Downtown business owners weigh historic district changes
Photo
Several business people have expressed concern about a proposed historic overlay district in downtown Janesville.
Photo
JANESVILLE — Several business people expressed concern about a proposed historic overlay district in downtown Janesville, and one said he had better hurry up and get a new door installed before the district is approved.
But others supported stricter regulations to protect historic properties.
About 15 property owners and interested residents attended Wednesday's meeting on the proposal, which was sponsored by the city's historic commission.
The Downtown Development Alliance and other downtown business owners requested an overlay district. The area would comprise about half of the current downtown historic district.
An overlay district gives the historic commission more power to regulate exterior work that requires permits. That includes alterations to windows and doors, siding and new construction and demolition. It does not include paint color.
The city's only other historic overlay district is in Courthouse Hill.
Jim Grafft, who owns several downtown buildings, said he worries that the ordinance will be based on interpretation. The extra steps required to go before the commission would cost him time and money, he said.
Dan Atwood, commission chairman, said there is no cost to the city because all commission members are volunteers who review the work within two weeks.
If permits are denied, owners can take their requests to the plan commission and finally the council. Atwood said the commission's goal is to work with property owners to help them enhance historic properties.
That protects property values, helps revitalize areas and preserves the city's historic and architectural heritage, Atwood said. It also keeps demolition material out of the landfill.
Grafft said most of the property owners downtown are sensitive to the historic buildings they own, although he did acknowledge there are a few properties he is concerned about.
But the city doesn't need more legislation to cause delays and add to the cost of people trying to get something done, he said.
Jim Alverson, downtown property owner, said property could be ruined very quickly without more oversight.
"Overnight, the integrity of the whole block can be diminished significantly," he said. He told how someone slapped white aluminum in the middle of a harmonious sequence of Italianate windows.
A proposed ordinance will now go to the plan commission, probably no later than late summer, when a public hearing will be held. It will advance to the council for a second public hearing and a vote.
Apr 16, 2011 at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillean- it was me with the "bay window" comment. I couldn't remember the year.
I just recall them speaking of it on the tour.
Apr 15, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sigma40, the overlay district has no power to prevent demolition, as far as I know. That would require a landmarks ordinance with teeth, which is something few municipalities have (Chicago didn't even have one until a couple of years ago, which allowed the loss of hundreds -- hundreds -- of architecturally significant buildings in the 90s building boom). The Historic Commission would, under this ordinance, only oversee renovations for which the existing building code would require a permit application.
.
We have indeed lost many buildings, often to capricious property development. We have lost the unbroken 19th century facades on the south side of E. Milwaukee, the N. side of W. Milwaukee, and the E. side of N. and S. Main, as well as the N. side of the triangular plaza called the Corn Exchange, often to create parking. Fortunately, we still have the Monterey Hotel, the Cotton Mills, the Hayes Block, and a number of block-long Victorian facade runs to be proud of.
.
As for "keeping old windows", this is not about that. The city allows windows to be updated, but owners should take the time to do it right. There are today many suppliers of historic-looking modern windows, although custom does cost a little more than just slamming in an off-the-shelf vinyl window and some shimming. The benefit is higher property values for the building and the surrounding properties. The Forward Janesville project on Jackson is an excellent example of modern construction methods that are attractive and compatible with the historic downtown.
.
The basic principle of historic rehabilitation is not to maintain a museum-quality piece, but to give buildings continued economic value in the modern era. This means modern plumbing, power, HVAC, and energy efficiency, but keeping as much of the historic appearance intact as possible. It's not hard, and not especially expensive, but property owners, architect, and contractors need to take a little more care, that's all.
.
SarahB1, if the "bay window" you are referring to is the corner bay of the Hayes Block, your memory is mistaken. It was added to the building in 1899. In general, although Grafft voiced objections at this meeting, the Hayes Block is very near an A+ in terms of historic rehabilitation that maintains the character of a structure while giving it modern functionality inside.
http://hayesblock.com/history.htm
Apr 15, 2011 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grafft . . . .,although he did acknowledge there are a few properties he is concerned about. Ha! He's concerned? Are they his?? Yeesh!
Apr 15, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
If they had the "overlay" in the 60's or so when they redid the building in the pic it wouldn't have the neat bays or what ever you call it. The white section was added later to that building. IT was just square before.
Graft to follow more rules - yikes.
I like the idea but they need to be reasonable when it comes to windows like somebody mentioned.
How about they just FIX the building instead of letting them crumble. I would be happy with that.
Apr 15, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
They already knocked down some of the important historical building I think. The old theater was one of them.
Apr 15, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Graftt is nothing more than a loud mouth crybaby when he doesn't get his own way. Unforetuneatly the city council usually falls for his games.
Apr 15, 2011 at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
frogger- my thoughts exactly
Apr 15, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Speaking of Grafft- WHEN will he fix his own building. Hasn't been a couple years now since it was "in the works".
Apr 15, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
If they own the building they should be allowed to update it. Especially windows and doors. Couldnt imagine the heating price for a huge building with crappy windows. They city expects owners to shell out the cash just because they want the old windows kept?
Apr 15, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who really wants to go downtown anyway except lawyers judges and the like.
Apr 14, 2011 at 11:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Will the last one to leave Janesville please turn out the lights.
Apr 14, 2011 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gee, I can see more businesses getting ready to paint those for sale signs now.
Apr 14, 2011 at 7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Back in my day, these buildings were so new they were not considered to be historic. In 50 years my crappy 1950s ranch house will probably be considered historic.
Apr 14, 2011 at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Someone slapped white aluminum in the middle of a harmonious sequence of Italianate windows?
OMG! How could ANYBODY do THAT to harmonious sequences of Italianate windows?
Pure insanity I tell you, pure insanity!
They should have used vinyl.
Apr 14, 2011 at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why is Grafft so concerned? His daughter is on the Historic Preservation Commission.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.