadequately attached so that they may fall
and injure persons or property;
a deteriorated or inadequate foundation;
defective or deteriorated floor supports or floor supports that are
insufficient to carry the loads imposed;
walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due
to defect or deterioration or are insufficient to carry the load imposed;
ceilings, roofs, ceiling or roof supports, or other horizontal members which
sag, split, or buckle, due to defect or deterioration or are insufficient to
support the load imposed;
fireplaces and chimneys which list, bulge or settle due to defect or
deterioration or are of insufficient size or strength to carry the loads
imposed;
deteriorated, crumbling or loose exterior stucco or mortar;
deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs,
foundations or floors, including broken windows and doors;
defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings,
foundations or floors, including broken windows and doors;
any default, defect or condition in the structure which renders it
structurally unsafe or not properly watertight;
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 8
(k)
(I)
accumulations of weeds, fallen trees or limbs, debris, abandoned
vehicles, and other refuse;
deterioration of any exterior feature so as to create a hazardous condition
which could make demolition necessary for the public safety; or
deterioration or removal of any unique architectural feature which would
detract from the original architectural style,
(m)
3)
Add language to Section 25-8(c)(3)b pertaining to applications for economic non-
viability.
Add to Sec. 25-8(c)(3)b.
In considering whether the property has been prevented from earning any
reasonable economic return, the Commission shall deny the certificate of
economic non-viability where the inability earn any reasonable economic return
has been created by the property owners conduct including, but not limited to,
neglect of maintenance or absence of bona fide attempts to earn a reasonable
economic return.
4)
Add language to Section 25-9(g) pertaining to researching preservation
altematives and funding opportunities prior to submittal of an application for
Certificate of Economic Non-Viability.
Add to Sec. 25-9(g),
Prior to filing an application for economic non-viability, as provided for in
subsection(h) below, the applicant shall attempt to obtain financing, tax
incentives, preservation grants and other incentives sufficient to allow the
applicant to earn a reasonable economic return from the property,
5)
Add a new Section 25-9(h)(2)(0) pertaining to attempts to obtain financial
incentives for property improvements, and a new Section 25-9(h)(2)(p) pertaining
to property maintenance, .
Add to Sec. 25-9(h)(2).
New subsection: (0) proof of the applicant's efforts to obtain financing, tax
incentives, preservation grants and other incentives sufficient to allow the
applicant to earn a reasonable and a economic return from the property.
New subsection: (p) a showing of the applicant's efforts in ongoing maintenance
and repair.
The Commission inquired of Legal staff about the possibility of an amendment to the
ordinance which would allow them to consider the economic circumstances of an
applicant when reviewing an application for a Certificate of Economic Non-Viability,
.
.
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic PreseNation Ordinance
Page 9
The Commission questioned their ability to treat applicants differently depending on
their economic circumstances or other status,
Legal staff believe it would be unwise to write such a provision into the ordinance for
both practical and legal reasons. From a practical point of view, it would complicate the
Commission's deliberations even further because each and every case would raise
issues relating to the financial circumstances of the applicant. There would also be
issues of verification of the allegations of the economic circumstances, More troubling,
however, is the legal issue of creating an ordinance which allows the government to
treat people differently with respect to their vested property rights based upon a
person's economic circumstances,
The constitutional issue here is whether the ordinance, as applied, creates a taking of a
person's private property by the government without compensation, The test under our
ordinance is whether the property, as it sits and subject to the ordinance, has been
deprived of all its economic value to the owner. If so, there has been a taking and the
City must compensate the owner or not apply the ordinance to the property. In our
ordinance, we have chosen to avoid the compensation aspect and allow the property to
be excepted from the restrictions in the ordinance, To allow one property to be
excepted from the ordinance and another not to be excepted from the ordinance based
upon the economic circumstances of the applicant would be a denial of the equal
protection guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution. All applicants should be
given equal consideration on the issue of whether the property has been taken from
them.
HPC recommendation: (6) After review of the issue pertaining to economic hardship
and whether the Commission should take into account different economic
circumstances for the property owners of those structures, the HPC concurs with Legal
staffs recommendation that the current language remain. The HPC also recommends
to the City Council that the language regarding "reasonable use" remain the same,
E.
Review Iowa Code pertaining to historic preservation.
Section 303,34 of the Iowa Code states that an historic preservation commission shall
review alterations to structures in historic districts. Therefore, the HPC must conduct
design reviews by State law, Although this section of the Iowa Code does not refer to
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the SHPO's administrative
rules for Certified Local Governments (CLGs) do refer to these Standards, The
pertinent sections of the Iowa Code and the administrative rules for CLGs are attached.
(See Attachment #7.)
To remain a CLG, the City and the Commission must apply the Secretary's Standards
for Rehabilitation to design reviews and to Section 106 reviews, Section 106 is the
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 10
federal review process for projects that require a federal permit or use federal funds, In
Dubuque, most Section 106 reviews are for housing rehabilitation projects and projects
funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money,
The main benefit of remaining a CLG is that the City is able to conduct Section 106
reviews locally, as opposed to sending each project to the SHPO. If projects had to be
sent to the SHPO, the amount of paperwork would increase significantly, as would the
review time. In addition, the City is eligible for CLG grants to conduct a variety of
historic preservation activities,
Section 303,34 of the Iowa Code also describes the appeal process; it is the same as is
found in the City's ordinance. The City Code follows the language of the State Code in
terms of the appeal process. In both codes, an aggrieved party may appeal the
Commission's action to the City Council, and then on to district court, The City Council
and the district court have to consider whether the Commission exercised its powers
and followed the guidelines established by law and ordinance, and whether the
Commission's action was "patently arbitrary and capricious".
The City Council indicated that the appeal process needs to be revised, and that a
different process needs to be available, Under current State law, however, there is no
other appeal process available,
Given the wording of the State Code, it is not possible for the City Council to decline to
hear any appeals from HPC actions, for another governmental body to hear appeals, or
for these appeals to be made directly to district court (as they are for the Zoning Board
of Adjustment), To have a different appeal process, State law must be changed.
HPC recommendation:
1)
The City should remain a CLG due to the process benefits and grant
opportunities,
2)
Since the City's appeal process is identical to the Iowa Code, a different appeal
process is possible only with an amendment of the State law, The City Council
should ask the State Legislators to change Section 303,34 of the Iowa Code to
allow the City Council to decline to hear any appeals from Historic Preservation
Commission actions, for another governmental body to hear appeals, or for
these appeals to be made directly to district court.
3)
Amend the ordinance to rename the Certificate of ADDroDriateness to the
Certificate to Proceed. and insert a section titled Preservation Alternatives. as a
step between the Certificate to Proceed and the Certificate of Economic Non-
Viability. The Preservation Alternatives step would be a mechanism to
investigate alternative strategies such as financing, tax incentives, grant
.
.
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 11
research, offering the property for sale at its fair market value, or relocating the
structure to a vacant site within a historic district, The Commission believes this
new step would enable the HPC and staff to work in partnership with applicants
to explore other options, which would help reduce the number of appeals to the
City Council,
2. InDut Oriented Process SteDs
The HPC has worked through the three input oriented process steps, as discussed
below, HPC recommendations are highlighted in italics.
In addressing the three input oriented process steps, the Commission has surveyed:
(1) HPC design review applicants from 1995-1999; (2) current and past HPC members,
and (3) City staff in the Planning Services, Building Safety, Housing Services, Fire and
Community and Economic Development Departments. Survey recipients were asked to
identify perceptions and problems, Survey results are included in Attachment # 9,
HPC recommendation: That the City establish a partnership with the Board of Realtors,
to have Realtors provide a brochure or detailed information for potential property
owners of property within a historic district, and that they add a disclosure line to the
purchase agreement form, the abstract and the deed (see Attachment #8),
¡J A.
,)1" r
f) l ) B.
'I Uf I
'Ii/')
íY~f ~JJ
II,,
¡ 2)
lr¡3)
r IY41
~/!\'If'
\ ,~ 5)
f
C.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 12
CONCLUSION
This initial report on the review and update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is
presented to the City Council for their review and further direction on the
recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission, In summary, the HPC has
made the following recommendations:
1. Problem Solvina Process SteDs
Review historic preservation ordinances from other cities.
Amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1, and
develop design guidelines (see C. below).
Review historic preservation incentives used by other cities.
Approve a low interest (3%) Historic Preservation revolving loan fund with: a)
$200,000 available at conception; b) $20,000 added each year for the next five
years; and c) that the City make a commitment to raise $100,000 through private
contributions (see Attachment #10),
Approve a neighborhood support grant in which the City provides
incentives to do streetscape elements such as landscaping and lighting,
Approve a revised Historic Preservation Grant that would increase the grant
amount from $2,000 up to $5,000 (see Attachment #10),
Approve an expansion of the Urban Revitalization Program to include all historic
districts in this program, Presently, only the West 11th Street and Jackson Park
Historic Districts are part of the Urban Revitalization Program.
Approve the allocations of funds for creating a full-time Historic
Preservation Planner in the Planning Services Department.
Identify ways to streamline the current ordinance with more sign-offs by
staff.
That the City Council budget a local match, and then apply for a grant to hire a
consultant to develop design guidelines for the historic districts,
.
1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
. 6)
E.
1 )
2)
3)
.
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 13
D.
Review court cases and case law for definitions of economic hardship for
commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential
properties.
Amend the wording for a Certificate of Economic Hardship to read Certificate of
Economic Non-Viability throughout the ordinance,
Add a new Section 25-14 to the ordinance, pertaining to demolition by neglect
Add language to Section 25-8(c)(3)b pertaining to applications for economic non-
viability,
Add language to Section 25-9(g) pertaining to researching preservation
alternatives and funding opportunities prior to submittal of an application for
Certificate of Economic Non-Viability,
Add a new Section 25-9(h)(2)(0) pertaining to attempts to obtain financial
incentives for property improvements, and a new Section 25-9(h)(2)(p) pertaining
to property maintenance.
After review of the issue pertaining to economic hardship and whether the
Commission should take into account different economic circumstances for the
property owners of those structures, the HPC concurs with Legal staff's
recommendation that the current language remain, The HPC also recommends
to the City Council that the language regarding "reasonable use" remain the
same,
Review Iowa Code pertaining to historic preservation.
The City should remain a CLG due to the process benefits and grant
opportunities,
Since the City's appeal process is identical to the Iowa Code, a different appeal
process is possible only with an amendment of the State law. The City Council
should ask the State Legislators to change Section 303.34 of the Iowa Code to
allow the City Council to decline to hear any appeals from Historic Preservation
Commission actions, for another governmental body to hear appeals, or for
these appeals to be made directly to district court,
Amend the ordinance to rename the Certificate of Appropriateness to the
Certificate to Proceed, and insert a section titled Preservation Alternatives, as a
step between the Certificate to Proceed and the Certificate of Economic Non-
Viability. The Preservation Alternatives step would be a mechanism to
Initial Report on Review and Update of
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Page 14
investigate 'alternative strategies such as financing, tax incentives, grant
research, offering the property for sale at its fair market value, or relocating the
structure to a vacant site within a historic district The Commission believes this
new step would enable the HPC and staff to work in partnership with applicants
to explore other options, which would help reduce the number of appeals to the
City Council.
2. Input Oriented Process Steps
That the City establish a partnership with the Board of Realtors, to have Realtors
provide a brochure or detailed information for potential property owners of
property within a historic district, and that they add a disclosure line to the
purchase agreement form, the abstract and the deed (see Attachment #8),
.
Attachment #1
.
Recommended Amendments to the
Historic PreseNation Ordinance
.
.
.
.
Attachment #1
Chapter 25
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Sec. 25-1, Purpose and intent.
Sec, 25-2, Definitions.
Sec. 25-3, Historic preservation commission established; membership; term of
office; vacancies in office,
Sec, 25-4, Election of officers; organization; rules and bylaws; conduct of meetings;
record of actions; attendance at meetings,
Sec, 25-5. Powers and duties generally; procedures for operations.
Sec. 25-6, Identification and designation of landmarks, landmark sites and historic
districts,
Sec. 25-6.1. Langworthy Historic Preservation District.
Sec, 25-6,2. Old Main Historic Preservation District.
Sec, 25-6,3, Jackson Park Historic Preservation District.
Sec. 25-6.4, Cathedral Historic Preservation District.
Sec. 25-6.5. West Eleventh Street Historic Preservation District.
Sec, 25-6.6. William M, Black landmark,
Sec, 25-6.7, Dubuque City Hall landmark.
Sec. 25-6,8. Dubuque County Courthouse landmark,
Sec, 25-6,9. Dubuque County Jail landmark,
Sec, 25-6,10. Julien Dubuque Monument landmark.
Sec. 25-6,11, Mathias Ham House Landmark.
Sec. 25-6.12. Shot Tower.
Sec, 25-7. Demolition of landmarks, landmark sites or structures in historic districts;
certificate of economic nardsl,ip non-viability.
Sec. 25-8. Alteration of landmarks, landmark sites or structures in historic districts;
determination of no material effect; certificate of appropriateness to proceed;
certificate of economic hareIship non-viability.
Sec. 25-9, Procedure for the review of plans; application for certificate of
appropriateness to proceed; application for certificate of economic Mare/snip non-
viability,
Sec, 25-10. Standards for review.
Sec. 25-11. Appeals from commission action,
Sec, 25-12. Inspection.
Sec, 25-13, Violations; penalties.
Sec. 25-1. Purpose and intent.
1Editor's note - Ord. No. 46-90, § 1, adopted May 21,1990, repealed Ch, 25, §§
25-1--25-17, which pertained to historic preservation and derived from Code 1976, §§
19 1/2-1--191/2-6.5, 19 1/2-7--191/2-9.1, 191/2-10, 191/2-11. Said ordinance also
enacted provisions designated as a new Ch. 25 to read as herein set out. See the Code
Comparative Table.
Cross references - Advertising, Ch, 3; buildings and building regulations, Ch. 11;
planning and zoning commission, § 36-16 et seq,; zoning, App. A.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
(1) Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public
through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of districts of historic,
architectural and cultural significance;
(2) Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage by preserving
districts of historical, architectural and cultural significance;
(3) Stabilize and improve property values;
(4) Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past;
(5) Protect and enhance the city's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support
and stimulus to business thereby provided;
(6) Strengthen the economy of the city; and
(7) Promote the use of districts of historic, architectural and cultural significance as
sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city, (Ord. No.
46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-2. Definitions.
[For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them below:]
Alteration: Any act or process which changes the exterior architectural appearance of a
structure, site or area, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction,
reconstruction, restoration, removal or demolition of any structure or part thereof,
excavation, or the addition of an improvement.
Architectural significance:
(1) The structure(s) is the work of, or associated with, a nationally or locally noted
architect, architectural firm, engineer, builder or craftsman; or
(2) The structure(s) is an example of a particular period of architecture or
architectural style in terms of detail, material, method of construction or
workmanship, with no or negligible irreversible alterations to the original structure; or
(3) The structure(s) is one of the few remaining examples of a particular
architectural style; or
(4) The structure(s) is one of a contiguous group of structures which have a sense of
cohesiveness which is expressed through a similarity of characteristics, a similarity
2
.
.
.
of a style, a similarity of period, a similarity of method of construction or which
accent the architectural significance of the area.
Building: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or
occupancy.
Certificate of appropriateness to proceed, A document issued by the historic
preservation commission indicating its approval of plans for an alteration or activity
which will:
(1) Create a material change in appearance, or the removal or demolition, of a
landmark, landmark site or of a structure within a historic district; and
(2) Require a regulated permit.
Certificate of economic ~ non-viability, A document issued by the historic
preservation commission which acknowledges an exception as herein defined and
which authorizes an alteration or activity:
(1) Which creates a material change in appearance, or the removal or demolition, of
a landmark, landmark site or of a structure within a historic district;
(2) Which requires a regulated permit; and
(3) For which a certificate of appropriateness to proceed has been or would be
denied; however, a certificate of economic ~ non-viability shall be issued only
upon a showing that the property owner will be deprived of any reasonable
economic return on the property if not allowed to proceed with the requested
alteration or activity.
Commission: The Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission, as established by this
chapter.
Demolition: Any act or process which destroys in part or in whole a landmark or a
structure,
Design guideline: A standard of acceptable activity which will preserve the historic,
architectural and cultural character of a landmark or structure.
Determination of no material effect: A document issued by the city manager or the city
manager's designee indicating approval for any normal repair or act of maintenance as
defined by this chapter, which:
(1) Is not an alteration, construction, removal, demolition or excavation as defined by
this chapter;
3
(2) Does not create a material change in the exterior architectural appearance or
exterior features of a structure or site; and
(3) Nonetheless does require a regulated permit.
Excavation: The digging out or removal of earth, soil.
Exterior architectural appearance: The architectural style and character and the general
composition and arrangement of the exterior of a building or structure.
Exterior features: The architectural style and the general design and arrangement of the
exterior of a structure, including, but not limited to, the kind and texture of the building
material(s), and the type, style and arrangement of all windows, doors, light fixtures,
signs and other appurtenant elements, or the natural features of a landmark, landmark
site or structure. In the case of outdoor advertising signs, "exterior feature" includes the
style, material, size and location of the sign.
Historic district: An area designated by ordinances of the city council which:
(1) Has defined geographic boundaries;
(2) Contains contiguous pieces of property under diverse ownership; and
(3) Is one or more of the following:
a. Significant to American history, architecture, archaeology or culture; or
b, Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel
and association; or
c. Associated with events that have been a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
d. Associated with the lives of persons significant with our past; or
e, Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of
construction; or
f, Represents the work of a master; or
g. Possesses high artistic values; or
h. Represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction; or
i. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory and
history.
Historic significance:
4
.
.
.
(1) The structure(s) or site(s) has a strong association with the life or activities of a
person or persons who have contributed to or participated in the historic events of
the nation, state or community; or
(2) The structure(s) or site(s) is associated with an association or group (whether
formal or informal) which has contributed to or participated in historic events of the
nation, state or community; or
(3) The structure(s) or site(s) or object(s) is associated with an antiquated use due
to technological or social changes in the nation, state or community, such as, but
not limited to, a blacksmith's shop or railroad trestle; or
(4) The site(s) or object(s) is a monument to or a cemetery of historic personages,
Improvement: Any building, structure, parking facility, fence, gate, wall, work of art or
other object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or part of such
betterment.
Integrity: The original, unaltered or historically altered appearance of a structure, site or
area when taken as a whole,
Landmark: A property or structure designated by ordinance of the city council pursuant
to procedures described herein, that is worthy of preservation, rehabilitation or
restoration because of its historic, architectural or cultural significance to the city, the
state or nation,
Landmark site: Any parcel of land of historic significance due to its substantial value in
tracing the history of aboriginal man, or upon which a historic event has occurred, and
which has been designated as a landmark site under this section, or an improvement
parcel, or part thereof, on which is situated a landmark and any abutting improvement
parcel, or part thereof, used as and constituting part of the premises on which the
landmark is situated.
Material change of appearance: Any change, alteration or modification of the external
architectural appearance or exterior features of a building, improvement, structure or
property which is visible from the public way and for which a regulated permit is
required for compliance with applicable local codes, including, but not limited to:
(1) Changes in the exterior size, configuration, fenestration or other structural
features of the property; or
(2) Construction or reconstruction; or
5
(3) Demolition; or
(4) Any alteration in the size, location or appearance of any sign on the property; or
(5) Any excavation on property or the deposit of any waste, fill or other material on
property.
(6) For individual historic districts, the definition of "material change in appearance"
may be expanded to include additional activities for which a certificate of
appropriateness is required, Such additional activities shall be delineated in the
ordinance designating an individual district or by amending the district designating
ordinance, in the case of a district that has been previously designated.
Owner of record: Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity listed as owner on
the records of the County Recorder of Dubuque County,
Regulated permit: An official document or certificate issued by the building official, city
engineer or other official of the city pursuant to provisions of the building code or other
ordinance or regulation, and which authorized the performance of a specified activity,
Repair: Any change which does not require a building permit, and which is not
construction, removal or demolition,
Scale: In a building or structure, the relationship of the vertical, horizontal and volume
measurements; the relationship of the parts to one another within a building, or
structure or in comparison to other buildings or structures within that vicinity,
Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a permanent or
temporary location on or in the ground, including, but not limited to, the following:
buildings, fences, gazebos, advertising signs, billboards, backstops for tennis courts,
radio and television antennae, including supporting towers, and swimming pools, (Ord.
(a)
No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-3. Historic preservation commission established;
membership; term of office; vacancies in office.
The historic preservation commission is hereby established and shall consist of
seven (7) members who shall be residents of the city.
Members of the commission shall be appointed by the city council as follows:
One resident from each designated historic preservation district, including the
districts hereinafter established; and two (2) at large members. Each member shall
(b)
6
.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
,
(a)
(b)
(c)
.
possess qualifications evidencing expertise or interest in architecture, history,
archeology, law, construction or building rehabilitation, city planning or conservation
in general. One commission member shall be a licensed architect.
The original appointment of the members of the commission shall be as follows:
Two (2) for one year; two (2) for two (2) years, and three (3) for three (3) years, from
July 1 of the year of such appointment or until a successor is named to serve out the
unexpired portion of a term of appointment or until a successor is appointed to serve
for a term of three (3) years. Members appointed thereafter shall serve three-year
terms,
Vacancies occurring in the commission, other than through expiration of term of
office, shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the member replaced.
Each member shall serve until the appointment of a successor.
Members may serve for more than one term.
Vacancies shall be filled by the city council in accordance with the requirements
set forth above.
Members shall serve without compensation, (Ord, No, 46-90, § 1,5-21-90)
Sec. 25-4. Election of officers; organization; rules and bylaws;
conduct of meetings; record of actions; attendance at meetings.
The commission shall elect from its membership a chairperson and vice
chairperson, whose terms of office shall be fixed by bylaws adopted by the
commission. The chairperson shall preside over meetings of the commission and
shall have the right to vote. The vice chairperson shall, in cases of absence or
disability of the chairperson, perform the duties of the chairperson,
The city manager shall designate a person to serve as secretary to the
commission. The secretary shall keep a record of all resolutions, proceedings and
actions of the commission.
The commission shall adopt rules or bylaws for the transaction of its business.
The bylaws shall provide for, but not be limited to, the time and place of holding
regular meetings, the procedure for the calling of special meetings by the
chairperson or by at least three (3) members of the commission and quorum
requirements.
7
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
OJ
(a)
All meetings of the commission shall be subject to Iowa Code Chapter 21, the
Iowa Open Meetings Act.
The commission shall keep a record of its resolutions, proceedings and actions,
The records shall be subject to Iowa Code Chapter 22, the Iowa Public Records Act.
A quorum of the commission shall be required in order to transact business.
The affirmative vote of a majority of commission members present at a meeting
shall be required for the approval of plans or the adoption of any resolution, motion
or other action of the commission,
The vote of each member of the commission shall be recorded.
A member of the commission shall attend at least two-thirds (2/3) of all
scheduled meetings within any consecutive twelve-month period. If any member
does not attend such prescribed number of meetings it shall constitute grounds for
the commission to recommend to the city council that said member be replaced,
Attendance of all members shall be entered on the minutes.
The commission shall file with the city council a copy of the minutes of each
regular and special meeting of the commission within ten (10) working days after
each meeting. (Ord. No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-5. Powers and duties generally; procedures for operations.
The general duties and powers of the commission shall be as follows:
(1) To promote and conduct educational and interpretive programs on historic
properties within its jurisdiction;
(2) To develop and adopt specific standards for review and design guidelines, in
addition to those set forth in Section 25-10(a) of this chapter, for the alteration of
landmarks, landmark sites or property and structures within historic districts;
(3) To adopt its own bylaws;
(4) To conduct an on-going survey to identify historically and architecturally
significant properties, structures and areas that exemplify the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the nation, state or city;
(5) To research and recommend to the city council the adoption of ordinances
designating areas as having historic, architectural or cultural value or significance as
"historic districts";
8
8
8
(b)
(a)
(b)
.
(6) To research and recommend to the city council the adoption of ordinances
designating properties or structures having historic, architectural or cultural value or
significance as "landmarks" or "landmark sites";
(7) To maintain a register of all properties and structures which have been
designated as landmarks, landmark sites or historic districts, including all
information required for each designation;
(8) To assist and encourage the nomination of landmarks, landmark sites and
historic districts to the National Register of Historic Places, and review and comment
at a public hearing on any National Register nomination submitted to the
commission upon the request of the mayor, city councilor the State Bureau of
Historic Preservation;
(9) To confer recognition upon the owners of landmarks or of property or structures
within historic districts;
(10) To review in-progress or completed work to determine compliance with specific
certificates of appropriateness to proceed or certificates of economic hardsl,ip non-
viability: and
(11) To serve as an advisory design review body to the city council for public works
projects which have historic preservation implications when so requested by the city
council.
The commission shall be governed by the administrative, personnel, accounting,
budgetary and procurement policies of the city. (Ord. No, 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6. Identification and designation of landmarks, landmark sites
and historic districts.
Generally. The commission may conduct studies for the identification and
nomination of landmarks, landmark sites and historic districts, as defined by this
chapter. The commission may proceed on its own initiative or upon a petition from
any person, group or association.
Nomination.
(1) Landmarks and landmark sites, The nomination of landmarks and landmark sites
shall be initiated by an application submitted to the commission by the property
owner on a form supplied by the commission,
9
(c)
(2) Historic districts. The designation of historic districts shall be initiated by a
nomination for such designation. A nomination shall be made to the commission on
a form prepared by it and may be submitted by a member of the commission, the
owner of record of property within a proposed historic district, the city council, or any
other person or organization. When a commissioner, as a private citizen, nominates
an historic district for designation, the nominating commissioner shall abstain from
voting on the designation, This provision shall not extend to a designation motion
presented by a commissioner as part of commission proceedings.
Criteria for consideration of a nomination. The commission shall, upon such
investigation as it deems necessary, make a determination as to the following:
(1) The nominated property, structure, object, site or area:
a. Is of architectural significance, as defined by this chapter; or
b. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of the history of the City of Dubuque, Dubuque County, the State
of Iowa or the nation; or
c. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past the City of
Dubuque, Dubuque County, the State of Iowa or the nation; or
d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or
history; and
(2) The structure, property, object, site or area has sufficient integrity of location,
design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or restoration;
and
(d)
(3) The structure, property, object, site or area is at least fifty (50) years old, unless
the commission determines that it has achieved significance within the past fifty (50)
years and is of exceptional importance.
Notification of nomination. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of a completed
nomination in proper form, the commission shall hold a public hearing, Notice that a
nomination for designation is being considered and the date, time, place and
purpose of the public hearing shall be sent by certified mail, at least fourteen (14)
days prior to the date of the hearing, to the owner(s) of record of the nominated
landmark, landmark site, or property within the nominated historic district and to the
noll1inator(s). Notice shall also be published in a newspaper having general
10
(f)
circulation in the city. The notice shall state the street address and legal description
of a nominated landmark or landmark site or the boundaries of a nominated district
Public hearing, Oral or written testimony concerning the significance of the
nominated landmark, landmark site or historic district shall be taken at the public
hearing from any interested person. The commission may request expert testimony,
consider staff reports or present its own evidence regarding the compliance of the
nominated landmark, landmark site or historic district with the criteria set forth in
paragraph (c) above. The owner of any nominated landmark, landmark site or of any
property within a nominated historic district shall be allowed a reasonable
opportunity to present evidence regarding the nomination, shall be afforded the right
of representation by counsel and shall be given reasonable opportunity to
cross-examine expert witnesses, The hearing shall be closed upon completion of
testimony.
Determination by the commission, recommendation and report. Within thirty (30)
days following the close of the public hearing, the commission shall make a
determination upon the evidence as to whether the nominated landmark, landmark
site or historic district does or does not meet the criteria for designation, Such
determination shall be made in an open meeting by resolution of the commission,
shall be reduced to writing in the form of a recommendation and shall be supported
by a written report in support of the nomination, The commission's recommendation
on the nomination of a landmark, landmark site or historic district, and its supporting
report, shall be filed with the zoning advisory commission, and shall include a
proposed ordinance or amendment establishing such landmark, landmark site or
historic district and describing its location and boundaries by address and legal
description,
Action by zoning advisory commission, Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the
commission's recommendation, report and proposed ordinance or amendment, the
zoning advisory commission shall report to the city council with respect to the
relation of the nomination to the general development plan, zoning ordinance,
proposed public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the area involved,
Upon submission of the report of the zoning advisory commission, or upon the
expiration of the sixty-day period, the matter shall be transmitted to the city council.
.
(e)
.
(g)
.
11
(h)
Action by city council.
(1) The city council shall submit the proposed ordinance or amendment to the
Bureau of Historic Preservation of the State Historical Society of Iowa for review and
recommendations at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date of any public hearing
conducted by the city council. Any recommendations made by the Bureau of Historic
Preservation shall be made available by the city to the public for viewing during
normal working hours at a city government place of public access,
(2) Upon receipt of the recommendation and report of the historic preservation
commission and the report of the zoning advisory commission, and after having
received a recommendation from the Bureau of Historic Preservation or if the
forty-five-day waiting period has lapsed since submission of the request for such
recommendation, the city council shall conduct a public hearing on the ordinance or
amendment establishing the proposed landmark, landmark site or historic
preservation district. After public hearing, the city council shall approve or
disapprove the ordinance or amendment, or refer the nomination back to the historic
preservation commission for modification. A modified nomination shall require
compliance with the same procedure for designation as set forth above.
(3) City council approval of the ordinance or amendment shall constitute designation
of the landmark, landmark site or historic district
(i)
Amendment and rescission of designation. A designation may be amended or
rescinded upon petition to the commission and compliance with the same procedure
and according to the same criteria as set forth above for designation. (Ord. No,
46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.1. Langworthy Historic Preservation District.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby designated as a historic preservation
district, according to the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
All of Lots 1 through 3, inclusive; all of Lot 4 excepting the northerly ten (10) feet
thereof, all of the south half of Lot 6; all of Lots 12 through 16, inclusive; and all of Lots
12A through 16A, inclusive; all being in Paulina Langworthy's Addition, The west fifteen
(15) feet of lot 4; all of Lot 5, and Lot 6; all being in McCoy Subdivision, All of Lots 1
through 6, inclusively, of Lot 2 and Lot 3; all of Lot 4; and all of Lots 5 through 8,
12
.
.
.
inclusive, excepting the northerly twelve (12) feet of all of them; all being in Mrs. L. A
Langworthy's Addition, All of Lots 1 through 12, inclusive; all of Lots 17 through 21,
inclusive; and all of Lots 9 through 53, inclusive; all being in Julia Langworthy's Addition,
Lots 1 through 4, inclusive; Lot 1 of Lot 6; Lots 28 through 32, inclusive; Lot 1 of Lot 1
of Lot 1 of Lot 33; and Lot 1 of Lot 2 of Lot 2 of Lot 33; all being in T. S, Nairn's
Dubuque Addition. (Ord, No. 46-90, § 1,5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.2. Old Main Historic Preservation District.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby designated as a historic preservation
district, according to the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
All of city Lots 1 through 12, inclusive; all of city Lots 69 through 80, inclusive; and the
south sixty-four (64) feet of Lot 1 Block XV of Dubuque Downtown Plaza, (Ord. No,
46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.3. Jackson Park Historic Preservation District.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby designated as a historic preservation
district, according to the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
Beginning at the intersection of West 17th and Heeb Streets, north along Heeb Street
to the south line of M. A Rebman's Sub,; west along said line and the south line of
Duncan's Sub, to the west line of Lot 4-C.L. six hundred seventy-four (674) feet; south
along said line to the south line of Lot 2-5-C.L 674; west along said line and along the
south line of Lot 1-5-C.L. 674 to Main Street; west across Main Street and Madison
Avenue to the north line of Lot 5-2-C,L, 673; continuing west along said line to the west
line of said lot; south along said line to Dorgan Place; west along Dorgan Place to the
east line of Lot 1-lA-Dorgan's Sub,; southwest along said line and along the east line of
Lot 1-1-Dorgan's Sub. and its extension of West 17th Street; first south then in a
counterclockwise manner along the westerly line of D,N. Cooley's Sub. and its southerly
extension to the north line of Lot 1-1-C.L 667; east along said line to the east line of
said lot; south along said line and the east line of Lot 2-3-C,L. 667 to the south along
said line of Lot 2-1-C.L, 667; east along said line to Bluff Street; south along Bluff Street
to the south line of AL. Brown's Sub,; west along said line to the east line of Lot 769B
of A McDaniel's Sub.; south along said line and the east right-of-way line of Grove
Terrace and the east line of Corkery's Sub, to the north line of Lorimer's Sub.; east
13
along said line to the east line of Lot 1-1-1 and 11 of Lorimer's Sub.; south along said
line and its extension to West 9th Street; east along West 9th Street to Locust Street;
north along Locust Street to. West 10th Street; east along West 10th Street to the alley
between Locust and Main Streets; north along said alley to West 13th Street; east
along West 13th Street to Main Street; south along Main Street to the south line of the
north 1/5-C,L. 465; east along said line and its extension to the east line of the west 33
feet, north 1/5-C,L. 460; north along said line to West 13th Street; east along West 13th
Street to Iowa Street; north along Iowa Street to West 14th Street; east along West 14th
Street to the alley between Iowa Street and Central Avenue; north along said alley to
West 17th Street; east along West 17th Street to Heeb Street, the point of beginning.
(Ord, No, 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.4. Cathedral Historic Preservation District.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby designated as a historic preservation
district, according to provisions of this chapter, to wit:
Beginning at the intersection of Locust Street and West Seventh Street; southwest
along West Seventh Street to Bluff Street; northwest along Bluff Street to the northwest
line of Lot 5-C,L. 653A; southwest along said line to the southwest line of said lot;
southeast along said line to the northwest line of the north fifty (50) feet of Lot 1-1-C. L.
653; southwest along said line to the northeast line of Coriell's Dubuque Sub,; first
southeast then in a clockwise manner along said line to West Fifth Street; southeast
along West Fifth Street; to the northwest line of the west one hundred seven and
five-tenths (107,5) feet-west one hundred seventy (170) feet-C.L. 624; southwest along
said line to the northeast line of Cooper Heights Sub; southeast along said line and
along the northeast line of Lot 1-1-1-1C,L. 692 to the north right-of-way line of West
Fourth Street; southwest along said right-of-way line and along the northwest line of Lot
2-1-1-1-C.L. 692 to Raymond Place; southeast along Raymond Place to the northwest
line of Fenelon Point Sub.; first northeast then in a clockwise manner along said line to
the southwest line of Lot 1-E. seventy-eight and five-tenths (78,5) feet south one
hundred (100) feet-C,L. 692; southeast along said line to West Third Street to the
southwest line of Saint Raphael's Add.; southwest along said line to the northwest line
of Lot 1-2-C,L. 694; first northeast then in a clockwise manner along said line to the
14
.
.
.
northwesterly most line of Pixler Place; northeast along said line to the west right-of-way
line of Bluff Street; southeast across Bluff Street to the northeast line of C,L. 589A;
continuing southeast along the northeast line of C,L. 589A and the northeast line of
C,L. 589 and the northeast line of the north twenty-one (21) feet-north 1/2 C.L. 572 to
Locust Street; northeast along Locust Street to the southwest line of the south fifty (50)
feet-C.L. 568; northwest along said line to Bissell Lane; north along Bissell Lane to
West Fourth Street; northeast along West Fourth Streetto Locust Street; northwest
along Locust Street to West Seventh Street, the place of beginning as described
herein, (Ord. No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.5. West Eleventh Street Historic Preservation District.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby designated as a historic preservation
district, according to provisions of this chapter, to wit:
Beginning at the intersection of Loras Boulevard and Bluff Street; south along Bluff
Street to the south line of AL. Brown's Sub,; west along said south line to the east line
of Lot 769B of A McDaniel's Sub,; south along said east line and along the east
right-of-way line of Grove Terrace and along the east line of Corkery's Sub. to the north
line of Lorimer's Sub.; east along said north line to the east line of Lot
1-1-1-11-Lorimer's Sub; south along said east line and its southerly extension to West
9th Street; west along West 9th Street to the west line of Central Addition; north along
said west line to the south line of the east twenty-seven (27) feet-Lot 3-C,L. 703; west
along said south line to the west line of said lot; north along said west line to the north
line of the west one hundred thirty-nine (139) feet-Lot 3-C.L. 703; west along said north
line to the east line of Lot 2-46A-Farley's Sub.; north along said east line to Wilbur
Street; west along Wilbur Street to the west line of Lot 2-46A-Farley's Sub.; south along
said west line to the south line of Lot 1-46-Farley's Sub.; west along said south line and
along the south line of Lot 1-45-Farley's Sub. to the west line of said Lot 1-45; north
along said west line to Wilbur Street; west along Wilbur Street to Spruce Street; south
along Spruce Street to the south line of Lot 2-43-Farley's Sub.; west along said south
line to the east line of the south eighty (80) feet-Lot 37-Farley's Sub,; north along said
east line to the north line of said lot; west along said north line to the east line of Lot
38-Farley's Sub,; north along said east line to Jefferson Street; west along Jefferson
15
Street and along the south line of Lot 2-1-1-3-C,L. 738 to the west line of Lot
2-1-1-3-C.L. 738; north along said west line and along the west line of Lot 1-1-1-3-C,L.
738 and along the west line of Lot 2-1-3-C.L, 738 and along the west line of Lot
1-2-1-C.L. 738; to West Eleventh Street; east along West Eleventh Street to the west
line of Lot 12 of Cummin's Sub,; north alon the west lines of Lots 11, 10,9 and 8 of
Cummin's Sub.; north across Race Street; north along the west line of Lot 6 of
Cummin's Sub. to Chestnut Street; west along Chestnut Street to the west property line
of Lot 8 of Bissell's Dubuque; north along the west property lines of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14 and 15 of Bissell's Dubuque and the E. 150' of Lot 5 of C,L. 740; east along the
north line of the E. 150' of Lot 5 of C.L. 740 to Walnut Street; north along Walnut Street
to Loras Boulevard; east along Loras Boulevard to Henion Street; north along Henion
Street to Pickett Street; east a10ng Pickett Street to the east line of Lot 2-7-C.L. 667;
south along said east line to the south line of Lot 1-4-C.L. 667; first east line then in a
counter-clockwise manner along the southerly lines of Lot 1-4-C.L. 667 and Lot 1-3-C,L.
667 to the west line of Lot 2-1-C.L. 667; south along said west line of the south line of
Lot 2-1-C.L. 667; east along said south line to Bluff Street; south along Bluff Street to
Loras Boulevard, the place of beginning. (Ord. No, 46-90, § 1,5-21-90)
Sec. 25-6.6. William M. Black Landmark.
The structure hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
Sidewheeler Dredge William M. Black moored at Inner Levee of the Mississippi River,
commonly known as the Ice Harbor. (Ord, No. 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.7. Dubuque City Hall Landmark.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
The building situated on the N 2/5 of City Lot 448 and the N 2/5 of City Lot 457,
commonly known as 50 West 13th Street (Ord, No, 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.8. Dubuque County Courthouse
Landmark.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
16
.
.
.
The building situated on part of City Lot 286 and City Lots 287 to 288, commonly known
as 720 Central Avenue. (Ord, No. 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.9. Dubuque County Jail Landmark.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
The building situated on City Lots 284 to 285 and part of City Lot 286, commonly known
as 36 West 8th Street. (Ord. No. 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.10. Julien Dubuque Monument Landmark.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
The structure situated on Pt. Lot 1, Government Lots 1 and 2, located at terminus of
Monument Drive, (Ord. No. 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.11. Mathias Ham House Landmark.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
The building situated on Lot 1 of Lot 531 Ham's Addition, commonly known as 2241
Lincoln Avenue. (Ord. No. 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-6.12. Shot Tower.
The property hereinafter described is hereby designated as a landmark, according to
the provisions of this chapter, to wit:
The Shot Tower structure situated on River Front Sub 1, located at terminus of
Commercial Street. (Ord. No, 22-93, § 1, 5-3-93)
Sec. 25-7. Demolition of landmarks, landmark sites or structures in
historic districts; certificate of economic hardship.
Demolition of landmarks, landmark sites or structures within historic districts is
prohibited unless, upon application and after hearing, the commission issues a
certificate of economic hardship non-viability pursuant to Section 25-9(h) of this
chapter. (Ord, No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-8. Alteration of landmarks, landmark sites or structures in
historic districts; determination of no material effect; certificate of
17
appropriateness to proceed; certificate of economic hardship !!.Q!!:
viability.
(a)
After designation of a landmark, landmark site or historic district by the city
council, any proposed alteration or activity which will affect a landmark, landmark
site or structure or site within any historic district, and for which a regulated permit is
required, shall be reviewed by the historic preservation commission; however,
nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair
of any landmark, landmark site or structure or site within a historic district where
such maintenance or repair does not involve a material change of appearance which
necessitates issuance of a regulated permit as herein defined,
No regulated permit may be issued prior to review by the commission.
Upon review, the commission shall have the authority to take the following
actions:
(b)
(c)
(1) Authorize the proposed project, determination of no material effect.
a, If an application submitted to the commission demonstrates compliance with
the "Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects,"
Washington, D.C., 1 979, and the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings," Washington,
D,C, (Revised 1983), established by this chapter and, pursuant to the bylaws
adopted by the commission, a determination may be made that such work or
activity would:
1. Not result in a material change in appearance; or
2. Not be visible from the public way,
b. The city manager or city manager's designee shall make such determination
and may issue a determination of no material effect, which shall authorize the
proposed work or activity to proceed without commission hearing.
(2) Approve the proposed project; certificate of appropriateness to proceed,
a. The commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness to proceed if,
upon application and after hearing, it finds:
1. That the property owner or the property owner's representative has established
that the proposed alteration or activity complies with the standards for review set
18
.
.
(d)
(e)
8
forth by this chapter and regulated by the commission and conforms to the purpose
and intent of this chapter; and
2, That creating, changing, destroying or affecting the exterior architectural features
of the structure, improvement or site upon which the work is to be done will not have
a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historic or architectural significance
and value of either the property itself or of the neighboring improvements in a
district.
b. The issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to proceed shall enable the
applicant to obtain a regulated permit and to proceed with the proposed
alteration or activity.
(3) Disapprove the proposed project; certificate of economic hardship non-viaiblitv,
The commission shall issue a certificate of economic hardship non-viability, upon
application or upon its own motion, if:
a, A certificate of appropriateness to proceed has been denied; and
b. The commission determines that disapproval of the proposed work or activity
would prevent the property owner from earning any reasonable economic return
from the property. In considerino whether the property has been prevented from
earnino any reasonable economic return, the commission shall deny the
certificate of non-viability where the inability to earn any reasonable economic
return has been created by the property owners conduct includino. but not limited
to, neolect of maintenance or absence of bona fide attempts to earn a
reasonable economic return.
The building official, city engineer or other local authorities shall not issue a
regulated permit until there has been a determination of no material effect or a
certificate of appropriateness to proceed or a certificate of economic ~ non-
viability issued.
The transfer of a determination of no material effect, certificate-of
appropriateness to proceed or certificate of economic hardship non-viability from
one structure, improvement or site to another structure, improvement or site or from
one person to another is prohibited,
Each determination of no material effect, certificate of appropriateness to
proceed or certificate of economic h3rdshfp non-viability issued under the provisions
19
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
of this article shall expire and become null and void if the alteration, construction,
repair, removal, demolition or excavation for which the determination of no material
effect, certificate of appropriateness to proceed or certificate of economic ~
non-viability was issued is not initiated within one (1) year of its issuance, (Ord. No.
46-90, § 1, 5-21-90; Ord, No, 98-92, § 1,12-7-92)
Sec. 25-9. Procedure for the review of plans; application for certificate
of appropriateness to proceed; application for certificate of economic
hardship non-viability.
Application for regulated permit shall be made to the appropriate city official. The
application shall state or the appropriate city official shall determine that the
proposed alteration, activity or demolition is to be done on a landmark, landmark site
or on a structure within a historic district.
Upon the filing of such application, the appropriate city official shall notify the
applicant that the matter must be reviewed by the historic preservation commission
before a regulated permit can be issued,
A request for review by the commission of the proposed work, activity or
demolition must be made by the applicant. Application for commission review shall
be filed in the Planning Services Department.
Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the commission,
the commission shall meet within twenty-one (21) days after the filing of the
application for commission review. The commission shall review the proposed
project according to the duties and powers specified in this chapter. In reviewing the
proposed project, the commission may confer with the applicant or the applicant's
authorized representative. The commission may require submission of such
additional drawings, sketches, photographs or other exhibits as it deems reasonably
necessary for consideration of the application,
The commission shall approve or disapprove such plan.
If the proposed project is approved, the commission shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness to proceed,
If the commission disapproves such proposed project, it shall state its reasons
and shall transmit to the applicant a written record of its disapproval. The
20
(h)
commission may propose appropriate revisions of the applicant's proposal which, if
adopted, would cause the commission to reconsider its disapproval. The applicant
may make modifications to the proposed project and shall have the right to resubmit
a modified proposal at any time, Prior to filinq an application for economic non-
viability. as provided for in subsection (h) below. the applicant shall attempt to obtain
financinq, tax incentives, preservation qrants and other incentives sufficient to allow
the applicant to earn a reasonable economic return from the property,
If the commission disapproves a proposed project, it may, upon application or on
its own motion, consider issuing a certificate of economic nardsnip non-viability,
(1) Upon application or motion for a certificate of economic hardship non-viability
the commission shall schedule a public meeting on that application or motion,
(2) Data to be provided by the applicant. The commission may solicit expert
testimony or require that the applicant for a certificate of economic nardsnip non-
viability make submissions concerning any or all of the following information before
rendering its decision:
a, Estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition or
removal and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply
with the recommendations of the historic preservation commission for changes
necessary for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to proceed;
b. A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation
as to the structural soundness of any structures and their suitability for
rehabilitation;
c, Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after
completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition or removal; after
any changes recommended by the commission; and, in the case of a proposed
demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use;
d, In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimate from an architect,
developer, real estate consultant, appraiser or other real estate professional
experienced in rehabilitation, as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or
reuse of the existing structure on the property;
e. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase and the person from
whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the
.
.
.
21
owner of record or the applicant and the person from whom the property was
purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer;
f. If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property
for the previous two (2) years;
g. Itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two (2) years;
and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if
any, during the same period;
h. The remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the
property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two (2) years;
i. All appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or
applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property;
j, Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received, if
any, within the previous two (2) years;
k, The assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent
assessments;
I. The amount of real estate taxes for the previous two (2) years and whether or
not they have been paid;
m. The form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole
proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint
venture or other;
n, Any other information considered necessary by the commission to make a
determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield any reasonable
economic return to the property owner(s), including but not limited to the income
tax bracket of the owner(s) or applicants or of the principal investor(s) in the
property,
0, Proof of the applicant's efforts to obtain financino. tax incentives, preservation
orants and other incentives sufficient to allow the applicant to earn a reasonable
and a economic return from the property;
p, A showino of the applicant's efforts in onooino maintenance and repair.
(3) Determination of economic hafdship non-viability, The commission shall review
all of the evidence and information required of an applicant for a certificate of
economic hard5hip non-viability; and
22
(i)
a. If the commission finds that disapproval of the proposed work would prevent
the property owner from earning any reasonable economic return from the
property, the commission shall:
1, Immediately issue a certificate of economic hardship non-viability; or
2. At its discretion, postpone, for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180)
days, the issuance of a certificate of economic hardship non-viability, During this
time, the commission shall investigate strategies which would allow the property
owner to earn a reasonable economic return from the property. No regulated permit
shall be issued during this time unless a certificate of appropriateness to proceed
has been secured. If, at the end of the one hundred eighty-day period, the
commission, after a public meeting, finds that the property owner still cannot earn
any reasonable economic return from the property, it shall issue a certificate of
economic hardship non-viability,
b. If the commission finds, after initial review or after the one hundred eighty-day
period of postponement, that the property owner has, in fact, earned or is able to
earn a reasonable economic return from the property, then the commission shall
deny the application for a certificate of economic hardship non-viability,
No regulated permit shall be issued authorizing a material change in appearance
of a landmark, landmark site or of a structure or site within a historic district until
there is a determination of no material effect or a certificate of appropriateness 19.
proceed or a certificate of economic hardship non-viability filed with the building
official or the city official authorized to issue the necessary regulated permit.
In the event the commission disapproves of a proposed project, the notice of
disapproval shall be binding upon the building official, city engineer or other local
authority, and no permit shall be issued in such a case,
The failure of the commission to approve or disapprove an application for a
certificate-of-8ppropriateness to proceed within sixty (60) days from the date of the
filing of an application, unless an extension is agreed upon mutually by the applicant
and the commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval, unless within such
sixty (60) days the commission has made a determination of economic ~
non-viability and has suspended its decision regarding a certificate of economic
.
.
UJ
(k)
.
23
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
~ non-viability pursuant to subsection (h)(3)a,2, (Ord, No, 46-90, § 1,
5-21-90)
Sec. 25-10. Standards for review.
The commission shall consider each design review on the merits of the individual
case, with due deliberation given to each proposed change(s) and its sympathetic
relationship to the specific historic setting, architectural or historic significance,
extent of previous alteration, use of original materials and quality of design of the
existing structure or site. Commission approval of a particular type of alteration or
activity shall not establish a binding precedent for future commission action, but may
constitute an additional factor to be considered in subsequent design reviews
involving the same type of alteration or activity.
"The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects,"
Washington, D,C., 1979, and "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings," Washington,
D.C., (Revised 1983), shall provide the guidelines by which the commission shall
review an application for a certificate of appropriateness to proceed or certificate of
economic hardship non-viability. and any subsequent revisions of these guidelines
by the Secretary of the Interior may be adopted by the commission,
The commission shall also be guided by any design standards specified in the
ordinance or amendment designating the landmark, landmark site or historic district.
(Ord, No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-11. Appeals from commission action.
An aggrieved party may appeal the commission's action to the city council by
filing a notice of appeal with the Planning Services Department within thirty (30)
days from the date of notice of the commission's action.
Upon filing of a notice of appeal, the Planning Services Department shall
immediately transmit such notice and the record of the action before the commission
to the city clerk.
On appeal, the city council shall consider only the record of the action before the
commission. No new matter may be considered.
24
(d)
.
(e)
(f)
(a)
.
(b)
.
The city council shall consider whether the commission has exercised its powers
and followed the guidelines established by law and the historic preservation
ordinance [this chapter], and whether the commission's action was patently arbitrary
or capricious,
The city council may affirm or reverse the commission's action, or may refer the
matter back to the commission for such further action as may be appropriate. The
city clerk shall give written notice of the city council's decision on appeal within
seven (7) days of the city council's decision to the appellant and the historic
preservation commission.
An appellant who is not satisfied by the decision of the city council may appeal
within sixty (60) days of the city council's decision to the District Court for Dubuque
County, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 303,34, (Ord. No, 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-12. Inspection.
After a certificate of appropriateness to proceed or certificate of economic
nardslïip non-viability has been issued and a regulated permit granted to the
applicant, the building official, city engineer or other local authority may from time to
time inspect the work authorized and shall take such action as is necessary to
enforce compliance with the approved plans.
Historic preservation commissioners may from time to time inspect, from the
public way, the work authorized and shall advise the building official or other
enforcement authority as necessary to enforce compliance with the approved plans,
(Ord. No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-13. Violations; penalties.
It shall be unlawful for any person to disobey, omit, neglect or refuse to comply with any
provision of this chapter, and such person shall be subject to the provisions of Section
1-8 and Sections 1-15 through 1-17 of the City of Dubuque, Code of Ordinances. (Ord.
No. 46-90, § 1, 5-21-90)
Sec. 25-14. Demolition by neQlect prohibited.
The owner of real property in any historic district or of a landmark shall preserve and
keep from deterioration all structures located on such real property. The owner must
25
fill..
fQl
[çl
í.ill
{ill
ill
Í9.Ì
íbl
ill
ill
íkl
ill
ill:ù
repair the structure to correct any of the followinq defects found by the City's desiqnated
enforcement officer:
parts which are improperly or inadequately attached so that they may fall and
injure persons or property:
a deteriorated or inadequate foundation:
defective or deteriorated floor supports or floor supports that are insufficient to
carry the loads imposed:
walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to
defect or deterioration or are insufficient to carry the load imposed:
ceilinqs. roofs, ceilinq or roof supports. or other horizontal members which saq,
split, or buckle, due to defect or deterioration or are insufficient to support the load
imposed:
fireplaces and chimneys which list, bulqe or settle due to defect or deterioration
or are of insufficient size or strenqth to Carry the loads imposed:
deteriorated. crumblinq or loose exterior stucco or mortar:
deteriorated or ineffective waterproofinq of exterior walls. roofs. foundations or
floors, includinq broken windows and doors:
defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverinqs, foundations or
floors. includinq broken windows and doors:
any default, defect or condition in the structure which renders it structurally
unsafe or not property watertiqht:
accumulations of weeds, fallen trees or limbs, debris. abandoned vehicles. and
other refuse:
deterioration of any exterior feature so as to create a hazardous condition which
could make demolition necessary for the public safety: or
deterioration or removal of any unique architectural feature which would detract
from the oriqinal architectural stvle.
26
.
Attachment #2
.
Review of Historic Preservation Ordinances
.
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA Attachment #2
MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1999
TO:
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Kyle Kroner, Assistant Planne~L
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Review of Historic Preservation Ordinances
This memo is to respond to your request to compile a report and chart(s) comparing the
City of Dubuque's Historic Preservation Ordinance with those of other cities. This
comparison report will then be presented to the City of Dubuque Historic Preservation
Commission as part of the Ordinance review process,
This report will examine the following criteria for Historic Preservation ordinance review:
standards for design review and issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness, standards
for issuance of Certificates of Economic Hardship, Historic Preservation Commission
attributes (size, number of required meetings, number of historic districts, etc,..), and
other Historic Preservation Commission duties.
Historic preservation ordinances from the following cities were reviewed for this report:
Dubuque, Ames, Burlington, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Iowa
City, Mason City, Sioux City, Waterloo, Elgin, Illinois; Galena, Illinois; Peoria, Illinois;
Rock Island, Illinois; and La Crosse, Wisconsin.
The following cities were contacted and did not have a historic preservation ordinance
or did not respond: Des Moines; Fort Worth, Texas; Cedar Falls; and Bettendorf,
Standards for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness
The City of Dubuque uses the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation
Projects to determine approval of an alteration or activity of a historic structure. The
following cities also use the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation to
approve or deny a certificate of appropriateness: Ames, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Council
Bluffs, Iowa City, Galena, Rock Island, and La Crosse.
The cities of Burlington, Waterloo, Davenport, and Elgin do not specifically cite the
Secretary of Interior's Standards as used to determine if a certificate of appropriateness
will be issued, Each city does include standards within their ordinances, and the cities
of Waterloo and Elgin use design guideline handbooks as part of the review process,
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 27, 1999
Page 2
The cities of Ames and Galena also include design guidelines as part of their review
processes. The cities of Sioux City and Mason City have no design review process and
do not issue certificates of appropriateness.
Standards for Issuance of a Certificate of Economic Hardship
The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission may issue a certificate of
economic hardship if a certificate of appropriateness has been denied, and the
Commission determines that disapproval of the proposed work or activity would prevent
the property owner from earning any reasonable economic return from the property.
The Commission may solicit expert testimony or require that the applicant make
submissions concerning the following:
Estimate of the cost of the proposed construction/alteration/demolition
Report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation and
structural soundness
Estimated market value of the property in its current condition and after the
proposed construction
An estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or
other real estate professional as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation and
reuse of the existing structure
The amount paid for the property, date of purchase, any terms of financing
between the seller and buyer
Annual gross income from the previous two years and operating and
maintenance expenses for the previous two years
The remaining balance on any mortgage or financing and annual debt service
All appraisals obtained within the past two years
Any listing of the property for sale or rent and the price asked and offers received
within the last two years
The assessed value of the property according to the two most recent
assessments, the amount of real estate taxes for the previous two years and
whether or not they have been paid
The form of ownership or operation of the property, and any other information
considered necessary by the commission to make a determination as to whether
the property does yield or may yield any reasonable economic return to the
property owners.
Other cities whose ordinances include similar regulations for issuance of certificates of
economic hardship include: Council Bluffs, Davenport, Elgin, Rock Island, and Peoria.
Tho cities of Sioux City, Mason City, Clinton, Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids have no
provisions in their ordinances dealing with economic hardships.
C:\MyFllo.\IIPO",vlow,wpd
.
8
.
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 27, 1999
Page 3
The City of Galena does not issue certificates of economic hardship. Applicants
claiming economic hardship are required to attempt to obtain reasonable financing, tax
incentives, preservation grants, or other incentives. If the Building Board of Appeals
finds that the property cannot obtain a reasonable return, the application is delayed no
more than three months, During this period the Building Board of Appeals shall make
recommendations to the City Council to allow beneficial use of the property, including
relaxing provisions of the ordinance, reduction in property taxes, financial assistance,
and changing zoning regulations,
The cities of Ames and Burlington issue certificates of appropriateness for demolition
when the requirements for economic hardship can be shown, These cities do not issue
certificates of economic hardship,
The cities of La Crosse and Waterloo allow commissioners to consider economic
factors when issuing certificates of appropriateness and certificates of demolition.
Historic Preservation Commission Attributes
Membership
The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members which are
appointed by the City Council. Each historic district must have at least one member
serving on the Commission, one member must be a licensed architect, and two
members may come from anywhere within the city limits,
The City of Cedar Rapids Historic Preservation Commission has 11 members and
requires that each historic district be represented by at least one member, The City of
Davenport Historic Preservation Commission has 9 members, including one position for
a licensed architect, one for a person involved in real estate development, two persons
from historic districts, and the rest may be at-large members.
The City of Sioux City Historic Preservation Commission has 8 members, with no
specific requirements within the ordinance for Commission membership,
The City of Council Bluffs Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members, appointed
from the public at-large, with one member for each designated historic district. The City
of Peoria Historic Preservation Commission has 7 voting and 2 non-voting members
appointed by the City Council. One member is to be a licensed real estate broker, one
member is a representative of the Peoria Historical Society, one member is a licensed
architect, and four members are at large,
The City of Mason City Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members, including two
C:\MyFII..\HPOrovl.w,wpd
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 27, 1999
Page 4
from the Planning and Zoning Commission, All members are appointed by the Mayor,
The City of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members, with one
member from each historic district. Four members of the Commission are at-large
members,
The City of Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members, with one
member from each historic district. The City of La Crosse Historic Preservation
Commission has 7 members, appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City
Council. One member is a historian, one a registered architect, one an attorney, one a
Council member, and 3 are citizen members.
The City of Burlington Historic Preservation Commission has 7 members, with no
specific requirements for commission membership, The City of Ames Historic
Preservation Commission has 6 members, with one commissioner from each historic
district, one architect, and one person professionally trained in preservation.
The City of Galena Historic District Advisory Board has 5 members. Members are
nominated by the Mayor and are appointed by the City Council. The City of Clinton
Historic Preservation Commission has 5 members, with one member having expertise
in history, and one having expertise in architecture,
The City of Elgin does not specifically address the size of its commission within its
ordinance,
The City of Rock Island Historic Preservation Commission has 9 members, appointed
by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. One attorney, one architect, and one
member of the Rock Island Preservation Society are required to serve on the
commission, The rest of the commission is appointed at-large. Up to 9 associate
members may also be appointed if they have special expertise in an area of historic
preservation. Associate members are non-voting members of the commission.
Number of Meetings
The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Ordinance does not specifically cite as to
how many meetings a year are required to be held by the Historic Preservation
Commission, Typically, the Commission meets twice a month,
The City of Galena Historic District Advisory Board is required to meet twice a month,
May through September, and once a month, October through April. The La Crosse and
Peoria Historic Preservation Commissions are required by their respective historic
preservation ordinances to meet at least once a month,
The Waterloo and Rock Island Historic Preservation Commissions are required to have
C:\MyFiles\HPOreview.wpd
.
.
.
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 27, 1999
Page 5
no fewer than four meetings a year. The Cities of Clinton, Burlington, Sioux City, and
Cedar Rapids require their Historic Preservation Commissions to meet at least three
times a year.
The Cities of Mason City and Davenport require their commissions to have regularly
scheduled meetings, either on a regular basis, or as many times as necessary, The
Cities of Elgin, Ames, and Council Bluffs historic preservation ordinances do not
specifically deal with the number of meetings the commissions are required to hold,
Number of Historic Districts
The City of Dubuque has 5 historic districts. The boundary of each district is delineated
within the language of the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
The Cities of Galena, La Crosse, Peoria, Iowa City, Waterloo, Clinton, Burlington, Sioux
City, Cedar Rapids, Mason City, Ames, and Council Bluffs do not state the number of
historic districts or landmarks that each city contains within their ordinances.
The City of Davenport has 13 historic districts. The boundaries of the districts are not
delineated within the ordinance, but mention of the number is made,
The City of Elgin has 3 historic districts. The boundaries of the districts are not
delineated within the ordinance, but mention of the number of districts is made, and
delineation is available within the provided design guidelines,
The number of historic districts in the cities surveyed ranged from 0 in Cedar Rapids,
Clinton, and Mason City to 13 in Davenport, The number of historic districts in each city
is shown on the attached chart,
Commission Duties
The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission's general duties, as stated in
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, include the following:
Promoting and conducting educational and interpretive programs on historic
properties within its jurisdiction
To develop and adopt specific standards for review and design guidelines in
addition to the Secretary of Interior's guidelines
To adopt its own bylaws
To conduct an on-going survey to identify historicallylarchitecturally significant
properties and structures
To research and recommend to the City Council the adoption of ordinances
designating historic districts and/or landmarks
C:IMyFilesIHPOreview,wpd
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 27, 1 ggg
Page 6
To maintain a register of all properties and structures which have been
designated as landmarks/historic districts
To assist and encourage the nomination of landmarks/historic districts to the
National Register of Historic Places
To confer recognition upon owners of landmarks or property owners within
historic districts
To review in-progress or completed work to determine compliance with specific
certificates of appropriateness and economic hardship
To serve as an advisory design review body to the City Council for public works
projects which have historic preservation implications when requested by the City
Council
All ordinances reviewed from other cities listed similar general duties for Historic
Preservation Commissions, Some historic preservation ordinances include additional
duties not listed.
The City of Peoria Historic Preservation Commission submits comments to the Zoning
Commission and Board of Adjustment when rezoning and zoning variance applications
are received for properties within a historic district or a landmark.
The City of Clinton Historic Preservation Commission appoints a design review
committee to review projects affecting overlay district properties, and issue appropriate
certificates for minor projects,
The City of La Crosse Historic Preservation Commission is required to make an annual
report about its activities for the preceding year to the City Council, and is required to
help/assist with voluntary restrictive covenants to preserve historic property,
Historic Preservation Ordinance Review - Comparison Chart
Attached is a chart that compares the aspects of the historic preservation ordinances
included in this review. The chart compares design review standards for certificates of
appropriateness and certificates of economic hardship. The chart also compares
attributes of the various historic preservation commissions.
KMK/lllkr
Att:1cl1lllent
C:\AI\,FII..\IIPO",vl.w,wpd
H'>to,'o '""NoUon O'dlnon" R"'e. Compo","" Chort
8
O..ion R..",. H"fono P""N"ion Comm""on Annbv'"
S"nd,," '°' Nvmb" 0'
S"nd"d,"'C,",""" Ce",""" 0' Nvm",,' H'"or',
C"y 0' A""p.."n,,, "'nom"H"d"ip Mom""h,p M..Un" 0""", Comm",'on Ov""
Ovbv,ve
7 m~be", , memb" "',",v"'d
S"""" of In"",. S.. Repo" ", "'me"h""or"",,',,, nvmb". ~pi""y
"ond"d, S"nd,," """"".."",,,I""e m.." """Imo , S.. mpo" ", dvf'"
Am"
Se""o,,o"n,,"" 6 mom"", 1 'rom .."
S"nd,,", ,n""" "'v.. """",,, of ""o"d""",.,
d"'gn gv"elin.... po. o""p"""" ", ""it".. 1 No "'v""'
o'm.".p""" "moliUon p'...No"on", nvmb" 1 S.. mpo" f" dv<I..
BurlinglOn
'n"vd.. "ond"" 'n
"d,..n", Not "'co, ".""" of 7 mem"", no 'p,,'"
,ped""", S"""" 0' ","p""..... f" ",v'"m.."'" No mov'md
In""'. dem,lflfon memb..."p numb" 1 S.. mpo" lor dv<i..
C"",R,p'"
S"m"" 0' In""". No p"."'o", 11 mem"", 1 mem'" A".." J "m..'
S"nd"d, w;,"nor"n,n" "'m",h"'IO'odl"", ye" 0 S.. mpo" 'or'vlf..
ClfnlOn
'mem"", 1 ho.'ng S.. "po" ", 'V"".
Se"e"" 0' ",,"°" ",p".i"o", ..po"" 'n hi"o", 1 'n All...f J Itm" , oomm"",n "'din"
S""",. wi!h'n"dlnon" '"h,""v" ye" 0 ",ign ".,~ oomm'n..
Coun," Blvff,
7 mem"". , memb"
S",e""o"n,,'o" S.. Repo" ", '"m """"°"""",, Not 'dd",..d 'n
S"nd"d, St"""'d, m"".I""e o";n,n" 1 S.. mpo" 'or dv<'..
OmnpM
In"v'" "ond"d, 'n
or"n,n", Not 'mem"". , ""it"t,
,p""""y S"m""of S.. Repo" 'or dmlo"". 2 'rom "'10', A, m,ny'm"..
In"'o', S"n"'d, """'-',m"",I,mo n"".." 1J See mpo" for dvlt..
IO.'C,~
7 mem"", 1 '- "'h
Se"e""of'n""'. 5.. Repo" for ""M""'"".m'f'" No ""'v""
S"nd,," S"nd"" ""e nvmb" J S.. "PO" ", dvlt..
Mmn C'fY
Re,v"" 10 hm
No d"'gn m.'e. 7 mem"", 2 "'m P&Z. mgvl'"
P,oo",. d...n'l "'vo Nop".;,'o", ,II membo" 'Ppo'n"d "h",v'"' 0:1
""""'" wit"n ordlnon" bym,y" m..ltn" p"p"ed 5.. mpo" 'or dvlt"
sto", C"y
No de"gn m.ie. 8 mom'..., no 'pod',
P""", do"n'f "," No p"."'o", ',",v'mmon"'" Af ,...f J 'm",
""""", wi!h;n or"n"'e memb","'p Y'" J 5.. mpo" 'or dvlt..
W"o"" In"vd.. ",nd"d, 'n
""n,n,,. Not
'p"""IIy S,,""~ 0' Comm""on
'n,,'o". vm d"'gn "'owed 10 """", 7 mem"", , hom.." Aff...t'bm..,
ou"e"ne hondb"'. e"Mm;, ,,",,' "'10""""'" .., 1 5.. mpo" for dv<'"
Elg," In"vd.. "ond"d. in
o"'n'm, Not
,p"""IIy Soom"" 01
In"'or'" vm d"ign 5.. Repo" 'or Not "d""ed w'!h'n No ",vtr"
ov""'" h'ndboO", S"nd"d, "',",n" nvmb" J 5.. mpo" for dvlt..
G,le.. 0o.. not i"ve Roow", 10 mo"
500""" 0' Inte"', """"te. """,mon!h
S"n",d" vm d,,;gn "plf"n" ",v'"d , mem"", nom'n,t" M'y,Se". on"
gv"e"n.. .. P'" of lO,nemptlO"f..n bym,y". 'ppo;n"d by ,mon!h"',-,
".'owp""" "..ndno ,oundl April 1 S.. "po" 'or dvlt..
P".. 7.0'n" 2non,.ot'n, See "PO" ", dvlt".
mem"", 1 from ,.." ,vbm;" "mmen" 10
""" b,,"'. , mom'"~ P&Z. Bo"d of Adiv"menf
Se""", o"nte"'s 5.. Re.." for ofP"", H;,IO"" Af le..t on" , for p"pen'" wi"in
""d"d. S"nd"" Soo'e~, 1 ",""", mon!h 2 ","',",,""
Roo' """ , mem"'" , ,n~ey, 1
""""'.' membe, 0'
Roo' ""nd P'...N"'on
S",e""ollnfe'o," 5.. Repo" ", Sode~, Up "'dd"'on" A""'" Itme, , 2;4
S"nd"" S"nd"d, 'non..o'n mem"", .e" p"",ed See lepo" f" dvlt..
t, C,,'"
7 mem"". 1 """",n, See "port ," dv"", "
Commi",on """te".I.n~ey.' ""vtr" " m,'o "nv,1
Se"".,, 01 Inte"'s ,IIowed" '°","" "vndf memb". ,e" ", Af ,.." on<o, "po" on '" ",.,It"
Si,nd"" "on~;, f""" ~, e mon" , o"e , ,..,
8
8
.
Attachment #3
.
Review of Historic Preservation Incentives
.
8
8
.
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
Attachment #3
July 28,1999
TO:
Laura Carstens, Planning servi~es tnager
Kyle Kroner, Assistant Planner ~
FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of Historic Preservation Incentives
This memo is to respond to your request to compile a report comparing the City of
Dubuque's historic preservation incentives with those of other cities. This comparison
report will then be presented to the City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission
as part of the Historic Preservation Ordinance review process,
This report will examine incentives provided by cities to citizens in order to encourage
re-investment in older and historic properties
Historic preservation incentives from the following cities were reviewed for this report:
Dubuque, Ames, Davenport, Sioux City, and Elgin, Illinois.
The following cities were contacted and did not provide historic preservation incentives
or did not respond: Bettendorf, Burlington, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Council
Bluffs, Des Moines, Fort Worth, Texas, Galena, Illinois, Iowa City, La Crosse,
Wisconsin, Mason City, Peoria, Illinois, Rock Island, Illinois, and Waterloo,
City of Dubuque
The City of Dubuque provides citizens with several incentives for historic preservation
projects:
Urban Revitalization Program: This program provides a ten year property tax abatement
on new value added for residential properties only. Urban revitalization areas include
residential neighborhoods not in historic districts. Eligible areas generally cover the
West 11th Street and Jackson Park Historic Districts,
Historic Preservation Grant Program: This program provides up to $2,000 matching
grant funds for exterior work meeting the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation, Eligible areas include all 5 historic districts. Eligible applicants include
income-eligible property owners of single-family, duplex, and triplex residential
structures,
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 28, 1999
Page 2
Facade Grant Program: This program provides up to $10,000 matching grant funds for
front and/or rear facade improvements for property owners in the Old Main Historic
District only.
Downtown Rehabilitation Loan Program: This program provides up to $300,000 in the
form of a 3% loan for 20 years, with interest only for the first five years; a loan rebate for
new jobs andlor new housing units created; and a rebate for architectural and
engineering cost. Eligible applicants include property owners within downtown urban
renewal areas only.
Housing Rehabilitation Programs: These programs provide income-eligible property
owners with low-interest loans and free exterior house paint on a city-wide basis, and in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) target areas,
Home Ownership Program: This program provides up to $5,000 in forgivable loans to
income-eligible first-time home buyers. Home buyers city-wide are eligible.
Lead Paint Abatement Program: This program provides a per unit grant of up to $5,000
to abate lead paint for income-eligible property owners or rental property owners with
income-eligible tenants on a city-wide basis,
City of Ames
The City of Ames offers at least one established incentive program and encourages
non-funding type incentives:
Urban Revitalization Program: This program provides a ten year property tax abatement
on new value added for residential properties only, Urban revitalization areas inelude
residential neighborhoods not in historic districts,
Non-Funding Incentives: The City of Ames has amended its Zoning Ordinance to allow
non-historic materials (such as vinyl siding) to be used on structures in historic districts
in cases of damage or destruction, The City also sold the one historic landmark owned
by the City with the land cost written down as an incentive to reuse the building for
historically appropriate purposes.
City of Davenport
The City of Davenport offers two historic preservation incentive programs:
Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund: This program provides funds for the,
C:lMyFileslHpincentive reportwpd
.
.
.
Memo to Laura Carstens
July 28, 1999
Page 3
physical rehabilitation, restoration, repair, or replacement of exterior features of
structures on property in historic districts, Funds equal to or exceeding the amount of
funding to a specific project from this program must be provided from other sources and
must be committed prior to the closing of the loan,
Commercial Property Preservation Loan Program: This program provides loans in
conjunction with other financing sources for the rehabilitation and renovation of existing
commercial building facades, The maximum amount of the loans are 50 % of the total
project cost.
City of Sioux City
The City of Sioux City offers one historic preseNation incentive program:
Historic Fourth Facade Restoration Program: This program provides funds for the
restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing historic buildings within the
Fourth Street Historic District based on building height and street frontage, Financial
assistance is available to all property owners in the historic district.
City of Elgin
The City of Elgin offers one historic preservation incentive program:
Historic Architectural Rehabilitation Grant Program: This program provides funds for the
restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing historic buildings, Eligible
structures must be residential structures at least 50 years old, located within an
identified historic district or registered as a landmark structure by city ordinance. The
property must contain no more than four dwelling units, The minimum cost of a project
eligible for a grant is $5,000, There is no maximum limit to the cost of a grant project.
KMK
Attachment
C:\MyFileslHpincentive ,eport,wpd
.
Attachment #4
.
Example of Design Guidelines:
Elgin, Illinois
.
I
,
,.
I
I
I
I .
I
I
.
I
I ~ .
~ - Porch Colunms
I ~
, I ,:~:e~and
I ii!I FoUDdation
; ~
I' 1
!, ~
,~
r
, '
'-
-
. -
Attachment #4
~
'I
~
~
~
, Design Guideline Manual i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~.
~
~
.~
Bay' ~
Window" ~
.1
. -i
Transom ~
. WÙldow ,I
Porch - ' ~
SJårting ~
~
I,
1
1
..
Roof Cresting'
FioW
Mansard Roof
Window Hood
Molding -
Šunburst
Spindled Frieze
~,
Elgin . fIeritage-Commis~ìon .
1997- '
Thomason & Associates
Preservation Pla.npers
,; -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
...............................................
/
INTRODUCTION..........,.".........,.,..".,.,...."..."...",..".,1
Map of the Elgin Historic District ..........,......."................4
Map of the SpringlDouglas Historic Distrlct ....,."...........,..........5
I.
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL .................................6
II.
DESIGN GillDELINES - APPROACH AND FORMAT. , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . 7
III. '
GENERAl-POLICIES ................,..............................10
.THECOAAPPLICATIONPROCESS...,....",..."""",.",..,...".. 11
IV.
V.
ABRIEFHISTORYOFELGIN ..,.."....,...,.",...""".,.,........15
VI.
ELGIN'S ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING STYLES, . ' , . . ' . . . . . ' . . . , , , . , , . . .. 18
GreekRevival.....,.....,.....,....,........,....,.,........,.,.,,19
GothicRevivai ..,.........".,.".,.."".",.,.",."..,.,...,... 20
ltalianate....................,.....,..,.,.",.".................21
Second Empire ..........,..".,.",.,...........,...........,.....22
Stick. . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . , . . . . . . , . , . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . , 23
QueenAnne ...................,.".....,..".,...................24
Shingle..................,.............,.......,................25
HomesteadlGableFront .......,.......................................26
Brick Flats and Row Houses ..............,.".,.,..,..".....,....,.,..27
Worker'sCottages .,....."".",..........",..,.,........".....,.28
Colonial Revival ....,...,..."..,.".......,............,.,........29
Neo-Classical .............,....,.".."...,..,....,.........,.....30
Prairie....................",....,............,....."",.,...,.31
AmericanFoursquare "...",...."...,..............,..,.....,. 32
CraftsmanlBungalow...,.....".,.,.."..,.........................,,33
TudorRevival...............,..........................".........34
VII.
GillDELINES FOR REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
ArchitecturaiDetailsandFeatures....,...."................,.............35
Awnings ...................,..."......,.....'..,................38
Chimneys................................,.......................39
Doors........-...........,......................................40
Screen and Storm Doors .........................................42
Security Doors ....................,.,........................44
Foundations .................,..................,..........".....45
.Garages,CaIriageHousesandOutbuildings.................................. 46
GuttersandDownspouts...............................................47
Lighting(forPorchesandExteriorWal1s)....................................48
Masonry: Brick, Limestone Block, Cobblestone. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
MechanicalSystems .................................................52
.
x.
.
Guidelines for Paint Removal and Surface Preparation. . . . , , . , . . , . . , , , . . . . , , , . . , . . 53
Reco=endationsforPaintandPaintColors """"""""...,.,...,.....,..54
Porches........,.....,.,.,.",...."",..,..,."".,..",."...,55
Porch Columns and Railing """"""""""""""...,.,...,.58
PorchSt.aircasesandSteps ....",.,..,..".",.,.".....,.,.,.,...61
Roofs.....................,.,.,........,...,......,.,.......,..63
.Roof Skylights and Vents........................................ 65
Windows.....................".................................66
.W'mdows-DecorativeGIass,.,..,.,.......,................,..... 68
Screen,Storm,andSecurityWindows......,.,...,.,...........,..,.,.69
Window Shutters....,..,..,...".",..".,...,..,.,......, ..,.71
Wood Siding """""""""""""""""""""""""""72
VITI,
GUIDELINESFORSITEANDSEITING .,",...,..."..,.,........,.,..... 74
Driveways, ParIång Lots and Paving ,.,."...."....."..,.........,..,..,.76
Fences ....,....,.....,.."...,..,..",."."........,..,.."...78
GarbageCoUectors...,......".,.."..."..,....,.....,..,....,..,.,82
Landscaping ...,.....,......."............."...,.......,...,... 82
GradeChanges ....,.......,.,...,...,...".,...,.",."..,..,.,... 82
,Retaining Walls ...,.....,.,.....,......,..,.,."."..,.....,.....,. 83
Sidewalks and Walkways """""""""""""",.....,........".84
Yard Features (pergolas, Gazebos, Fount.ains) ,...,.,."....".".,.."....,... 85
IX.
GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ..,.."..".,.,...."...,..,..86
Storefronts and Facades ...,.,',."..,....,.,...".".,."..,.."..,.,. 87
ArchitecturalFeatures """""""""""""'"""""""".,....88
Awnings................,..,............,...................,...89
Cornices ...........,.........,.......,.",.".".".."....,..,.90
Display Windows and Bulkheads ..,..".,...,....,.,.,.,.",."."."..,.91
Entrances....,..",....".".",....".".",.".".,...".""..92
lighting.. .. .. .. , , . . , . . , , .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . , , , .. . . 93
Windows.,..,..,..."..",...".".."..,.,..".,.,.,.....,.,...94
NewCo=ercialConstruction."..,..,..".....".,......,..,.....,.,..,96
NewCo=erciaIConstruction(NewBuiIdings) .....,..,.",."."."....,.,...97
Signs and Graphic Designs (Co=ercial Areas) ,...,."..""..,.,..,..".,.,..99
GUIDELINESFORNEWCONSTRUCTION ,.,..,."..,..,.,...,.....",...101
Decks.,.........,...,.........,..,..,.."....,......,....,.....101
Fire Escapes ..................,.."..,..,......:....,..,.."..... 102
HandicappedAccessRanJ.ps .,.....................,..,......,.........103
Residential Additions (New Rooms) ......................................104
New Residential Buildings (Prinwy Buildings) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
New Residential Construction (Secondary Buildings) ............................ 110
lighting(ForFrontYards).........................,......,............ III
Sateilite Dishes and Antennas ...................,..,................... 112
Signs and Graphic Designs (Residential Areas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
SolarPaneis ..................................................... II4
SwímmingPooIs ...,...,....,..................................... 115
ii
I
I
t
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
r
I
¡
I
¡
XI,
XII,
XIII.
GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION AND MOVING BUILDINGS. . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . " 116
ENERGY CONSERVATION ,..."...,....."."...,.,....,."..."", 117
APPENDICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ,.."",..,.".".,.,.,......,...,.,......119
A. SampIeCOAApplicationForm.,.,............,........,..........,..122
B. Local, State, and National Sources of Assistance. , . , , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . '. 126
C, DefinitionsandTerms .."....,............".,...,.,............. 127
D. Bibliography and Suggested Reading ...".....,...,.,......,.."....... 135
E. Sample List of Restoration Services Available at the Gail Borden Public Library, . . , . . . ., 137
F. Preservation Briefs """"....,....,....",..,.,.......,........139
ATTACHMENT
Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code
iii
..
..
,
.
.
.
~
.
.-
~
.
"
"
I
I
I
I
..
I
Elgin Design Guideline M=l
Sunburst Design in
Gable
Spindled Frieze
MillO<! Brackets
Turned Columns
Milled Railing
Newel Post
-,
Porch deuils at 653 Douglas Avenue.
37
~
III
It
II
..
II
'I
II
81
~
..
.
..
~
II
,
Elgin De.sign Guideline Manual
Oval Glass Ught Single-Ught
Colonial Revival Door Queen Anne Door
j
DO 00
[][] DO
Four-Panel
Homestead Door
. [][]~~
Four-Panel Multi-light
Iulianate Door Craftsman Door
Common lùstoric door designs in Elgin's historic districts.
rn~
~
LJ u- IDJ D
Inappropriate designs for front doors,
41
'\
, '
- ,
-: ,~ilJ
-, "
.---" ,'-,
~ ;;;~ ~l
"7"' "'.-
, ,
.' -, ,
lc-
[[
"",-, , ,':
. ~ - '
, " '-
- ~- :i:~~-
.~
., .. "
, ,
-, ,
Example of a Tudor Revival door at 931 N.
Douglas Avenue.
.
\
-
'!
J
iì
;1
:¡
i¡
i.
I
¡
Elgin Design Guideline ManUllI
ElgÙl's historic distriCtS contain a
Hide Wlriay of 19th and eJJrty 20th
cennuy ourbuildÙlgs Ùlcluding
SeT\YlnJ'S quarters, sheds, carriage
houses, and m/1omobile garages.
These buildÙlgs add to the district's
character and TTIf1Tf)' hm;e notahle
architecrural significance, These
buildÙlgs ...ere often buil1 with
construction techniques and
materiàls to mLltch the dwelling,
Vlese buildings should be preserved
and mnintained,
NOTE: For new garages see New
COTlStTUCtiOll guidelines.
GARAGES, CARRIAGE HOUSES AND OUTBUILDINGS
A.
that contribute to a property's historic character, or original to
a property shocld be preserved and maintained. Original
features shocld be repaired to match the original.
B.
original to a propeny should not be moved or relocated to
another pan of the lot.
c.
original doors shocld be maintained to the greatest extent
possible, but may be retrofitted with modem hardware ani!
Custom garage door openers.
- - fMJ fæ ff§j Eff8
- ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~m ~~~
=
Garages and outbuildings should be preserved and maintained (106 N,
Poner Street),
',',,'. ": . .
'.
YES
New garage doors shocld have raised
pa.nels and glass window sections.
NO
Avoid solid meta! doors.
46
-
-
.
Elgin Design Guideline M=l
8
.
Gutters and downspouts should be
regulmly cleaned and maintained,
If new gutters are required, half-
rowzd designs are the most
historicall)' accurate. If not readily
'isible, "K" or ogee design gutters
of ,aiJJminum or ,in)'l are
acceptable.
I
. =-
I
I
I
I
I .....-
I
I
I
I
Appropri:ue corner 1000tion and
round dowru;pout do:sign at 396
Division S=c.
I
I
I
GUTTERS At'ID DOWNSPOUTS
A.
when installed, should not result in the removal of existing
eave features,
B.
of boxed or built-in type should be repaired rather than
replaced if possible,
c.
of hang -On type should be half-round rather than "K" or ogee,
If the location of the gutters is not readily visible, ogee gutters
of aluminum or vinyl are acceptable.
D,
should be located away from significant architectural features
on the front of the building.
E,
should provide proper drainage through use of downspouts and
splashblocks to avoid water damage to the building, Round
downspouts are more appropriate than rectangular fonDS,
however, rectangular forms are also acceptable,
F.
straps should be nailed under, not on top, of roofing material.
G.
should be designed to channel the water as far away from the
dwelling as possible. Downspouts should extend at least 4 to
6 feet, or utilize a splash block.
Box Gutter
~
Wood Gutter
Original box and wood gutters should be preserved and maintained,
Half-Round Met;¡] Gutter
Molded Met;¡] Gutter
(K and ogee style)
New gutters of]t;¡)f-round met;¡] design are preferred to molded gutters.
47
,
.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual
Rounded overhang
C~~
molding ~
YES
NO
New wood porch steps should be
appropriately sized and with molded boards.
Avoid straight-sided floor boards and steps without
bullnose.
~
"
if
°L
~
q
NO
Avoid using decking material (2x4s) on steps,
Porch decking
'"
::i!
'II'!
I,:
"0
,I
II,
I:
!:
I,
l
i
¡,
i,
i.
!
Tread
Handrail
"
, ,
Floor joists
Riser
Newel cap
Nosing
Newel
Baluster
Balustrade
"
Ii
:!
"
Stringer
Common porch tenns and loeadon.
--
62
I
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manuo.l
~
~TR¡:;:ET
~1i:eeT
Driveway locations for the districts.
L
~
11\
-1
I
YES- Access to garage from side street.
YES - Access to garage from alley.
NO - Garage or carport attached on front.
NO - Parking circle in front of house.
YES - Driveway to rear garage.
YES - Access to garage from side street.
77
II
..
..
II
~
~
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manual
IX. GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL BUll-DINGS
.....+............................~............
S(!\IeraJ structures currently exist within Elgin's historic districts tJzot more closely resemble commercial structures
when their exterior T17£lterials, massing, site design, and architectural style are compared with the preceding
residential guidelines. The rehabilitation of these Structures shall be considered by the more applicable commercial
building guidelines on thefollowing pages. Both the historic downtown area and State Street on the west side of the
Fox River contain afine collection of late 19th and early 20th century masonry buildings. These designs are typical
of commercial architecture of the period and display elelTWlts of the commercial1taliannte, Queen Anne, Colonial
Revival, and Art Deco styles. Historic designs and details should be preserved and T17£lintained and traditional
storefronts should be added where original T17£lterials have been removed, The commercial areas of Elgin which are
not within locally designated districts are not required to comply with the COA process. How(!\ler, property owners
are encouraged to follow these guidelines when work is undertaken,
UPPER FACADE COMPONENTS
Cornice or Parapet
Generally of corbelled brick
or pressed sheet metal,
Windows
Rectangular and arched windows
are both common in the Elgin's
commercial areas.
STOREFRONT COMPONENTS
Transom
Rectangular glass lights above
the display windows and doors.
Display Window(s)
Usually with bulkheads below
and transoms above,
~
0
0
Entrances
Usually recessed in middle or
at side.
~
-=
Door(s)
Both single and double light doors are
common.
Bulkheads
Panels beneath display windows.
86
Elgin Design Re>iew Guideline Manual
Most of Elgin 's historic storefronts
ha>'e been removed or alJered since
1950. Only a few original
storefronts remain imact and these
should be preserved and
maintained, For storefronrs wlúch
ha>'e been ailered. traditional
storefrom designs QTe TTWst
appropriatefor historic commercial
buildings. These types of storefront
designs incÚide details such as
recessed en1rances. transoms.
displny I\indows, bulkheads. and
glnss and wood doors.
STOREFRONTS AND FACADES
..,/
A,
which are original should be repaired rather than replaced.
B.
which are original and require repair, should be with features
to match the original in design and materials.
C.
which were altered after 1945 should be reconstructed based
upon pictorial or physical evidence of the original. If the
original storefront appearance is unknown, install a storefront
based upon traditional designs. This should include the
construction of bulkheads, display windows, and transoms in
appropriate materials sucb as wood or brick. New storefronts
should be typical of those built during the late 19th and early
20th century and not reflect earlier or later architectural styles
or periods,
D,
may be significant even if they were added later than the
building itself. StOrefronts which were built from the 1920s to
the 1940s with materials such as tinted glass may possess
significance and should not be removed,
'-'"
ì
c::J CJ r:=:::J
New ~torefronts should maintain traditional designs such as transoms,
recessed entrances, single-light doors, display windows. and bulkheads
(24 Douglas Avenue).
87
.J
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manual
-
Original displL1y ...indows and
bulkheads should be presen;ed,
maintained, or repaired.
.
.
DISPLA Y WINDOWS AND BVLIŒEADS
A.
Display windows which are new, shouJd match the original in
location, design, size, configuI1ltion, and materials.
B,
Display windows which are missing and the original design is
unknown, shouJd be replaced with traditionally sca1ed
windows. Traditionally scaled windows have large glass lights
and few structural divisions,
C,
Display window muJlions or framing shouJd be of wood,
copper. or bronze metal, and similar in size and shape to the
original design.
D.
Clear glass should be installed for display windows, not tinled
glass, Interior shades or blinds shouJd be utilized for privacy.
Bulkhet1ds, also hzol'.7l as Idckplc.tes, are the lower panels on which the
displL1y windo»'S rest, Original bulkhet1d TnLlterials can include wood,
tile, TnLlrble, and brick, Original bulkhet1ds should be preserved,
TnLlintained. or repaired and not altered or removed,
A,
If the original bulkheads are missing, replace them with
traditional rectangular designs.
B,
If the original buJkheads are missing, replacement may be of
wood or brick panels. Avoid materials such as glass blocks Ot
metal,
Transom
Display
Window
Recessed
Entrance
.,
,j".,."~,,,n
."u: . ,I, "
"fi~
Cast Iron
Pilaster
Appropriate storefront design retaining original cast iron pilasters (25
N. Grove Street).
91
Elgin Design Rðiew Guideline Manual
a 8 '"
69a
B !3 ""
Be",
B88
II
Original window designs and materials should be preserved and maintained (19-21 Douglas Avenue).
re 1801m
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Window openings should not be enclosed or have inappropriate window designs.
95
.
,
,
.
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
, Elgin Design Re-.;ew Guideline ManlJ£1l
ill ill m IJI]J!J[] OJ m Hi
'YES
NO
NO
YES
New construction should maintain traditional window location and alignment.
¡ J
IDffiffi mlliæ ffimffi mffimœmæ
,/
/DD..c:,~,:,'.:",""
"'=
-.
/'
Luge buildil18s of new construction should Mye yertic.:ù divisions consistent with buildil18 widths along the block.
98
,
-
,
,
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
,
Elgin Design Re. .
,ew Guideline A'
,anual
./
S)B EI
L. . 61:<;;/11
rlJœ:.VI . )
OtJ.>'-L
J
""~I,J",
[..;1t.J¡;;
\
TrndiùonaJ
locations I
,or co= .
orcla! build' ,
mg sIgns.
Appropriate ",:ù .
E, HiglùJ11d S 1 SJgn on
=t.'
.'~: ~-,' :~-~~~.: ~~&~~-~
r¡fi}fl~~)ljjM)- ."" ~ .. ~
:ë;- ~- '. ':: . ff¡jáiji t-::;":
-' " ' --,"
" . ,...".0" ' ,',
100
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manual
I
8 X. GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Decks were generally not used
prior to 1945 on Elgin's older
hol1lES and as such are not
appropriate additions on the from
facade or other readily visible
locations, However, as in the case
of any type of addition, a wood
deck moy be acceptable ifplaced at
the rear of a dwelling where it will
not be visible from the street. Deck
railings should be in traditional
forms rather than in contemporary
designs (see section on porches).
Porches or verandas, as they were
called in Victorian til1lES, can be
utilized the sal1l£ way as a deck is
used in TlWdem architecture,
8More appropriate outdoor sitting
areas for back yards are stone or
brick terraces (or patios, as they
are now called) next to the house
or buill WIder the sheller of a large
tree; SW7l1n£r houses or gazebos,
especially popular in the latter half
of the 19th century; and pergolas,
either attached to the house or
freestanding, which were popular
after the turn of the century,
8
DECKS
A,
should be preferably located at the rear of dwellings or areas
not readily visible from the street.
B,
should be stained with an opaque stain or painted to blend with
the colors of the dwel1ing,
C.
should be kept simple in design, Wood decks are
recommended to have traditional style wood balusters
complimentary to the design of the building,
Deck
Appropriate deck
size and placement.
~
I
I
!
¡i:
ill
II'
!!
NO
Use traditional railing designs for deck construction.
101
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elgin Design Re\dew Guideline Mt1JUl(1l
Front
NO
Front
Rear
YES
Two-story addiûons should be placed at the rear, not on prominent side locations,
Front
/\
r::, \
II'" \ ....
II '¡ ';;-\ ~/"""1~1
~l~ I 't r r¡ ~j
, I ! I I I ......
'~I l--' ,,"
,I ,,"
'1-"
NO
Front
YES
Single-story addiûons should aIsd be placed at the rear and not on prominent side ¡oeaûons.
105
.
.
.
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manual
ftB_n~~
'YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
Roof forms should be consistent with thos. which e:cist in Elgin's historic disnicts.
-.
.-
Jj ~..
New construction should b. consistent in height, lot placement, and roof slope.
~
y
For e:<:\tuple. 8 inches of rise (X)
and 12 inches of run (Y) - to
8: 12 pitch.
Accepuble roof slopes for new construction.
108
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Elgin Design Review Guideline Manual
.-.
.
.
.-'
-J..
':t= .
,1,
Overall
Story
Foundation
Overall
Story
New construction should maintain foundation height, story height, and overall building height.
YES
New construction such as attached townhomes shO1Ùd reflect po~ch, door, and window designs which exist along
the street.
109
.
Attachment #5
.
Economic Hardship Ordinances from
Other Communities
.
.
.
.
Attachment #5
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
September 28, 1999
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner ~
Economic Hardship Ordinances from other Communities
SUBJECT:
I have collected Ordinances from other communities which address economic
hardship. Please review these attachments and be prepared to discuss whether the
City of Dubuque should amend the current language pertaining to economic
hardship. These attachments inelude:
1. City of Rock Island (pages 22,23 & 24)
2. Heritage Hill Neighborhood Association; Grand Rapids, MI (page 6)
3. City of Grand Rapids (page 1949, #5 & #6)
4, Michigan's Historic Districts Act [page 5, Section 5(6)]
5. City of Ames (pages 31-5, 31-6 & 31-7)
6. City of Elgin, IL (Chapter 20.10, pages 20,10-1,20.10-2 & 20,10-3)
7. City of Burlington (Chapter 3,56,080, pages 7,8,9 & 10)
8. City of Council Bluffs (Section 16.09.052 & 16.09.055)
9. City of Peoria, IL (Sec. 16-65)
10. City of Davenport (pages 9 & 10)
11. City of Galena, IL (pages 20 & 21)
12. City of Moline, IL (pages 8 & 9)
13. City of Waterloo (page 10)
attachments
.
notice shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation. The notice shall
be sent not less than ten (10) days prior
to the date of the hearing. The notice
shall state the location, including the
common street address of the property and
a brief description of the proposed
alteration for which an application has
been made and the differences of opinion
between the applicant and the Commission.
(e)
At the public hearing the Commission shall
take testimony presented by the owner(s)
and any other interested parties concern-
ing the effect of the proposed altera-
tion, demolition or removal upon the
exterior architectural features and the
Review criteria in Subsection g-E herein.
( f)
Within fifteen (15) days following com-
pletion of the public hearing, the
Commission shall issue or deny the Cer-
tificate of Appropriateness or Certifi-
cate of Economic Hardship and transmit
copies of its decision to the applicant.
SECTION 9.
CERTIFICATE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the ordinance to
the contrary, the Commission may issue a Certificate of Economic
Hardship to allow the performance of work for which a certificate
of Appropriateness has been denied.
A. Applicants claiming economic hardship shall be required
to apply to the Planning and Redevelopment Division to determine
eligibility for rehabilitation assistance. The eligibility for
and availability of financial aid shall be considered by the
Commission in making its decision.
B. An applicant for a Certificate of Economic Hardship may
submit any or all of the following information in order to assist
the Commission in making its determination on the application.
(1)
The amount paid for the property, the date of
purchase and the party from whom purchased
(including a description of the relationship,
if any, between the owner and the person from
whom the property was purchased).
(2 )
The assessed value of the land and improvements
thereon according to the two most recent
assessments.
.
"
(10)
(3 )
(4)
Real estate taxes for the previous two years.
(5)
Remaining balance on mortgage, if any, and
annual debt service, if any, for the previous
two years.
All appraisals obtained within the previous
two years by the owner or applicant in connec-
tion with this purchase, financing or owner-
ship of the property.
(6)
Any listing of the property for sale or rent,
price asked and offers received, if any.
(7)
Any consideration by the owner as to profit-
able adaptive uses for the property.
If the property is income-producing, the annual
gross income from the property for the pre-
vious two years, itemized operating and main-
tenance expenses for the previous two years,
and annual cash flow before and after debt
service, if any during the same period.
(8)
(9)
Form of ownership or operation of the prop-
erty, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit
corporation, limited partnership, joint ven-
ture or other.
Any other information, including the income
tax bracket of the owner, applicant or princi-
pal investors in the property, reasonably
necessary for a determination as to whether
the property can be reasonably used or yield a
reasonable return to present or future owners.
C. If the Commission finds that without approval of the
proposed work, the property cannot obtain a reasonable economic
return therefrom, then the application shall be delayed for
a period not to exceed three (3) months. During this period of
delay, the Commission shall investigate plans and make recom-
mendations to the City Council to allow for a reasonably
beneficial use or a reasonable economic return, or to otherwise
preserve the subject property. Such plans and recommendations
may include, but not be limited to: a relaxation of the pro-
visions of the ordinance, a reduction in real property taxes,
financial assistance, building code modifications and/or changes
in zoning regulations.
D. If by the end of this three (3) month period, the
Commission has found that without approval of the proposed work,
the property cannot be put to a reasonable beneficial use or the
--
-
23
.
owner cannot obtain a reasonable economic return therefrom, then
the Commission shall issue a certificate of Economic Hardship
approving the proposed work. If the Commission finds otherwise,
it shall deny the application for a certificate of Economic
Hardship.
SECTION 10.
APPEALS
A. When a certificate of Appropriateness or a certificate
of Economic Hardship is approved or denied for either a landmark
or a structure within a historic district, the applicant or any
interested party may, within thirty (30) days, appeal the Com-
m>ssion's decision to the city council. The Council may receive
comments on the contents of the record but no new matter may be
considered by the council. The city council may affirm the
decision or recommend changes by a majority vote of the council
after due consideration of the facts contained in the record
submitted to the Council by the Commission. The Council may
overturn the Commission's decision by a majority vote of a
quorum of the council. If the Council decides that a Certificate
of Economic Hardship should be issued, the Secretary shall notify
the applicant and the Inspection Division within seven (7) days
of the Council's decision and the Inspection Division then shall
issue the permit within fifteen (15) days.
B. If the Council concurs with the Commission's decision
not to issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship, the Secretary
shall notify the applicant and the Inspection Division within
seven (7) days.
.
SECTION 11.
AFFIRMATION OF EXISTING ZOIlTIlG
Nothing contained in this ordinance shall supersede the
powers of other local legislative or regulatory bodies or relieve
any property owner of complying with the requirements of any
other state statutes or municipal ordinances or regulations.
Specifically, this ordinance in no way modifies or negates
existing zoning in the City of Rock Island. This affirmation of
existing zoning is not an approval of that zoning, nor does it
preclude amendments to zoning district boundaries or categories
of useS. The local Zoning Ordinance remains in effect unless
modified.
SECTION 12.
PENALTIES
I
1
A. Any person, firm or corporation who alters, demolishes,
repairs or relocates any landmark or any structure within a
historic district without complying with the provision of this
ordinance shall be required to restore the building or structure
and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. Any
action to enforce this section shall be brought by the city
Attorney, his designee or by designated representatives of the
.
210
.
-H~ríA1~ hlL--L- l'-k:'\4,J~~;'; u ~--c..,
~p.ND r,Df"ID?, Mlc.,-,!~A~
1120 Monroe NW. In interpreting these standards and
guidelines, previous decisions the Commission may be
influential But changes which you may see in the
neighborhood may have been made before the district was
designated; may have been made illegally; or may have been
based on special considerations which do not apply to your
property. The local guidelines are generally better indicators
of Commission action than previous decisions - particularly if
those decisions were made prior to the adoption of the
relevant guidelines
Are the economics of repairing my
property considered?
The economic burden of necessary renovations is considered
in two ways:
.
. there is no requirement to restore original features
which have been lost prior to the historic designation of
the property, although many owners do choose to do
that;
. if repair or maintenance of an existing feature will
impose an extreme economic burden, an exception to
the standards can be considered; the Commission will
look at:
. the cost of the rehabilitation work
compared to the value the property
will have once repaired;
. the record of the applicant's effort in
ongoing maintenance;
. alternative means of preservation or
restoration available to the applicant.
Are there any tax benefits available
for historic renovations?
.
For substantial commercial, industrial and rental housing
rehabilitation projects, which comply with the Secretary of
Interior's standards, federal tax credits of up to 20 per cent
are available. The application process is fairly complicated,
but the tax credits can make the difference in a successful
project, The process involves review at the state level. More
information can be obtained from:
http://www,hentagehiil,gen.mi,us/histonc,htm
6/14/99
/
.
.
.
___~I~r (;;/¿tNO ~P";:::"':>, M'cP.~At-I.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~!ISSION
mission within the Department of State. The ap-
peal shall be med within 60 days after the decision
is furnished to the applicant. The appellant may
submit all or part of the appellant's evidence and
arguments in written form. The Review Board
shall consider an appeal at its rll'st regularly sched-
uled meeting after receiving the appeal, but may
. not charge a fee for considering an appeal, The
Review Board may affirm, modify, or set aside a
Commission's decision and may order a Commis-
sion to is,;ue a certificate of appropriateness or a
notice to proceed. A permit applicant aggrieved
by the decision of the State Historic Preservation
Review Board may appeal the decision to the Kent
County Circuit Court.
(3) In reviewing plans, the Commission shall
follow the D.S, Secretary of the Interiår's Stan-
dards for rehabilitation and guidelines for reha.
bilitating historic buildings, as set forth in 36
C.F.R. part 67. Design review standards and guide-
lines that address special design characteristics of
historic districts administered by the Commission
may be followed if they are equivalent in guid-
ance to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and
guidelines and are established or approved by the
bureau. The Commission shall also consider all of
the following:
(a) The historic or architectural value and sig-
nificance of the resource and its relation,
ship to the historic value of the surrounding
area.
(b) The relationship of any architectural fea-
tures of the resource to the rest of the re-
source and to the surrounding area.
(c) The general compatibility of the design,ar-
rangement, texture, and materials proposed
to be used.
(d) Other factors, such as aesthetic value, that
the Commission finds relevant.
(4) The Commission shall review and act upon
only exterior features of a resource and shall not
review and act upon interior arrangements un-
less interior work will cause visible change to the
exterior of the resource, The Commission shall
not disapprove an application due to consider-
ations not prescribed in subsection (3).
Supp, No, 5
§ 5,395
(5) If an application is for work that will ad-
versely affect the exterior of a resource the Com-
mission considers valuable to the City, State, or
nation, and the Commission determines thåt the
alteration or loss of that resource will adversely
affect the public purpose of the city, State, or na.
tion, the Commission shall attempt to establish
with the owner of the resource an economically
feasible plan for preservation of the resource.
(6) Work within à historic district or on a his-
toric landmark shall be permitted through the is,
suance of a notice to proceed by the Commission if
any of the following conditions prevail and if the
proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding
of the Commission to be necessary to substan-
tially improve or corred any of the following con-
ditions: .
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the
safety of the public or to the structure's oc-
cupants,
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major im,
provement program that will be of substan-
tial benefit to the community and the ap-
plicant proposing the work has obtained all
necessary planning and zoning approvals,
financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue fi.
nancial hardship to the owner when a gov-
ernmental action, an act of God, or other
events beyond the owner's control created
the hardship, and all feasible alternatives
to eliminate the financial hardship, which
may include offering the resource for sale
at its fair market value or moving the re,
source to a vacant site within the historic
district, have been attempted and exhausted
by the owner. '
(d) , Retaining the resource is not in the in-
terest of the majority of the community.
(7) The business that the Commission may per-
form shall be conducted at a public meeting of the
Commission held in compliance with the Open
Meetings Act, Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of
1976, as amended, being sections 15,261 to 15.275
of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of
the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be
given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of
1949
~\I¿:HIL1AN~
.--'11 L,'l((vlt.-
~ 1"~C:~¡ ~
J- é:í
5
.
Sootion 5(6) is unch3ngod in intone 3nd dToct, Howovor, now 3nd cl3rifiod l3ngu3go providc:s
bottor guid3nco whon 3 commission is 35kod by an owner ro granr pormission for inappropriato
work mado necC:SS3ry by financial hardship or public h3z.ard, or for tho public good, etc. For
onmplo, whon an ownor daims that 3 rosourco is in tho way of a boneficial communiry projoot,
ho or sho must show th3t aU nooossary planning and zoning approvals, project financing, and
onvironmonral do:>rances 3rO in placo bororo tho commission actS, This may help put an end to
proposals that promiso ooonomic revitalization and requiro tho removal of hisrotic resourcc:s,
but nevor 3re built. Anothor onmplo might be tho ownor who daims that rouining 3 roSOurce
will cause fin3ncial hardship, Hore, tho commission may ponnit tho work only aftor tho ownor
h35 "attempted and oxh3usted" all ways, such as salo ef tho rc:sourco, to eliminate tho hardship.
This may halt C35es whoro tho ownor daims finanåal hardship 3ftor purposofully cr03ting it,
The language of sootion 5(7) is clarifiod with no substanrial change boyond roquiring th3t whon
a commission givos norico for a public meeting at which it conductS businoss, an 3gond3 shall
bo induded lisring oach ponnit application ro be considerod.
Section 5(8) romains unch3nged.
Tho languago of section 5(9) is darified without changing the dfoot.
Section 5(10) codifios a practico widospread among Michigan's historic district commissions
of delogation of approval authoriry for appliations for minor work; thc:se may bo reviewed and
approvod by Staff or others without wa.iting for a commission mooring, It was always believed
that this practice was permissiblo even without this specific empowerment; placing this
l3nguage in the Act makos this de3r. The Act requires the commission, on at least 3 quarterly
basis, ro reviow such dooisions.
.
Section 5(11) addresses a problom which most Michigan historic district commissions faco
and have dealt with in some way: attemptS to demolish historic buildings through long-term
negloot. In this section, "demolition by negloot" is recognized for the first time by name. In
rc:sponse to the condition, the commission may require that the owner repair the resource. If
repairs arc not made within a re35onablo time, the commission m3Y obtain a circuit COUrt
order, enter the property and repair it, and charge the cosrs of the work to the owner through a
spoåal assessment lovied against the property by the loal unit,
Section 5(12) codifies the right of a historic district commission to seok a COUrt order ro
reverse an unlawful change, When the commission finds that work has been done without a
permit 3nd the work docs not qualify for a cortificate of appropriateness, it may require the
owner to restore the resourco ro its former condirion or modify the work so th3t it qualifios
for a certificate, If the Owner docs nOt comply within a r,"sonable longth of time, the
commission may obtain a circuit COUrt order that requires the owner to do the nooessary work,
If the owner docs nor comply with the COUrt order ,vithin a reasonablo time, the commission
may enter tho property, complote the nooessary work, and charge the COStS to the owner through
3 special 3SseSSment levied against the property by the local unit.
Section 6: GrantS and gifts; special programs.
The language is cl3rified withoUt changing the effect.
Section 7: Historic resourco acquisition and 53!e by loal unit,
.
/ AM~, :r:A
/ ,~'"., ,.", ~ ,,~ wi,. ,., ,,~"'"' '"' Ho.'", D'~m~, """ ,., ,"""",, ,~ ~, "'" 'm'~, ,",
following data:
. (a) A map Showing Assessor's plat of the area, boundary and boundary description, legal
description, and size of area in aCres or square feet;
(b) Photographs and other descriptive material;
(c) List of all property owners and their addresses:
(d) Narrative providing information concerning at least one of the following:
(i) Its association with events that have a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of community history: or
construction, etc,
(ii)
(Hi)
Its association with the lives of persons significant in the community history; or
Its embodying of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of new
(e) Narrative providing information about events or persons that may have a significant
relationship to the area and it past;
(I) Design criteria proposed as an aid to decisions On Certificates of Appropriateness required
by Section 31,10;
(g)
A list of the names and addresses of property owners within two-hundred (200') feet of the
subject property,
(Ord No, ]010, See, 1,4-12-88; Ord No, ]064, See, 2,11-21-89; Ord No, ]]28, See, 1,6-13-95)
.
Sec. 31.9. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ENACTMENT PROCEDURES,
(I) Oral and written testimony concerning the significance of the nominated historic district or landmark
shall be taken at a public hearing before the Ames Historic Preservation Commission, The Planning and Housin g
Department shall notilY, by Certified mail, all property owners of a proposed landmark or within a proposed district a
minimum of twenty days prior to the public hearing to be held by the said Preservation Commission, The Preservation
Commission upon hearing the proposal will review and make recommendations to the City Council.
(2) The City Council forwards the proposed landmark or historic district designation to the State
Historical Department for review and recommendation, Within a reasonable time after receipt of the recommendatio n
from the State Historical Department the Council shall make a final determination on the proposed landmark or district
designation, Designation of such an area shall be by enactment of an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of th e
City to show such designated area in accordance with the hearing, notice and procedure requirement of Chapter 414.
Code of Iowa,
(Ord No, 3010, See, I, 4-12-88; Ord No, 3064, See, 2,.! 1-21,89; Ord No, 3328, See, 1,6-13-95)
Sec.31.10, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIA TENESS.
(I) Alteration of an exterior part of a building or a structure, Alterations to existing structures that are
contributing or compatible structures or to structures designated as historic landmarks shall be permitted in th e
following instances,
(a) An architectural feature has deteriorated to the point that it must be replaced, The
architectural feature must be replicated in both design and material.
(b) Architectural features were added which modified the original qualities of the architectural
style, The current property OWner wishes to restore the structure to the original architectural style,
(c) An architectural feature can be added as long as the feature is appropriate to the architectural
style of the structure, Materials used shall duplicate materials and design of the existing structure,
In each instance exemptions may be granted to the requirements if an economic hardshÎI1 can be shown based
On the following criteria:
(d)
.
(e) Materials for replication are no longer available; and
(I) Cost of replication is prohibitive.
The requirements for alteration area apply to that portion of the structure and the property visible ITom the
Replication of an architectural feature will result in a conflict with the existing Municipal
Code;
SUP #1311995 CODE
31-5
Rev, 10-1-98
//
-'-- Þ-H>:;-?, :[:.::..
street right-of-way and located between that right-of-way and an invisible plane that bisects the structure, and extends to
the property line, parallel to the right-of- way. In the case of a lot adjacent to more than one street right-of-way, an
invisible plane is established that bisects the structure, and extends to the property line, parallel to each right-of-way,
The portion of the structure and the property not subject to the criteria for the alteration area will be subject to the
criteria for the new construction area.
(Ord. No, 3112. 12-11-90)
(2) New Construction, New construction in the area must be representative of one of the architectural
styles approved in the district or representative of the style of the designated landmark, The design for the structure must
meet all the design criteria listed for the architectural style selected, Architectural features not specifically listed in the
design criteria may be proposed by the applicant Those features should be incorporated in a manner appropriate with
the architectural style, Design criteria are established for each architectural style identified in each historic district
(3) Demolition. Demolition of existing structures that are contributing or compatible structures or of a
historic landmark shall be strictly prohibited except in the following instance:
The structure cannot be used for the original intended purpose and/or no alternative reasonable use can be
identified and the property owner can show evidence that an economic hardship will be created if the structure cannot be
removed, To prove economic hardship, the applicant may submit where appropriate to the applicant's proposal, the
following information to be considered.
(a) Estimate of the cost of the proposed demolition, and an estimate of any additional cost that
would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness,
(b) A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the
structural soundness of the structures or structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation, (This shall be
required only when the applicant's proposal is based on an argument of structural soundness,)
(c) Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after completion of
demolition; after any changes recommended by the Commission; and after renovation of the existing property for
continued use,
(d) An estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real
estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing
structure on the property.
(e) Amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party ti-om whom purchased,
including a description of the relationship, if any, between the Owner of record or applicant and the person from whom
the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer,
(I) If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for the
previous two years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years; and depreciation deduction
and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period,
(g) Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual
debt service, if any, for the previous two years.
(h) All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in
connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property.
(i) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and otTers received, if any, within the
previous two years,
U) Assessed value of the property according to the most recent assessments,
(k) Real estate taxes for the previous two years,
(I) Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or
not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other,
Determination of Economic Hardship, The Preservation Commission shall review all the evidence and
information required of an applicant and make a determination whether the denial ofa Certificate of Appropriateness has
deprived, or will deprive, the owner of the property of reasonable use of, or economic return on, the property, After
reviewing the evidence, the Commission may deny the application, may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Demolition, or may table the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition for a period of time not to
exceed 30 days, The 30 day period will permit an opportunity for other alternatives to be evaluated, If a suitable
SUP#13/1995 CODE
31-6
Rev, 10-1-98
/-
/
.
.
.
ÞI'1r:;.-::, I 'ÍA
alternative is not presented to the Commission within the 30 day period, the Certificate of Appropriateness for
Demolition shall be issued,
In no instance will the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition without approval
of a redevelopment project and submittal by the applicam of a bond or cash escrow to guarantee completion of the
approved project.
(4) Relocation, Relocation of a historic landmark or of an existing structure within or into a historic
district shall be strictly prohibited except in the following instances:
(a) The structure is being relocated to its original site of construction.
(b) Relocation of the structure is an alternative to demolition of the structure.
(c) A structure to be moved within or into the district is of an architectural style identified in that
district. The structure can be relocated to a vacant parcel or to a parcel occupied by a noncontributing structure which
will be removed.
(5)
Ordinary Maintenance Permitted; Public Safety,
(a) Ordinary Maintenance Pennitted, Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the
ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior feature in a historic district or of any historic landmark which do not
involve alterations or changes in the exterior features ofa building. For the purposes of this Ordinance, changes made in
the color of the exterior surfaces ofa building are considered to be ordinary maintenance and repair.
(b) Public Safety, Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the construction, reconstruction,
alteration, restoration, or demolition of any interior or exterior feature which the City Building Official shall certify is
required for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, but any such action shall be, where possible, in
accordance with the design guidelines and design criteria set forth in Section 31.1 2 (Standards for Review, Design
Guidelines, Design Criteria).
(Ord, No, 3010, See, 1,4-12-88; Ord, No, 3064, Sec. 2, 1I-21-89; Ord No, 3077, See, I, 4-10-90; Ord, No, 3328.
See, 1,6-13-95)
(6) Use of Substitute Materials. Substitute materials may be used as an acceptable alternative to the
historic materials ifall of the following conditions are met:
(a) the historic material on the structure is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired;
(b) the substitute material can be installed without irreversibly damaging or obscuring the
architectural features and trim of the building:
(c) the substitute material is similar to the historic material in size, design, composition and
texture, such as one type of wood replacing another,
However, item (c) above notwithstanding, and the reference to "clapboard" in See, 31.13(26) notwithstanding,
with respect to a structure that consisted of either a compatible or a contributing structure that had been at least doubled
in size by a non-contributing addition, if the contributing or compatible portion of that structure is completely destroyed
as the result of an eVent beyond the control of the Owner, including fire or windstonn, and the non-contributing portion
remains intact, then smooth surface siding made of vinyl, aluminum, steel, hard-board, or other synthetic materials of
premium quality, may be used on both the remaining non-contributing portion of the said structure and on any new
construction done to replace the contributing or compatible portion that was completely destroyed,
(Ord No, 3010, See, 1,4-12-88; Ord No, 3064, See, 2,11-21-89; Ord No, 3077, See, I, 4-10-90; Ord No,
3328, See, 1,6-13-95; Ord No, 3457. See, 1,8-26-97)
Sec. 31.11. APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
(I) Certificate of Appropriateness. Any act of alteration, demolition, new construction, or relocation as
defined herein shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness,
Furthennore, every application for a building permit or a demolition pennit, including the accompanying plans
and specifications, affecting the exterior architectural appearance of a designated landmark or of a property within a
designated historic district shall be accompanied by an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
The Building Official shall not issue the building or demolition pennit until a Certificate of Appropriateness
has been issued,
(2)
Administrative Approval Process.
(a) Types of Alterations, A Certificate of Appropriateness for the following types of exterior
SUP # 13/1995 CODE
31-7
Rev, 10-1-98
~L-~Ir-l, ILl-.
~.
Chaptar 20.10
.
CER TIFI CA TE 0 F ECO N 0 MI C HARDS HrP
Sections:
20,10.010
20,10.020
20.10,030
20,10.040
Certificaœ of economic hardship--In general.
Application procedure.
Findings,
Appeals,
20.10.010 CERTIFICATE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHrP-IN GENERAL.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this title to the contrary, the
heritage commission may issue a certificaœ of economic hardship to allow for
the performance of work for which a certificaœ of appropriaœness has been
denied. (Ord. G8-88 § 2 (part), 1988.)
.
20.10.020 APPLICATION PROCEDURE.
Application for a certificaœ of economic hardship shall be made on a form
prepared by the heritage commission, The heritage commission shall schedule
a public hearing concerning the application and provide notice in the same
manner as in Section 20,06.040, and any person may œstify at the hearing
concerning economic hardship in the same manner as provided by Section
20.06.060.
The heritage commission may solicit expert œstimony or require that the
applicant for a certificaœ of economic hardship make submissions concerning
any or all of the following information before it makes a deœrmination on the
application:
A. Estimaœ of the cost of the proposed construction, alœration, removal or
demolition and an estimaœ of any additional cost that would be incurred
to comply with the recommendations of the heritage commission for
changes necessary for the issuance of a certificaœ of appropriaœness;
B, A report from a licensed engineer or arcþiœct with experience in re-
habilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the
property and their suitability for rehabilitation;
C. Estimaœd market value of the property in its current condition; wr
completion of the proposed construction, alœration, demolition or
removal; wr any changes reco=ended by the heritage commission;
and, in the case of a proposed demolition, wr renovation of the existing
property for continued use;
D. In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimaœ from an archiœct,
developer, real estaœ consultant, appraiser or other real estaœ profes-
sional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of
rehabilïtation or reuse of the existing structure on the property;
E. Amount paid for the property, the data of purchase, and the party from
whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any,
between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the
property was purchased, and any œrms of financing between the seller
and buyer;
F. If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the
.
(O¡;rn 3131"'3)
20.10-1
et.rLt'I,.1 IL-L-
I
HistOrically and ,'v-:hiœc:urally Significant Property
property for the previous cwo years; itemized operating and maintenance
expenses for the previous two years; and depreciation deduction and
annual cash flow before and aft¿r debt service, if any, during the same
period;
G, Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the
property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years;
H. All appraisals obtained .",~thin the previous two years by the owner or
applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the
property;
1. A:n.y listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers
received, if any, within the previous two years;
J, Assessed value of the property according to the two most recent
assessments;
K Real estate taxes for the previous two years;
L, Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole
proprietorship, for profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited
partnership, joint venture or other;
M, A:n.y other information, including the income tax bracket of the owner,
applicant, or principal investors in the property considered necessary by
the heritage commission to make a determination as to whether the
property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owner,
(Ord, G8-88 § 2 (part), 1988.)
{
20.10.030 FINDINGS.
A. If the commission finds that without approval of the proposed work, the
owner of the property cannot obtain a reasonable beneficial use and a
reasonable economic return therefrom then the application shall be
delayed for a period not to exceed ninety days. During this period of
delay, the commission shall investigate al ternati ves and make
recommendatioru! to the city council to allow for a reasonable beneficial
use and a reasonable economic return fr¡¡m the property, or to otherwise
preserve the subject property, Such plans and recommendations may
include, but are not limited to: a relaxation qf the provisions of the
ordinance, a reduction in real property taxes, financial assistance,
building code modificatioru! or changes in zoning regulatioru!,
B. If by the end of this ninety-day period, the commission has found that
without approval of the proposed work, the ownerofthe property cannot
obtain a reasonable beneficial use and a reasonable economic return
therefrom, then the commission shall issue a certificate of economic
hardship approving the proposed work. If the commission finds
otherwise, it shall deny the application for a certificate of economic
hardship,
(Ord. G8-88 § 2 (part), 1988.)
(
20.10.040 APPEALS.
When a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate of economic
hardship is approved or denied by the heritage commission for either a
20.10-2
("'¡;in 3-31.'73)
~LL11 tJ \ I LA... .
¡ti"
.
Certificate of uonomic Hardship
landmark or a structure ....itrun a historic district, the applicant may, ....ithin
thirty days, appeal the commission's decision to the city counciL The council
may receive comments on the contentS of the record but no new matter may
be considered by the council. The city council may affirm the decision or
reco=end changes by a majority vote of a quorum of the council after due
consideration of the facts contained in the record submitted to 'the council by
the commission. The council may overturn the commission's decision by a
majority vote of the council. COrd. G8-88 § 2 (part), 1988.)
.
.
(Osin 3m,<J3)
20.10-3
/
0, , .-(' I A"
I/UF,UN&\ iCt-!o )þ.
3,56,070, Public hearinos and enactment procedures
(1)
Oral and written testimony conceming the significance of the nominated Historic District or
Historic Landmark shall be taken at a public hearing before the Burlington Historic
Preservation Commission. The Development Department shall notify, by mail, all
property owners of a proposed landmark or within a proposed district a minimum of twenty
days prior to the public hearing to be held by said Preservation Commission. The
Preservation Commission upon hearing the proposal will review and make recommen-
dations to the City Council within 45 days,
(2)
The City Council forwards the proposed Historic District or Historic Landmark designation
to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and recommendation. Within a
reasonable time after receipt of the recommendation from the State Historic Preservation
Office, but not later than after 45 days, the Council shall make a final detennination on the
proposed landmark or district designation. Designation of such an area shall be by
enactment of an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the City to show such
designated area in accordance with the hearing, notice and procedure requirement of
Chapter414, Code of Iowa,
3.56,080, Certificate of appropriateness-oeneraL
.
Certificate of Appropriateness, Any act of alteration, demolition, new construction, or relocation as
defined herein shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness,
Furthennore, every application for a building penn it or a demolition pennito including the accompanying
plans and specifications, affecting the exterior architectural appearance of a property within a designated
Historic District or Historic Landmark shall be accompanied by an application for a Certificate of Appro-
priateness.
The City Chief Code Inspector shall not issue the building or demolition pennit until a Certificate of
Appropriateness has been issued,
(1)
Alteration of an exterior part of a building or a structure in a Historic District or Historic Landmark
designated by the Commission and City Council.
Alterations to existing structures that are contributing or compatible structures in historic
districts or to structures designated as historic landmarks shall be pennitted in the
following instances:
(a)
An architectural feature has deteriorated to the point that it must be replaced, The
architectural feature must be replicated in both design and material as provided in
Chapter 3.56,020(14)
(b)
Architectural features were added which modified the original qualities of the
architectural style, The current property owner wishes to restore the structure to
the original architectural style,
(c)
An architectural feature can be added as long as the feature is appropriate to the
architectural style of the structure. Materials used shall duplicate materials and
design of the existing structure.
In each instance exemptions may be granted to the requirements if a hardship can be
shown based on the following criteria;
.
(i)
Replication of an architectural feature will result in a conflict with the
existing Municipal Code;
7
/'
/
I
/
(2)
(3)
f'Juç.¡...i, ,,:,~:¡ .
//
(ii)
Materials for replication are no longer available; and
(iii)
Cost of replication is prohibitive,
The requirements for alteration area apply to the front portion of the structure and the
property visible from the street right-of-way, In the case of a lot adjacent to more than
one street right-of-way, both front portions of the building, as well as both front yards,
should meet above requirements. The portion of the structure and the property not
subject to the criteria for the alteration area will be subject to the criteria for the new
construction area,
New Construction in a Historic District and Historic Landmark designated by the
Commission and City Council.
New construction in the area shall be compatible with the architectural styles
representative of the Historic District or Historic Landmark. The design for the structure
must meet all the design criteria listed for one of these architectural styles, Architectural
features not specifically listed in the design criteria may be proposed by the applicant.
Those features should be incorporated in a manner appropriate with the architectural
style. Design criteria are established for each architectural style identified in each Historic
District or Historic Landmark,
Demolition in a Historic District or Historic Landmark designated by the Commission and
City Council.
Demolition of existing structures that are contributing or compatible structures or of a
historic landmark shall be strictly prohibited except in the following instance:
The structure cannot be used for the original intended purpose and/or no altemative
reasonable use can be identified and the property owner can show evidence that a
hardship will be created if the structure cannot be removed, To prove hardship, the
applicant may submit, where appropriate, to the applicant's proposal, the following
information:
(a)
An estimate of the cost of the proposed demolition, and an estimate of any
additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the
Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
(b)
A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to
the structural soundness of the structures on the property and their suitability for
rehabilitation, (This shall be required only when the applicant's proposal is based
on an argument of structural 30undness.)
(c)
Estimated market values of the property in its current condition; after completion of
demolition; after any changes recommended by the Commission; and after
renovation of the existing property for continued use,
(d)
An estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other
real estate professional, experienced in rehabilitation, as to the economic feasibility
of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property.
(e)
Amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom
purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of
record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased, and
any terms of financing between the seller and buyer.
(I)
.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(I)
f7Ljr--l.l~forJ I }Þ<
If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for
the previous two years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the
previous two years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and
after debt service, if any, during the same period,
Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property
and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years,
All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in
connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property,
Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received, if any,
within the previous two years,
Assessed value of the property according to the most recent assessments.
Real estate taxes for the previous two years.
Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-
profit or not-far-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other,
Demolition by Neglect. Owners of real property in a designated historic district or of a
historic landmark are responsible for preventing deterioration of same and providing
appropriate maintenance of all effected structures thereon along with the surrounding
environment, e,g. streetscapes, alleys, gates, fences, steps, signs, and landscaping. The
City Development Department, upon determining a lack of such maintenance by a
property owner, shall send written natification of same to the property owner, Said owner
will have 45 days from the date of the notice of violation to bring his or her property into
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. After the prescribed 45 days, another
inspection will be conducted by the Development Department staff. If the re-inspection
confirms that the property owner continues to be in violation of this Ordinance, the matter
will be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission, which may hold a public hearing
on the matter upon at least two weeks' notice to the property owner and all interested
persons. The Historic Preservation Commission will determine if the property owner is in
violation of this Ordinance and, if so, fix the terms and conditions of compliance
therewith, After the expiration of any time deadline fixed by the Commission, the
Development Department will once again re-inspect the property in question. If the
property owner continues in violation of this Ordinance, the matter will be referred to the
City Attomey, who shall prosecute the land owner as provided in Chapter 3.56,140,
.
Determination of Hardship, The Preservation Commission shall review all the evidence
and information required of an applicant and make a determination whether the denial of
a Certificate of Appropriateness has deprived, or will deprive, the owner of the property of
reasonable use of the property, After reviewing the evidence, the Commission may deny
the application, may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition, or may table
the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition for a period of time not
to exceed 60 days, unless extended upon showing a good cause, The 60 day period will
permit an opportunity for other altematives to be evaluated. If a suitable alternative is not
presented to the Commission within the 60 day period, the Certificate of Appropriateness
for Demolition shall be issued.
In no instance will the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition
of contributing or compatible structures within Historic District or Historic Landmark
without approval of a redevelopment project and submittal by the applicant of a bond or
cash escrow for an amount equal to 20% of the redevelopment project cost, to guarantee
.
9
(4)
(5)
nJ(',-u~rJ, ':ÇÞ<
completion of the approved project, or if the designation for the Historic District or Historic
Landmark, within which such property is located, is pending,
Relocation of a historic landmark or of a structure within or into a historic district
designated by the Commission and City Council.
Relocation of a historic landmark or of a structure within or into a historic district shall be
strictly prohibited except in the following instances:
(a)
(b)
The structure is being relocated to its original site.
Relocation of the structure is an altemative to demolition of the structure,
(c)
A structure to be moved within or into the district is of an architectural style found in
that district, The structure can be relocated to a vacant parcel or to a parcel occu-
pied by a non-contributing structure which has been removed.
Ordinary Maintenance Permitted; Public Safety--no Certificate of Appropriateness
, Required.
(a)
Ordinary Maintenance Permitted, Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to
prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior feature in a historic
district or of any historic landmark which do not involve alterations or changes in
the exterior features of a building, For the purposes of this Ordinance, changes
made in the color of the exterior surfaces of a building are considered to be
ordinary maintenance and repair. The Deveiopment Department staff will assist, if
requested, in appropriate color selection,
(b)
Public Safety. l:Jothing in this Chapter shall prevent the construction,
reconstruction, aiteration, restoration, or demolition of any interior or exterior
feature which the City Chief Code Inspector shall certify is required for public safety
because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, but any such action shall be, where
possible, in accordance with the design guidelines set forth in Section 3,56.1 DO, and
appropriate design criteria.
3,56.090, Procedures for Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
(~)
(2)
Pre-application Conference.
The applicant shall request a pre-application conference from the City Development
Department to discuss his plans related to alterations of a property in Historic District or
Historic Landmark.
Administrative Approval Procedure, Upon receipt of a fully completed application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the application materials will be reviewed by staff of the
Development Department. The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may be:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Approved as presented;
Approved with modifications;
Denied; or
Referred to the Historic PreselVation Commission.
Types of Alterations. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the following types of
exterior alterations may be issued by staff of the Development Department,
provided the proposed alterations meet the adopted Design Guidelines and Design
Criteria:
10
écUNOL.- f)LLJ~~?
.
16.09.050 Certificate of appropriateness. hejcommission shall issue a Certificate
of Appropriateness if, upon application and after a public hearing, it finds:
(1) That the property owner or the property owner's representative has established
that the proposed alteration or activity complies with the standards for review set forth by
this Title and regulated by the commission and conforms to the purpose and intent of this
Title; and
(2) That the proposed work will not have an adverse effect on the aesthetic, historic
or architectural significance of an historic landmark, landmark site, or neighborhood
improvements within an historic district.
.
16.09.052 Certificate of Economic Hardship. If a Certificate of Appropriateness
has been denied, and the commission determines that disapproval of the proposed work
or activity would prevent the property owner from earning any reasonable economic return
from the property, the commission shall:
(1) Immediately issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship, or;
(2) At its discretion, postpone, for a period not to exceed 180 days, the issuance of
a Certificate of Economic Hardship, During this time, the commission shall work with the
applicant to investigate and devise strategies which would allow the property owner to earn
a reasonable economic return from the property and yet preserve the historical significance
of the property. No alteration permit shall be issued during this time unless a Certificate
of Appropriateness has been secured, If at the end of the 180 day period, the commission,
after a public hearing, finds that the property owner still cannot earn any reasonable
economic return from the property, it shall issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship,
16.09.055 Procedure for Review. The following procedures shall be followed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship:
(1) Review of Application. Upon the Building Division's filing of an application for an
alteration permit to the commission or upon the receipt by the commission of a direct
application, the commission shall consider the request as an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
(2) Public Hearing. The public hearing shall be held by the commission on
applications to it for a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship.
The hearing shall be within fourteen days after filing by the Building Division with the
commission, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the commission,
Notice shall be given as provided in Section 16.04,080.
(3) Commission Action Upon Application, Upon review of the application, if the
commission determines that the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for historic
preservation, or is of a natur!'! that will not adversely change, destroy or affect the
landmark, landmark site or historic district, or is in harmony with the landmark, landmark
site or historic district, and is consistent with the intent of this Title, the commission shall
grant the Certificate of Appropriateness, If the commission cannot make the above
findings, it shall deny the certificate and consider issuance of a Certificate of Economic
Hardship, as outlined in Section 16,07.050,
(4) Transmittal to Building Division, The Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate
. of Economic Haldship shali be forwmded by the! commission to the Building Divii,ion within
ten days of the decision, In the event of a determination to deny the certificate, the
-LoUNCIL. [3')~:(7
commission shall notify the applicant and the Building Division that the application was
disapproved and shall state the reasons for the disapproval. In the case where a
disapproval was granted subject to some conditions, the conditions shall be forwarded to
the Building Division along with the decision,
(5) Expiration, Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is void after six months
from the date of approval if the rights and privileges granted thereby have not been
executed or utilized, or, if construction work is involved, the work has to actually have been
started on the grounds or premises.
(6) Extension, The commission may extend the expiration period upon a showing
of good cause. The extension shall be limited to three months and may be granted twice
for each original certificate, The extension shall document the reasons for the extension.
(7) Effective Date. Each certificate shall be in effect upon receipt by the Building
Division following the commission's determination, (Ord. 5148 § 1 (part), 1993)
(8) Approval Due To Commission Inaction. The failure of the commission to
approve or disapprove an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness within ninety (90)
days from the date of the filing of an application, unless an extension is agreed upon
mutually by the applicant and the commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval;
unless within such ninety (90) days the commission has made a determination of economic
hardship and has yet to make a decision regarding an issuance of a Certificate of
Economic Hardship pursuant to Section 16.07.050 (2).
16.09.060 Criteria. The commission shall utilize the Secretary of the Interiór's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings when
determining the appropriateness of a request.
16.09.070 Appeals. The following procedure shall be followed when appealing a
decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission relative to the granting or denying of
either a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship:
(1) Whenever the commission in a final decision denies an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship, or whenever the owner
of improvements on a landmark, landmark site or in an historic district feels aggrieved by
a ruling of the commission regarding an order on repairs, the person(s) involved has the
right to appeal to and be heard by the City Council; provided, that he files with the City
Clerk on or before ten days following the commission's decision a petition in writing of his
intention to appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the City Clerk shall schedule the public
hearing before the City Council not more than forty-five days after the receipt by the Clerk
of the petition.
(2) Whenever the commission in a final decision grants an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship, the opponent to the
granting of such certificate has the right to appeal to the City Council; provided, that there
is filed with the City Clerk on or before ten days following the commission's decision a
petition in writing of the intention to appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the City Clerk
shall schedule a public hearing before the City Council not more than forty-five days after
the receipt by the Clerk of the petition,
(3j Before any such hearing, th8 City CoLlrtGii shal: reCêive the report and rCCOlú of
the commission. (Ord, 5148 § 1 (part), 1993)
f7rc;p'Å- I ILL--
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
.
have a dominant horizontal or vertical
expression, this should be carried over
and reflected,
i. Architectural details, Architectural de-
tails and materials should be incorpo-
rated as necessary to relate the new
with the old and to preserve and en.
hance the inherent characteristics of
that area.
(Ord, No, 11990, § I, 8.15,89)
Sec. 16.65. Economic hardship.
(a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this
article to the contrary, the commission may issue
a certificate of economic hardship to allow the per,
formance of work for which a certificate of appro.
priateness would have been denied,
.
(b) Economic hardship shall be considered by
the commission if an applicant, at the time of the
public hearing, has produced the following infor,
mation in an affidavit signed by the owner cfthe
subject property and improvements:
(1) The amount paid for the property, the date
of purchase and the party from whom pur,
chased (including description of the rela,
tionship, if any, between the owner and the
person from whom the property was pur,
chased).
(2) The assessed value of the land and improve'
ments thereon according to the two most
recent assessments.
(3) Real estate taxes for the previous two years,
(4) Annual debt service, if any, for the pre-
vious two yea¡-s,
(5) All appraisals obtained within the previous
two years by the owner or applicant in con,
nection with his purchase, fInancing or own.
ership of the property,
(6) Any listing of the property for sale or rent,
price asked and ofTers received, if any.
..
(7) Any consideration by the owner as to prof.
itable adaptive uses for the property.
(8) If the property is income-producing, the an,
nual gross income from the property for the
previous two years, itemized operating and
Supp. No, 1
CD16:13
§ 15-66
maintenance expenses for the previous two
years and annual cash ,flow, if any, during
the Same period.
(c) If the commission finds, that without ap.
proval of the proposed work the property and im.
provements cannot be put to a reasonably benefi.
cial use, or the owner cannot obtain a reasonable
economic return therefrom, then the application
shall be delayed for a period not to exceed six
months, During this period of delay, the commis,
sion shall investigate plans to allow for a reason.
ably beneficial use of a reasonable economic re-
turn or to otherwise preserve the subject property
and improvements, Such plans may include, but
are not limited to, a relaxation of the provisions of
articles I through IV of this chapter.
(d) If, by the end of this six,month period, the
commission has found that without approval of
the proposed work the property and improvements
cannot be put to a reasonably beneficial use, or
the owner cannot obtain a reasonable economic
return therefrom, then the commission shall issue
a certificate of economic hardship approving the
proposed work. If the commission fInds otherwise,
it shall issue, deny or modify the requested cer.
tificate of appropriateness as provided in section
16.64.
(Ord. No, 11990, § I, 8.15.89)
Sec. 16.66. Maintenance and repair of im.
provements.
(a) The owner, occupant or other person legally
responsible for a historic landmark or improve,
ment in a historic district shall maintain and keep
in good repair those improvements and shall main,
tain in good condition and repair all interior par,
tions and appurtenances thereof whose mainte.
nance is necessary to prevent the deterioration
and decay of the improvement,
(1) The exterior of a ,structure shall be main.
tained in good repair, structurally sound
and in a sanitary manner so as not to pose
a threat to the health, safety or welfare of
the occupants and so as to protect the occu,
pants from the adverse efTects of the envi.
ronment, '
§ 16-66
PeeD J,,)- Il.-l---
- r I
PEOlgA CODE
(2) All cornices, entablatures, belt courses, cor-
gels, terra,cotta trim, wall facings and sim-
ilar decorative features, as well as all stairs,
porches, canopies, awnings; stairways, bal.
conies, fire escapes, standpipes, exhaust
ducts and similar overhang extensions,
shall be maintained in good repair and be
properly anchored so as to be kept in a safe
and sound condition. They shall be pro.
tected from the elements and against decay
or rust by periodic application of weather-
coating materials, such as paint or other
protective treatment,
(b) It is the intent of articles I through IV of
this chapter to preserve from deliberate,or inad.
vertent neglect the exterior portions of such land,
mark or improvement located in a historic dis.
trict, the interior portions when subject to control
as specified in the designating portion of articles
I through IV of this chapter and all interior por'
tions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent
the deterioration and decay of any exterior por.
tion,
(c) Whenever the director of planning and
growth management determines that a historic
landmark or improvement located in a historic
district fails to meet the requirements set forth in
articles I through IV of this chapter or that the
exterior architectural appearance is endangered
by a state of disrepair or lack of maintenance, the
director shall forthwith issue to the owner or oc.
cupant a notice of the ,,;olation in substantially
the following manner or fonn:
(1) It shall be in writing,
(2) It shall set forth each ,,;olation of articles I
through IV of this chapter in substantially
the language of the applicable ordinance
section with as much additional detail as
might assist the person responsible to cor,
reet each ,,;olation.
(3) It shall describe the structure where the
,,;olation is 'alleged to exist or to have been
committed by street address or by legal de-
scription of record in the records of the
county recorder of deeds.
(4) It shall be served upon the owner by certi-
fied mail, return receipt requested, after the
Supp, No, 1
determination of a ,,;olation has been made
by the director.
(d) The director's determination that a viola-
tion exists shall be fmal UIÙess the applicant files
a written request for an appeal accompanied by a
public hearing before the commission within ten
days of receipt of the director's determination. A
date for a public hearing shall be scheduled not
less than 15 but not more than 30 days from the
applicant's written request, The owner shall be
notified of the time, date and place of such hearing
by certified mail properly addressed as shown on
the tax assessor's rolls and with sufficient postage
attached thereto. '
, (e) The owner shall be entitled to speak. at the
public hearing, and the commission may accept
comments from all other interested parties, The
commission shall re,,;ew and evaluate all avail.
able infonnation according to the applicable stan.
dards set forth in articles I through IV of this
chapter.
(0 If the co=ission determines that a ,,;ola-
tion of articles I through IV of this chapter has
occurred, the commission shall establish a reason.
able time, depending upon the nature and extent
of each ,,;olation, for the correction of each ,,;ola.
tion. Times for correcting multiple violations shall
be computed concurrently.
(g) Followup inspection shall be made by the
director of planning and growth management
within three working days after the expiration of
the time for correction of the ,,;olations alleged, If
any ,,;olations are determined by the director to
still exist, it will be deemed a ,,;olation of articles
I through IV of this chapter, In addition, the com.
mission shall have the option to request that the
director of planning and growth management prer
pare a complaint against the ,,;olator with the
,,;olation of the applicable section or sections of
articles I through IV of this chapter. Thereupon,
the complaint will be given to the corporation
counsel of the city for re,,;ew as to its legal suffi.
ciency and for filing, prosecution and enforce-
ment.
(Ord. No, 11990, § I, 8.15-89; Ord, No. 13551, § I,
4-6-93)
Sees. 16.67-"16.85. Reserved.
CD16:14
--
.
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued approv-
ing said activity. If the Commission fails to decide on
an application within the specified time period, the ap-
plication shall be deemed approved.
If the Commission denies the Certificate of
Appropriateness, the applicant shall bave the rigbt of
appeal to tbe City Council pursuant to Section
17,23.080(9).
(F) Notification of Detennination: The Commission
Secretary sball notify the owner(s) of record within fif-
teen (15) business days of tbe Commission's action, If
tbe Commission denies the Certificate of
Appropriateness, tbe notification letter sball contain tbe
reasons for denial and inform tbe applicant of bislber
right to appeal.
The Commission Secretary sball also notify the
Office of Construction Code Enforcement within three
(3) business days of tbe Commission's action. If tbe
Commission issues the Certificate of Appropriateness,
tbe Commission Secretary shall inform the Chief
Building Official of said approval and that the proposed
work satisfies the intent of this ordinance. However, if
the Commission denies the Certificate of
Appropriateness, the Commission Secretary shall ask
that the building or sign pennit not be issued for said
work unless an appeal to the City Council results in a
reversal of the Commission's denial.
(G) Aooeal of Commission Detennination: The
owner(s) of record may appeal the Commission's deci-
sion to the City Council by filing a written appeal with
the City Clerk's Office within thirty (30) calendar days
of the postmark date of the Notification of
Detennination.
If no written appeals are submitted with the City
Clerk's Office within thirty (30) calendar days, the
Commission's detennination shall be the final action by
the city.
(H) AnoeaI Fee: A fee of $75.00 shall be paid by
the petitioner at the time of filing a written appeal to
said detennination with the City Clerk,
(I) AnoeaI Criteria: The City Council, after hearing
all of the evidence, shall review the Commission's de-
cision and base its ruling on the following criteria:
(I) Whether the Commission has exercised its pow-
ers and followed the guidelines established by law and
ordinance? and
(2) Whether the Commission's actions were patently
arbitrary and capricious.
(1) Aooeal - Public Meetino: The City Council
shall, by simple majority of the members present, ap-
prove or disapprove the issuance of the Certificate of
Appropriateness based upon the Appeal Criteria
.
.
-~v e-N C:CC"..;.L~A
described in Section 17,23,080(9).
Section 17 23 090 COll>lMJSSION'S
DEMOLITION REVIEW PROCESS The demolition
of a designated local landmark or a property within a
designated historic district shall be prohibited unless,
upon application for and approval of, the Commission
issues a Certificate of Economic Hardship allowing
said demolition. The owner(s) of record or the City
may apply for a demolitioo pennit for designated
properties.
(A) Demolition Application Process: Demolition
applications shall be made to the Office of Construction
Code Enforcement. The Office of Construction Code
Enforcement shall forward all demolition pennit re-
quests for local landmarks and properties within desig-
nated historic districts to the Commission Secretary
within two (2) business days of their receipt. No de-
molition pennits shall be issued for local landmarks or
properties within designated historic districts prior to
the Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, is-
suing a Certificate of Economic Hardship, excluding
the circumstances described in Section 17.23.110 of
this ordinance,
(B) Criteria for Demolition Reouest: The
Commission shall request and receive from the appli-
cant all information it deems necessary to adequately
consider the demolition of a designated property. This
may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(I) A report from a licensed engineer or architect
with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural
soundness of the building(s) on the property, their suit-
ability for rehabilitation, and possible new uses for the
property; and
(2) The assessed value of the land and improvements
thereon according to the two (2) most recent
assessments; and
(3) The real estaIe taxes paid during the previous
two (2) years; and
(4) All appraisals obtained by the owner or applicant
in connection with his purchase, frnancing or owner-
ship of the property; and
(5) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price
asked and offers received, if any; and
(6) All building, fire and housing code violations
which have been listed on the property for the past two
years; and
(7) Any federal, state or local citation(s) which have
determined the building to be a nuisance under appli-
cable law; and
(8) Estimated market value of the property after
completion of the proposed demolition and after
9
Community & Economic Development Dept., 226 W, 4th Street, 52801, (319) 326- 7766
renovation of the existing property fnr re-use; and
(9) If the property is income-producing;
- Annual gross income from the property for the pre-
vious two (2) years; and
- Itemized operating and maintenance expenses for
the previous two (2) years; and
- Annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two (2)
years; and
- Proof tbat efforts bave been made by tbe owner to
obtain a reasonable return on his investment.
(C) Notification of Pro nosed Demolition: The
Commission agenda sball be posted on tbe first floor
City Hall bulletin board used for sucb purposes 00 less
tban one (1) business day prior to tbe scbeduled time of
tbe meeting and shall serve as notice to tbe general
public of the pending meeting,
(D) Commission Review Process: The Commission
shall review all the evidence and information submitted
by the applicant and receive testimony from other inter-
ested parties, If the Commission finds tbat tbe building
substantially violates the City building, fire and/or
bousing codes or the property owner cannot obtain a
reasonable economic return tberefrom, then tbe
Commission shall issue the demolilion permit, The
Commission shall act on each application within sixty
(60) days after the receipt of a complete application,
(E) Notification of Determination: The Commission
Secretary shall notify the owner(s) of record by regular
mail within fifteen (15) business days of tbe
Commission's decision, The Office of Construction
Code Enforcement shall be notified within two (2)
business days of tbe Commission's action. If the
Certificate of Economic Hardship is issued, the
Commission Secretary shall inform the Chief Building
Official of said approval. If tbe Certificate of
Economic Hardship is denied, the Chief Building
Official shall be instructed to withhold tbe demolition
permit pending possible appeal of the Commission's
determination.
Notified parties will be informed of tbeir rigbt to ap-
peal the Commission's decision,
Section 17.23.100 APPEAL OF
COMMISSION'S DECISION ON DEMOLITION
(A) AooIication to Aooeal: The owner may appeal
the Commission's determination regarding a proposed
demolition of a local landmark. A written appeal must
be submitted to the City Clerk's Office within thirty
(30) calendar days of the Commission's decision,
(8) Aooeal Fee: A fee of $75.00 shall be paid by
the petitioner to the City Clerk at the time of filing a
written appeal.
D¡l\/~N fuç:i, 'JÞ--;
(C) Notification of Aooeal: The City Clerk sball
notify the Commission Secretary within three (3) busi-
ness days of the filing of a written appeal. The
Commission Secretary sball inform the Office of
Construction Code Enforcement of the pending appeal
and instruct the Chief Building Official to withhold the
demolition permit until the City Council has ruled on
same. The Commission Secretary sball also inform the
owner(s) of record of the subject property of the date,
time and location of the City Council meeting sched-
uled to bear the appeal. The City Council agenda sball
serve as notice to tbe general public of the appeal and
shall be posted on the first floor,City Hall bulletin
board used for such purposes no less than one (1) cal-
endar day prior to the scbeduled time of the meeting.
(D) Review Process: The City Council, within
thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of a written ap-
peal or at a later time at tbe request of the petitioner,
shall either accept or reject the Commission's
determination. In considering the Commission's
determination, tbe City Council may receive and re-
view all relevant information, testimony and/or evi-
dence submitted for its consideration, including that re-
viewed by the Commission, and any additional
material.
(E) Notification of Decision: The owner(s) of
record shall be notified by regular mail of the City
Council's decision within fifteen (15) business days.
The Office of Construction Code Enforcement sball be
notified within two (2) business day of the City
Council's decision, The publishing of the City Council
meeting minutes sball serve as notice to tbe general
public, The City Council's decision sball be the final
city action.
Section 17 23 110 EXCLUSIONS A designated
property may be altered, relocated, demolisbed or se-
cured and maintained under the following circum-
stances and shall not be subject to any of the terms of
this ordinance.
(A) Certificate of Public Hazard: If emergency cir-
cumstances affect a designated property whicb requires
immediate relief, including demolition, the Fire
Marsball and Chief Building OffIcial sball certify that
such conditions exist and said conditions sball be elimi-
nated as quickly as is practicable. Emergencies are de-
fined as life Dr bealtb- threatening conditions requiring
immediate attention. A Certificate of Public Hazard
may be issued after the fact documenting tbe reasons
for loss of the designated property. This section shall
apply only in cases wbere it is impractical for the
Commission to consider a Certificate of Economic
10
_&[D-t.-<CNP< ,i'--l-
20
Galena -- Land Usage
.apprOPriateness shall issue. If the applicant notifies
the Building Official in writing within 30 days of the
date of such approval with conditions of his refusal to
accept all of the conditions, the application shall be
deemed to be denied,
(5) If the certificate is denied, the Building
Official or Board Secretary shall notify the applicant
in writing and shall specify the particulars in which
the application is inconsistent with the standards and
criteria of the Nation.al Historic District.
(6) Þü1y person aggrieved by a ruling of
the HDAB may appeal the decision to the Building
Board of Appeals.
(7) Disagreements between the Building
Official and Historic District Advisory Board shall be
appealed to the Building Board of Appeals,
(D) Appeals and review.
(I) TIming of appeal. Such appeal shall be
undertaken within 30 days to the Building Board of
.ppealS by filing with the Board Secretary a notice of
appeal specifying the ground thereof, together with
such plats and exhibits as are reasonably necessary,
Such appeals shall be made on forms provided by the
Building Official. The Board Secretary shall forthwith
transmit to the Building Official all of the papers
constituting the record upon which the action
appealed was taken.
(2) Powers of the Building Board of
Appeals. The Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or
partly, or may modify or amend the order,
requirement, decision, or detennination appealed
from, to the extent and in the manner that the Board
may decide to be fitting and proper on the premises
and to that end the Board shall also have all the
powers of the officer from whom the appeal was
taken,
(3) Reversal of an order. The concurring
vote of three members of the Building Board shall be
necessary to reverse any order, requirement,
decision, or determination of the Building Official or
to decide in favor of the applicant any matter upon
.hiCh:
(a) Applicants claiming economic
hardship shall be required to attempt to ob!aÎD
reasonable financing, tax incentives, preservation
grants or other incentives sufficient to allow a
reasonable use of or return on the property.
(b) Þü1 applicant for a certificate of
economic hardship shall submit all of the following'
information in order to assist the authorized by this
subchapter to render decisions:
1. Notwithstanding any of the
provisions of this subchapter to the contrary, the
Building Board of Appeals may issue a certificate of
economic hardship to allow the performance of work
for which a certificate of appropriateness has been
denied, The Building Board of Appeals in making its
detennination on the application shall consider:
a, The amount paid for the
property, the date of purchase and the party from
whom purchased (including a description of the
relationship, if any, between the owner and the
person from whom the property was purchased).
b. The assessed value of the
land and improvements thereon according to the two
most recent assessments,
c.
Real estate taxes for the
two previous years,
d. Remaining balance on the
mortgage, if any, and annual debt service, if any, for
the two previous years.
e. All appraisals obtained
within the previous two years by the owner or
applicant in connection with this purchase, financing
or ownership of the property.
f, Any listing of the
property for sale or rent, price asked and offers
received, if any,
g, Any consideration by the
owner as to profitable adaptive uses for the property.
h. If the property is income-
producing, the annual gross income from the property
~~,--¡;-"-.!A, '--'-
Historic Preservation
for the previous tWo years, itemized operating and
maintenance expenses for the tWo previous years, and
annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any
during the same time period.
i. Fonn of ownership or
operation of the property, whether sole
proprietorship, for-profit, or not-for-profit
corporation, limited partnership, joint venture or
other.
j. Any information
including the income tax bracket of the owner,
applicant or principal investors in the property,
reasonably necessary for a determination as to
whether the property can be reasonably used or yield
a reasonable return to present or future owners.
(c) If the Building Board of Appeals
finds that without approval of the proposed work, the
property cannot obtain a reasonable economic return
therefrom, then the application shall be delayed for a
period not to exceed three months, During this period
of delay, the Building Board of Appeals shall
investigate plans and make recommendations to the
City Council to allow for a reasonably beneficial use
or a reasonable economic return, or to otherwise
preserve the subject property. Such plans and
recommendations may include, but not be limited to:
a relaxation of the provisions of this subchapter, a
reduction in real property taxes, financial assistance,
building code modifications and/or changing in
zoning regulations.
(Ord, 0-97-01, passed 1-27-97) Penalty, see
§ 151.99
§ 151.26 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
FOR REVIEW PROCESS.
(A) In reviewing an application for a certificate
of appropriateness for the erection, construction.
reconstruction, remodeling, exterior alteration, or
restoration of a building or structure, the HDAB shall
consider the following:
(1) The exterior architectural features,
including all signs, which are subje<:t to public view
from a public street, way or place;
21
(2) The general design, arrangement,
texture, material, color and fenestration of
building or structure and the relation of such factors
to similar features of buildings or structures in the
irrunediate vicinity of the historic landmarks within
the National Historic District;
(3) The extent to which the building or
structure would be hannonious with or architecturally
incompatible with the National Historic District;
(4) The extent to which the building or
structure will preserve or protect the National Historic
District;
(5) The extent to which the building or
structure will promote the general welfare of the city
and all citizens by the preservation and protection of
historic places, areas of historic interest in the city
and the National Historic District (NHD).
(6) The extent to which the preservation
and protection will promote the general welfare by
maintaining and increasing real estate values,
generating business creating new positions, attract:
tourists, attracting new residents, encouraging stu"'J
and interest in American history, stimulating interest
and study in architecture and design, educating
citizens in American culture and heritage, and making
the city a more attractive and desirable place in which
to live.
(7) PhotOgraphs shall be used whenever
possible to establish the true historic appearance of a
structure,
(B) In reviewing an application for a certificate
of appropriateness to demolish a building or structUre,
the Building Official and HDAB shall consider the
following:
(1) Is the building of such architectUral or
historic interest that its removal would be a detriment
to the public interest?
(2) Is the building of such old and unusual
or uncommon design, texture. and material that it
could not be reproduced or reproduced only with
great difficulty?
"
Víc~:,,-:c,
council Bill No. 94-56
General Ordinance No. ~'.-S-S
Page 8
.
16-7
CERTIfICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
In the case of ~ pen~ing.application for nomination of
Landmar~s and 1I1~tonc D1stricts, a Certificate of
Appral'nateness 1n accordance with the Secretary of the
Intenor' ~ ~tan~ards for Rehabi 11 tation and Gu idelines
for Rehabliltatlng lilstoric Buildings - (Desi')n
Standards) shall be required for alteration
construction, . remo:,al ,?r d:,molition of a pr~posed
Landmark or H1stonc D1stnct effective from the date
the ~amination form is p;esented to the Planning
Commlttee and Clty C,?'JnCll until the fin? 1 disposition
of the request, or slxty (60) days, whichever is
shorter.
A Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
R:,habi~itatian, and Guidel ines for Rehabilit.,' i ng
Hlstanc ~ulldlngs - (Design Standards) and issued by
the P:annlng ~epartm:,nt shall be required before a
~UJ Idlng perm1t, mOV1n,) permit or demolition permit is
,,:,ued for any designated Landmark or any structure,
slte or part thereof in a llistoric District. It is
t'e'luired it the s'xucture nr site will be a It'>t'ed ,
extended, or r"paired in such a m.,nner as to cou"e a
major change in "'he exterior appeuance of such
str~cture. Such major changes include, but ore not
Ilm1tmi to:
1.
Major changes by addition, alteration,
maintenance, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
renovation or repair;
.
2.
Any new construction or demolition, or removal
in "'hole or in part req',iring a permit from the
City of Holine;
J.
Moving a structure;
4. Any construction, a 1 terat ion, demoli tion, or
removal affecting a significant exterior
architectural feature as specified in the
ordinance designating the Landmark or IIi staric
District.
\
An exception to the Certificate of Appropriateness
shall be made if the applicant shows the cit.y that a
failure to grant the permit will cause an imminent
threat to life, health or property. After a
recommendation for approval or denial by the Committee,
the city Council may grant an exemption for economic
hardship. In order to obtain such exemption, the
applicant must show that the structure or structures
cannot be used for the original intended purpose andlor
no alternative reasonable use can be identified and the
applicant can show evidence that economic hardship will
be created j f the structure or structures cannot be
removed.
.
The city council ",ill review all evidence and
j nformation required of the applicant and make a
determiMtion whether the denial or a certificate of
Appropriateness has deprived, or will deprive, the
owner of "'he property o[ reasonable use of, or economic
return on, the property. After reviewing the evidence,
the city Council may deny andlor accept the application
of economic hardsh ip or may table the application [or
k.
Mvu~~""-, ié..--L-
council Bill tlo. 94-56
General Ordinance tlo. 94-,-,
page 9
60 days to permit an opportunity for other alternatives
to be evaluated. If no decision is made within said
sixty (60) days, the application shall be deemed denied
for the reasons set forth by the Department.
16-8
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR LANDKARK OR HISTORIC
DISTRICT .
Every application for a demolition permit or a building
permi t with relation to a Landmark or Historic
District, including plans and specifications, shall be
forwarded from the Planning Department to the Historic
Preservation Advisory Committee for review and
recommendation to the city Council. The application
must include, but not be limited to:
1-
2.
3.
Street address of the property involved;
Legal description of the property involved;
Brief description of the existing improvements
situated on the property;
A detailed description of the construction,
alteration, demolition, or use proposed,
together with any architectural drawings or
sketches if those services have been utilized
by the applicant, and if not, a sufficient
description of the construction, alteration,
demolition or use to enable anyone to determine
what the final appearance and use of the real
estate will be.
Exemptions may be granted if an economic
hardship can be shown,
owner's name, developer's name (if different
than owner), and architect's name.
A filing fee is required.
4.
s.
6.
7.
The Committee will review the application for such
demoli tion or repair based upon the design standards in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings Designation Guidelines and make a
recommendation to the Planning Committee and City
Council. A simple majority vote of the city council is
necessary for approval.
16-9
APPEALS
Any person aggrieved by or adversely affected by a
decision of the City may, within thirty (30) days of
the decision, appeal the action to the city council
except in the case of an exception already decided by
the city council. The Council shall determine whether
the city exercised its power in accordance with the
applicable laws and ordinances.
16-10
PENALTY
Any person who violates the provisions of this
ordinance shall be guilty of a petty offense and shall
be subject to a fine of Fifty Dollars (SSO.OO) for the
first offense and One Hundred Dollars (S100.00) for the
second and subsequent offenses upon conviction thereof.
Each day any willful violation of any provision of this
ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate
offense.
I.
Ordinance No. 3727
Page 9
_~~J;.e~'_c~-:- , :::-?-
.
(4 )
If it exemplifies or reflects a cultural,
political, economic, social, or historic heritage
of the city, state, or the nation.
(5)
If it has potential for yielding information of
archaeological significance.
( 6)
If it embodies distinctive elements of an
architectural or any engineering type, style, or
method of construction.
(7)
If it is representative of the notable work of a
master builder, designee, or architect whose
individual genius influenced the city, state or
nation.
( 8)
If it represents an established or familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood, corrvnunity, or city
due to its unique location or similar physical
characteristic.
( 9)
If it has geographical importance by being related
to a significant area and should be déveloped or
reserved according to a plan based on a historic,
cultural or architectural motiL
(10) If it has a relationship to a site, building, or
historic district.
(11) If it has integrity as a natural environment that
significantly contributes to the quality of life
in the city. COrd. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
Sec. 18 1/2-9. Remedy of Dangerous Conditions of Designated
Sites and Structures.
.
(a)
Except for emergencies as determined by the building
official pursuant to the ordinances of the City of
Waterloo, City enforcement agencies and departments
shall give the Historic Preservation Commission at
least thirty (30) days notice of any proposed order
which may affect the exterior features of any building
for remedying conditions determined to be dangerous to
life, health or property.
In all other cases it shall be the responsibility of
the Commission and the City agency or department to
cooperate with the property owner in an attempt to
develop a preservation plan whereby the dangerous
conditions will be corrected with minimal adverse
impact on exterior features. Such plan shall be
approved by the Commission and shall be signed by the
chair of the Commission, the property owner, and the
head of the City agency or department.
(b)
(c)
If a preservation plan acceptable to the Commission,
the City agency or department and the property owner
cannot be reached within thirty (30) days or a period
of time acceptable to the City agency or department,
the agency or department shall proceed to issue and
enforce its proposed order. COrd. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
Sec. 18 1/2-10. Demolition of Sites and Structures
Identified in the Architectural/Historic Sites Survey.
(a)
.
Regulated permits for demolition of sites or structures
identified as "A" or "B" classifications shall be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Ordinance No. 3727
Page 10
- WATI::F-L=,:[ð..
(b)
(c)
Said "A" and "B" classifications require the property
owner with the assistance of the Commission to develop
a preservation plan whereby the property can be
restored, rehabilitated, relocated, preserved or
adaptively reused. such preservation plan shall be
developed within ninety (90) days.
"C" classifications require no review
conunission. (Ord. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
Sec. 18 1/2-11. Alteration of all "A" Classified sites
and/or any structures within historic districts.
(a)
(b)
by
the
No material change in appearance of any "A" classified
site or any structure within a historic district shall
be made or permitted to be made by the owner or
occupant thereof 'until a regulated permit shall have
been obtained for such change as provided by this
chapter.
It shall be the duty of the Historic Preservation
Conunission to review all plans for any and all material
changes in appearance of any structure or site as
identified herein. It shall have the power to review
such plans before a regulated permit for such can be
granted, provided that the Cormnission shall review only
such features of a change as they affect the exterior
of the structure. The Cormnission shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness if it approves plans
submitted to it for review. The Cormnission shall
approve only if it finds that either:
(1 )
The proposed work in creating, changing,
destroying, or affecting the exterior features of
the improvement or site upon which the work is to
be done will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the historical or architectural significance
and value of either the property itself or of the
neighboring improvements in relation to said
district or site. The Cormnission shall determine
whether the proposed change is consistent with the
historic value and the overall architectural style
of the district site, or building; or
The denial of a certificate of appropriateness
would prevent "the owner of the site or a structure
within a historic district from earning a
reasonable return or other interest in his
property. The building official, city engineer,
or other local authorities shall not issue a
regulated permit until such certificate of
appropriateness has been issued by the Commission.
(Ord. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
( 2)
(a)
Sec. 18 1/2-12.
Procedure for the Review of Plans.
Application for a regulated permit shall be made to the
appropriate City official or Department.
( 1)
The chair of the Historic Preservation Cormnission
and the secretary of said Cormnission, or their
designee, may issue a certificate of no material
effect if the work contemplated in the application
will have no effect on any significant
architectural features of the site or any
structure within the historic district. (Ord. 'No.
3420, 1-20-86)
.
Attachment #6
.
Demolition by Neglect Ordinances from
Other Communities
.
.
.
.
Attachment # 6
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
October 27, 1999
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Demolition by Neglect Ordinances from other Communities
I have collected Ordinances from other communities which address the issue of
demolition by neglect. Please review these attachments and be prepared to discuss
whether the City of Dubuque should amend the current ordinance to include
language that addresses this issue. These attachments include:
1. A model Historic District Ordinance - Pennsylvania (pages 6 & 20)
2. City of Dallas, Texas (draft ordinance) (page 29-30)
3. City of Aspen, Colorado (Section 7-602, pages 9-14)
4. Michigan's Historic Districts Act [page 5, Section 5(11)]
5, City of Ames (pages 31-6(3) & 31-7(5))
6. City of Telluride, Colorado (Division 3, pages 7-25 thru 7-33)
7. City of Burlington (Chapter 3.56.080, page 9)
8. City of Council Bluffs (Section 16.03.110)
9. City of Peoria, IL (Sec. 16-66)
10. City of Durango, Colorado (page 1670.7, Section 5-4-16)
11. City of Boulder, Colorado (Sections 10-13-20 & 10-13-22)
12, City of Rock Island, IL (page 17, E 1 &2)
13. City of Waterloo (page 10, Section 18 Y:. - 9)
14, Alliance Review - Establishing a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance
attachments
.
.
.
McD~L- O~INA~¡f - ~r:."¡"¡-::"'L. ..J"'r-.J
6
.. certificate of Appropriateness The ~proval statement
signed by the (City, Borough, Township, etc.) governing body
which certifies to the historical appropriateness of a particular
request for the erection, alteration, reconstruction,
restoration, demolition, or razing of all or a part of any
building or structure within a historic district and authorizes
the issuance of a building permit for said request.
G. Completed Application - A completed permit or certificate of
appropriateness application is an application which conforms to
the submittal criteria for specific historic preservation
projects, as determined by the Historical Architectural Review
Board.
Comment: Many procedural and administrative complications occur
because permit and/or certificate of appropriateness applications
submitted to HARE are not properly completed. We therefore
recommend the rejection for HARE review of any incomplete
application.
H. Demolition The dismantling or tearing down of all or part
of any building and all operations incidental thereto, including
neglecting routine maintenance and repairs which can lead to
deterioration and decay.
I. Demolition by neglect - The absence of routine maintenance
and repair which can lead to a building's or structure's
structural weakness, decay and deterioration resulting in its
demolition.
(
J. Erection - The result of construction such as a building,
stl'uctUt'e, monument, sign, or object on the ground or on a
structure or building.
K. Reconstruction - The act or process of reproducing by new
construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building,
structut'e" or object, or a part thereof, as it appeared at a
specific period of time but not necessarily of original material.
L. Sign - Any display, structure, device or object which
incot'porates lettet'ing, logos, colors, lights, or illuminated
inert gas tubes visible to the public from a building or
structure, which either conveys a message to the public, or
illtends to advertise, direct, invite, announce, or draw attention
to goods, products, services, activities, or facilities,
excluding window displays, merchandise and temporary signs.
L. Structure - Anything constructed pr erected, having a
perm~nent or semipermanent location on another structure or in
the ground, including without limitation buildings, sheds,
m~n\l(nctured homes, garages, fences, gazebos, freestanding signs,
billboards, antennas, satellite sending or receiving dishes,
?tN~'~~J~~'-
20
.suffer an unreasonable economic hardship if a Certificate of
Appropriateness is not approved, and should the review board be
unable to develop with the (City, Borough, Township, etc.) or
appropriate local, statewide and national preservation
organization a solution which can relieve the owner's economic
hardship, the review board must recommend a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition.
ARTICLE VIII
Section 800
Demolition by Neglect
All buildings and structures within the (City, Borough, Township,
etc.) historic district shall be maintained in good repair,
structurally sound, and reasonably protected against decay and
deterioration. Examples of such deterioration include:
(a) deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical
supports.
(b) deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members.
(c) deterioration of exterior chimneys.
(d) deterioration of crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar
(e) ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, or
foundations, including broken window or doors.
(f) deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous
condition which could lead to the claim that a demolition is
necessary for the public safety.
ARTICLE IX
Section 900
Notice of Violation
The Building Inspector shall serve a notice of violation on the
person in violation of this ordinance which would result in but
not be limited to (1) failure to apply for a certificate of
appropriateness or a building permit required for the erection,
reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition, demolition
by neglect, or razing of any building or structure which can be
seen from a public way, and (2) failure to comply with HARB
approved work. Such notice shall direct the abatement of said
violation
Section 90]
Enforcement
The Building Inspector or his designated representative
shall have the power to ins~itute any proceedings at law or in
.
.
.
~rl c:>\201N.ANG-I:'., D6LLA~ ,ÎI;:>::A:
ill Demolition by neglect. [BASED ON SAN ,ANTONIO, NEW
ORLEANS. SANTA FE. FT. WORTH, GALVESTONl
ill Demolition by neglect iL~~maintenance ill
ill1}:.structure on property subject to ~predesig:nation moratorium QLÎIl.À.~
o\'erlay district that ~in deterioration of ihe...structure and threatens ~
preservation of the structure.
ill An structures on properties subject to the predesignation
moratorium and in historic overlay districts must be preserved against deterioration
iill\i.gI2Uree from structural defects ~property illWfL~property ~
agent with control over the structure. The property owner or agent. in keeping with
the city's minimum housing standards. must repair ~structure if it is found 1Q
have any of the following defects:
!A} parts which are improperly or inadequately attached ~
that they may fall and injure persons or property:
Dll
deteriorated or inadequate foundation:
ß:l defective or deteriorated floor supports or floor supports
that are insufficient to cany the loads imposed: '
illl walls, partitions or other vertical supports that !ìplit. lean.
.li&..QLbuckle due to defect or deterioration or are insufficient to carty the loads
impo<ed:
Œl ceilingi', IQofs. ceiling or roof supports. or other horizontal
members which sag. split, or buckle due to defect or deterioration or are insufficient
tl) Sltpport the loads imposed:
ill fireplaces and chimneys which list. bulge or settle ~
defect or deterioration or are of insufficient size or strength to carty the loads
imposed:
!G1
deteriorated. crumbling or loose exterior stucco or mortar:
!ill detE'riorated or ineffective watex:proofing of exterior Yüills..
wof< foundations or floors, including broken windows and doors:
ill defectivE' or lack of weather protection for exterior wan
Clwt'rin¡:s, including lack of paint or other protective covering:
29
ill ~fault, defect QLcondition ~structure which
renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight:
00 accumulations of weeds. fallen ~or limbs. ~
abandoned vehicles. and other refuse:
!1l deterioration of any exterior feature so as to ~
hazardous condition which could make demolition necessary FOR the public safety:
QI
!M.l deterioration or removal of any unique architectural
feature which would detract from the original architectural style.
ill I.f.!ill:..landmark commission determines that a structure ~
demolished by neglect. the landmark commission shall notify the property owner or
agent of this finding. stating the reasons therefore. and shall give the property
~QL~.3Q..days from ilie..date of the notice in which to commence ~ÌQ
rectify the demolition by neglect. This notice shall be sent by certified mail. If the
property owner fails to commence work to rectify the demolition by neglect. the
landmark commission may request the Department of Code Enforcement QL...th.e
City Attorney to take action to require restoration or preservation of the structure. .
[(à) Tr:Œsfer ef Eie"elepment rights, Cemslilt .^.rtide XI, "Deyelepment
keenti'¡es/, fer regylatiens EBn€eming tRe kamfer ef Eie"elepment rigRts auailaele
te histerie laRemarks.] ,
ill [{et] Historic preservation incentives [Central Business Eiismet laREimark tax
~. Consult Article XI, "Development Incentives," for regulations concerning
the [laREimark] tax exemptions available to historic landmarks.
[(f) PrclimiF1aQ' EertHieate ef appropriateness. .^ persen seeking a tax
e)(empti8n Ì1. aeeereiIÐ.ee witi-. Di'¡isieR 31:\ 11199 fer a resteratieR er a residential
C8RyersieR eR a prepe~' peFlEiing histerie EiesigRati8Fl must oBtaiE'. a prelimh'1ary
eertiReate af apprapriateFless prier te altering that prapeFtJ', er ar.y pertien ef the
el(teriar af a struë:œre 8n that pr8f1erty, 8r plaeir.g, EBFlstruetir.g, maiRtaiRing, ß:r
e)(pamHng, er reme'¡iRg any strueture en that prepeFt)'. The preeeEilires aREi
stanEiares fer eBtainiRg a prelimiFlary €ertiñeate ef aFprepriateRess are the same as
the praeeelires anEi stanEiares fer eBtainiP.g a certificate ef apprepriateRess. f.n
applieatien fer haresRiF relief anEi an apFlieatien far a prelimir.ary eertiReate ef
aFprapriateness may Be eenseliEiatee Ì1.te eRe applieatien]
30
.
.
.
- ~f'"~~l-(C::U;PP,Cb
a.
Submission of application for final de\'elopment
plan. A development application for a final
development plan shall include:
(1)
The general application information required
in Section 6-202.
(2)
(3 )
Reserved.
An accurate representation of all major
building materials, such as samples and
photographs, to be used for the proposed
development.
(4)
Finalized drawings of the proposal at 1/4"=1'0
scale.
(5)
A statement of the effect of the details of
the proposed development on the original
design of the historic structure (if
applicable) and character of the neighborhood.
(6)
A statement of how the final develop~ent plan
conforms to the representations made during
the conceptual review and responds to any
conditions placed thereon.
9; Ord. No. 60-1990, § 3)
(Ord. No. 6-1989, §
Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation,
on-site relocation, or temporary relocation.
A. General. No demolition, partial demolition, off-site
relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation of any
structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section
7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District,
shall be permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition, off-
site relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation is
approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of
section 7-602 (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) unless exempted pursuant
to section 7-602(G) or (H). For the purposes of this section,
"demolition" shall mean the total razing of any structure on an
inventoried parcel which contributes to the historic significance
of that parcel. "Partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a
portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total
razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not
contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.
B. Standards for review of demolition. No. approval for
demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the
following standards are met.
9
1.
2.
3.
4.
The structure proposed for demolition is not
structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's
efforts to properly maintain the structure; and
The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site
to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the
property; and
The structure cannot be practicably moved to another
site in Aspen; and
The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates
to the greatest extent practical, the following:
a.
Any impacts that occur to the character of the
neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur.
b.
Any impact on the historic significance of the
structure or structures located on the parcel and
adjacent parcels.
c.
Any impact to the architectural character and
integrity of the structure or structures located on
the parcel and adjacent parcels.
C. Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval
for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that
all of the following standards are met:
1.
2.
The partial demolition is required for the renovation,
restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the
structure does not contribute to the historic
significance of the parcel; and
The applicant
possible:
a.
b.
has mitigated,
to the greatest extent
Impacts on the historic significance of the
structure or structures located on the parcel by
limiting demolition of original or significant
features and additions.
Impacts on the architectural character or integrity
of the structure or structures located on the
parcel by designing new additions so that they are
compatible in mass and scale with the historic
structure.
D. Standards for review of off-site relocation. No approval
for off-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that
all of tho following standards are met:
10
.
.
.
1.
The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its
original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial
use of the property; and
2.
The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best
preservation method for the character and integrity of
the structure, and the historic integrity of the
existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not
be diminished due to the relocation; and
3.
The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and
re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a
licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the
structure proposed for relocation; and
,
~ .
A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting
a bond or other financial security with the engineering
department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe
relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the
structure, site preparation and infrastructure
connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in
advance of the physical relocation; and
5.
The receiving site is compatible in nature to the
structure or structures proposed to be moved, the
character of the neighborhood is consistent with the
architectural integrity of the structure, and the
relocation of the historic structure would not diminish
the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the
receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property
owner of the receiving site shall be submitted.
E. Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval
for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that
the standards of section 7-602(0) (2), (3), and (4) have been met.
If the structure that is to be relocated does not contribute to
the historic significance of the parcel, only standard 7-602(D) (2)
must be met.
F. Standards for review of temporary relocation. No
~pproval for temporary relocation shall be granted unless the HPC
finds that the standards of section 7-602(D) (3) and (4) have been
mct.
G. Exemption for structures within an "H," Historic Overlay
District. The demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation,
on-site relocation, or temporary relocation of a structure located
\-"Ï thin an "H" Historic Over lay Oistr ict, may be exp.mpt from
mccting the applicable standards in section 7.602(B), (C), ~ (D)
. (E) or (F) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have
11
been met:
1.
The structure is not identified on the
Historic Sites and Structures.
Inventory of
2.
The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the
historic district.
J.
The structure does not contribute to the overall
character of the historic district, and that its
demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-
site relocation or temporary relocation does not impact
the character of the historic district.
4.
The demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation,
on-site relocation or temporary relocation is necessary
for the redevelopment of the parcel.
The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPC7
pursuant to section 7-601.
H. Exemption for structures which do not contribute to the
historic significance of an inventoried parcel. A structure which
does not contribute to the historic significance of an inventoried
parcel is exempt from meeting the standards of section 7-602(D),
off-site relocation and section 7-602(F) , temporary relocation.
5.
I. Procedure for review. A development application shall be
submitted to the community development director before HPC
approval of demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation,
on-site relocation, temporary relocation, or exemption which shall
be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures
established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2.
The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on demolition,
partial demolition, off-site relocation, or on-site relocation
applications when it finds that it needs additional information to
determine whether the application meets the standards of section
7.602-fBt or that the proposal is a matter of such great public
concern to the cïty that alternatives to the demolition, partial
demoli tion, off-site relocation or on-site relocation must be
studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the
HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited
to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal
of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy
to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public
entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision
to the demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation or on-
site relocation and development plan. The HPC shall be required to
specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives
it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the
demoli tion, partial demolition, off-site relocation, or on-site
12
.
.
.
relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the
amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be
prepared and reviewed by the community development director, but
in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6)
months.
J. Application for demolition, partial demolition, off-site
relocation, on-site relocation, or temporary relocation. A
development application shall include the following. Applications
which affect a str~cture which does not contribute to the historic
signif icance of tþe parcel shall only include the submission
requirements listed in Section 7-602 (J) (1), (2), and (5):
1. The gen~al application information required in section
6-202.
2.
A written description qf the structure proposed for
demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-
site relocation, temporary relocation, or exemption, and
its year of construction.
3.
A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding
the soundness of the structure and its suitability for
rehabilitation.
~ .
For demolition or off-site relocation only: An economic
feasibility report that provides:
a.
Estimated market value of the property on which the
structure lies, in its current condition, and after
demolition or relocation.
b.
Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate
agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation
addressing the economic feasibility of
rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed
for demolition or relocation.
c.
All appraisals made of the property on which the
structure is located made within the previous two
(2) years.
d.
Any other information considered necessary to make
a determination whether the property does yield or
may yield a reasonable return on investment.
5.
For demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation
and on-site relocation only: A development plan and a
statement of the effect of the proposed development on
the other structures on the property and the character
of the neighborhood around the property shall be
submitted so that HPC is able to make a finding whether
13
the applicable standards are met. In the case of a
demolition or off-site relocation, the development plan
will be reviewed as a Significant Development
application, pursuant to section 7-601.
K. Application for demolition or exemption from demolitio~,
partial demolition, off-site relocation, on-site relocation, or
temporary relocation. A development application for exemption
shall include all items specified in section 7-602 (J) (1) and (2).
L. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this section 7-
602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining
a building permit for the affected property for a period of five
(5) years trom the date of such violation. The city shall initiate
proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this
effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty.
(Ord. No. 17-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 9-1991, § 1)
Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order.
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development
order may be authorized by the community development director. An
insubstantial amendment shall be limi ted to technica I ' or
engineering. considerations, first discovered during actual
development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the
approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall be defined as
a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door,
staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material
made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and
approximately the same app~arance as originally approved.
B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant
to Section 7-601 or 7-602, whichever is applicable.
Sec. 7-604. Appeal and call up.
A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with
conditions, or disapproving a development order or suspending
action on a demolition, partial demolition, off-site relocation,
or on-site relocåtion application or in rating a structure on the
inventory of historic sites and structures may be appealed to the
city council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred
(300) feet of the subject property within thirty (30) days of the
decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing.
The city council may also call up for review any decision of the
HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition,
partial demolition, off-site relocation, or on-site relocation of
any structure on the inventory of historic sites and structures by
serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the
HPC's decision and notifying the applicant of the call up.
14
.
.
I
- Ml¿.ril?jAN'7
N:í
HtL,WtZ-Ií--- DI.c,'(tZlc...l::'
5
Secrion 5(6) is unchanged in intent and effect. However, new and clarified la.nguage provides
berrer guidance when a commission is asked by an owner to grant permission for inappropriate
work made necessary br finanó:1l hardship or public haZ3.rd, or for the public good, ere. For
e:ample, when an owner claims char a resource is in the way of a benefió;ù community project,
he or she must show that all necessary plannÎl1g and zoning approvals, project financing, and
environmental cI=nces arc in place before the comI1Ùssion acts. This may help put an end to
propOS:lIs that promise economic revitlliz:1rion and require the, removal of historic resources,
but ne\'Ct = built. Another eDmple might be the owner who cla.ims that ret:lining a resource
will cause financi:1l hardship. Here, the commission may permit the work only after the owner
has "arrempted and exhausted" all \vays, such as sale ef the resource, to eliminate the hardship.
This mar h:1lt ases where the owner claims finanóal hardship after purposefully creating it.
The l:mguage of section 5(7) is cl:uified with no subst:l!ltial ch:mge beyond requiring that when
a commission gives notice for a public meeting at which it conducts business, an agenda shall
be included listing each permit application to be considered.
Section 5(8) remains unchanged.
The language of section 5(9) is clarified without ch:mging the effect.
Secrion 5(10) codifies a pracrice widespread among Michigan's historic district commissions
of delegarion of approval authority for applicarions for minor work; these may be reviewed :md
approved by suff or others withoUt waiting for a commission meering. It was always believed
thar this practiee W;¡s permissible even wirhout this specific empowerment; placing this
l:mguage in the Act m;¡kes this clear. The Act requires rhe commission, on at least a quarterly
bJSis, to tc:\iew such decisions,
Section 5( 11) ;¡ddresses a problem which most Michigan histOric districr commissions face
and have dealt \\;rh in some way: attemptS to demolish hisroric buildings through long-term
neglect. In this secrion, "demolirion by neglect" is recognized for rhe first rime by name, In
response ro the condition, the commission may require rhat the owner repair the resource. If
rcpairs arc not made \\;thin a reasonable time, the commission may obtain a circuit COUrt
order. enter the proper!)' and repair it, and charge the COSts of rhe work to the owner through a
speàal assessment le\;ed againsr the property by the local unir,
Section 5(12) codifies rhe right of a historic district commission ro seek a court order to
reverse an unlawful change. When the commission finds rhat work has been done without a
permit and the work does nor qualify for a certificate of appropriateness, ir may require the
owner to restore rhe resource to its former condition or modify the work so rhat ir qualifies
for a cerotic"e. If the owner does nOt comply within a reasonable length of time, the
commission mar obtain a circuit COUrt order that requires the owner ro do the necessary work.
If the owner does nOt comply \\;th the COUrt order \vithin a reasonable time, the commission
may emer ,he proper!)', complete the necessary work, and charge the COSts ro the owner through
a speàal assessment le\;ed against the property by the local unit.
Secrion ò: Gr:>ntS and gifts; special programs.
The language is clarified \\;thout changing the effeCt.
Section 7: Historic resource acquisition and sale by local unit,
- Þ. MFZ-'"7 I :r::~
street right-of-way and located between that right-of-way and an invisible plane that bisects the structure, and extends to
the property line, parallel to the right-of- way, In the case of a lot adjacent to more than one street right-of-way, an
i",'isible plane is established that bisects the structure, and extends to the property line, parallel to each right-of-way,
The portion of the Structure and the property not subject to the criteria for the alteration area will be subject to the
.:riteria for the new construction area,
(Ord Xo, 31 J:!. 12-11-90)
(2) New Construction, New construction in the area must be representative of one of the architectural
styles appro\'ed in the district or representative of the style of the designated landmark, The design for the structure must
meet all the design criteria listed for the architectural style selected, Architectural features not specifically listed in the
design criteria may be proposed by the applicant, Those features should be incorporated in a manner appropriate with
the architectural style, Design criteria are established for each architectural style identified in each historic district.
(3) Demolition, Demolition of existing structures that are contributing or compatible structures or of a
histori.: landmark shall be stricti)' prohibited except in the following instance:
The structure cannot be used for the original intended purpose andlor no alternative reasonable use can be
identified and the property owner can show evidence that an economic hardship will be created if the structure cannot be
remO\-ed, To pro\'e economic hardship. the applicant may submit where appropriate to the applicant's proposal, the
t~'I1,"\ing inforntation to be considered,
(a) Estimate of the cost of the proposed demolition, and an estimate of any additional cost that
would be incum,d to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a
C ertiti.:ate of Appropriateness,
(b) A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the
Structural soundness of the structures or structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation, (This shall be
R,<¡uired onl)' when the applicant's proposal is based on an argument of structural soundness,)
(c) Estimated market value of the property in its Current condition; after completion of
demolition: after any changes recommended by the Commission; and after renovation of the existing property for
Cc'ntinued us<,
(d) An estimate from an ar.:hitoct, developer. real estate consultant. appraiser. or other real
est"e profc-s;;i"nal experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing
"1'l1.:tureonthepR'perty,
(e) Amount paid f"r the property, the date of purchase, and the party ITom whom purchased,
in.:luding a d<seripti,'n of the relationship, if any. between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom
the pl\'pert)' was purchased, and any ternts of financing between the seller and buyer,
(I) If the property is incom<-produ.:ing. the annual gross income from the property for the
pre,i,'us tw" )'e;",;: itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years; and depreciation deduction
;II\d "nnual cash tl"w bet,'re and aner debt seryiee. ifany. during the same period,
(g) Remaining balance on an)' m"rtgage or other financing secured by the property and annual
dcot se¡vice, ifan)'. f", the previ"us two years.
(h) All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in
"""',,"ti,'n with the purchase. financing. or ownership of the property,
(i) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received, if any, within the
I't",i"us 1'\\' )'C.II",
0) AssesS<'t1 value oflhe pR'perty according to the most recent assessments,
(k) Real esl"le taxes før the previ,,"s two )'ears,
(I) Form of ownership or operali,'n of lhe property. whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or
n,'I-t,\r-protit e,'rp"nlti,'n.limiled partnership. joint venture, or other,
Dct<rrllinati,\lt of ,"eoMmic Hardship, 11te Preso,,'ation Co",mission shall review all the evidence and
i"l,',m.lli,'n requiled dan applicanl and make a detel'lnin;nion whelher the denial ofa Certificate of Appropriateness has
dc¡'lie'e.!. '" will depriee. the owner of the pr,'pert)' ofreas"nable use of. or economic return on, the property, After
re\ ic'\in~ the e\iden«. the Commission may deny the application. may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Ikm,'liti,\n. l\r m.\y table the applic:\lion ¡", a Certiti.:ale of ApPR'prialeness for Demolilion for a period of time not to
c,.:<cd .10 da)'$, The.10 day peri"d will permit an \lpp,'rtunity f", other alternatives to be evaluated, If a suitable
~tII\pl.1/19')~CO
)E
31-6
Rev, 10-1-98
--Ad~? I J:~ n
.
alternati\'e is not presented to the Commission within the 30 day period, the Certificate of Appropriateness for
Dem~lition shall be issued,
In no inStance will the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition without approval
of a rede\'elopment project and submittal by the applicant of a bond or cash escrow to guarantee completion of the
appro\d project,
U) Relocation, Relocation of a historic landmark or of an existing structure within or into a historic
distriot shall be strictly prohibited except in the following instances:
(a) The structure is being relocated to its original site of construction,
(b) Relocation of the structure is an alternative to demolition of the structure,
(c) A structure to be moved within or into the district is of an architectural style identified in that
district, The structure can be relocated to a vacant parcel or to a parcel occupied by a noncontributing structure which
will be removed.
.
Ordinary Maintenance Pernlitted; Public Safety,
(a) Ordinary ~!aintenance Pennined, Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the
ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior feature in a historic district or of any historic landmark which do not
i",e'Iye alterations or changes in the exterior features ofa building, For the purposes of this Ordinance, changes made in
the ,e,Ie'r of the exterior surfaces ofa building are considered to be ordinary maintenance and repair,
(b) Public Safety, Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the construction, reconstruction,
alteration. re$!~ration, or demolition of any interior or exterior feature which the City Building Official shall certify is
required fN public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, but any such action shall be, where possible, in
ac<ordance with the design guidelines and design criteria set forth in Section 31.12 (Standards for Review, Design
Guidelines, Design Criteria),
(Ord. So, 3010, Sec. /, -1-/2-88; Oed, No, 306-1, See, 2, //-2/-89; Oed. No, 3077, See, /, -1-/0-90; Ord. No, 3328,
Sú'. /.6-13-95)
(6) Use of Substitute Materials, Substitute materials may be used as an acceptable alternative to the
histe'ri, materials ifall of the following conditions are met:
(a) the historic material on the structure is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired;
(b) the substitute material can be installed without irTeversibly damaging or obscuring the
a",hite..:tural t"atures and trim of the building;
(c) the substitute material is similar to the historic material in size, design, composition and
textU!". such as e'ne type of wood replacing another.
Howe\er, item (c) above notwithstanding. and the reI'<rence to "clapboard" in Sec, 3 1,13(26) notwithstanding,
"ith re'pect t" " ,tructure that consisted of either a compatible or a contributing structure that had been at least doubled
in ,i:e by "ne'n,comributing additic'n. if the contributing or compatibic portion of that structure is completely destroyed
'IS the """It e'f an e\'em beyond the control of the owner, including lire or windstontt, and the non-contributing portion
rem.lin, intact. then smooth surt"ce siding made of vinyl. aluminum, steel, hard-board, or other synthetic materials of
I',,'mium quality. may be used on both the remaining non,contributing portion of the said structure and on any new
e,'n'tructi,'n de'ne to replace the contributing or compatible portion that "as completely destroyed,
lOr./. Xo, 30/0, S,'e, /, -1-/2-88; Ord No, 306-1. See, 2, //-2/-89; Orc!. No, 3077, Scc, /, -1-/0-90; Oed. No,
332S. ",',', /.6-13-95; Orc!. No, 3-157, See, 1.8-26-97)
(5)
~«.. .11.1 \, AI'I'I.ICATION FOR A CERTIFICA TE OF AI'I'ROI'RIA TENESS.
(I) Certilkate of Appropriateness, Any act of altetati,'n. demolition, new construction, or relocation as
,ktined he!"in shall require a Certincate of Appropriateness,
Furthermore, eyery applie"tion Ii", a building permit or a demolition penn it, including the accompanying plans
all,1 'pc<itkati,'ns. an"cting thc exterior architc<tural appear:lI1ce of" designated landmark or of a property within a
clcsi!>,nated histe,ric district shall he acc"l1Ipanicd by an application 1'", a Ccrtilicate of Appropriateness,
The Building Ot1idal shall not issue the building or dcllwlitÌ<'n penn it until a Certificate of Appropriateness
h", ken issued,
(è)
Adl1lìnistmtiye App,."",,1 1',.0«$$.
(a) Types or A!teratÌ<lns. A Ccrtitkatc or Appropriateness for the following types of exterior
.
~11
'ul.1'I'N5(,O
)E
3 1.7
Rev, 10-1.98
DIVISION 3
Section 7-301
Section 7-302
RELOCATION AL'ID DEJ.\10LITION
Purpose
A.
Primarv. The purpose of this Division is to provide a system by which moving
and demolition of structures and buildings shall be regulated. The primary intent
is to preserve the historical integrity and architectural character of Telluride
Historic Landmark District (THLD) through preservation, retention and
maintenance all structures rated by the Town as "contributing" or "supporting"
in their original locations.
B.
Secondary. This Division also seeks to protect non-rated structures which
contribute to a neighborhood's historical integrity, to maintain existing street and
alleyscapes, and to preserve and enhance the traditional mass and scale of the
architecture in the Historic Preservation Overlay District (HPOD).
,Applicability
The relocation or demolition of any structure located within the HPOD shall be prohibited,
unless a CA for such activity has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Division
,and the applicable provisions of Divisions I and 2 of this Title 7.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Rated or Landmark Structures. No demolition or removal of any contributing
or supporting rated principal or secondary structure within the Telluride Historic
Landmark District (THLD), or of any subsequently designated local landmark or
rated structure, shall be pennitted unless the demolition is first approved by
H.A.R.C. in accordance with the standards of Section 7-305 A.
Non-Rated or Non-Desi!!:nated Structures. No demolition or removal of any
non-rated primary or secondary structure, or of a non-designated building which
is a primary structure within the THLD, shall be pennitted unless the demolition
or removal is fITSt approved by H.A.R.c. in accordance with the standards of
Section 7-305 B.
Non Desirnated Structure Outside THLD. No demolition or removal of any
non-designated structure or building within the HPOD, but outside the THLD, or
of any non-designated building which is a secondary structure within the THLD,
shall be permitted unless the demolition or removal is first approved by the
H.A.R.C. Chairperson and Planning Director, in accordance with the standards
of Section 7-305 B. The H.A.R.C ChaiIperson and Planning Director shall have.
the authority to refer such decision to H.A.R.C.
Relocation of Rated Structure. No relocation of a rated structure located within
TdJund~ Land Use Cod.
Relocation and Demolition 7-25
.
.
.
S~ction 7-303
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
or from the THLD, shall be permitted unless the relocation is fITst approved by
H.A.R.C., in accordance with the standards of Section 7-306 A.
Relocation of Non-Rated or Non-Desi!!I1ated Structure. No relocation of any
non-rated structure or non-designated structure within HPOD, shall be permitted
unless the relocation is first approved by HARC in accordance with the standards
of Section 7-306 B.
Demolition Bv Ne!!lect. No owner of a rated structure, and no lessee of a rated
structure who is obligated by such lease to maintain and repair the Structure (other
than the interior), shall allow, cause, or permit the structure to suffer or
experience demolition by neglect.
Desiwated Employee Housin!! Unit. In addition to the preceding provisions,
no demolition, removal, or relocation of any structure which contains a
designated employee housing unit shall be permitted unless the action is fITst
approved by P&Z in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-105 of this
Title. . .' ,
Partial Demolition. The partial demolition of a structure which occurs solely as
part of a remodel, alteration, or addition to an existing structure, and any
repositioning of a structure, shall only be subject to the applicable procedures and'
standards of Division 2 of this Article 7.
Conflict. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of
this Division 3 and those of Division 2 of this Article 7, the provisions of this
Division 3 shall control.
Procedure For Relocation Or Demolition
An applicant seeking approval to relocate or demolish a structure within the HPOD shall follow
the stages of the Telluride Land Development Process outlined in Sections 7-204 and 7-206 of
this Article. The applicant shall also comply with the following requirements:
A.
Public Notice. When giving public notice pursuant to Section 7-204 D. or
Section 7-206 D. of this Article, the following requirements shall also be met.
I.
An application for the demolition of any rated structure, or of any
non-rated structure, or of any non-rated principal structure located within
the THLD, or for the relocation of any structure within the Town shall
require provision of public notice of the H.A.R.C. hearing to consider the
application.
T<lIurld. Land u,. Cod.
Reloc.tion .od Demolition 7-26
B.
4.
2.
No publication or mailing of notice is required for applications for
demolition of any non-designated structure located outside the THLD but
within the HPOD, or of any non-designated secondary structure located
within the THLD.
3.
For any relocation or demolition request involving a designated employee
unit, P&Z shall give notice of a public hearing to consider the application
in accordance with the requirements of Section 5-204 of this Title.
Action By H.A.R.C. When taking final action on applications for demolition or
relocation of structures, the following rules shall also be followed.
1.
AppliCations for demolition or relocation of structures designated as local
landmarks, or of structures which are rated as contributing or supporting,
may be approved only upon the aff1ll11ative vote of five (5) H.A.R.C.
members at both the preliminary and final review. '
2.
Applications for demolition or relocation of non-rated structures may be
approved only upon the aff1ll11ative vote of four (4) H.A.R.C. members.
3.
Applications for demolition or relocation of non-designated structures,
including applications for relocation of any structure into the HPOD, or
any application which has been referred to H.A.R.C. by the H.A.R.C.
Chair and Planning Director, or any action ofH.A.R.C. in administering
this Division may be approved upon affirmative vote of a simple majority
of H.A.R.C., when a quorum is present.
Any reduction, suspension or tennination of a moratorium may be
approved only upon the affmnative vote of four (4) H.A.R.C. members.
Actions Followim!: ADDròval. The applicant may apply for a building pennit
following approval of the demolition or relocation application and the filing and,
if applicable, recordation of any documents required by the approval.
C.
1.
A Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing demolition shall become
effective after a reasonable amount of time, as detennined by H.A.R.C.,
has elapsed after permit approval, provided that such time shall not be less
than one (1) month after the date of pennit approval, unless the structure
is non-designated.
a.
The applicant shall be encouraged to sell or reclaim the structure
and materials to be demolished, or to pennit others to salvage
them, to provide an opportunity for others to purchase or reclaim
Tdludd< LAnd Us< Cod<
R<Iocation and Demolition 7-27
.
.
.
Section 7-304
A.
the building or its materials for use in the HPOD.
b.
The appliCJJ1t may be required to advertise the availability of the .
structure and materials for sale or salvage in a local newspaper on
at least three (3) occasions prior to demolition.
2.
No building permit for demolition or relocation shall be issued unless the
Building Official has also issued a total building permit for the
replacement structure. In the event no such structure is required as pan
of the re-development plan, then a letter of credit to ensure performance
of conditions of approval shall be posted with the Town in a form
acceptable to the Town Manager.
3.
Any person aggrieved by the approval or denial by H,A.R.C. of an
application for relocation or demolition or by the imposition of a building
permit or certificate of occupancy moratorium, may appeal such action to
,the Town Council, in åccordance with the provisions of Section 5-207 of
this Title. A moratorium shall stay in effect until final action on the
appeal by the Town Council.
Application Contents For Relocation Or Demolition
Local Landmarks and Rated Structures. For relocation or demolition
applications involving local landmarks and rated structures located within the
THLD, the appliCJJ1t shall submit the following materials:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The minimum contents for all applications specified in Section 5-202 C of
this Title;
Elevations, drawings, plans, statements, and other materials which satisfy
the requirements preliminary and final review for new construction under
Section 7-205 and 7-207 of this Title, for any replacement structure or
structures to be erected or constructed pursuant to a development plan;
A redevelopment plan for any originating, receiving, or demolition site,
and a statement of the effect of the proposed redevelopment on the
architectural and historical qualities of other structures and the character
of the neighborhood around the sites;
An economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or
appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of
structures that addresses:
Tdlurld. Land Us. Cod.
R.locatioD aDd O.moUtioD 7-28
B.
c.
D.
Section 7-305
A.
2.
3.
a.
the estimated market value of the property on which the Structure
lies, both before and after demolition or removal; and
b.
the feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed
for demolition or partial demolition;
5.
A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of
the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation; and
6.
A statement addressing compliance with each applicable review standard
for demolition or relocation.
Non-Rated Structures Within Districts. For demolition or relocation
applications involving non-rated and non-designated principal structures within the
THLD and HPOD, the applicant shall subrrút the materials identified in Section
7-304 A. I thru A. 4. '
Non-Desi!!11ated Structures Outside Districts. For demolition or relocation
applications involving non-designated secondary structures outside the THLD, the
applicant shall submit the materials identified in Section 7-304 A. 1 and A. 2.
Additional Infonnation. H.A.R.C. may require the applicant to submit such
additional infonnation and e.xhibits as it deems reasonably necessary to enable it
to review the application, including, but not lirrúted to, historic photographs and
Sanborn Insurance Maps.
Standards For Review Of Relocation
Rated Structure or Local Landmark. Relocation of a rated structure or local
landmark within the THLD shall only be approved if H.A.R.C. finds all of the
follO\ving standards are met:
1.
The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its originating site as
pait any reasonable beneficial use of the property;
The relocàtion activity is demonstrated to be the best method for
preservation of the character and integrity of the structure, and the
historical integrity of the existing neighborhoods and of structures adjacent
to the receiving and originating sites will not be diminished due to the
relocation;
The structure to be relocated must retain sufficient historic features,
integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, so
Relocation and Demolition 7.29
Tdluride Land Use Code
.
.
.
Section 7-306
B.
A.
9.
as to continue to convey its architectural significance;
4.
The historic and present orientation, immediate setting, and general
environment of the relocated structure at the receiving site must be
compatible with the architectural qualities and/or historic associations of
Structures in the neighborhood of the receiving site;
5.
The historical character and architectural integrity of the area of the
proposed receiving site, and the origination site if located in the Town of
Telluride, and of the structure itself, will not be substantiality
compromised or diminished, and the proposal for subsequent development
on the origination site will add to the character of the neighborhood more
than the strilcture(s) to be moved;
6.
The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the
physical impai:~ts of the relocation and re-siting, based as a, Structural
rèport by a licensed engineer attesting' to the soundness of the Structure
proposed for relocation; , '
7.
The applicant has agreed to comply with a preservation, rehabilitation,
and restoration plan for the relocated structure which has received the
approval of H.A.R.C., pursuant to the provisions and requirements of
Division 4 of this Article 7;
8.
The applicant has agreed to post with the Town a bond or other suitable
collateral, as determined by the Town Manager, ensuring the safe
relocation, preservation, rehabilitation and repair of the structure,
receiving site preparation, and infrastructure connections; and
The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or Structures
proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent
with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the
structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood
ofthe receiving site.
Non-Rated or Non-DesÎ!mated Structure. Relocation of a non-rated or
non-designated structure shall only be approved if H.A.R.C. or the Planning
Director finds all of the standards of Section 7-305 A. 5 through 9 are met.
Telluride Land Use Code
Standards For Review Of Demolition
Rated Structure or Local Landmark. Demolition of a rated structure or local
landmark shall only be approved if H.A.R.C. finds all of the following standards
Relocation and Demolition 7-30
7.
8.
9.
are met:
1.
The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any
economically beneficial use of the property;
2.
The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite
efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure;
3.
The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site within the
TIILD;
4.
The demolition proposal mitigates to greatest extent practical any impact
to the character of the "neighborhood" of the property on which the
demolition is proposed to occur;
5.
The historical integrity and architectural character of the area where the
proposed demolition of a' . structure , is to,take ,place will not be,
substantiality diminished or compromised: For the purposes of this
Section, the term "architectural character" shall include, but not be limited
to, height, coverage, setbacks, massing, siting, fenestration, streetscape,
alleyscape, materials, and scale of materials;
6.
Subsequent development on the property will add to the architectural
character of the neighborhood more than the structure(s) to be demolished;
The demolition proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any
impact to the historical importance of any other structures located on the
property and on adjacent parcels, and on the integrity of the THLD and
Telluride National Historic Landmark District;
The demolition proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any
impact on the architectural character of a designated historic structure or
pa:tt thereof; and
The applicant has agreed to redevelop the originating site after demolition
pursuant to an approved redevelopment plan which provides for a
replacement structure, which plan is compatible with and/or enhances the
historical integrity and architectural character of the immediate area,
neighborhood, the applicable Treatment Area, and the Telluride Historic
Landmark District. This standard may be waived by H.A.R.C. if the
applicant agrees to deed restrict the property to open space uses, and
H.A.R.C. finds that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the
Telluride Land Use Code
RelO<::lôoo and DemoIiôon 7-31
.
.
.
Section 7-307
B.
c.
B.
A.
2.
3.
4.
THLD or the HPOD than redevelopment would.
Non-Rated or Non-Desi<>nated Structure. Demolition of a non-rated Structure
or non-designated structure shall only be approved if H.A.R.C. or the Planning
Director fmds all of the standards of Section 7-306 A. 5 through A. 9 are met.
Penalty
Penalties Authorized. Any person who intentionally causes, intentionally
permits, or knowingly fails to prevent the unauthorized demolition, removal, or
relocation of a rated structure which the person owns or leases, or who has
knowingly permitted demolition by neglect of any rated structure which such
person owns or leases, or who has violated any provision of this Division is
guilty of a oùsdemeanor and shall be punished in the Telluride Municipal Court
by:
1.
.a fine of up to ,the estimated cost of repair, restoration, and relocation of
the structure to the originating site; or the cost of replacement of the
structure at its original site, whiChever cost is greater (including
engineering, materials, and labor); or
imprisonment of up to ninety (90) days; or
by both such fine or imprisonment.
Such fine may be suspended, on the condition that the person agrees to
repair, restore, replace, and/or relocate the structure in a manner
acceptable to H.A.R.C., and posts a bond or suitable collateral with the
Town for such work. ,
Moratorium Authorized. Upon conviction, pursuant to Section 7-307 A., of an
owner of a rated structure for unauthorized demolition, removal, relocation, or
demolitiq¡¡ by neglect of a rated structure, H.A.R.C. shall be authorized to
, impose a ten (10) year moratorium on issuance of building permits or certificates
of occupancy upon the property on which the structure was demolished, removed
from, or relocated from.
T<Ullride und Us< Cnde
He.1.rin!!. Such moratorium may be imposed only after a public hearing preceded
by five (5) day's prior written notice mailed to the owner by registered mail. An
affirmative vote of a majority of the members present and voting shall be required
in order to impose any such moratorium, provided that at least four members
actually vote. Imposition of a moratorium shall be subject to the appeal provisions
of Section 5-207 of this Title.
Relocatioo aod Demolitioo 7-32
D.
E.
F.
Temporary Moratorium Authorized. In addition, upon commencement of any
prosecution in Municipal Court pursuant to Section 7-307 A., H.A.R.C. shall be
authorized to impose a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits
or certificates of occupancy for the property on which the rated structure was
demolished, removed, or relocated from. Such moratorium shall remain in effect
for the duration of the prosecution and any appeal therefrom.
Record Notice. Notice of the imposition and duration of any moratorium
imposed pursuant to Section 7-307 B. shall be recorded with the San Miguel
County Clerk and Recorder.
Suspension of Moratorium Authorized. No sooner than one (1) year after
imposition of the moratorium pursuant to Section 7-307 B., H.A.R.C. shall be
authorized to suspend" reduce, or terminate a moratorium on issuance of a
building permit or certificate of occupancy, with or without conditions, after
considering the following factors:
1.
The impact of the demolition or removal upon the historical iiltegrity and
architectural character of the National Historic Landmark District, the
TIILD, and the neighborhood area;
2.
Factual circumstances concerning the cause of the demolition or removal,
as may be identified by investigation of the Building Official or Fire
Marshal;
3.
Whether the demolition or removal would have been approved by
H.A.R.C. had an application been submitted;
4.
Whether the purposes of the moratorium have been achieved; and
5.
The effect of a moratorium as an incentive to the owner to restore or
rehabilitate any remaining portion of the demolished or relocated
struèture. if such action would substantially contribute to the historical
inte'grity and architéctural character of the THLD.
Penalties Cumulative. The penalty provisions of this Section are cumulative,
and are in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, or any other judicial
or administrative remedies (including abatement) which may be available to the
Town.
(Ord. 970, 1992; Ord. 923, 1991)
G.
Reloc:IÛOD and DemoliûoD 7-33
Telluride Land Use Code
.
.
.
DIVISION 4
SURVEY AL'ID EVALUATION
Section 7~Ol
Adoption Of Survey
"The 1986 Telluride Historic and Architectural Survev" alIAS) and 1987 THAS are hereby
adopted in their entirety and incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the THAS shall
be available for inspection or purchase at the office of the Planrùng Director.
Section 7~O2
Periodic Update Of Survey And Evaluation
H.A.R.C. shall periodically update the 1986 or 1987 THAS as alteration and addition to
structures occurs.
Section 7~O3
Procedure For Challenge Of Evaluation
A.
Initiation. A written request by the owner of the evaluated structure or a vote
by a majority of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall be
necessary to challenge the designation of any structure designated in the 1986 or
1987 THAS. An application to challenge the designation of any structure may
only be submitted on a designated quarterly submission date, established annually
by the Town.
B.
Pennits Prohibited. H.A.R.C. shall have the power to prohibit the issuance of
building, exterior remodeling, or demolition pennits affecting any property under
consideration for an evaluation change. The prohibition may remain in effect for
the length of time required by H.A.R.C. and Town Council to take final action
on the proposed evaluation.
C.
Public He3rin!!. Following a request or a vote to challenge an evaluation,
H.A.R.C. shall hold a public hearing at its next regularly scheduled meeting and
schedule a site walk prior to the meeting. Notice of the meeting and site walk
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Telluride prior to the
public he.aring and shall be posted at Town Hall. The owner of record of the
structure whose designation is being challenged shall be notified by mail of the
meeting and site walk.
D.
H.A.R.C. Recommendation. At the public hearing, the owner of the challenged
structure, H.A.R.C., staff or any interested citizen shall present evidence as to
why the evaluation of the structure should be changed. Within fifteen (15) days
after the date of the public hearing, H.A.R.C. shall make a recommendation to
the Town Council whether or not to amend the evaluation, based on the criteria
sct forth for evaluation of structures in the 1986 or 1987 THAS,
1"<lllIrl<l. l.And u.. Cod.
Survey and Evaluation 7-34
f7L\t-;,U~'ÍOi'i / J.o.
(I)
If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for
the previous two years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the
previous two years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and
after debt service, if any, during the same period.
(g)
Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property
and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years.
(h)
All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in
connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property,
(i)
Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received, if any,
within the previous two years,
(j)
(k)
Assessed value of the property according to the most recent assessments.
Real estate taxes for the previous two years,
(I)
Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-
profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other.
Demolition by Neglect, Owners of real property in a designated historic district or of a
historic landmark are responsible for preventing deterioration of same and providing
appropriate maintenance of all effected structures thereon along with the surrounding
environment, e.g, streetscapes, alleys, gates, fences, steps, signs, and landscaping, The
City Development Department, upon determining a lack of such maintenance by a
property owner, shall send written notification of same to the property owner. Said owner
will have 45 days from the date of the notice of violation to bring his or her property into
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance, After the prescribed 45 days, another
inspection will be conducted by the Development Department staff. If the re-inspection
confirms that the property owner continues to be in violation of this Ordinance, the matter
will be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission, which may hold a public hearing
on the matter upon at least two weeks' notice to the property owner and all interested
persons. The Historic Preservation Commission will determine if the property owner is in
violation of this Ordinance and, if so, fix the terms and conditions of compliance
therewith. After the expiration of any time deadline fixed by the Commission, the
Development Department will once again re-inspect the property in question. If the
property owner continues in violation of this Ordinance, the matter will be referred to the
City Attomey, who shall prosecute the land owner as provided in Chapter 3.56.140.
Determination of Hardship. The Preservation Commission shall review all the evidence
and information required of an applicant and make a determination whether the denial of
a Certificate of Appropriateness has deprived, or will deprive, the owner of the property of
reasonable use of the property. After reviewing the evidence, the Commission may deny
the application, may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition, or may table
the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition for a period of time not
to exceed 60 days, unless extended upon showing a good cause. The 60 day period will
permit an opportunny for other altematives to be evaluated. If a suitable alternative is not
presented to the Commission within the 60 day period, the Certificate of Appropriateness
for Demolition shall be issued,
In no instance will the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition
of contributing or compatible structures within Historic District or Historic Landmark
without approval of a redevelopment project and submittal by the applicant of a bond or
cash escrow for an amount equal to 20% of the redevelopment project cost, to guarantee
9
é-Du"',,-' '-- ß\..uço¡o <,.
.
applications shall include, but not be limited to. those six (6) elements listed in Section
16.07.010 of this title.
16.03.090 Director. "Director" means the Director of Community Development.
(Ord 5148 § 1 (part), 1993)
16.03.100 Exterior feature. "Exterior feature" means the architectural style.
design, details and general arrangement of the outer surfaces. and any part of the interior
that if altered would affect the character of the external appearance and is reasonably
visible from the outside of the structure, including, but not limited to. the color of paint, the
kind, color and texture of the building material and the type of and style of all windows,
doors. lights, cornices, roofs, porticos, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such
improvement. In the case of a visible sign, "exterior feature" also means the style,
material. size, illumination and location of the sign, (Ord, 5148 § 1 (part), 1993)
16.03.110 Good repair. "Good repair" means a condition which not only meets
minimum standards of health and safety, but which also guarantees, continued structural
and weather soundness and continued usefulness in keeping with the objective of this title,
(Ord. 5148 § 1 (part). 1993) .
16.03.115 Historic context. "Historic context" means a specific theme in the
prehistory or history of the city during a particular period oftime; including particular historic
trends and developments related to that specific theme.
.
16.03.120 Historic district "Historic district" means contiguous pieces of property
of no greater area than one hundred sixty acres under diverse ownership which are
designated by the Council pursuant to this title, which:
(1) are significant in American history, architecture. archaeology. cultural heritage,
education, engineering or geography; and
(2) possess integrity of location. design, setting, materials. skill. feeling and
association; and
(3) are associated with events that have been a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(4) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(5) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type; period; method of construction;
represent the work of a master. possess high artistic values; represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(6) have yielded, or may be like!y to yield. information important in prehistory or
history.
16.03.130 Improvement. "Improvement" means any site. development, building,
structure, place, work of art or other object that constitutes a physical reconstruction or an
addition to real property, or any part of such addition. (Ord. 5148 § 1 (part), 1993)
.
. Qú;:/12-{A I ILL.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
have a dominant horizontal or vertical
expression, this should be carried over
and reflected.
i. Architectural details, Architectural de-
tails and materials should be incorpo-
rated as necessary to relate the new
with the old and to preserve and en.
hance the inherent characteristics of
that area,
(Ord, No. 11990, § I, 8.1S.89)
Sec. 16-6S. Economic hardship.
(a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this
article to the contrary, the commission may issue
a certificate of economic hardship to allow the per.
formance of work for which a certificate of appro-
priateness would have been denied,
(b) Economic hardship shall be considered by
the commission if an applicant, at the time of the
public hearing, has produced the following infor,
mation in an affidavit signed by the owner òf the
subject property and improvements:
(1) The amount paid for the property, the date
of purchase and the party from whom pur.
chased (including description of the rela-
tionship, if any, between the owner and the
person from whom the property was pur.
chased),
(2) The assessed value of the land and improve-
ments thereon according to the two most
recent assessments.
\,
(3) Real estate taxes for the previous two years,
(4) Annual debt service, if any, for the pre-
vious two yea¡-s,
(S) All appraisals obtained within the previous
two years by the owner or applicant in con.
nection with his purchase, fmancing or own.
ership of the property,
(6) Any listing of the property for sale or rent,
price asked and offers received, if any.
(7) Any consideration by the owner as to prof.
itable adaptive uses for the property.
(8) If the property is income-producing, the an.
nual gross income from the property for the
previous two years, itemized operating and
Supp, No.1
CD16:13
§ 1&-66
maintenance expenses for the previous two
years and annual cash ,flow, if any, during
the same period.
(c) If the commission fmds. that without ap-
proval of the proposed work the property and im.
provements cannot be put to a reasonably benefi.
cial use, or the owner cannot obtain a reasonable
economic return therefrom, then the application
shall be delayed for a period not to exceed six
months. During this period of delay, the commis.
sion shall investigate plans to allow for a reason.
ably beneficial use of a reasonable economic re-
turn or to otherwise preserve the subject property
and improvements. Such plans may include, but
are not limited to, a relaxation of the provisions of
articles I through IV of this chapter.
(d) If, by the end of this six.month period, the
commission has found that without approval of
the proposed work the property and improvements
cannot be put to a reasonably beneficial use, or
the owner cannot obtain a reasonable economic
return therefrom, then the commission shall issue
a certificate of economic hardship approving the
proposed work. If the commission fmds otherwise,
it shall issue, deny or modify the requested cer.
tificate of appropriateness as provided in section
16.64,
(Ord, No. 11990, § I, 8,lS,89)
Sec. 16-66. Maintenance and repair of im.
provements.
(a) The owner, occupant or other person legally
responsible for a historic landmark or improve-
ment in a historic district shall maintain and keep
in good repair those improvements and shall main.
tain in good condition and repair all interior por.
tions and appurtenances thereof whose mainte-
nance is necessary to prevent the deterioration
and decay of the improvement,
(1) The exterior of a,structure shall be main,
tained in good repair, structurally sound
and in a sanitary manner so as not to pose
a threat to the health, safety or welfare of
the occupants and so as to protect the occu-
pants from the adverse effects of the envi.
ronment, '
~«$t>, I Il.-L:--
§ 16-66
PE°I!.1A CODE
.
(2) All cornices, entablatures, belt courses, cor-
gels, terra-cotta trim, wall facings and sim.
ilar decorative features, as well as all stairs,
porches, canopies, awnings; stairways, bal.
conies, fire escapes, standpipes, exhaust
ducts and similar overhang extensions,
sball be maintained in good repair and be
properly anchored so as to be kept in a safe
'and sound condition. Tbey shall be pro-
tected from the elements and against decay
or rust by periodic application of weather-
coating materials, such as paint or other
protective treatment,
(b) It is the intent of articles I through IV of
this chapter to preserve from deliberate,or inad.
vertent neglect the exterior portions of such land-
mark or improvement located in a historic dis.
trict, the interior portions when subject to control
as specified in the designating portion of articles
I through IV of this chapter and all interior por-
tions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent
the deterioration and decay of any exterior por-
tion.
.
(c) Whenever the director of planning and
growth management determines that a historic
landmark or improvement located in a historic
district fails to meet the requirements set forth in
articles I through IV of this chapter or that the
exterior architectural appearance is endangered
by a state of disrepair or lack of maintenance, the
director shall forthwith issue to the owner or oc-
cupant a notice of the violation in substantially
the following manner or form:
(1) It shall be in writing,
(2) It shall set forth each violation of articles I
through IV of this chapter in substantially
the language of the applicable ordinance
section with as much additional detail as
might assist the person responsible to cor-
rect each violation,
.
(3) It shall describe the structure where the
violation is 'alleged to exist or to have been
committed by street address or by legal de-
scription of record in the records of the
county recorder of deeds,
(4) It shall be served upon the owner by certi.
fied mail, return receipt requested, after the
Supp, No, 1
determination of a violation has been made
by the director.
(d) The director's determination that a viola,
tion exists shall be fmal unless the applicant files
a written request for an appeal accompanied by a
public hearing before the commission within ten
days of receipt of the director's determination, A
date for a public hearing shall be scheduled not
less than 15 but not more than 30 days from the
applicant's written request. The owner shall be
notified of the time, date and place of such hearing
by certified mail properly addressed as shown on
the taX assessor's rolls and with sufficient postage
attached thereto, '
- (e) The owner shall be entitled to speak at the
public hearing, and the commission may accept
comments from all other interested parties, The
commission shall review and evaluate all avail,
able information according to the applicable stan-
dards set forth in articles I through IV of this
chapter,
(0 If the commission determines that a viola-
tion of articles I through IV of this chapter has
occurred, the commission shall establish a reason-
able time, depending upon the nature and extent
of each violation, for the correction of each viola-
tion. Times for correcting multiple violations shall
be computed concurrently,
(g) FolloW1lp inspection shall be made by the
director of planning and growth management
within three working days after the expiration of
the time for correction of the violations alleged. If
any violations are determined by the director to
still exist, it will be deemed a violation of articles
I through IV of this chapter. In addition, the com,
mission shall have the option to request that the
director of planning and growth management prer
pare a complaint against the violator with the
violation of the applicable section or sections of
articles I through IV of this chapter. Thereupon,
the complaint will be given to the corporation
counsel of the city for review as to its legal suffi.
ciency and for filing, prosecution and enforce.
ment,
(Ord, No, 11990, § 1,8-15,89; Ord, No, 13551, § I,
4,6-93)
Sees. 16.67-'16-85. Reserved.
CD16:14
-12L1I?-C\~ \-CcV\"-"CD
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
5-4-16 Property maintenaru:e required. The city
council intends to preserve from deliberate or in-
advertent neglect the exterior portions of desig-
nated landmarks and all interior portions thereof
whose maintenance is necessary to prevent dete-
rioration of any exterior portion. No owner,lessee,
or occupant of any landmark shall fail to preve¡1t
significant deterioration of the exterior of the
structure or special feature beyond the c<:>ndition
of the structure on the eTI'ective date of the desig-
nating ordinance.
(a) Compliance with city codes. No owner,
lessee, or occupant of any landmark or struc-
ture in an historic district shall fail to
comply with all appliœble provisions of this
section and other ordinances of the city reg-
ulating property maintenance.
(b) Owner TUJtifù:aiion. Before the city attorney
files a complaint in municipal court for
failure to maintain the property on the land.
mark site or historic district, the board shall
notify the property owner, lessee, or occu-
pant of the need to repair, maintain, or re-
store the property, shall assist the owner,
lessee, or occupant in determining how to
preserve the property, and shall give the
owner a reasonable time to perform such
work.
5-4-17 Recognition of structures of rrrerÍt. The
board may approve a list of structures of histor-
ical or architectural merit that have not been des-
ignated as landmarks and are not situated in des-
ignated historic districts, to which the board may
add from time to time, in order to recogni:¡:e and
encourage the protection, enhancement, and use
of such structures. But nothing in this section shall
he construed to impose any regulations or con-
trols upon, or to provide incentives or awards to,
structures of merit solely because they are in-
clud.xl on tho list.
(a) Recognition program. The hoard may au-
thori:e such steps as it deems desirable to
l't.'Cogni:o the merit of and to encourage the
protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and
uSo of any listed Structure or of any desig.
nated landmark or any structure in ados.
ignated historic district by, without limit:¡-
SUP!" No, 18
1670.7
§ 5.
tion, issuing certificates of recognition and
authorizing plaques to be affIXed to the ,,--
teriors of such structures.
5-4-18 Enforcement and penalties. No pers'
shall violate or pernút to be violated any of tJ
requirements of this section or the terms of a Ian
mark certificate.
(a) Violations. Violations of this section III
punishable as provided in Code section I-I
and are subject to the following additiom
penalties:
(1) Alterations to a designated landmarl
or district without an approved land-
mark alteration certificate will result
in a one-year moratorium on all
building pernúts for the subject prop-
erty;
(2) Moving or demolishing a designated
structure without an approved land-
mark alteration certificate will result
in a five-year moratorium on all
moving, demolition, or building pe:
mits for the structure and for the prop-
erty at the structure's original loca-
tion.
(Ord. No. 1990-10, § I, 6-18-90)
5-4-19 Criteria for designation. The historic pres-
ervation board and city council will consider the
following criteria in reviewing nominations of
properties for designation:
(a) Landmarks. Landmarks must be at least
fifty (50) years old and meet one (1) or more
of the criteria for architectural, social or
geographic/environmental significance as
described in sections 5-4-19(a)(1) through (3).
A landmark could be exempt from the age
standard if it is found to be exceptionally
important in other significant criteria.
(1) Historic sites shall meet one (1) or more
of the following:
ß.
Architectura/,
1.
Exemplifies specific elements
of an architectural style or pe-
riod.
Example of the work of an ar.
chitect or builder who is roc-
2.
from the date of the final ac:ion upon
the earlier application,
.
10-13-18 Standards for Landmark Alter-
ation Certificate Applications'.
(a)
The landmarks board arid the cirv coun-
ci! shall not approve arI applicati~n for a
landmark alteration cerriñcate unless
each such agency ñnds that the pro-
posed work is consistent "ith the pur-
poses of this chapter. '
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the
city council shall approve a landmark
alteration cer:ificate unless it meets the
following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves,
enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architec-
tural features of the landmark or the
subject property within an historic dis-
trict;
(2) The DroDosed work does not adverse-
ly affect- th~ special character or sp'ecial
historical, architectural, or aesthetic
interest or value of the' landmark and
its site or the district;
.
(3) The architectural style, arrange-
ment, teXture, color. arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing
and proposed structures are compatible
with the character of the existing
landmark and its site or the historic
district; and'
(4) \Vith respeCt to a proposal to' demol-
ish a building in an' historic district, the
proposed new construction to replace the
building meets the, requirements of
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
(c)
In deteronining whether to approve a
landmark alteration certificate, the
landmarks board shall consider the
economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy efficient design,
and enhanced access for the disabled.
W'lJ-20
10-13-19 Unsafe or Dangerous Condi-
tions Exempted.
/"
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
prevent any measures of construction, altera-
tion, removal, or demolition necessary to
correct the unsafe or dangerous condition of
anv structure, other feature, or Dans thereof
where such condition is declar~d unsafe or
dangerous by the city building or zoning
division or fire department and where the
proposed measures have been declared neces-
Sar)' by the city manager to correct the con-
dition, as long as' only such work that is'
absolutely necessary to correct the condition
is performed. Þmy temporary measures may
be taken without :first obtaining a landmark
alteration certificate under this chapter, but
a certificate is required for permanent alter-
ation, removal, or demolition,
10-13-20 Property Maintenance Requir-
ed.
(a)
The city council intends to preserve
from deliberate or inadvertent neglect
the exterior portions of designated land-
marks and all interior portions thereof
whose maintenance is necessary to pre-
vent deterioration of an:' exterior por-
tion, No owner, lessee, or occupant of
any landmark shall fail to prevent sig-
nificant deterioration of the exterior of
the structure or special feature beyond
the condition of tae stmctUre on the
effective date of the designating
ordinance.
(b)
No owner. lessee, or occupant of any
landmark or structure in an historic
district shall fail to comply with all
applicable provisions of this code and
other ordinances of the city regulating
proper:y maintenance, including with-
OUt limitation weed control', garbage',
and housing',
(c)
Before the city attorney files a com-
plaint in municipal cour.. for failure to
maintain the property on the landmark
site or historic district, the landmarks
"
'Se, South or Second A..oeiate, v Geo""to...", 196 CoIo, 89. 580P, 2d 807 Cl9781.
'Chapter 6.2. -Weed Control-. B.R,C. 198L
'Chapter 6-3. -Garba.,", B,R.C. 1981
'Chapt,r 10,2. -Hou..n. Cod,". B.R.C, 198 l.
.
794
City of Bould<r
board shall notify the property owner,
lessee, or occupant of the- need to repair.
maintai.n, or restore the property, shall
assist the owner, lessee, or occupant in
determining how to preserve the proper-
ty, and shall give the owner a reason-
able time to perÏorm such work.
10-13-21 Recognition of Structures of
Merit.
(a)
The landmarks board may approve a list
of ,structures of historical, ,architectUral,
or aesthetic merit that have not been
designated as landmarks and are not
situated in designated historic districtS,
to, which the board may add to from
time to time, in order to recognize and
encou:-age the protection, enhancement,
and use of such structures.
But nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to impose any regulations or
controls upon St;ructures of merit solely
because they are included on the list.
(b)
The landmarks board shaH maintain a
record of historic structures in the city
that have been officially designated as
such by agencies of the st;ate or federal
governments and shall add such struc-
tures to the list; authorized by subsec-
tion (a) of this section.
(c)
The landmarks board may authorize
sucp steps as it deems desirable to rec-
og:J.ize the merit of and to encourage the
protection:; enhancement, perpetuation,
and use of any sueh:listed structure or
of any designat;ed landmark or llny
structure in a designat;ed historie dis-
trict by, without limitacion, issuing
certificates 'of reco¡¡nition and authoriz-
ing plaques to be affixed to the exteriors
of such stroCt;ures, The board shall coop-
erate with appropriate stat;e and federal
agencies in such efforts.
(d)
The landmarks board may recommend
that the city council and any ot;her ap-
propriate agency give hist;orical names
from Boulder's" history to streets,
squares, walks, plazas, and other, public
places.
City of Boulder
--"'V-"ù
10-13-22 Enforcement and Penalties.
(a)
No person shall violate or permit to be
violated any of the requirementS of this
chapter or the terms of a landmarl
certificate. But no municipal summons
or complaint may be issued charging a
violation of this chapter or the terms of
a landmark certificate unless the al-
leged violation has not been corrected
within thirty days after the city manag-
er has delivered notice thereof personal-
ly or by regular mail to the last adåress "
of the owner of the property listed ili the'.
records of the Boulder County Assessor. '
(b) Violations of this chapter are punish-
able as provided in Section 5-2-4, "Gen-
eral Penalties," B.RC. 1981, except that
, the. penalty for the unlawful demolition
of a building in violation of Section
10-13-12, "Landmark Alteration Certifi-
cate Required," or Section 10-13-23,
"Review of Permits for Demolition, Mov-
ing, and Removal of Buildings; B.RC.
1981, is a fine of not more than
S5,OOO.00 per violation or incarceration
in jail for not mOre than ninety days or
both such fine and incarceration.
(c)
In addition to any other remedies pre-
scribed by this chapter or by this code or
other ordinance of the city, the city
attorney, acting on behalf of the city
council, may maintain an action for an
injunct;ion to restrain or correct any
violation of this chapter,
Ordinance No, 5801 (1996).
10-13-23 Review of Permits for Demoli.
tion, ,Moving, and Removal of
Buildings.
(a) Puraose. The purpose of the review of
permit applications for demolition. mov-
ing, and removal of buildings that are
over fifty years old' or recognized as
strucrores of merit is to prevent the loss
of buildings that may have historical or
architect;ural significance. The purpose
of this section is also to provide the time
necessary' to initiate designation as an
individual landmark or to consider al-
ternatives for the building.
796
~.
~
~
J
.
.
;; "
" ~
~"5';
~~~~
"",."
c,,"o
~~E E
::~:
~¡¡~'ß
, c" .
"...
0 . . c
EH¡¡
'.0 "'"
",>
~c
00. .
'""'~
~¡:"~
OO~"
... '" 0 .
"0 '"
""".
0 """ 0
'" '" 0
0 .."
""'..
"""'.0
~
"
." ::
~ ~ ~
g ~ S~ Ë
:J ~~E
~o ~..
~8 -glh:
-.:~ '::'~
t:-;: h~
~a. """
.~ .:.::
. ~~'"
~;: ..c
"æ H~
,¡. 11~>
s~ ~3:
~t: g.~B
~ ~ ~.:: ~
~1! "'~"
~. ~..
a.. 0""
.'" ." 0
~ ,,0
g ~....:¡
.':~~ ~ ~ 3
>.~ ¡:.-g
.::.~ .~.
>~. v ~
o'j~ '" ".
"". ~~
"0" ."~
0 ~ V'
."'. o.
~o" o.
.0'" '" ~.
,". .~
...,. "'"
,
0 . .
~ "'0
...~o
0'"
. . .
~ c"
0 .
1J':;:::
".,"
8~H
!iHE
. . 0 .
!~]g:
co>'"
.... "
g.¡:-g.~
~ 8.' ~
~ [~¡¡
co'"
0.">
'E!:¡¡::
0 . '"
a...>~
0 ""'"
""..
"~'" '"
~
.0
" c
0'"
" 0
û~~ h
." '" "~
."", c
. c" ....
.... "'0
. "',,~
.~'" "
.0,"0 ~.
. 0 0
a.c '"
"'," .. ""
c '" . '" "',"
~.> ~>
" c"" .
~o.~ ..
...~.o ° ,,~
°" 0 '"
.0 . . '" ....
~O. "'"
'a[. "[
. . .
a.. " .. 0
~!:[~ ~~~
];;~E ~~B
"."'. ~O
:1 ~"", ~ 5 E
. a. 0 Co""
"."... ",.
~
'" .'"
c C~"
.... 0 c .
" "'0"
~ 11::::".:: "'-;
.o...~,,~c
"'... ",.'" c a.O
"" ..Oa.o
H~1!~ ~:8
~:6~~~-;;§:
""."'.""~.
.'" 0'" ,,'. c
~~-;;~.::~]¡~
::"~~:¡¡~ot
~~~~~{;:~~
g::;j¡'j-;;~¡¡g;
0 "C"'. '"
~~;;:3&"'.::~~
~t.jj:~!:~o
~~¡¡~,,:: .~~
.::" ",,11::: §.:~
00°;J~ ...o~
~]~"..:H'E
~~g~~H.'1~
;:~~~~11':::
.c~o~".::~z
.'" ~~."
¡¡~~:2~~i~]
~ > a." ...."'"
M . .. >.
.""c...'" 0
" oooc.,~
. o ."... c.... ~
c"~o,,.".a.
0 . .... "'... . a.
E'" "'" " & 0 .
,,-;:~§:.cc
""MO"""'.
'" 0
c ."
,~ " .
"'. .. a.
..0 . '" .
0 "" 0"
."O"oc
"~,,o .
coo"'.
.3,g E .0:
. ~.;;:: ~
;;:~-g5~
3~~~~E
~ ~~.~~~
."...'.'"
" "" '" . c
" ° c""'~
O""" ."
'" a. ". c
",..C"O
. """ 0
~" "
"0 .."
CO" a.,
.."c.. ,
. . 0 .
.0."'.".
a. >"", '"
..... 0 C"'.
0"",0.>0
.",~ o~ .
". ."
c"c..~c
. c."""".
",....."...~
.
;;
0
. §
. 0'.'
g:' ~ 3~-g
... '" "c... °
~¡¡'O:~:;~
¡:,~1i¡¡E~.
'.>0,,'"
~.o...'"
.:: C-':.""'~
",...."""c...
V",,"."
c" " .
"'~.c""'C
0 v'" c .~
. . ."
:2~~~:~~
." ...." '"
"..>0'0
.""oo.c
"'~ 8 ~jj:;::
5.~-à~-g5
","""co>
.~~.::::.
¡¡~~i~E~
~'t'~"'o~
" . . '" . ","
".::~~.:: e ~
¡¡ ~'" -;; ~ z ~
~"~~::§~
.~"'.Oo
¡¡-;;o::::o~
""'c~"
,';:d8g~
~~£:::~
.oo""~'"
"'0".."
. a.~""
cO""~..
M"'" 0 "'v
0
~
~ .
,,'"
"
'0';:
. .
-;;:;;
0'"
."
. <t
"'.
" 0
0
;; J¡:
" "
", °
"~,,
0 ° 0
~,g E
"."
. .
~~'"
0 ° c
.~:;j
-;;E§
0" 0
"'."
~
ë
0
,~ "
"" ~.
..~..>
>"'..00
." C ",~
~ooo,,"
. ...,,".
"'" 0 . ,"
~,~gE>~
0>""".
" ..., 0 0
~""
c ,,~.
~.oC.'"
0:;;"3~"
c ".o~
0" "~N o
,~~.","o
.0"'."'"
.0. O'
."'"c",
". . .
~.¡¡:i ~~,;
:r:: J".t
§~ E~H~
,~ 0. .~
"""....
0.0. ."
..0"."
" " " '" > "'"
...,,"x.xc
c"'.."..
5:
0 c
. ~ 0 .
c . 0 a. ...
H~ ~ ~E~
H~~ o.¡~'.i
:'~ :~]~ ,d
""" .""""
"'o"..c .
!i ~ ."~. .,~
p~~ .d~ e
~...~"""t
co"'. .".
M."~§'~'::"
" " . a.." .
'...O" "
:~¡¡",,~~'"
C~o .C""",
...... c,. 0 c
~,,"'o """"
."C....O""
".0". '~.
... v . ." "".
, ."°.
u' ."O'C"
> "'.:~ :-;;¡¡... B
.::¡¡~.~>~§"
>"", .~... 0....
~"~§~~":~
-;;~3~tJtJ~i~
~~;:~t:J~B.
" . ." ,"...' '"
0"""."""".
. .cooC"'"
,,0 0""."0
..."cO..'" c
jj"~""".¡¡,, -
"...00'" ° ~
","'."'" ",,'" -
""'0"0 .
,Hg.:J'j'ô~"
,,>O"x. "
va..",..o
c "0"""
o....c 0
...""""'..oc
"""". 0 ".~
¿
" .
.,,'"
~~~~
00 . c
" """.
0"""
. 0 .
,,0"""
,~c" c
"',~,","
~~;~
" c
~g:J ¡¡ .
..."",..
...'" ~
..:.,,¡¡.
"-;;:1""
-;;~~~;J
H8~~
o' "," 0
~1!~~~
jj.: ~'j
:<~~B~
. c .
-" ""
,~..co
-"...
~~
-;;" ~~:
!i 0... '" ~
",'.C"
t ~~.:
0" ~~
0 .0
~~~c-;;
." . 0" .
o' 0"",.
.... ""',,~
~.~.o'"
....",...." .'"
C"c.",
'" ""'....,
""~"""""O
.o..oa.
."~"~C
",.....0 .
"" .'"
0 .... > >
~. """"
o~,~~~-g
. "'" . c"
000.,"'"
~"t:"~~
coc....'
11.""!:".
c"" "'"
"""" 0
."". "
.""..0'"
... a. a.," °
~H~H
.
o.
.t':
¡¡Bo
."
"'... 0
""" "'"
.... ,,~
>"... ." 0
0" ".
.~ . a.c
0 . .00
H~ J¡~'~
8.giJ ;::E
~::.:: ;J2-;;
c~~ ..~
:." ~~:
"..: ~.'2
. 0 ~"',"
.'~~ .~.
... "'.
""'" ....
co'" a..
"M. ...
~ ~ co"
0.0 00...
,g¡¡!;: :. &
m~c ~.~
.00 "
]ì:'~ ~H
".> >"'"
"'" "'" >
" . .
:J~~ -
...." .
"""" -
~
~
~
. "
~:: ~
0"'.'"
"'0"'.
"""'"
:;j . c .
"~...,,
. . '" .
c""
>...",...
. '" > ° .
0... ~.
" . . c
"0.>'"
:.::,.-;:
0"",."
a.".",...
ßO"~&
~~~:2-;;
00"."
",'j:" ~
"0" o.
::: E ~t '"
"""..."",
"'. .c
'j§~:;jj
.0" 0
a. o~
.>~......
0.0"0
0 c o~
.,,~~. -
'" 0 ,"" '" .
".""',, -
.'"
,,§!i
.'~ "
." c
0 . °
a."0
~,'J ~
"'~ °
. .
~ "'"
"0"
~.j
oc
o'
"...~
""""
"'......
...""
." .
",.a.
.
'"0
"00.
" .
. . .
"'" "
¡;E"E
"'o~o
$E5E
.""',,
"'...
co
-
'"
.~,
~
Ordinance No. 3727
Page 9
--lJ)("";;:G-_a'":' , :::>-
( 4)
If it exemplifies or reflects a cultural,
political, economic, social, or historic heritage
of the city, state, or the nation.
( 5)
If it has potential for yielding information of
archaeological significance.
If it embodies distinctive elements of an
architectural or any engineering type, style, or
method of construction.
( 6)
(7)
If it is representative of the notable work of a
master builder, designee, or architect whose
individual genius influenced the city, state or
nation.
(8)
If it represents an established or familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood, community, or city
due to its unique location or similar physical
characteristic.
(9)
If it has geographical importance by being related
to a significant area and should be dèveloped or
reserved according to a plan based on a historic,
cultural or architectural motif.
(10) If it has a relationship to a site, building, or
historic district.
(11) If it has integrity as a natural environment that
significantly contributes to the quality of life
in the city. (Ord. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
Sec. 18 1/2-9. Remedy of Dangerous Conditions of Designated
Sites and Structures.
(a)
Except for emergencies as determined by the building
official pursuant to the ordinances of the City of
Waterloo, City enforcement agencies and departments
shall give the Historic Preservation ColM11ission at
least thirty (30) days notice of any proposed order
which may affect the exterior features of any building
for remedying conditions determined to be dangerous to
life, health or property.
In all other cases it shall be the responsibility of
the ColM11ission and the City agency or department to
cooperate with the property owner in an attempt to
develop a preservation plan whereby the dangerous
condi tions will be corrected with minimal adverse
impact on exterior features. Such plan shall be
approved by the ColM11ission and shall be signed by the
chair of the ColM11ission, the property owner, and the
head of the City agency or department.
(b)
(c)
If a preservation plan acceptable to the Commission,
the City agency or department and the property owner
cannot be reached within thirty (30) days or a period
of time acceptable to the City agency or department,
the agency or department shall proceed to issue and
enforce its proposed order. (Ord. No. 3420, 1-20-86)
Sec. 18 1/2-10. Demolition of Sites and Structures
Identified in the Architectural/Historic Sites Survey.
(a)
Regulated permits for demolition of sites or structures
identified as "A" or "B" classifications shall be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
%e ALLIANCE REVIEW I
1-
.
NEWS/rom the NATIONAL ALLIANCE a/PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS
February/March 1999
by Dan Becker
Many historic resources are demolished each year due to a
l.ck of m:lintenance th.t leads to deterioration, When deteri-
"rnnon reaches the e.~tent that it creates health and safety via-
I""c'n<. buìlding offici.ls are obligated to act in the public
. interest to .bate the hæzard; the frequent result is demolition
that circumvents local historic presetVation ordinances,
Whether such I.ek of mmntenance is intention.1 in order to
:lvc,iJ pn:servation ominanee conttols on demolition, or unin-
tentic'nal due to . I:\ek of awareness or fimmci.1 resources, the
n:sult is the samc: loss of. community asset.
While demolition by neglect is . serious problem for many
c",mnunities, it is a challenge IIlat can be met. Meeting the
challenge ",«nires understanding the fundamental legal prin-
ciples ",,!uired for a defensible demolition by neglect ordi-
n:mce, indnding Ihe kcy components required for a useful
dem<,liti<m by neglect omimmee, and selecting effeclive
stmtegies for the :ld<lption (or improvemenl) and implemen-
t:llic'" <11':\ sllcees.<I;,1 dcmolilion by negleel progrnm in your
",'nmnll\ity.
Flllulam,'nlnll.,'¡:nl Prlndpl,'s
The Ii"'t slep t<","mt n demolition by neglect program is
cletennining yollr e<munnnity's :lulIwrity to ndopt nn ordi-
n:m,'e, In mMt c':I"S, such :lnthority is dc'pendent npon slnte
enabling legisl:llicln; however. some local governments h:lve
"hcuue 11I1e" P<lWe',:; IIml pennit them tc' ndopt omimmees
witl"'lIt spedlk etmhling legisI:ltion. lllis is n crilk:l! deter-
mimltÌ<'n...hc"1\e mle govemmenls enn dircelly ndopt IIleir
. own dem<,lition by neglect ordin:lnee. If your conunnnity
d<'èS ,"'1 havc l1<1me mle, then yon musl eslabIish whether
your enabling legislation has provisions that authorize mini-
mum maintenance provisions,
A number of states (including Alabama, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, Vu:ginia, and Wisconsin) have specific lan-
guage in their enabling legislation regarding demolition by
neglect of historic structures, This is the best case scenario,
Lacking such specific language, in some cases authority can
be inferred from statutes that allow governments to create
presetVation programs to prolect historic resources, or from
general enabling legislation that gives local authorities power
10 protect or promote the public health, safety, and welfare,
In these cases, consult your local government's attorney for
guidance, perhaps even scek an opinion from your state's
attorney gencraL
Your ordinancc must ensure due process. It must be clearly
related to the governmental goal of presetVing historic
resourees, and it must be designed to be reasonable, fair, and
of geneml .pplic.1bility to the conununity. The issue ofregu-
Iatol)' taking also has great bearing upon demolition by
neglect ordinances, especially as it relates to economic hard-
ship. Further infonnation on these principles can be found in
the reading lisl at lI,c end of 111Ìs article,
Key ComponenlS of nn Ordinance
An eOcelive ordinance will contain specific elements: stan-
dards, petition and nction procedures, economic hardship
provisions, appe:lIs, :lnd enforcement. You must be able to
deline deterioration in order to abnte it. Standards are
required to prl\vide :I benchmark for evaluation. A general
'TEi. ALLIANCE REVIEW
stltement requiring that a building be kept in good repair will
prove to be difficult to enforce because judgments of "good
repair" can be challenged as arbitrary. Precise language in
)"Our ordinance should clearly define what is considered to be
deterioration. Petitions that allege demolition by neglect
should list specific defects that reference these standards, so
that a reasonable person viewing the deterioration can see
what part of the ordinance is being violated,
Clear procedures are necessary to ensure that each case is
handled in the same way and that property owners are assured
of due process, Provisions should be included in the ordi-
nance for the submittal of petitions alleging demolition by
n~lect, the process for notification of the property owner,
procedures for conducting hearings, and time ftames for
actions. Also necessary are criteria for evaluating and mak-
ing findings reg31"ding economic hardship, the manner for fil-
ing of appe3ls, and modes of enforcement by remedy, abate-
ment, aneLIor penalty. Again, state law provisions may dictate
what kind of enforcement tools you have at your disposal.
P:u1ieular attention should be paid to criteria for evaluating
economic hardship: This is a necessary safeguard that pro-
œcts the local government and property owners from claims
of rq;ulatory takings. Your ordinance should spell out in
detail the kind of financial information that the property
owner must provide in order to demonstrate a claim of eco-
o..'mic hardship, and ensure that findings are made with
rc;:,.ro to the claim. In the event that the evidence proves that
su~h a claim is '"Illid, then the ordinance should also provide
guid:mee in the prcparation of a plan to relieve the harrlship,
Stntlcgles for Adopting an Ordinance
E"d\ ,-..,mmunity h:1S its own personality whcn il comes to the
kinds of ,'rdinanccs that are appropriatc for its citizens, and
M one 3lmtegy will fit all. It will not advancc your preser-
'1Iti,'n c:lUse if such an ordinance becomcs controversial, so
it will pay dhidends to =fully consider whcthcr such an
"nlinanee is right for your community, and how to establish
suPI'<,rt 1<" its adoption.
Se\"Cml lessons C:\II bc Ic"""cd lrom our expericnce in
Rsleigh. Et\:lbling Icgislation authorizing local demolition by
neglect "nlinanees m.s adopted by the North Carolina Icgis-
Istu", in 19S9 as pm1 of a genernl rc-writc of the stntutes gov-
cming I'",sc,.".ti"n in the stale. In 1992, Ú,e city completely
,,",'I)::lnilCl
its I'"",:rv:ltion progr:uu as part of a successful
1""SC"':lIion connnunity enl,rt to est:lblish a county p",servn.
ti,'n l'I\\gmm, 11\e justiftc:llion for the city's onlin:mce revi-
si.'ns W:lS t.l ensnre lh:lt the two progmms we'" wcll coonli.
1\31«1, :IS well :IS 10 inCO'1"",'te the slnle legisl:llion ch:mgcs.
l)en",liti,'n by ncgIect bccmne p:lrt of II routine ul'd:uing of
thc ""Iinlln,'c, mlhcr than the solc focus or II "s:lIes em,rt"
that might attract undue attention and controversy.
Because the city's ordinance was the first in the state to take
advantage of the new enabling authority, we modeled many
of its procedures after state prescriptions for enforcement of
minimum housing standards. Our plan, if challenged, was to
avoid the view that il something entirely new to be defended.
We would treat demolition by neglect as an extension of pow-
ers the state had already granted: we were taking advantage
of a familiar process that had been on the books a long time,
was a matter of general course, and was recognized as a
process for affirmative enforcement of deficiencies. A case
can be made for equal treatment under the law...property
with deficiencies (minimum housing standards, demolition
by neglect standards) are handled the same way. Happily, we
were not required to make these arguments, and the ordinance
was adopted after routine review,
Using the Ordinance
A demolition by neglect ordinance is not for the faint of heart.
It is aggressive, pro-active preservation. Recognize that such
a program is staff-resource intensive, and requires great pre-
cision in the application of due process. It is important 10
build cooperative partnerships both with neighborhoods and
with local government agencies charged with enforcement.
Initially, we have undertaken only one case at a time. We
have requested that neighborhood groups prioritize properties
they wish 10 have considered under the ordinance's provi-
sions, and to keep the list short. Commission staff assist
inspections department staff with moni-
loring and evaluating property compliance.
Knowing when to use the ordinance is important. Be sure
that deterioration is substantial enough to warrant the appli-
catio<\ of such governmental power, but not so severe that the
expcnse of repair exceeds the market value of the property
which could lead to a finding of economic hardship.
The City of Raleigh's demolitioo by neglect ordinance can
be accessed on-line by going to:
http://www,municode,com/database,html. Navigate to
Ralcigh, North Carolina, search for '10-6180' and you will
call up the section of the code for demolition by neglect.
For further guidance regarding demolition by neglect and
related legal issues, the following resonrces are recom-
mendcd:
Ducrksen, Christophcr J. and Richard J. Roddewig. Takings
Lmv in Plain English, 3rd ed, (Chicago and Denver: Clarion
Associatcs, Inc" 1998)
2
p.,II:lrd, Olivcr A, Ill, "Counteracting Demolition by
Neglcct: Effcetive Regulations for Historic District
Onlinnnccs," Thc Alliance Review, Winter 1990. National
Al\Iì:\IIcc ofPrescrvation Commissions, Athens, GA,
~~~~~~~
February/March 1999
.
Continued from page 2
Pollard, Oliver A, TII, "Minimum Maintenance Provisions:
Preventing Demolition by Neglect," Preservation Law
Reporter, Volume 8, 1989 Annual. National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Washington, DC,
Roddewig, Richard I. and Christopher I, Duerksen,
"Responding to thç Takings Challenge: A Guide for Officials
and Planners," Planning Advisory Service Report #416, May
1989. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL,
White, Bradford I, and Paul W. Edmondson, Procedural
Due Process in Plain English: A Guide for Preservation
Commissions, (Washington DC: National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 1994)
Dan Bec1œr serves as Executive Director of the Raleigh
Historic Districts Commission, Raleigh, NC and is a NAPC
Board Membe~
Continued from page 9
What is the structural condition of the building? Don't just
take the word of the owner if you have doubts. At a mini-
mum, a report trom the building commissioner is needed to
establish the structural soundness, However, the
Commission may want to consult with a structural engineer
for an opinion on the structura1 soundness of a building, lust
because a building is in poor condition doesn't mean it
should be tom down,
Can the building be mothballed? Mothballing a building is
less expensive than demolition and it preserves the building
until economic conditions, a new owner or funds are avail-
able to restore the building, If the building is to be demol-
ished because it is vacant, it need not be a blight on the neigh-
borhood. The building and boarded up windows can be paint-
ed. The grounds can be maintained, The windows and doors
can be properly secured trom unwanted access,
A Commission should not be amid to deny a request for
demolition, Once the building has been demolished, it will
never return, Furthermore, new construction can never
replace the historic character and fabric of a building,
Continued from page 11
Communities' rights to appeal Postal Service decisions to the
Postal Rate Commission would be expanded to include relo-
cations and new construction along with closings,
H.R. 670 is currently in the Subcommittee on the Postal
Service and enjoys the support of 69 co-sponsors. At least
100 co-sponsors are needed by late spring,
For further infomation contact Preservation Action at (202)
659-0915 or preservationaction@worldnet.att.net.
.
Join the
National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions
Become part of the network of over two thousand landmark, historic
district commissioo and boards of architectural review in the United
States, The NatiooalAlliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC)
is organized to facilitate local commissions in providing infonna-
tioo and education to each other. It is a forum for the exchange of
ideas, a source of support, and a unifying body giving local commis-
sions a national voice, As a member of the NAPC you can benefit
from the ideas and experiences ofIocal communities throughout the
United States working to protect historic districts and landmarks
through local legislation,
.
. The Alliance Review, a newsletter filled with practical infor-
~ mation for staff and members of preservation commissions,
~ . A resource center of infonnation, including educational
~ materials, fonns, guidelines and ordinances developed and
~ used by commissions across the country,
,So . Technical seminars and conferences, special regional events,
.;¡ and an annual meeting and workshops for commissions held in
~ conjunction with the National Trust's Annual Conference.
Ê .A voice for your commission in Washington with the National
~ Park Service, the National Trust, the Advisory Council, Preser-
~ vation Action, and the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers.
:J D $15
~D$25
t:I)
"
=
UD$50
p.
:E
.,
~ D $100
8
"
~
Subscription to The Alliance Review
Commissions with a budget under $500
Communities with a population under 5,000
or local nonprofit organizations
Commissions with a budget óf $500-5,000
Communities with a population of 5,000-50,000
or regional or statewide nonprofit organizations
Commissions with a budget over $5,000
Communities with a population over 50,000
national nonprofit organizations, businesses,
state govemments, or sponsoring associates
C<>mmissians can also bave -n.. Alliance Review mailed to their members
for an extra $10 per member (please enclose list of names & addresses)
Name of Organization
C<>ntact Person
Address
s¡¡¡¡e- :Up code
City
Phone
Fax
E-mail
Please return thisfonn with f'O'f"1'nl 10 NAPC. PO Box /605, Athens, GA 30603
IS
.
Attachment #7
.
Iowa Code 303.31, pertaining to
Historic Preservation
.
§303.31. DEPARDŒ;<,"!' OF Ct'LTL'R.-\L AFFAIRS
303.31 Action bv commission,
The commission shall take action to enjoin any
attempts to construct. reconstruct. alter. restore,
move, or demolish any exterior feature, or to
change the use of the property w;thin the district
without a certificate of appropriateness.
[C77, 79, 81, §303,31]
303,32 Ordinary maintenance and repair.
Nothing in this subchapter of this chapter shall
be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance
or repair of any exterior feature in a district which
does not involve a change in design, material or
outer appearance, nor to prevent the construction,
reconstruction, alteration, restoration or demoli.
tion of any such feature which is required by public,
safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition,
[C77, ;9, 81, §303,32]
303.33 Termination of district.
Two years..after the establishment of a district,
a referendum for the termination of the district
shall be held if ten percent of the eligible voters in
the district so request, If the registered voters, by
a majority of those voting, favor termination, SeC,
tions 303,20 through 303.32 will no longer have
any effect On the property formerly included in the
district.
If an election is held to terminate a district under
this section and such attempt fails. another refer,
en dum for termination of the district in question
shall not take place for a period of two years,
[C77, ;9, 81, §303,33] ,
95 Acts, ch 6;, §53; 96 Acts, ch 1034, §18
L'"om"""'""".,h ¡om_,._.
303,34 Areas of historical significance.
The pro';sions of sections 303.20 to 303,33 do
not apply within the limits of a city, However, in
order for a city to designate an area which is
deemed to merit preservation as an area ofhistori,
cal significance, the following shall apply:
L An area of historical significance shall be
proposed by the governing body of the city on its
Own motion or upon the receipt by the governing
body of a petition signed by residents of the city.
The city shall submit a description of the proposed
area of historical significance or the petition de.
scribing the proposed area, if the proposed area is
a result of the receipt of a petition, to the historical
di';sion which shall determine if the proposed area
meets the criteria in subsection 2 and mav make
recommendations concerning the propOsed area,
Any recommendations made by the division shall
be made available by the city to the public for view,
ing during normal working hours at a city govern,
ment place of public access.
2, A city shall not designate an area as an area
of historical significance unless it contains contigu,
ous pieces of property under diverse ownership
which meets the criteria specified in section
303,20, subsection I. paragTaphs '0' to 'r
2462
3, A city may provide by ordinance for the es,
tablishment of a commission to deal w;th matters
invo!\;ng areas of historical significance but shall
provide by ordinance for such commission upon the
enactment of the oretinance designating an area as
an area of historical significance as required in
subsection 4, Upon the establishment of the com,
mission the city shall provide by ordinance for the
method of appointment, the number, and terms, of
members of the commission and for the duties and
powers of the commission, The commission shall
contain not less than three members, The meffi'
bers of the commission shall be appointed with due
regard to proper representation of residents and
property Owners of the city and their relevant
fields of knowledge including but not limited to his,
tory, urban planning, architecture, archaeology.
law, and sociology. At least one resident of each
designated area of historical significance shall be
appointed to the commission, Cities with a popula'
tion of more than fifty thousand shall not appoint
more than one-third of the members to the com mis,
sion of an area of historical significance that are
members of a city zoning commission appointed
pursuant to chapter 414. The commission shall
have the power to approve or deny applications for
proposed alterations to exterior features within an
area designated as an area of historical signifi,
canCe. An aggrieved party may appeal the com mis,
sion's action to the governing body of the city, Ifnot
satisfied by the decision of the governing body, the
party may appeal within sixty days of the govern-
ing body's decision to the district court for the
county in which the designated area is located, On
appeal the governing body or the district court as
the case mav be shall consider whether the com'
mission has 'exercised its powers and followed the
guidelines established by the law and ordinance.
and whether the commission's action was patently
arbitrary or capricious,
4, An area shall be designated an area of his,
torical significance upon enactment of an ordi.
nanCe of the city, Before the ordinance or an
amendment to it is enacted, the governing body of
the city shall submit the ordinance or amendment
to the historical division for its review and recom'
mendations,
[C81, §303,34; 82 Acts, ch 1238, §19]
89 Acts, ch 145, §1; 92 Acts, ch 1204, §ï
i,
303.35 to 303.40
Reserved,
SUBCHAPTER IV
LA.'W USE DISTRICTS
303.41 Eligibility and purpose.
A land use district shall not be created under
this subchapter unless it is an area of contiguous
territory encompassing twenty thousand acreS or
more of predominately rural and agricultural land
owned by a single entity which has within its gen:
eral boundaries at least Seven platted village>
!!;
~
lAC 2/16/94
HislOrical Division[223]
Ch 35. p,7
(2) Applicants shall identify goals and objectives to be achieved during the project. interested
individuals and organizations, sources of potential matching runds, known historical resources
in the county, and a potential local project coordinator for each county,
(3) Survey and planning grants may be awarded in the same project area.
(4) All applicants are encouraged to include community involvement and local volunteer
participation,
(5) All proposals shall be limited to activities to be completed within one year.
(6) All questions and applications may be directed to Deputy State HiStoric Preservation
Officer, State HiStorical Society of Iowa, Capitol Complex, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515)
281.8719.
35.7(3) Certified local government subgrants,
a. Purpose. This program seeks to enrich, develop, and hclp local hiStoric preservation
programs in cooperation with state and federal historic preservation programs.
b, General policy.
(I) Only certified local governments shall be eligible to apply for and receive a grant through
this pr08ram.
(2) The state hiStoric preservation officer shall not be required to award funds to all certi.
fied local governments.
(3) The program shall operate as a competitive grant program.
(4) Following the award of a grant a contractual agreement specifying the terms of the grant
shall be executed between the society and the grant recipient.
c. Procedure,
(I) Application packets shall be sent to all eligible applicants at least 45 days prior to each
application deadline, '
(2) All applications shall be submitted on the forms provided by the state historical society
of Iowa, All applications shall contain a description of the proposed project including a time
schedule for implementation; the amount of grant funds requested; the amount, kind, and
source of local match which is committed to the project; a budget for the project; written
assurance that the applicant shall follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards ror ArchaeoI.
ogy and HiStoric Preservation; and written assurance that the applicant shall select a principal
inveStigator who meets the Secretary of the Interior's 'professional qualification Standards.
(3) Survey projects shall have local match not less than 30 percent of the total project cost.
All other types of projects shall have local match not less than 50 percent of total project cost.
(4) Staff shall be available for consultation with applicants regarding the development of
project proposals.
(5) Staff shall review applications for completeness and eligibility upon receipt of the appli.
cation, Incomplete or ineligible applications shall be returned to the applicant. The appli.
cant may correct and return the application prior to the grant deadline,
(6) Program Staff shall conduct a preliminary review of each application to determine eIigi.
bility, completeness, consistency with program purpose, and amount of local match. Appli.
cations which do not meet these criteria shall not be considered for funding, Results of the
Staff review shall be transmitted to the state National Register nominations review committee
which will prepare recommendations for the board of trustees,
(7) Applications shall be reviewed by the state National Register nominations review com.
mittee at a regular meeting closely rollowing the application deadline, The date of review shall
be established by the administrator of the society. Recommendations from the committee shall
be submitted to the board of trustees for formal approval. Final authority for funding shall
rest with the State historic preservation officer,
(8) Applicants objecting to the decision of the state historic preservation officer may ap.
peal to the National Park Service. Inquiries and appeals may be directed to the Rocky Moun.
tain Regional Office, Division of Cultural Resources, National Park Service, 12795 WeSt
J
)
CLG¡
G""....n
Ch 35, p,8
Historical Division[223]
lAC 12/6/95
.
Alameda Parkway, P,O, Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225, (303) 969-2875,
d, Grant awards,
(I) Upon the approval of a grant by (he Slate histOric preservation officer, a grant agree,
men( shall be prepared (hat specifies the terms and condi(ions of the grant, including the grant
amount, project description, matching requirements, and dates for the submission of speci-
fied products,
(2) The grant agreement shall be signed by the Slate histOric preservation officer or desig,
nee and the chief elected local official of the certified local government or designee,
(3) If grant funds are awarded and later the certified local government determines that the
project cannot be completed, the certified local government coordinator shall recommend to
the state hiSloric preservation orficer, alternatives for expenditure of the funds, The decision
of the Slate hiSloric preservation officer shall be final.
223-35,8(303) Reporting and audit requirements.
35.8(1) The state hiSloricaI society of Iowa may require subgrantees to submit progress
reports on the statUs of projects,
35.8(2) All subgrantees shall submit a financial compliance audit of their subgrant project
expenditures,
35,8(3) All subgrantees shall submit documentation of expenses for all subgrant expen,
ditures,
35.8(4) All inquiries and applicalions may be directed to the Certified Local Government
Coordinator, State Historical Society of Iowa, Capitol Complex, D<s Moines, Iowa 50319,
(515) 281,6826,
These rules are intended to implement Iowa Code section 303,2 and Iowa Code chapter 303,
subchapter II.
[Filed 6/22/77, Notice 5/l8/77-published 7/13/77, effective 8/18/77)
[Filed 4/13/78, Notice 3/8/78-published 5/3/78, efrective 6/12/78)
[Filed 5/12/89, Notices 1/11/89, 4/5/89-published 5/31/89, effective 7/5/89)
[Filed emergency I2/2/93-published 12122/93, effective 1212/93)
[Filed 1/27/94, Notice I2/22/93-pubIished 2116/94, effective 3/23/94]
[Filed 11117/95. Nolice 1011 I/95-published 1216/95, effective 1110/96]
.
CHAPTER 36
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
223-36.1(303) Purpose, The program seeks to enrich, develop, and help maintain local
hiSloric preservation programs in accordance with the Slate and federal preservation programs,
The aim is to ensure the broadeSl possible participation of local governments in the program
while maintaining Slandards consiSlent with the National HiSloric Preservation Act and the
Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and HiSloric Preserva,
tion," Financial and technical assiSlance are provided to further this purpose,
223-36.2(303) Regulations, The Certified Local Government program shall operate in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; Federal Regulations 36 CFR
61, April 13, 1984, and AuguSl 30, 1985; National RegiSler Program Guidelines-NPS 49, Chapter
9; Iowa Code sections 303,20 to 303,34; and the guidelines for the program issued by the Slate
historical society of Iowa in "The Certified Local Government HiSloric Preservation Program
in Iowa," ,
CLG
P ro~"'-n-.
.
lAC 11'6/95
Historical Division[223]
Ch 36. p,2
223-36,3(303) Criteria ror certification. Any local government shall be certified to partici-
pate in the program if the state historic preservation officer and the National Park Service
certify that the local government meets the following conditions:
I. Secures appropriate county and municipal ordinances or resolutions ror the creation or
a local historical commission and the conduct of its historic preservation responsibilities;
2. Establishes an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by state
or local legislation;
3, Maintains a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties that furthers the
purposes of historic preservation;
4, Provides ror adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program.
including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register
of Historic Places; and
5, Satisfactorily performs the responsibilities delegated to it under the Act.
223-36.4(303) Procedure for certification.
36.4{l) The applicant shall contact the certified local government coordinator for program
guidelines and application procedures,
36.4(2) Re,'iew of the certification request for completene" and eligibility shall be con-
ducted by the staff within 30 days, Applicants shall be advised of the results of the review.
If the certification request is deemed unsatisractory. the staff shall advise the applicant and
spedfy the changes that are needed.
36.4{3) When a certification application is accepted. a certification agreement shall be sent
to the local government for signature.
36.4(4) Rescinded lAB 1216/95. effective 1/10/96.
223-36.5(303) Funding of certified local governments. See 223-35,7(303), Iowa Adminis-
trative Code.
223-36.6(303) Other program services. The state historical society of Iowa provides train-
ing for county and local preservation commissions through state and regional conferences,
technical assistance, and review of the county or local commission's annual report,
These rules are intended to implement Iowa Code section 303,2 and Iowa Code chapter 303,
subchapter II.
[Filed without Notice 5/I2/89-published 5/31/89, effective 7/5/89J
[Filed emergency I2/2/93-published 12/22/93, effective I2/2/93J
[Filed 1(27/94. Notice 12/22/93-published 2/16/94, effeCtive 3/23/94J
[Filed 11/17/95, Notice 10/1 1/95-published 1216/95, effeCtive 1/1O/96J
CL-G
p ('0 j (A""
.
Attachment #8
.
Disclosure Statement
.
.
.
.
Attachment #8
Prepared by: James A, O'Brien, Attorney at Law, 491 W, 4" Street, Dubuque, IA 52001, (319)556-8552
AFF/DA VIT EXPLANATORY OF TITLE
STATE OF IOWA
)
)ss:
)
COUNTY OF DUBUQUE
1, The undersigned is the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Dubuque, Iowa, and as
such, is familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth herein,
2, As of the date hereof, the property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto have
been designated, pursuant to Chapter 25 of the City Code of the City of Dubuque as historic
preservation districts.
3, Chapter 25 of the City Code of the City of Dubuque places certain restrictions on the
demolition of landmarks, landmark sites, and structures located in historic districts and regulates
alterations or other activities which affect a landmark, landmark site or structure or site within
any historic district all as more specifically set forth in Chapter 25.
DATED this - day of
,2000.
JAMES A. O'BRIEN, Assistant City Attorney -
CITY OF DUBUQUE, lOW A
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this - day of
2000,
Notary Public, State of Iowa
.
Attachment #9
.
Customer Service Surveys
.
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
January 28, 2000
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
, '. \J'\~
Kay Munson, Planning Technician \J
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Customer Service SurveynDesign Review Applicants, 1995-1999
In June, 1997, Community and Economic Development staff sent out 59 surveys
to design review applicants. Of the 59 surveys sent, 20 responded (34%), In July,
1999, Planning Services staff sent out 53 surveys to design review applicants from
1997-1999. Of the 53 surveys sent, 21 responded (40%). Of the 112 surveys
distributed to design review applicants from 1995 to 1999, 41 responded (36%).
Following are the results of those surveys.
Copies of the Historic Preservation Commission's 1995-1997 and 1997-1999
Customer Service Surveys for Design Review Applicants are attached.
In 1995-1997, 68% of the respondents indicated that this was their first design
review. Of the 20 people responding, 79% knew that HPC approval was required
before they could get a building permit for their project. In 1997-1999, 79% of the
respondents indicated that this was their first design review. One respondent had
been to the Commission 3 times in the past. Of the 21 people responding, 86%
knew that HPC approval was required before they could get a building permit for
their project.
Seventy-nine percent of the 1995-1997 respondents felt that staff provided
sufficient information/guidance about the design review process when taking their
application. For 1997-1999, this figure increased to 95%,
A decision was reached by the HPC in just one meeting for 90% of the 1995-1997
respondents, and for 80% of the 1997-1999 respondents. For 1995-1997, 78%
were satisfied with the decision, while 83% were satisfied in 1997-1999. Eight-
nine percent of those projects were approved in each survey period. Seventy-eight
percent of the respondents felt that the HPC acted fairly and reasonably while
making its decision in 1995-1997; this figure decreased to 63% in 1997-1999.
January 28, 2000
Page 2
Sixty-eight percent of the respondents thought that the meeting time and place was
convenient for them in 1995-1997, while 95% felt this way in 1997-1999.
Seventy-four percent of the respondents in 1995-1997 and 70% of the
respondents in 1997-1999 believed that the HPC acted in a professional and
appropriate manner during their design review.
When asked if they thought the Standards for Rehabilitation that the HPC used to
make design review decisions were reasonable, 74% of the respondents indicated
yes in 1995-1997, and 72% indicated yes in 1997-1999.
Seventy-nine percent of the 1995-1997 respondents indicated the overall average
rating of the design review process was somewhat satisfactory to very
satisfactory, while only 57% indicated this in 1997-1999. Forty-three percent of
the respondents for each survey period indicated that the design review process
was somewhat unsatisfactory to very unsatisfactory.
Following are comments made:
. Pam was very helpful and responsive through the entire process.
Dubuque needs HPC and I feel HPC does a good job most of the time; however
should stick with guidelines (no exceptions), no vinyl siding and no aluminum.
City of Dubuque needs to offer more incentives to promote restoration in
historic districts.
. The Commission was friendly and interested in old house projects,
HPC only allows original materials. Other materials like vinyl siding and
fiberglass are much better than the wood which needs lots more maintenance.
Also, wooden shingles are totally obsolete and a fire hazard and burden the
owner with lots of extra cost.
Suggestions will not help.
I feel that the Commission was snobbish and looked at those trying to get
approval as just a bit better than they were and that some of the Commission
always had more to say than others or their opinions outweighed others.
Information given to Realtors regarding standards for rehab would be helpful to
potential home buyers in historic districts. Most Realtors aren't very
knowledgeable.
.
.
.
January 28, 2000
Page 3
Communism is alive and well in Dubuque. Mao would be proud of HPC. Stalin
set high standards also.
I should not have to ask strangers for approval to my home. They don't ask me
about their home improvements.
Following are comments from the 1997-1999 respondents:
. They wanted price information. I spent a lot of time getting it and they did not
use it.
I feel many of the "standards" make it harder for most "normal" homeowners to
complete needed renovations within their financial abilities and personal tastes.
Excellent to work with.
I don't think anyone who is improving their property and doing whatever it takes
to stay solvent should be hindered in any way by a Commission.
I did not attend the meeting and I forget what time it was held.
. The process has made me put 29% more into the property than it is worth and
this is not eligible for the urban revite credit as it doesn't increase the value of
the property. Why and how can you attract more business to area--suggest that
a financial person be on the Commission to balance these types of demands that
don't make good business sense, or you'll either not attract new businesses or
cause them not to keep property as aesthetically pleasing as it should be. I was
also given inaccurate information as to grants.
I feel that (old) is not historic and that seems to be a problem. I also think
property rights need to be a high priority.
. Cindy was very helpful.
Safety issues need to be made a top priority while making historic preservation
decisions. The Commission should realize that in the long run, ~ versus
buildings always have more value. In addition "the Standards" do provide for
options when health and safety are at risk!
. We were disappointed that our design review was not accepted and felt they
rushed into it when making their decision. It was simply made too darn quickly!!
January 28, 2000
Page 4
Our neighborhood has lost two very good families as neighbors because of our
decisions that put historic preservation more important than families' health and
wishes. Decisions they make are based on their opinions with nothing to back
their opinions up. They gave wrong information on products available.
. They were courteous but did not make informed decisions.
After reviewing the survey data in September, 1999, the HPC asked staff to
combine the results. When the results of the earlier surveys are combined with the
1997-1999 surveys, the cumulative results from 1995-1997 are:
Of the 112 total surveys sent, 41 responded (30%).
Seventy-four percent of the respondents indicated that this was their first design
review. Of the 41 people responding, 83% knew that HPC approval was required
before they could get a building permit for their project.
Eighty-seven percent of the respondents felt that staff provided sufficient
information/guidance about the design review process when taking their
application.
A decision was reached by the HPC in just one meeting for 85% of the
respondents, and 89% were satisfied with the decision. Seventy-one percent of
the respondents felt that the HPC acted fairly and reasonably while making its
decision.
Eighty percent of the respondents thought that the meeting time and place was
convenient for them. Seventy-two percent of the respondents believed that the
HPC acted in a professional and appropriate manner during their design review.
When asked if they thought the Standards for Rehabilitation that the HPC used to
make design review decisions were reasonable, 73% of the respondents indicated
yes.
Sixty-eight percent of the respondents indicated the overall average rating of the
design review process was somewhat satisfactory to very satisfactory, while forty-
three percent of the respondents indicated that the design review process was
somewhat unsatisfactory to very unsatisfactory.
Iklm
Attachments
.
.
.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
USER SURVEY
June 1997
This survey is being sent to all applicants for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Reviews over the past
three years, Your comments will be invaluable as staff and the City Council work with the Commission and our local
historic district property owners to improve our historic preservation programs and policies,
We hope you will take the time to complete this survey. !t will provide important infonnation for this evaluation, A
stamped, self-addressed envelope is included to mail back this anonymous survey fonn, THANK YOU,
All questions should be answered based on your experience with the Historic Preservation Commission's Design Review
process during 1995. 1996 and 1997:
I, Was this your first design review?
Jfnot, how many design reviews have you had? -
y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
2, Did you know that HPC approval was required before you could get a building penn it for your
project?
3, Did staff provide you with sufficient infonnationlguidance about the design review process when
taking your application?
4, Was a decision regarding your project made by the HPC in just one meeting?
5, Were you satifted with the decision?
6,
Was your project approved?
7. Did you feel that the HPC acted fairly and reasonably in making its decision?
8, Does the HPC meet at a time and place you feel is convenient to most people (2nd and 4th Thursdays
at 5:00 pm at City Hall)? Y
N
9, Did you feel that the HPC acted in a professional and appropriate manner during your design review? Y
N
10. Do you think the standards for rehabilitation that the HPC uses to make decisions are reasonable?
Y
N
Any other comments/suggestions:
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the design review process? (Please circle response.)
2 3 4 5 6
Very Satisfactory/Satisfactory/Somewhat Satisfactory/Somewhat Unsatisfactory/UnsatisfactoryNery Unsatisfactory
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CUSTOMER SERVICES SURVEY: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICANTS
This survey is being sent to all applicants for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Review
over the past two years. Your comments will be invaluable as the Commission works with City staff,
City Council and our local historic district property owners to improve our historic preservation
programs and policies,
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is included to mail back this anonymous survey form. We hope
you will take the time to complete this survey and return it by July 28,1999, THANK YOU!
All responses should be based on your experience with the Historic Preservation Commission's
Design Review process during 1997 - 1999.
1, Was this your first design review? Y N
If not, how many design reviews have you had?
2, Did you know that HPC approval was required before you could get a building permit
for your project? Y N
3. Did staff provide you with sufficient information/guidance about the design review
process when taking your application? Y N
4, Was a decision regarding your project made by the HPC in just one meeting? Y N
5, Were you satisfied with the decision? Y N
6, Was your project approved? Y N
7, Did you feel that the HPC acted fairly and reasonably in making its decision? Y N
8, Did the HPC meet at a time and place you felt was is convenient to most people? Y N
9. Did you feel that the HPC acted in a professional and appropriate manner during
your design review? Y N
10, Did you think the Standards for Rehabilitation that the HPC used to make design review
decisions were reasonable? Y N
Any other comments/suggestions:
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the Design Review process (please circle response),
2
3
4
5
6
very satisfactory/satisfactory/somewhat satisfactory/somewhat unsatisfactory/unsatisfactory/very unsatisfactory
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
September 9, 1999
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
Kay Munson, Planning TechniciJr
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Customer Service Survey--Commission Members
In July, 1999, Planning Services staff sent out 16 surveys to past and present Historic
Preservation Commission members who served from 1989-1999. Of the 16 surveys
sent, 5 commissioners responded (31 %). Following are the results received. The
survey forms are enclosed.
When asked what best describes the expertise of City staff who facilitated the
Commission meetings, 80% of the respondents indicated that staff were
knowledgeable and had the following comments:
Daines was excellent.
* Change in staff and department is disruptive. The recent move from economic
development weakens the strength and (possibly) respect for the issue of
preservation as being necessary to economic success of the city.
* Sara was the most knowledgeable. Pam is knowledgeable. Cindy's expertise was
more than adequate. Mark Noble's knowledge of historic preservation is somewhat
limited, but he has only just started with this Commission.
When asked what best describes the timeliness or response time in which requests to
City staff were handled, 75% of the respondents indicated that staff handled their
requests promptly and efficiently, with the following comments:
* In the early years, timeliness was prompt. More recently, City staff seemed to be
Historic Preservation Commission
September 9, 1999
Page 2
much more busy with other projects and the time allotted to HPC was less than
required for a positive program.
Forty percent of the respondents felt that they were adequately informed of the
process they need to follow as a Commission Member. Following are their comments:
* The Commission took a long time to understand its power and authority--the staff,
especially attorneys, were reluctant to guide the Commission as to what they had
the right to do, to require of an applicant, to clarify what's evidence or was
appropriate or inappropriate.
* All information had to be gleaned from the blue book.
When asked what City staff could do to make Commission members more efficient,
effective and responsive as a Commission member, the following comments were
received:
* The Commission needs to become more of an advocate for preservation and
become a partner in economic progress.
Get Commission members more involved with districts and property owners to
promote historic preservation, but mostly recruit and educate the Commission.
My experience was more of a learn by doing situation.
* We get more information now than years back--continue as staff is doing now.
When asked if there are other or additional services that they thought City staff should
have provided to the Commission, the following comments were noted:
There is no one on City staff who has the training and expertise in preservation,
which is greatly needed.
More planning education sessions are needed to develop positive programs so that
the Commission's duties are more than design reviews.
Inform applicants what is expected of them. Drawings - pictures - products, etc.
and not put them on the agenda without proper information.
When asked to list anyon-going problems or issues that have not been addressed, the
following comments were received:
.
.
.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 9, 1999
Page 3
City Council must back its Commissions.
The Commission was always viewed by the City as a roadblock to be
circumvented, or a poor stepchild to be tolerated rather than a tool for progress.
When exciting possibilities were developing on lower Main Street, the Commission
was purposely not kept informed or included and was viewed as a roadblock to the
process the City staff and Council had already decided upon. This shortsightedly
excludes those on the Commission who have the greatest expertise.
Creation of design guidelines specific to Dubuque and individual districts. City
Council Member assigned to each Commission to get involved and educated.
Additional comments received were as follows:
I feel privileged to have worked with Barney Bishop and Sara Daines. From them, I
learned a great deal. From what I have gathered in the last 7 years, I was very
fortunate to have Barney and Sara to guide me through all my decisions.
* The City Manager, Council and staff view the Historic Preservation Commission as
a regulatory body only, as with other commissions. However, the HPC should also
have an advisory and planninglvisionary role because there is no one on City staff
with preservation expertise. The Commission has a wealth of experience and
expertise that could be a contributing partner in development decisions. Instead of
a City leader standing in front of a decaying building and declaring it a blight that
should be torn down, he should say this building is a blight that can be saved as
we preserve our historic architecture and improve this neighborhood. If
preservation is an alternative for the City, then staff should be directed to consult
the Commission early in the process to work together to make things happen.
Preserving the historic character of Dubuque's buildings and neighborhoods, parks
and recreation areas are the key elements that will continue to promote economic
developmentunot just in these easy booming times, but also when the economy
slows down.
Enclosures
cc Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
Pam Myhre, Associate Planner
Tim O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
.
.
.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CUSTOMER SERVICES SURVEY: PAST COMMISSION MEMBERS
This survey is being sent to all past members of the Historic Preservation
Commission. Your comments will be invaluable as the Commission works with City
staff, City Council and our local historic district property owners to improve our historic
preservation programs and policies,
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is included to mail back this anonymous survey
form. We hope you will take the time to complete this survey and return it to the
Planning Services Department by July 28,1999.
1,
What was the approximate time frame of your tenure on the Historic
Preservation Commission (month/year to month/year)?
3,
What best describes the expertise of the City staff who facilitated your
Commission meetings?
- Knowledgeable
- Adequate
- Uninformed
Comments:
3,
What best describes the timeliness or response time in which your requests to
City staff were handled?
- Prompt & Efficient
- Adequate
- Excessive
Comments:
4,
Do you feel you were adequately prepared and oriented to the Historic
Preservation Commission?
- Yes
- Somewhat
_No
Comments:
5,
Do you feel you were adequately informed of the process you needed to
following as a Commission Member?
- Yes
- Somewhat
_No
9,
If not, please explain:
6,
Based on your experience, what could the City staff have done to make you
more efficient, effective and responsive as a Commission member?
7,
Are there other or additional services that you think City staff should have
provided to the Commission?
8,
Please list anyon-going problems or issues that have not been addressed,-
Additional comments:
10,
Feedback for you - optional: Please complete this section if you would like City
staff to contact you.
Name:
Telephone:
Best time to call- day(s): M T W Th F
Time of day:
.
.
.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CUSTOMER SERVICES SURVEY - CURRENT COMMISSION MEMBERS
This survey is for current members of the Historic Preservation Commission,
Your comments will be invaluable as the Commission works with City staff, City Council
and our local historic district property owners to improve our historic preservation
programs and policies.
We hope you will take the time to complete this survey and return it by July 28,1999
to the Planning Services Department A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed
for your convenience,
1,
How long have you served on the Historic Preservation Commission?
2,
What best describes the expertise of the City staff who facilitate your
Commission meeting?
- Knowledgeable
_Adequate
- Uninformed
Comments:
3,
What best describes the timeliness or response time in which your requests to
City staff are handled?
- Prompt & Efficient
- Adequate
- Excessive
Comments:
4.
Do you feel you were adequately prepared and oriented to the Historic
Preservation Commission?
- Yes
- Somewhat
_No
Comments:
Customer Service Survey
Current Commission Members
Page 2
5,
Do you feel you were adequately informed of the process you needed to
following as a Commission Member?
- Yes
- Somewhat
_No
If not, please explain:
6,
Based on your experience, what can the City staff do to make you more efficient,
effective and responsive as a Commission member?
7,
Are there other or additional services that you think City staff should provide to
the Commission?
8,
Please list anyon-going problems or issues that have not been addressed,-
9.
Additional comments:
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
July 28, 1999
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Kay Munson, Planning Technicia~~
SUBJECT:
Customer Service Survey--City Departments
In July, 1999, Planning Services staff sent out 35 surveys to the Building Safety,
Housing Services, Community and Economic Development, Fire and Planning
Services Departments. Eighteen employees (51 %) responded to the survey.
Following are the results of those surveys.
Of the 18 people responding, 6 respondents (34%) indicated that they had been
provided the following service/services:
Design Review
Economic Hardship
Loan/Grant Project Review
Historic Preservation
Sixty-six percent of these respondents felt that the Commissioners they worked
with were knowledgeable; 34% felt that the knowledge of the Commissioners was
adequate. Comments were: 1) the Commission was too close-minded--would not
look at literature to back applicant.
One-hundred percent of the respondents felt that the expertise of City staff was
knowledgeable. Comments were: 1) Staffing has rotated--some knowledgeable,
some uninformed.
Sixty-two percent of the respondents felt that their request was handled in a
timely manner; 38% felt that their request was handled in an adequate manner.
Historic Preservation Commission
July 28, 1999
Page 2
Comments received were: 1) Members did not stay for the entire meeting; 2)
several conversations occurred simultaneously; 3) MOA's--could always get one
pushed ahead as needed; and, 4) Again, has depended on which staff member
handling.
All respondents indicated they felt they had adequately been assisted and/or their
needs had been met.
When asked about exploring additional services the Historic Preservation
Commission could provide, 100% of the respondents indicated they would like
production of historic district maps, 75% indicated they would like design
guidelines specific to each Historic District, and 88% said they should like to have
special project analysis. One comment received was to list the property as historic
on the abstract and deed.
Additional services or issues mentioned that they would like addressed are:
1) Educational materials/training seminars--promotional projects such as an award
program and funding assistance; and 2) public information material available to
Realtors when listing a home in a historic preservation district.
When asked if they knew of anyon-going problems that have not been addressed,
the following comment was made: Lead-based paint abatement techniques, and
education of citizens and contractors about benefits of historic preservation.
Additional comments ranged from:
*
My experience has been with staff, not with the Historic Preservation
Commission.
I haven't been here long enough to have had much experience with this
Commission. I think their work is important.
I feel the Commission provides a valuable service and is necessary for the
continued enhancement of historic structures.
The comments I hear most often relate to the need to treat contributing
structures in a historic district different from noncontributing structures,
and the need to be less restrictive with new products such as vinyl siding
with matte finish, which is recognized by some cities as appropriate for
certain applications, and some of the other nonwood products such as
composite columns, nonwood trim, such as lintil work, etc. which serve as
well as a wood replacement in looks and texture.
*
*
*
.
.
.
Historic Preservation Commission
July 28, 1999
Page 3
*
Convene meeting with housing staff to review rehab guidelines. Hold
workshop for local contractors/demonstrating cost effective
rehab\preservation techniques.
Give map to real estate offices.
Additional information (zoning, parcel ID, etc.). I imagine will be available
when GIS becomes fully operational.
All landlords having questions are referred to Planning.
I believe that the Historic Districts are a vital part of the community's future
and the leaders of the community must be informed on the benefits the
community receives by preserving historic structures.
There is a big difference of view on historic preservation. Those who
believe and those who do not. You will never convert them but need to
address the issues. Make known the opportunities available and don't
waiver from the regulations. Money is the key - provide money and the
people will restore!
*
*
*
*
*
A copy of the Historic Preservation Commission's Customer Service Survey for
City Departments is attached.
Iklm
Attachment
cc Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Mark Noble, Assistant Planner
Pam Myhre, Associate Planner
Tim O'Brien, Assistant City Attorney
.
.
.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CUSTOMER SERVICES SURVEY: CITY DEPARTMENTS
This survey is being sent to all staff in the Housing Services, Fire Marshal, Community
and Economic Development, Building Safety, Legal and Planning Services
Departments by the Historic Preservation Commission, Your comments will be
invaluable as the Commission works with City staff, City Council and our local historic
district property owners to improve our historic preservation programs and policies.
We hope you will take the time to complete this survey and return it to the Planning
Services Department by July 21, 1999.
Department Name:
All responses should be based on your experience with the Historic Preservation
Commission during 1997-1999,
SECTION A.
1,
What type of service(s) has the Historic Preservation Commission provided to
you or worked on with you in the past two years? Please check all that apply.
- Design Review (e.g" bulding or sign permit)
- Economic Hardship (e,g., demolition permit)
- LoanlGrant Project Review (e.g" facade)
- Other ProjecUPlan Review
- Historic Preservation
- Other
2,
If you checked "Other", please describe. If none, please go to Section B, -
3.
What best describes the expertise of the Commissioners who worked with you or
helped you?
- Knowledgeable
- Adequate
- Uninformed
Comments:
4.
What best describes the expertise of the City staff who worked with you or
helped you?
- Knowledgeable
_Adequate
- Uninformed
3,
4.
Comments:
5.
What best describes the timeliness or response time in which your request was
handled?
- Prompt & Efficient
- Adequate
- Excessive
Comments:
6.
Overall, do you feel you were adequately assisted andlor were your needs met?
- Yes
- Somewhat
_No
Comments:
SECTION B.
1.
We are exploring additional services the Historic Preservation Commission could
provide. Please check or list all services you might use if they were available, .
- Production of Historic District maps (zoning, ParcellD, City street, aerial,
etc,)
- Design guidelines specific to each Historic District
- Special project analysis (i.e" rehabilitation techniques)
- Other (please list:
2,
Are there any other additional services or issues that you would like the Historic
Preservation Commission to provide?
Do you know of anyon-going problems that have not been addressed?
Additional comments:
Name (optional):
.
Attachment #10
.
Historic Preservation Homeowner Grant Program
and
Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund
.
.
.
.
PROPOSED
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON HOMEOWNER GRANT PROGRAM
Purpose: Preservation grants (in the fonn of a forgivable loan) are available on a competitive
basis to income-qualifYing owner-occupants in any local historic district for specific
rehabilitation projects that preserve the original building materials and character-defining
features of the home, These grants provide financial incentives to homeowners to maintain and
improve their own neighborhood's historic building inventory.
Applicant Eligibility
Existing
Owner-occupant of SF, duplex
or 3-unit property
HUD income-eligible
(80% of median fan1ily income)
Eligible Property
Located in HP District
At least 50 years old
Amouut
I : I match to $2000 grant
Sl'curity
Eligihk IlIIpro\'l'ments
Exterior doors. walls, \\indo\Vs,
roofs, stairs, porches, railings,
retaining walls, painting,
Meets See, of the Interior's Stds
¡¡PC approval of work
1'1"tI~1'IImlhlllgl't
$20,000
F IIIS¡:RS\I'"" h'<\\\'l'I)()('S\lll'l~hl'Bm"LWl'"
Proposed
San1e
San1e
Same
Same
Up to $5000 forgivable loan;
fully forgiven after 5 years
At least a 2,d mortgage
position and promissory note,
Repair/restoration of:
porches, wood windows
8:. doors, wood siding,
character-defining features,
including painting.
Repair/restoration of
chimneys,
Historic colors paint projects,
Same
Review committee ranking
and HPC approval of work,
$35,000
PROPOSED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Purpose: Preservation loans are available on a competitive basis to property owners in the 4
primarily residential historic districts for exterior rehabilitation projects that meet the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This loan fund provides positive incentives to
property owners in these districts to maintain and improve the community's architectural
heritage,
Applicant Eligibility
Any property owner.
Eligible Property
Must be located in Jackson Park, Cathedral, W. II th Street
or Langworthy Historic Districts and be at least 50 years
old,
Loan Amount
Up to $25,000.00
Terms
3%
10 years
Monthly principal and interest payments begin after project
completion.
Limit of one loan per building,
Security
At least a 2nd mortgage position and promissory note.
Eligible Improvements
Exterior work that results in property improvements that
meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
Priority will be given to projects that result in saving,
restoring or reconstructing original building elements, using
original materials, that reflect the architectural character or
significance of the property,
A loan review committee will rank eligible applications.
The Historic Preservation Commission must approve all
work to be completed,
Program Budget
$400,000 total: $200,000 from City; $100,000 from private
fund raising; $20,000 added each year for five years from
City, Possible funding sources: DRA, UDAG, Sales Tax,
General Fund (not CDBG).
F :IUS ERSIPmyhrel WPDOCS\HPClrevol v loan, wpd