Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-23 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2 THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE APPLICATION OF VINYL SIDING TO A DUPLEX AT 815-17 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET WHICH APPEAL WAS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ON MAY 16TM, 2003 BY APPLICANT FRANK FLEMING. (1) PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (Reads item). This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. Vanderhoef: Before we start the hearing I would just like to say one thing. I'm going to apologize to Council and to the Historical Preservation Committee I was confused on my dates and I will be available tomorrow night. But when I discovered it, it was too late to switch it back to having this public hearing on Tuesday night. And I'm very, very sorry. Lehman: Okay. Well public hearing is still open. Franklin: In consultation with Eleanor it probably would be appropriate to have the appellants speak to you and then Mike Gunn and Mike MaHarry from the Historic Preservation Commission are here to represent the Commission. So I guess Mr. Fleming. Pfab: At this point before would it be improper to continue this until tomorrow then. Lehman: We have the people here. It's been advertised. Why would we ask them to come back tomorrow night? Pfab: I know. Well you don't have to ask them. Fleming: I'm in Des Moines tomorrow night Irvin. P fab: Okay. Fleming: I can speak my peace tonight. You can vote on it tomorrow. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. //2 Page 2 Karmer: But one other thing. For the record could you read the denial? Could we read the denial of the certificate of appropriateness. It's a short thing that's... Lehman: Well I think it's a matter of record. We all have it and we'll all here. It's not televised. Kanner: Well I think it's just a good process to have. Lehman: Well it was denied. But let's go through the hearing and we'll see what happens. Go ahead Frank. Fleming: I'm Frank Fleming. I've lived here since 1974. I'm a nurse at University Hospitals. ! own 10 rental properties. This house I contacted most of you, at least left a message for those I couldn't...it's on the northwest comer of Summit Street right next to the new bridge. It is occupied by rental people, actually HUD people - so low-income housing. And I want to improve that property. So I got a bid on putting vinyl siding on, signed that bid. I think it was about seven grand. My contractor is here to talk to you. A couple days ago I got a bid for $1400 to paint it. I would still like to put vinyl siding because I think that's upgrading my property and I would like something maintenance free. So, you know, what I have to say may be germane or may not. But I went to all the Parade of Homes recently. I don't know if you had that opportunity. Half of those had vinyl siding. I think that's an improvement to my property. And that's kind of the way I want to go. I cannot afford what the Historic Committee wanted me to do which is cement siding. Actually my contractor won't put it up. He says there's conflicts with the warranty. That's it's very difficult to put up and meet the warranty guidelines. And I just want something that's been tried and true and proven. I have sided a lot of my houses. I would like to keep rental properties affordable in this town. And you know I'm not inclined to take my $7,000 bid and compare it to the $20,000 to put cement board on there. So as you know...as you read that - Steve thanks for wanting that information. This was denied. This was a non-contributing property in an historic division. It is like 40 years old. It's a rental property. And if those of you that I asked to drive by did so you can see you know it's peeling, it's badly in need of painting. I tried to do this...what is this September of last year. It took the Historic Conservation Board 8 months to deny me. You know, ! don't know, I came in to ask them about that process. Nobody got back to me. Nobody called me. Nobody gave me the written information that I asked for on how these things were denied. And my understanding was I had to appeal directly to them. When I did so it wound up here in the City Council. So, you know, I would like to keep this an affordable rental property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 3 It's a very small duplex. It's a handicap gal that I've got in there. I think vinyl siding works really well. If you'll look down the street my garage next door has vinyl siding. Two doors down has vinyl siding. I've got a business across the street and my guess is the Historic Preservation Committee can't drive down Summit Street and with 80% accuracy tell you which houses are vinyl and which are not without getting out and going up or having somebody help them. So I'm a little bit worried that their decisions are not based in fact, that they are in fact sort of over-inclusive because you know there is no way in which my little duplex built 40 years ago was ever meant to be part ora historic preservation area. I mean it's sort of engulfing it and you know it's a big problem. So I'd like to do business. I'd like to...you know it was the City that inspected this house and said you got to paint it or you got to side it. They had signed off on the siding. I got a bid. They said that's fine. I signed a contract and they said okay we'll continue your rental permit. Get it sided as quickly as you can. So you know... Lehman: Excuse me when did you...you said you had talked to the Historic Preservation Commission. Fleming: Yes September 26th I think of last year. Lehman: Did you...and you asked them at that time? Fleming: That's when I went before them. They denied me...I don't know...you have the paperwork - 8 months, 9 months later at which point I within 7 days went to the City Clerk and said I would like to appeal this. Lehman: On September 26th yOU asked them to give you a permit to put vinyl siding on? Fleming: No, that happened like in August of last year. The City cited me when I had an inspection over a year ago. Lehman: I understand that. But when did you ask to put the vinyl siding up? Fleming: I hired a contractor. I signed a contract and set him in to do it. I went over. I cleared out the area. I told my tenants it was being done. And G.T. you can tell me I think it was August of last year he called me up and said they won't give you a permit. So he was actually the one who asked for the permit. I was the one the landowner. I hired him. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 4 O'Donnell: It was September of last year. Lehman: August or September is when the request was first heard. Fleming: September was yeah when I met with the... Kanner: I have a question for Staff or the Commission is why it was voted on September 26th why did it take until May 13th... Lehman: Well we're going to get Staff up here in a minute. Kanner: Well this is pertinent to this. I want to know why did it take so long to issue the official denial of certificate of appropriateness when it voted on September 26th. Dilkes: It's my understanding it was based on what Mitch tells me about his discussions with Shelley that it was purely oversight the resolution was not filed. Kanner: That's a big thing. Pfab: I have one question. Your neighbors to the south what kind of siding is on that house? Fleming: My neighbor to the south...across the railroad tracks... ? Pfab: Okay so you're next to the railroad tracks? Fleming: Yeah I am the....it's not only railroad tracks it's a changing station. If you spent a little time there... Pfab: Switching station. Fleming: Yeah. It's more than a railroad track. Wilburn: I have a couple.questions. What information did you receive or do you understanding about what our authority is in overturning or modifying this? Our instruction talks about if it's...if their decision was capricious or arbitrary. Could you address in what way you believe the decision was capricious or arbitrary? Fleming: You know those things Connie addressed for me when I spoke with her a couple of days ago. Wilburn: Okay so did you receive any information about...? Fleming: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 5 Wilbum: Okay. And then...let's see ifI can find my second question here...you said you received some...you got cited by was it the Housing Department? Fleming: Right. I have a rental permit and it was part of their inspection. Wilbum: Okay. And excuse my not familiarity with the details - did you receive a verbal indication that siding would be fine from them or was it written down? Fleming: Yes absolutely. And Norm Cate said that he would come down here and then apparently this got changed recently from Tuesday night to Monday and I had made my arrangements with him to come before he was saying that vinyl siding was fine. Not only for the City Inspection Services, but for HUD services which are somewhat more rigorous. And when this got changed really not very long ago - and it's okay with me. I'd rather be here tonight. But I didn't think it was absolutely necessary to bring him in. But in fact I have written information that says that the City would support vinyl siding on it. They think it's an upgrade. I think it's an upgrade. Wilburn: Okay. So then a question I'll have for Staff is what...does Housing have any figure about properties that are within a historic preservation... Fleming: Actually their suggestion to me was this is a non-contributing property. There will be no problem. You go ahead, submit this to the Historic Preservation Committee and they won't have any problem because this does not add in any way to the historic preservation area. Wilburn: And who did you receive that information... Fleming: Norm. Art Anderson was the gentleman that actually did the inspection, but Norm was the senior inspector was the one I talked to on this. And, you know, when I talked to the people downstairs it looked like it was a very simple was to improve my property. The people upstairs had a different idea. Wilburn: Okay, but otherwise in terms of an arbitrary or capricious decision you really don't have. Fleming: Well it seems arbitrary and if you'll look back at the verbiage in the report that you have which is fairly thick the director of the Historic Preservation Committee contradicts herself on a couple of different occasions. And in fact this has not been administered sort of equally and fairly across the board throughout the City. Certain people have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 6 had their attorneys called and then they get permits to put up things. So I think that in fact the way I'm being treated is not equal to everybody else. And I think that is a bit capricious. Wilbum: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Lehman: Thank you. Fleming: I'll stand up here in case you got anything else. G.T. Kan': I'm going to add to what Frank said. Lehman: You'll need to state your name first. G.T. Karr: I am going to. Thank you Mr. Lehman. (Reads statement). Lehman: Thank you. Fleming: I'm hoping they got more questions. Lehman: Well I think...I have questions, but I have questions I think for some of folks on the Commission or whoever. Is someone here to represent the Commission? Mike Gunn: Mike Gunn. I'm a commission member. Michael MaHarry:Michael MaHarry, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Dilkes: I'm going to interrupt. Lehman: We need one at a time. Dilkes: Before they start as I put in the memo Mr. Karr's comments were largely directed not to the issue before, but to the whole issue of what guidelines you want to have in place and that's certainly something you can deal with anytime you want to. But that's really not the issue here. And I'm not sure it's appropriate tonight to get into a debate about whether vinyl siding is a good thing or a bad thing. Lehman: Right. No I don't think we will. The only...and I think you alluded to that too Ross that the only review we have is whether or not the decision was arbitrary or capricious. Kanner: But I think the points that he brought up about getting different stories is relevant to the case. And I think if people are hearing different things from different Staff members that's relevant and we need to get to the bottom of that in determining this case. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 7 Lehman: If that... Wilbum: That was the other part of what I was getting at the question for Staff and I guess for Eleanor too if conflicting or confusing messages from the City as a body were given out does that fulfill the requirement of capricious or whatever the other word is? Dilkes: Well no I don't think so. I mean I'm not saying that that's not a problem that you all may want to deal with, but that's not the issue tonight. Everyone here knows what the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission was in this case. And that's the decision that's being appealed and that's the decision that needs to be addressed. Lehman: The issue here is whether or not it was arbitrary or capricious to prevent the application of vinyl siding to this property at 815 - 17 Summit Street. That's the only issue. Dilkes: And I say that now because I suspect these gentlemen could respond in some detail to Mr. Karr, but that's really not what we're here for. Lehman: No I think that's another issue which I'm sure we will address. Okay. Go ahead. Gunn: I guess I didn't come prepared to say a lot. As far as the delay on the decision Mr. Karr was at the meeting last fall - the initial meeting. At that meeting we voted unanimously to deny the permit. And whatever happened after that I'm not sure. As far as the Preservation Commission was concerned that was a decided issue last September. So what brought about the second application for the same thing a couple months ago I don't know. But Mr. Karr was present... Dilkes: I'm sorry. Let mejust clarify. There was simply a delay in the filing of the resolution. The decision as Mr. Gunn states was made in September. The resolution didn't get filed. Lehman: I have the minutes right here. Gunn: And the applicant was present. Lehman: Okay. Gunn: And as far as the decision on page 13 of our guidelines under siding it specifically disallows applying synthetic siding such as aluminum vinyl or false masonry siding in historic districts. And that's the decision we made. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 8 Karmer: But at the same time it does say recommend substituting in place of wood siding only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of original wood. So someone could read that perhaps as being two things in opposition. And who's to know which one takes prevalent? I guess maybe most people would say the disallowed one takes prevalence over the other one, but it could be a bit confusing for most people the way that's it's written out here - recommended on the left side, disallowed on the fight side. So I wonder if you could take us through your thinking on that? Gunn: Okay. The format is much the same on all the different subjects - siding or roofing or any of the various subjects. There are a lot of recommendations given because there are a lot of different situations. People use the recommended side for ideas for instruction. Most of the time most of the recommended would not apply. But sometimes it would and that's what they use. The disallowed column is...are things that we simply will not allow. And that's very clear. That's usually the basis of our decisions. When we deny something it's usually because we just don't allow it in the guidelines. And applying synthetic siding such as aluminum vinyl or false masonry siding is disallowed. We do have at the present time only one substitute for wood siding and that is a fiber cement board. The cost has been grossly misrepresented tonight to you. The cost of the material is similar to the low-end of vinyl. It does cost more to apply it. It has to be painted. But it is a very reasonable substitute for wood. That is the only one presently that we approve and tell people that we approve of. But we do have one approved substitute for wood siding and that is fiber cement. And it's been used a number of times. So that's...we put in the language for substitutes because we want to be open to materials that might come along and take the place of wood. And we have one for the siding. But our recommendation was simply to paint the building. A $1400 quote to paint it. A $7000 quote to side it. You know it's painted. The house was painted the same paint job 10 years ago when I moved to the neighborhood. After 10 years or more - I don't know when it was painted, at least 10 years ago - it's not unreasonable to repaint it. You can repaint it five times for the cost of the siding. So I don't know. We recommended simply to paint it when you know. Lehman: Are there any questions for Michael? Champion: I just have a few questions. Because I mean I think most of the Historic Preservation Commission knows that I'm a great advocate for historic preservation. But I'm starting to wonder if we're not starting to lose common sense in it. That this is a non-contributing house. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 9 Lehman: I think this discussion will happen after we vote. Champion: Oh, okay. Lehman: Because we really are determining only whether this is arbitrary or capricious. Champion: Oh, it's obviously not. Lehman: Well I concur. But are there questions from the Council for these gentlemen? Wilburn: No. Vanderhoefi I think the second discussion I'm waiting for. Lehman: No, I think we all are. Kanner: Are the recommendations to paint with similar situations consistent for other applications? Have you had other applicants who wanted to put on vinyl siding? Are you consistent in that approach? Guun: Correct. Vinyl siding is disallowed. Kanner: And you recommend painting to most people that have wooden siding? Gunn: Or fiber cement board. Kanner: Or fiber cement. You've done that in other cases? MaHarry: If the wood siding is sufficiently deteriorated it really isn't going to hold paint and isn't good then we would recommend replacing it with wood or with fiber cement siding. Kanner: Has that happened in other cases? MaHarry: Yeah. Kanner: And I want to get to the issue of perhaps arbitrary and capriciousness in setting up the zone in the first place. Lehman: I don't think that's relevant. Wilburn: The zone exists. Lehman: It's a zoning issue. All we're talking about is whether or not they applied their regulations in an arbitrary or capricious fashion relative This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 10 to the two issues that we're going to look at tonight. We're going to have your discussion as soon as we get through. Karmer: No I think in setting up the boundaries I should say - the boundaries of the zone. One can say that it shouldn't have been included or perhaps that it should have been included to the end of the street. One could say that it was arbitrary that you set up there. Lehman: We set it up. They didn't. Kanner: Well recommendation. And the Council for that matter. Champion: That was 30 years ago. Kanner: What? Champion: That was 30 years ago. Kanner: Right. And I think a point that the applicant and others have made is that perhaps it was an arbitrary and capricious decision to set it up. Lehman: And we need to address that, but not now. We need to address that... Kanner: Well one can say that I think it's up to judicial bodies which we're acting as if there's some part of it that's capricious and arbitrary that's part of the process at least... Lehman: On the part of that committee. Wilbum: Their actions. That's the way that I interpret. Lehman: That's the only thing is their actions. Our actions may very well...I think we need to talk about that. But all we can talk about here is whether their actions were arbitrary or capricious given the guidelines that they have and the project that they have and the district which we set up. Wilbum: The argument is if the Commission applied the rules as they understood them without being arbitrary or capricious then that's the question right there. Lehman: Right. O'Donnell: I think they clearly did. Champion: Yes of course they did. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 11 Lehman: Are there other questions for these gentlemen? Pfab: Clearly what? O'Donnell: I said they followed... Pfab: Okay. Okay. The way you said it I wasn't sure if you said they were capricious. Lehman: Are there further comments from the Council or from these gentlemen? Vanderhoefi Let's vote. Lehman: Well we need to close the hearing and we need a motion. We can't quite do that yet. Kanner: Well I have a question for Staff members, but I also...I'm trying to find this. I had written this done, but then I thought I saw somewhere in the minutest that it said that Secretary of Interior standards were thrown out. And I don't know if Staff said that or if one of you folks said that in the minutes. And it will take me minute perhaps... Gunn: Regarding vinyl siding? Kanner: In regards to this case. It was maybe in Shelley's notes or in your notes. Pfab: While you're looking that up can I ask Eleanor a question? Karmer: Was that on the pomh? Lehman: I think I remember that myself. Pfab: Could I ask Eleanor while you're looking? Kanner: Go ahead. Pfab: Okay. I'm going to venture into a territory that is fraught with trouble, but if this way back then was arbitrary...? Lehman: This isn't relevant. Pfab: No, no. Lehman: We'll get to it later. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 12 Pfab: No, no, no it is. It is. Is it a possibility - and I don't know - that it's the fruit of a poison tree? Lehman: Well Eleanor... Dilkes: No. Lehman: Eleanor. Dilkes: That's the Fifth Amendment. No. Lehman: It's not relevant. But it will be. Kanner: A question for our Staff. It was stated that I thought I heard that some of our Staff said that vinyl siding would be okay. Lehman: But that's not relevant either. Dilkes: Yeah. Lehman: It's not relevant. Their guidelines prohibit use of vinyl siding. That may be right, wrong or indifferent. But if they followed their guidelines which they did...I think these are issues that we have got to address. Kanner: I don't know if you can separate from Commission from Council. I think it's seen as one body by the public. Lehman: The guidelines prohibit the use of vinyl siding period. That...is that not correct Michael? Gunn: Correct. MaHarry: In historic districts, yes. Lehman: Your guidelines prohibit the use of vinyl siding. Whether that's right or wrong isn't even in discussion. We may all love vinyl. The Staff may love vinyl. Everybody loves vinyl, but the guidelines prohibit it. Kanner: No, but are we hearing...are people heating that you can use vinyl. Champion: They're the ones that make the decision. Lehman: I think...do I hear you say you cannot use vinyl? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. //2 Page 13 Kanner: With reliance on Staff...with great reliance on Staff. So the question is: are people hearing...is there a history of hearing that vinyl siding is okay? Lehman: But from these folks.., have you folks ever approved vinyl siding? MaHarry: No, not since...not for three years since the adoption of the guidelines. Lehman: Okay so since the guidelines... MaHarry: And the only Staff that we have is Shelley McCafferty and she would never... Kanner: Well no the other Staff including...we were referenced the Norm Cate who is in Building and Inspection. So there are other people that are saying it's possible. MaHarry: It is allowed in cases in conservation districts, but it is not allowed anywhere in historic districts period. So is anyone...has anyone ever been confused on it? It could be, but I'm not aware of it. Lehman: But you've been consistent in that requirement? Pfab: And I think you...I tmderstood you say it was unanimous decision. MaHarry: On this particular case yes. Kanner: You have something to say? Lehman: Okay. G.T. Kart Dee is correct, but I did not finish what I presented you in the College Hill - is that right on Johnson Street - College Hill Historic District? On the house that we had misunderstanding with the City where we went and applied for the permit and were told by the inspections, looked on the map. You're fine. Go do it. And when we were pulled off two days from completion we went in front of the board. And because of- I would assume - legal situations and a threat of a lawsuit it was approved for that situation. We did keep a lot of the detail like we usually do. But I find it interesting that it's acceptable there to kind of protect everything, but the rest of the time we can't do it. If again if it's that bad I want historic preservation, but don't compromise things if it's that bad let's not put it on. Lehman: Okay. Karmer: I didn't understand the first part of what you said. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 14 G.T. Karr: In my...when you read through what I passed out on 220 South Johnson Street - the dates are in there. We signed the contract I believe - it would be on the second page - on May 31st 2002 we signed a contract to side 220 South Johnson. Upon signing the contract Paul Sueppel went to the Inspection Department to see if the project required a permit and we were told that it did not. So we started the job. No problem, worked on it. Two days prior to completion a stop work order was given to us and we had to pull off the job. Obviously that was costly to us. And this is something that I'm hitting on. It's not...if you guys don't want to put vinyl on I don't have a problem with that as much as I think the facts were misrepresented and they're not accurate. I also have a problem with the fact that we were allowed to have vinyl on this house, but we weren't on Summit Street. Look at this house. Kanner: Were you ever told by Staff that Summit could have... Dilkes: You know I'm sorry but if anybody...people are entitled to some due process and we're having statements being made. There is no Staff here to respond to these. I mean we're talking about houses that aren't the subject of this hearing. I mean that's not fair. Lehman: No. Kanner: Right. So some of you weren't told. G.T. Karr: No, I'm just clarifying that. I'm not trying to... Lehman: Alright. Kanner: Okay. I'm trying to clarify it some, but you were never told on Summit. G.T. Karr: Frank would have to speak to that. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Alright. But the issue again...this is not the issue. I don't care who told who what. It's...we are talking about what the Commission said. Was their decision arbitrary or capricious period? Kanner: And I think... Lehman: I don't care what anybody else said. O'Donnell: Everybody said that it was not... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 15 Pfab: Is it proper to call the question? Lehman: Well we have a public hearing. Does anyone have anything else they could add to this public hearing before I close the hearing? O'Donnell: Just one question. Lehman: Yes. O'Donnell: I've heard several times this is a non-contributing structure to the area. Lehman: I think we get...that's another one we got to talk about later. I don't think it's relevant here either. O'Donnell: Well I'm wondering did that enter into the decision or would it? If we're answering their question I think it's clear they did their job. Lehman: Alright. Does anyone else have anything to contribute to the hearing? The hearing is closed. The motion would be a motion accepting the recommendation of the... Vanderhoefi Did Marian get one? (2) Motion Declaring Dilkes: Affirming the decision of the...affirming or otherwise the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vanderhoef: Move to uphold the... Lehman: We have a motion to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Is there a second? P£ab: I'll second it. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Wilburn: I would just looking at those September 26th minutes in terms of whether what set of rules whether it was capricious or arbitrary were applied in this situation. Just following the discussion Karr asked why the synthetic siding exception in the conservation district, not historic. He was given an example in our historic districts that they're national districts. They follow the Secretary of Interior standards which would not approve of vinyl. Another spot got into discussion about again disagreement about the appropriateness of the district, but not.., it looks like in each case was given a specific example as to why it was not allowed. Then was recommended that it be painted. In then in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 16 resolution the denial certificate of appropriateness it specifically says that it disallows applying synthetic siding. So it does not appear that anything arbitrary was about. They were given specific answers. Whether they agree with it or not is a different issue. And then the others were another conversation. Lehman: And I want to point out to the Council from that perspective the public as well that our vote on this motion does not indicate our concurrence with the recommendation, only that we do not find that it was arbitrary or capricious. Vanderhoefi Correct. Lehman: We do not need a roll call. This is a motion. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Opposed same sign. The motion carries 6 to 1, Kanner voting the negative. Wilbum: Should we have a motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: We have a motion to accept correspondence and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Before we go to the next you feel that this was arbitrary and capricious is that you voted that you felt that way? Kanner: Yeah for three reasons. I feel that again in the eyes of the public we're one body and there's different stories that might be coming out and I feel it's appropriate to hear testimony actually from some of the Staff. Two I feel the timeline in which was appealed even those it was just a mistake I feel that was arbitrary and capricious in which the certificate of inappropriateness came out. And on the other side of the coin when people miss deadlines they miss the deadline. And this was just too long in terms of making a person wait. There was an arbitrary and capriciousness to it in terms of the official body whether it's the Historic Preservation or not. And then also historically I think how the district was set up there is some arbitrariness and capriciousness. Lehman: All of which have nothing to do with what we just voted on. Kanner: No I feel that's why the law there's different opinions Emie and I feel it does. But there's a majority 6 to 1. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #2 Page 17 Wilburn: Can we get a memo from Staff just talking about whether there is some trigger from Housing related to historic. Can we get some information about that? Champion: If you go up for building permit and you're in a historic district... Lehman: It should trigger it immediately. Champion: ...it triggers immediately. Wilbum: Okay. Kanner: Well in some cases...they were having problems with that. Lehman: Right. Let's move onto item three. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 18 ITEM 3 AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE ENCLOSURE OF A SUN PORCH AT 520 GRANT STREET VOIlCH APPEAL WAS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ON JUNE 2, 2003 BY APPLICANTS CONNIE WEBB AND SHELLEY BRIGHI. (1) Public Hearing Lehman: (Reads item). Okay. Public hearing is open. Connie Webb: I'm Connie Webb and I thank you for the opportunity to appeal the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission. I have prepared a statement which I would like to read and then I would be very happy to entertain any further questions. As stated in the letter to the City Council dated June 2, 2003 Shelley Brighi and I wished to remodel our enclosed sun porch into a more private, energy efficient and useful sunny room. Thus far our plans to do so have been thwarted by the Historic Preservation Commission. The application for a building permit was denied because as we understand it what they see is what you're stuck with. The plans drawn by our contractor included replacing 12 storm windows and the corresponding screens with six smaller double hung windows, raising the height of the sills and replacing the existing plywood thin walls with insulated substantial walls. We do not plan to change the roof or the foundation of this room. The rest of our house has double-hung windows. We do not plan to change the overall flavor of the house. Our property at 520 Grant Street is listed as a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. Perhaps our house does contribute, but by no means is our house a major benefactor. We do not have an outlandish plan. We aren't asking our contractor to put up four glass walls, throw in a macadamia nut tree, a parrot and a couple spotted frogs and call it a rainforest. Nor are we asking to seal the glass, fill the enclosure with water, add a couple of fish in order to establish the Longfellow aquatic park. We simply want to convert the sun porch into a useable room. While I do not have the original building plans for our house I believe that a cap cod house often had a keeping room which is similar in design to our contractor's drawing. We wish to change a porch which can be used for only a few weeks during the year into a room that can be enjoyed for three seasons. We are aware that such a change would increase the property assessment for our house. When plans were made to include our house in the Longfellow historic district we did not disapprove. I like older buildings and the variety of houses in our neighborhood. I think that members of the Historic Preservation This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 19 Commission should acknowledge that houses and people change over the years and allow for adaptations as they draft the rules. While I have not been inside many of the homes within the boundaries of the Longfellow historic district. I believe that most if not all of them are equipped with indoor flush toilet. We no long heat with coal or rely upon the wind, weather and a hand-held fan to cool ourselves. It's difficult to find a contractor who is interested in remodeling an existing house rather than focus on new construction. We wonder if the restrictions placed by the Historic Preservation Commission won't further reduce the available building contractors to those of us who live in older homes within an historic district. We are also concerned that the restrictions placed upon homeowners within historic district will reduce the possibility of resale or decreased property value. When we bought our house we had a number of improvements we wanted t make. We have painted the interior and exterior, have gutted and remodeled the kitchen, waterproofed the basement, replaced the roof, remodeled the bathrooms, added a shower. We did not do all of those improvements at once, but instead prioritized our plans and made changes once we had money saved. Had we moved the porch project further up on the list and completed this remodeling project in 1999 we would not be here before you today. I would encourage others to own property that has been recently been added to a historic district to complete any plan exterior changes prior to the expiration of a grace period. It seems to me that once a property is designated as historic property owners no longer have a voice in deciding what is to be done. Property owners become tenants in a City controlled structure. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Are there questions for Connie? Champion: Connie do you know for sure if this porch was originally part of the house? Webb: I don't. We have seen a picture of the house when it was young and at that time the porch was there. The reason that I think that it was added later is because the outside structure is of one thing and our house is sided with...it's a steel siding actually and that part of that that was kept inside is still a wood siding. It has...I'm thinking that it had been a part of the original structure the foundation, the basement, would have gone under the porch rather than end within the house proper. And as such our little side room or side porch has a cement block foundation that's separate from the rest of the house. So I think it was added shortly after the house was built within the first 10 years after it was built, but I don't know that. (End of Side 1, Tape//03-54, Beginning of Side 2) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 20 Pfab: My question may not be terribly relevant, but it may. Where was the original trolley car? Did that go past there? Webb: I think it went in the creek now. Wasn't that once a trolley route (can't hear) in our backyard. Pfab: So how close would that have been to that house? Webb: We are within...our garage which sits back from the house has six inches in the 100 year flood plain. Pfab: No, but I mean as far as where the trolley went at that time. You don't know? Webb: I'm sorry I don't know. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Alright. Trolley really isn't relevant here. Are there other questions for Connie? Kanner: Yes. Champion: Tell me this again now so the outside part of this porch is wood? Webb: It's wood. Champion: The actually rest of the house had steel siding applied to it? Webb: Yes. Champion: Okay. So that doesn't really help you. It just tells you that the porch was up before they put on the steel siding. Webb: I would think that if it would have been up before they put on the steel siding they would have sided the little bit of wood that's there. But I don't know. Champion: Right. Lehman: Steven? Kanner: Cormie the Staffmember, Shelley McCafferty, offered an alternative after it was first denied. And can you tell me why you didn't accept that alternative and proceed with that - those plans? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 21 Webb: One of the things that we wanted to do was raise the (can't hear) height. Now it's at about 20 inches and we wanted to raise that to increase sound insulation and increase privacy. Another reason that we didn't like that was that while casement windows aren't objectionable they don't match the rest of our house. The rest of our house has double hung windows. Karmer: Can you explain the difference between the two? Webb: Well as I understand it casement goes like this and double-hung goes like that. Lehman: Right. That is the best explanation I have ever seen. It leaves no doubt. Kanner: So you were told that it would be acceptable with casement windows? Webb: With casement windows low so that we would essentially...if you could imagine 20 inches hits me about mid-calfi So anything mid-calf higher isn't now visible from the street with the type of windows that we have with the height of the windows that we have now. They are also, although I have not priced them, I am going to assume that 12 windows are more expensive than six. Lehman: Probably a valid assumption. Shelley's recommendation was to raise the wall to a height of 24 to 30 inches which would be I guess the table is about 30 inches. O'Donnell: Pretty close. Webb: Well that was her recommendation, but as I understood it when we left the meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission that sill height adjustment was disallowed that because of a rule. And I think although the Commission is trying to follow the national guidelines they're drafting some of the rules too and adapting them. I don't think the final book has been written. But I think that what I ended up with was that the (can't hear) had to be the same from the original. So that was.., although we appreciated Shelley's drawing and it was very good if we had wanted to restore the porch. We really wanted to remodel the porch. Lehman: Okay. Are there other questions? Kanner: Well hopefully we'll hear from the Commissions, but I think they did approve that recommendation. Lehman: I don't think so. No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 22 Vanderhoefi No. Lehman: I don't think they did. Wilbum: Approved the concept proposed by Staff. Vanderhoef: The (can't hear) comment about administration and keeping them the same as they were originally. Kanner: Maybe we can clarify that. I see something to that effect, but maybe it's a little confusing to me reading this. Webb: It was to us too. Our contractor also has comments to make if you have no further questions from me. And as far as arbitrary and capricious I don't know if the rules are all written. I don't expect to be able to come away from this meeting feeling that we can set about to remodel the porch in the way that we want. But I don't, you know, but that is why we are here is to help clarify the rules. Lehman: (Can't hear) to indicate that the raising the sill would not be acceptable to the Commission. That was a recommendation, but the minutes they did reject that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? O'Donnell: Her builder. Drew Davis: My name is Drew Davis. I am with Home Town Restyling which we did propose the construction of her porch. I'd like to thank all of you for letting us voice our concerns tonight. I've never spoken in front of the Council before and hopefully I don't have to come back. But actually what we're here for I'm just compelled to speak tonight because of the poor treatment that Connie and Shelley have really been given from the Preservation Commission. We proposed the project to improve the porch that was really in need of repair and to give the homeowners - Connie and Shelley - a much more useable living space than the porch now provides. Now we respect the fact that the Historical Preservation Society exits for its purposes. While we all work to protect the truly historical houses in town I know we can maintain a historical look and value of these areas if we can work together in due diligence with the homeowners best interest in mind. Now it's unreasonable for the Historic Commission to just to say this is how it's got to be done without having any input from the homeowner as to what they'd like to have. It's...which brings us to one of the reasons why we're here is just the discussion of the Historical Commission itself taking the attitude of it's our way or no way. Some of the concerns that we had with the porch that Connie This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 23 obviously stated was cost, maintenance and efficiency. Which is some of the concerns that the Commission actually was not addressing. Some of the things you talked about she was proposing doing casement windows. To my knowledge casement windows at that particular period of time were not common to them porches and actually the windows that am in there fight now are just removable panels. So most of the homes in that area that have side porches of that design do have double-hung windows in them. And kind of what happened there was with Shelley sending the proposal to us as to what she wanted and not the homeowner as to what they wanted was a problem right from the beginning because she was casement windows - they don't look right with the home. All of the porches that I've seen in the area are all double-hung windows. I've got many pictures that I could submit to reinforce that. I guess it's kind of a situation where Shelley had just indicated to us that it's either that way or no way. And so we never really had an opportunity to propose anything differently. And it was just denied and she said if you want to appeal just take it to the City Council and that's it. There was no alternative. So we would like to I don't know do you got all the current drawing of what were proposed? Champion: We have pictures. Lehman: We have pictures, but we're not really permitted to decide whether we like the drawings or the pictures or whatever. All we can determine is whether the Commission was arbitrary or capricious in their conclusion which we may or may not agree with. Davis: Right. And I think there does have to be some kind of consistency because I know they're talking about whether or not vinyl siding is allowable in this thing. I've been doing this for 24 years myself and I have a lot of knowledge in the vinyl siding myself and I know that now whether it's the historic district or preservation district I'm not sure if I understood that is allowed...vinyl siding is allowed in a preservation, but not in historic? Champion: It can be allowed in a preservation district. Lehman: But not historic. Champion: It can be, but not in a national historic district. Davis: Including everything else as to the designs I'm presuming that for conservation district it wouldn't be a problem for double-hung windows? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 24 Lehman: I don't know what the rules are. Champion: (Can't hear) most houses have double-hung windows. Vanderhoef: They do. Champion: I mean I think it's interesting that someone suggest that she use casements because when I wanted to put casements in my sunroom they told me I couldn't do it. I have them anyway. Davis: And I did find 7 homes in the area all with similar type porches all which have double-hung windows, not a single casement window in the entire area. All with similar designs that we're talking. All with similar sill heights. The windows that we're proposing for the porch are identical sized to the windows that they have in the home. So I do think it was unjust. Vanderhoef: I would appreciate it if you would stick around for the other discussion after we're done with this public hearing or whenever we set a time to discuss some of the things that I think are your concerns and ours. Wilburn: I think we have to set a time. Vanderhoef: I do too. Lehman: I think we will. Are there any questions for Drew? Champion: Drew do you think the porch was the original part of the structure? Davis: I have no idea if it was or not. I can't really voice any particulars on that. The house does actually have aluminum siding on it now. What we were proposing was actually an interior bedded board look to the room, interior wall finish and things which is actually consistent with that particular time - wainscoting, beaded board. I think it would have been very aesthetically appealing to it. But it was kind ora situation where she just didn't give us an opportunity to present anything. Lehman: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the issue? Gunn: Mike Guun, Preservation Commission. In your packet you see the house as it was. It's a small home with a prominent sun porch on it. It's clearly a sun porch. Clearly it's not built with the original house. Built very soon after, within a few years. Certainly historic by any standards which we would use. So we consider it a historic sun porch. The proposal given to us was to change that sun porch to this which has three small double-hung windows and siding and at the Preservation Commission we only have three choices really - to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 25 approve the plans as submitted, to approve the plans with certain modifications which we do usually with the agreement with owner at the time or the contractor or we deny it. This was denied because there really were no further options. It just wasn't acceptable as it was. The problem is not...the problem was changing the character of the house dramatically. The Preservation Commission wants to see this remain looking like a sun porch. We realize that it's probably drafty, not very usable as is. There are alternatives. There could be windows put in that are appropriate in size, operable if they choose to have them that will retain the look of the sun porch and still serve their needs. That's what we proposed and actually put forth that proposal just to have it as an option that we approved. So we're not denying that they can do something. It's just that we didn't want the sun porch made into an addition like this. So we wanted to preserve a key historic feature of the home. And we gave them ways that we thought at least were viable for doing that. As far as the issue ofdouble-hungs and casements double-hung windows are the norm throughout all the historic districts. In the case ora sun porch these are basically storm windows. Now a casement window will look more like these old storm windows than what a double-hung window so that's why we approved casements in this particular case because they were a close match to the existing windows and that's what we were trying...our guidelines say the replacement windows should retain the appearance of the original windows. And that's what we suggested to the owner was that they retain the appearance of the original windows - not the windows in the rest of the house, retain the appearance of the windows in the sun porch and make something usable. And that's our decision. MaHarry: Michael MaHarry. Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry. MaHarry: Very briefly, Michael MaHarry, Historic Preservation Commission Chair. The sun porch has been in use since the house was built. Sun porches have been used since all houses were built. It's not exactly correct to say that the sun porch isn't being used people built it originally and used it in that purpose whether it's comfortable or convenient for them now is a different story. But it is still probably being used as a sun porch. I live on College Street. My sun porch has casement windows. And the other important thing is when we designate historic districts the goal of the district to quote Michael Gunn is to when changes are made to a structure to make that structure to look more like it did when the district was first...when the neighborhood was first built. So to make it look more like it did in the past than it would...than it looks in the future or the present even. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 26 And we just thought this a. it's not allowed to change the dimensions of the windows and b. would not make it look like it did back then. Pfab: Again what was the vote on it? Gunn: On the denial? Pfab: Yes. Lehman: I think it was unanimous. Gunn: As I remember it it's unanimous. And the submission of an alternative was also unanimously approved. Now it doesn't mean that obliges the owner to do anything. It just...I mean we just wanted to make the point that there were solutions here. Kanner: But you did take out Shelley's recommendation. I did see that - the size...altering the size recommendation. That's correct. You said that you wanted to keep the window the same size where Shelley... I guess by raising up the bottom portion, the solid portion, at which by necessity shrink the window in her recommendation. And you were going against that. And that was a key component of... MaHarry: It would be capricious and arbitrary to do that - to not maintain the original dimensions of the windows. Kanner: No I'm just speaking to your point. So you didn't approve...you approved something that had a key component missing from at least from Shelley's recommendation and the homeowner's perspective. MaHarry: And what was that key component? Kanner: The size of the windows. You're...Shelley I think was implying that the windows could be smaller and you said the windows had to be the same size. Lehman: Well Shelley's proposal wasn't acceptable to the Commission. Kanner: Right. It was not acceptable. MaHarry: It was acceptable. Lehman: Not with raising the threshold up 30 inches. It says right here that it was not. MaHarry: Okay. But what was acceptable was like 24 inch threshold. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 27 Kanner: No my reading would be if you raised it up to 24 inches you would have to shrink the window and then you said the window size had to stay the same. Lehman: Right. Kanner: So you were not accepting of Shelley's proposal. MaHarry: Well alright... Vanderhoefi Accepting maybe of the casement versus the double-hung... MaHarry: No, what I'm...to point to it if you can find it. This is the...May 22nd meeting page 3. May 22nd meeting, page 3. Lehman: Actually I think it's on page 4. MaHarry: Anyway. Kanner: Well the passed motion. MaHarry: Motion, Gunn moved in order to give the applicant an option to approve a concept similar to what McCafferty has sketched with the original storm window dimensions. So and that's what was drawn. Now it is...the sill is still fairly low, but we did approve by an 8 to 0 unanimously that the windows could be replaced with casements that were of a similar size to the ones that were there. So at least...I mean that is an option. It was... Vanderhoef: You allowed it shortened. MaHarry: Yes. Vanderhoefi But it isn't real clear. MaHarry: Well yeah we had a sketch. Vanderhoefi When you say original size and shape and then you refer to Shelley's drawing which is a different...it's the same shape shall we say in the rectangle, but it's shorter. MaHarry: Yeah and that's why the phrase was concept, Shelley's concept. Vanderhoefi That's... Lehman: Well I think the key word here is that with the original window dimensions and Shelley's drawing had shorter windows raised up from This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 28 the floor and what you approved was the concept, but with the windows being the same size as the ones that are there now. Gunn: Well yes. Lehman: I mean that's exactly what it says. Kanner: So a key component of Shelely's - raising up the bottom part of the solid part and shortening the windows was not acceptable just to clarify that. Lehman: Right. Kanner: So you didn't accept that? I had another questions about the minutes. Michael MaHarry said this new proposal would be somewhat of a compromise in twisting the interpretation of the guidelines, but it is still much better than the original submission. And I'd like to know what was the twisting and how much more twisting might be allowed? Where do you draw the line on that and how do you make those decisions? MaHarry: Well like I just mentioned twisting the original window dimensions would be a bit arbitrary - the ones that were proposed by Shelley had the approach the original window dimensions and they were much different from what was originally proposed by the applicants. And that's what prompted my comment. That it was closer and if we really wanted to twist it we could. Kanner: Well that leads to the rules for porches recommended. There's nothing here that disallowed I don't think that exactly speaks to this, but I see speaks to this issue is a recommended - constructing new porches that are compatible with the existing building or similar to those original porches in the neighborhood. Is that the main part that speaks to this issue would you say in the guidelines? MaHarry: Well I would say more so would be page 15 where it's windows. Replacing...recommended - replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the size, trim, use and divided lights and overall appearance of the original windows. Replacement for wood windows must be made of wood. The use of metal clad solid wood windows acceptable. Replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Divided lights may be created with (can't hear) that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not (can't hear). So it's in the recommended side on page 15 of the windows. This is a window replacement. I mean this was a window replacement proposal. So we thought the windows should be replaced so that they're functional for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 29 the owner, but still look like the sun porch that was there, that's what we're doing is trying to retain the character of the windows even though they're casement and the original were old storm windows put on the casement still would look closer to the original window than anything else other than storm windows. There's also...well I won't go into that. Karmer: What was that? MaHarry: Oh when we denied this we didn't think of siding everything possible in the guidelines and maybe we'll be more diligent about that. There's as far as...we also have under wood on page 11 disallowed...removal of wood elements such as trim, porches, cornices and decorative elements. You know we...as apreservation commission we're...you know we don't want...we're out to preserve the appearances of the original historic homes. Now materials can change, windows can change even styles of windows can change, but the appearance should be retained and things should not be destroyed. So we didn't want the sun porch to be replaced by something else. So to tear most of it out and put something else in is clearly the removal of historic materials. At least if we do that, let's put something back in that would pass for historic material. So anyway... Champion: It could look like a sun porch, but it would actually be a functioning room. MaHarry: Exactly. Lehman: Are there other questions? Kanner: When looking at energy efficiency issues do you ever look at that as a repair issue - trying to make something more energy efficiency...more energy efficient and therefore the guidelines are a bit different when you're talking about repair of something? Because I think that's part of the purpose of this to have less window space. MaHarry: In this specific case there would be energy efficient windows - alternatives that they could have. They also wanted to make the interior - have a bit more insulation on the interior to make the walls thicker essentially. We've got no problem with the interior whatever they do on the interior. It's the exterior appearance that we're concemed with. Kanner: Well they wanted to let less window space. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 30 MaHarry: Sunlight from the south will heat up a room in the winter quite well. I mean that's a good source of natural light and heat. Gunn: It is a south facing pomh. Lehman: The less window space in their case was a privacy issue. Do we have other questions? Thank you very much. Pfab: I move we close... Lehman: Public hearing is closed. I'm sorry. Public hearing is not closed. Davis: I'd just like to (can't hear) an example about porches on page 27 of the handbook there - Preservation Commission. And I stated that in all the homes that I have noticed in all the areas I cannot find one home with a casement window. We're not trying to replicate a storm window here. We're trying to replicate a porch that was in that period of time. And you can see from that picture on that page - that colonial revival that that porch is what we were attempting to do. And to heed...basically the current pictures we were trying to replicate something that where the actually drawings that were submitted here before are showing double-hung windows that would actually blend the same aesthetically as to what that first home is showing there on that porch. And that is the same as every porch I have found in all the area there. And so for size wise, for how far off the floor it's going to be for the sill height and everything I think as you can see in that picture that it looks very nice and appealing for that particular period for the windows to match up and line up and look aseptically appealing. Karmer: Does the Commission use these pictures as guideline? Champion: They're examples. MaHarry: These are examples. Lehman: It's in their book. Kanner: So they are something that one would expect to use as part of the guidelines. That these would be appropriate? MaHarry: These are in place for occasionally when there are infill projects we require that they be of a certain style and it may be a choice of six or eight styles that are in the district. And then these are given as examples of the styles. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 31 Kanner: When you're saying new construction for infill so you're saying somewhere at the head here it says it's not appropriate for rehab jobs. These are examples of new construction. MaHarry: Any rehab job the house already has its own style so there's no need to...the guidelines all reference the existing style of the house. So they don't have to make it up. The house itself is the style. So the changes should reflect the characteristics of that house. You know there are a dozen or more different styles. So the one that matters is the house being addressed. Lehman: And your area of concentration is that house - the character of that house, not necessarily the character of the neighborhood or how it relates. MaHarry: Yes. Lehman: Okay so I mean I think there's a real distinction here between retaining the character of the home and retaining the character of the neighborhood. In this case we're trying to retain the character of that house as it was once. MaHarry: There's often times a Victorian house next door to an Italian eight house. Well house guidelines say the Italian eight house should have Italian eight details. The Victorian house should have Victorian details. What's that? Kanner: What style was this house then? Vanderhoef: Cape Cod is what she had and the example that we're looking at here is colonial revival. Kanner: So it's not appropriate for an example. Champion: Well those are just examples of styles. Lehman: Again. MaHarry: If the sun porch didn't already exist we might look at that addition and say ah yeah. We might say we might like to have comer boards or something. Bm the thing here is the sun porch exists. We're just preserving what is there. Champion: I don't know if you can answer this question because I don't know if you're prepared to answer it but what makes this house a contributing house? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 32 MaHarry: It was built in the period of time that was deemed significant for this neighborhood and that is prior to I believe up until 1949 is the latest house that's contributing. So it is...I mean that's all in the documentation. I didn't make that up just now. So it goes up just past World War II when the styles changes to modem style. That was the determining criteria. Not an easy one in this whole Longfellow neighborhood. We spent a long time trying to make sense of our distinctions of contributing and non-contributing. Lehman: Thank you again. Now the hearing is closed. (2) Motion Declaring Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: You're making a motion to affirm the finding... Pfab: Yes. Lehman: Alright we have a motion by Pfab. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Council discussion? And again as in the last vote that we had this does not indicate Council's agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of the Commission it just says that they were neither arbitrary nor capricious. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. I have been asked that we take a short recess. But prior to starting Item 4 I'd like a brief discussion of this to send to Staff. So as soon as we get back in 8 minutes we'll start there. (Break) Lehman: Are there four people on the Council who would like to see a discussion of the historic preservation and conservation zones -just a general work session item. Champion: Yes. Wilbum: gure. Vanderho¢fi Yes. Lehman: Could we try to get that on the next work session agenda? Atkins: Yes. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #3 Page 33 Lehman: And I think there are issues that we need to talk about. Okay. The next work session is... Atkins: I believe it's the 14th. Lehman: 14th of July. Atkins: Does that sound about right? Yes. Lehman: Okay. Champion: And could we invite homebuilder, somebody...a couple people from a residential neighborhood that's a conservation district? Could we have a round table thing like we kind of do and talk about some of these things? Or do we want to talk about it first and then...? Pfab: Also could we lead that to a public hearing at some point? Lehman: Well I think at some point it may very well be, but I do think we need to establish the sorts of things that we have concerns about and then direct the Staff and whoever else to address those concerns. But I think we need to discuss it ourselves. Champion: Okay. Lehman: Alright? Vanderhoefi I would also encourage though those people who are involved in renovations and construction to send their written thoughts to us so that we'll have those to think about when we're discussing it ourselves. Lehman: Okay. Champion: (Can't hear) one question for you to answer before then too. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003. #Sb Page 34 ITEM 5b. PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 6.91 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY RS-8 TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY MEDIUM DENSITY, SINGLE- FAMILY OSA-8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1515 NORTH DUBUQUE ROAD. (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move second consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: That's the little one offofnorth of... Vanderhoef: Dubuque. Pfab: I won't be able to support that. Champion: (Can't hear) expedited consideration too? Lehman: Well... Dilkes: It's on tomorrow. Champion: Right. Lehman: Okay roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Pfab voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 23, 2003.