Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Aciton Form dated November 13, 1990 ✓ C ,4 F ITEM #: DATE: 1 190 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: Motion to Set November 27, 1990, as the Date of Public Hearing to Consid- er an Amendment to Section 31.11 of Chapter 31, of the Municipal Code to Allow the Administrative Approval of Selected Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. BACKGROUND: The Historic Preservation Commission has requested that City staff prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to provide for the administrative approval of certain applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for which action by the Commission is not necessary. This decision by the Commission was based on the Commission's experience of the past several months during which time Commission members have reviewed numerous applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. Many of these applications have involved alterations to exterior elements of houses which are of a very minor nature. The removal and replacement of gutters and downspouts or shingles are two examples of minor alterations to existing structures. The Commission has expressed a need to abbrevi- ate the approval procedure for such applications by providing for adminis- trative approval without the requirement for action by the Commission. ANALYSIS: Staff believes there are four (4) approaches that could be considered by the City Council in terms of providing for administrative approval for Certificates of Appropriateness. These alternatives are described below as Options 1-4. Option No. 1: Amend the Code to provide staff with the authority to approve or deny all alterations to contributing and compatible struc- tures. Option No. 2: Amend the Code to provide staff with the authority to approve or deny a broadly defined list of proposed alterations to contributing and compatible structures. 2 Option No. 3: Amend the Code to provide staff with the authority to approve or deny a narrowly defined, restrictive list of only the most routine, noncontroversial alterations that are proposed for contributing and compatible structures. Option No. 4: Make no change to the Code. Staff would continue to process all applications through the Historic Preservation Commission. The following is a more detailed explanation of each of the four (4) options. OPTION NO. 1: If the City Council selects this option, staff would approve or deny all applications for Certificates of Appropriateness that involve "alterations" to contributing or compatible structures. The Historic Preservation Commission would issue or deny Certificates of Appropriateness for "new construction" (includ- ing the construction of new structures and additions to existing structures), "demolition", and "relocation" of existing structures. Staff believes that this option would enable the administrative approval certain alterations, such as the removal or enclosing of an existing porch, that would more appropriately be a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. OPTION NO. 2: If the City Council selects this option, staff would approve or deny applications for Certificates of Appropriateness that would involve any or all of the items included on a list ap- proved by City Council. The following is a suggested list of items to be considered if this option is selected: 1. Gutters and downspouts; 2. Reroofing with cedar shakes or asphalt shingles; 3. Installation or replacement of roof vents or attic vents; 4. Installation or replacement of rubber or other composition materials for flat roofs; 5. Removal of nonoriginal siding materials to expose original siding material; 6. Installation or replacement of soffit vents; 7. Replacement of wood, aluminum, steel, or vinyl storm windows of the same size, design, and materials; 3 8. Replacement of storm doors with new storm doors designed with large panels of glass and of very simple design; 9. Replacement of canvas awnings of the same size, design, and materials; 10. Replacement of wood shutters of the same size, design, and materials; 11. Rebuilding of existing masonry chimneys of the same size, design, and materials to include metal flue liners, dampers, and flue caps; 12. Replacement of steps and handrails of the same size, design, and materials as existing (Note: Approval of precast concrete steps would require Commission action.); 13. Extension of existing fences and retaining walls to match existing in terms of dimensions, design, and materials; 14. Replacement of wooden windows and wooden doors that match the existing in terms of size, design, and materials; and 15. Replacement of existing trim features that match the existing trim in terms of size, design, and materials. Staff believes there is merit to allowing the administrative approval of the items listed above to expedite the approval process for many of the relatively simple, straight-forward alterations that are frequently required to receive Commission approval. OPTION NO. 3: If the City Council selects this option, staff would approve or deny applications for Certificates of Appropriateness that would involve only a very limited list of routine items, such as the items listed below: 1. Gutters and downspouts; 2. Reroofing with cedar shakes or asphalt shingles; 3. Installation or replacement of roof vents or attic vents; 4. Installation or replacement of rubber or other composition materials for flat roofs; 5. Removal of nonoriginal siding materials to expose original siding materials; 6. Installation or replacement of soffit vents; 7. Replacement of wood, aluminum, steel, or vinyl storm windows of the same size, design, and materials; and 8. Replacement of storm doors with new storm doors designed with large panels of glass of very simple design. 4 Staff believes that the above described list of items are clearly items which could be administratively approved or denied by City staff. These items are very straight-forward and do not require the expertise of the Commission members for a decision to be made. OPTION NO. 4: If the City Council selects this option, the review and pro- cessing of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness would continue as it has in the past and no administrative approval of applications would be allowed. Staff believes that this approach does not promote the most efficient use of time and resources for either the applicant, the staff, or the Historic Preservation Commission. REFERRAL TO COMMISSION: Any unresolved dispute as to administrative interpretation of Municipal Code requirements will automatically require the entire application to be processed in accordance with the Historic Preservation Commission review procedure specified by Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code. Applications which have not received final administrative approval within thirty (30) days from the date of acceptance of the application, due to any unresolved dispute as to the administrative interpretation of the Municipal Code shall be submitted in their entirety to the Historic Preservation Commission. INFORMATION FROM OTHER CITIES: Des Moines: The City of Des Moines has included provisions in their Municipal Code to allow for the administrative approval of fourteen (14) items which involve alterations to existing historic structures. Many of these items are included in the list for Option No. 3. Administrative approval can sometimes occur while the applicant waits. In other instances, administrative approval may take as long as two (2) days. Iowa City: The City of Iowa City does not allow the administrative approval of applications, but does have a process to approve a "Certificate of No Material Effect". This type of certificate is for fire escapes, minor alterations to outbuildings, and alterations not visible from the street. 5 Action on this type of certification is required by only the Chairper- son of the Historic Preservation Commission and one (1) other Commission member. Action must occur within two (2) days after receipt of the application. The Chairperson and Commission member have the option of referring the request to the full Commission for consideration. Certificates of Appropriateness and Certificates of No Material Effect are required only if the proposed action requires a building permit. Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation: The Historic Preserva- tion Commission reviewed this item at their meeting of September 9, 1990, and made the following recommendation: The City Council should approve Option No. 3 with the following modifications: Installation or replacement of roof vents or attic vents; and Replacement of wood, aluminum, steel, or vinyl storm windows of the same size, design, and materials should be removed from the list of items that staff could approve Certificates of Appropriateness for. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve of Option 1 as stated in this Action Form, and set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. 2. The City Council can approve of Option 2 as stated in this Action Form, and set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. 3. The City Council can approve of Option 3 as stated in this Action Form, and set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. 4. The City Council can approve of Option 3 as modified by the Historic Preservation Commission. More specifically, the installation of roof and attic vents and the replacement of wood, aluminum, steel, or vinyl storm windows would be deleted from Option 3, and set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. 5. The City Council can approve of Option 4 as stated in this Action Form, and set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. 6. The City Council can deny approval of the proposed amendment. 7. The City Council can refer this item back to staff for further information. 6 MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #4. This will approve of the amendment to the Historic Preser- vation Ordinance that would give limited authority to staff to approve Certificates of Appropriateness for a limited number of routine items as modified by the Historic Preservation Commission. This will also set November 27, 1990, as the date of Public Hearing on this issue. COUNCIL ACTION: y\bpo\caf\historic.n13