Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-09 Transcription#3 Page 1 ITEM NO. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION - NRItP NOMINATIONS/NORTItSIDE Champion/ Is there a formal motion on this? Lehman/ No not at this point. We're just discussing it. Champion/ Well when I got home last night, I don't know if anyone else is interested but since I was one of the negative votes I have the right to bring it back to the Council. Dilkes/ There was no formal action. Lehman/ There was no vote, anybody can bring it up. Champion/ Oh that's true. Thank you. Dilkes/ So you can do what you want. Champion/ I don't really see any harm in writing that letter and I don't know why i was so stubborn about that Tuesday night. I'm willing to write the letter. O'Donnell/ Explain the letter, doing what? Champion/ The letter saying um that to remove that commercial area and then send along Karin Franklin's memo so that the State Historic people have a document on how they were notified. That we all agree that it was not good notification. O'Donnell/ And I'm ready at this point to, I agree, to send the letter and I would like the commercial removed. If that's not possible then I would like to make the whole process null and void and start over. Lehman/ Well, I obviously, and I whether or not I agree or disagree with those folks that do not want to be designated probably is not relevant. I don't think at this point them really isn't any damage to anybody but it occurred to me that after Dr. Kammermeyer talked to us on Tuesday night as long as these seven people sit here I think his position is fairly safe from a Council standpoint I doubt strongly that this Council would include those properties if the City decided to take local action. We will not necessarily be sitting here when that comes up and I think the fact that they are already designated would make it extremely difficult for them not be a part of a local action to make the area historic and put local restriction so I would concur that I would be interested in writing the letter. I do think it is important that the State understand how notification was given and request that these properties be removed. I also was not clear Tuesday night and I asked the question a couple times whether or not the State would go outside of the specific boundaries that were requested by the City, and I think I heard "no, they would not go outside those boundaries" which means had those properties not been This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 2 included they would not have been or be in the part we are talking about. Then I also think I heard they said that they might. But in any case ! would favor sending that letter. Bailey/ What are the implications of sending the letter because I have a completely different position from apparently from the four of you? I think there is valid historic reasons that those properties were included and being a member of that neighborhood I believe that inclusion of this commercial district here an historic designation stabilizes our neighborhood. I mean this neighborhood is um, there is constant expansion in the neighborhood, which I think sort of is destroying its neighborhood feel. It's beginning increasingly commercial. Houses are being tom down to become increasingly industrial or commercial and I think that this will stabilize it while acknowledging there are significant contributions that this commercial district has made to the development of this community. So I want to know the implications of sending the letter? Why send a letter if really a mute point and this will go forward? Dilkes/ I don't know how the State will respond to that. It sounds to me like you are talking about two different things. Connie first mentioned asking that the State on its own initiative remove the commercial properties and then an alternative to that would be to send back the entire nomination package and start over. Presumably your justification would be so that you can more or a better notification process. So and how the State will respond to either of those things I don't know. Lehman/ I don't disagree with your philosophy however, I think had notice be given in what we routinely would consider appropriate fashion those folks who objected to this would have had an opportunity to make their objection known and very well might have excluded those properties from our request to the State. They really didn't have that opportunity. Bailey/ We would have excluded them you believe? Lehman/ Well I think based on the energy of their opposition yea, I think it could have been excluded. Bailey/ I mean but technically they're not meeting any kind of benchmark of the State requirement and ... Lehman/ They are not... Bailey/ Historic Districts are for certain purposed they are not just cosmetic. They are to stabilize neighborhoods I believe and ... Wilbum/ I agree with what Regenia has said or stated earlier. Plus I don't there is an opportunity should folks chose it and the existing owners as well as potential future owners to take advantage of some tax credits. And part of the excuse the rationale given for not wanting to be part of it was property values going down. No one has shown me that has been used This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 3 for other development purposes and no one has shown me evidence of that but you've got .... Elliott/ Let me take minute and read two things. One is a sentence from a memo from staff to the Council "At this time all NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) districts in Iowa City have also been rezoned with a Historic Preservation Overlay." And then from the minutes of a recent meeting a staff member said "The Commission will then (meaning after the Historic Register) likely look at proceeding with a local district at which point regulations would apply." So I think what they are seeing is that this is virtually an inevitable first step toward an Historic Preservation District. These are their properties. They have not been involved appropriately in the nomination process and I agree with Mike that if we can not delete that one segment then the entire nomination, at least for the district in question, should be null and void no further action, returned and if we need to repay any funds the City should do that. Champion/ Well, Regenia, you know I'm a great supporter of Historic Preservation and historic neighborhoods, and historic overlays and I, contrary to what Bob says we make lots of laws and roles that control what people can do with their property. This is one of many that we do. Elliott/ I agree. Champion/ And if this group had been notified um properly I would not have any hesitation on voting this all the way through dispute their objection but I do feel that we need to give them the opportunity to get out if possible. I am, however, not willing to stop the whole process because I think it is too important to the Northside but I am willing to send a letter and see what the State would do. Bailey/ Without an understanding of what the letter actually does I think we're making bad process worse. Champion/ Well we've already had bad process. Bailey/ Right and why should we exasperate that. O'Donnell/ I think Bailey/ I need to have before I can actually make a vote on this I need to understand the point and the purpose and the impact or the potential impact of the letter. I can't just vote and support a letter being sent when I don't know what it's impact may be. If it will have financial impact on the City paying back a grant. If it will make this process null and void, something I don't support. So if I had a better understanding of that I think I could make a more informed decision regarding this. I mean it's clear there are a wide degree of opinions up here but I need to make an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 4 informed decision and without that information I'm reluctant to move forward on this. Champion/ There's a letter in our packet that these particular participants in the commercial district are willing to pay any fees that we might encumber. Bailey/ But that still doesn't tell me the potential impact of such a letter at this point in the process. O'Donnell/ I think the impact of the letter is to right a wrong and I really believe that had these folks had an opportunity, other than a neighborhood newsletter, to notify them of something that affects their property I think they would have had an opportunity to go out and speak with others and at least let their viewpoint be known. That's why if this letter can not remove these eight properties from that designated district then I think to be fair to everybody in the district that you start from scratch. Bailey/ I disagree that is being fair to everyone in the district. There are eight properties not interested in being part of this. I think that has a dramatic impact on the neighborhood, those eight properties, do they get to have that dramatic impact on the neighborhood. And I thought the fighting the wrong was the letter of apology because I acknowledge the process was bad but I think sending a letter to the State potentially sort of starting over with this whole process and not really knowing the impact of that letter I think that makes a bad process worse. Because we are not making an informed decision. O'Donnell/ And you see that's where we disagree. I think it corrects a bad process that we already have been through. Bailey/ Does it correct a bad process if the letter has no impact? O'Donnell/ Well, that's what we have to find out. Bailey/ Exactly. O'Donnell/ If the letter does have impact then we have corrected a bad process. Bailey/ But I don't see how any of us can vote on it, I mean regardless of what our opinions are, until we know the potential impact of that letter. O'Donnell/ Well, we won't know until we send it. Dilkes/ What I understand from Karin and Shelley, the statements they made at the last meeting, the immediate potential impact would be the financial one, the loss of the grant money or the repayment of the grant money. What the impact is for our future relationships with the State and this kind of grant and historical preservation stuff I don't know what that impact is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 5 Bailey/ Do we understand if it will stop the process? Dilkes/ No, I don't think we know what their reaction to the letter will be. ElliottY I think what we are doing is we are talking about concern over the future impact of relationships between Iowa City and the State Historical Society regarding future nominations. As opposed to the City in effect running rough shod over property that is owned by people and the City doing something with those properties that those people don't want done period. Bailey/ Then what about properties in a neighborhood that run rough shod over the neighborhoods by putting parking lots and desecrating the neighborhood in that regard. I mean it is a balancing act Bob, and historic overlay protects integrity of neighborhoods. That's an historic neighborhood that is being destroyed in bits and pieces by expansion of conunercial areas that are not in character of the neighborhood. That are tearing down residences. I mean it's, I mean there's a balancing act here that you have to see. There are property owner right and then there are neighbor rights as well. I live in that neighborhood don't I have a right to live next to something that I chose and I have friends and neighbors who are living next door to parking lots. Just keep going before the Board of Appeals to get their way in that neighborhood. ElliottJ I live three houses from a large parking lot. Doesn't bother me. Bailey/ Right, but it bothers some people and when you purchase a house and you invest in renovating a house in an historic manner and then it destroys the character of your neighborhood and that wasn't something that you bargained for it's the same property rights arguments. O'Donnell/ But that's the same property rights arguments with a conmnercial building. You've invested money in that and a considerable amount of money and you should have a say so and if you want in this district and that's my whole .... Bailey/ Just opens it up to have more of a say so and more benefits in owning a commercial building, I mean there are tax incentives available for doing work on these buildings... O'Donnell/ There are. Bailey/ ...in the character of the neighborhood which benefits I third< businesses as they become good neighbors or as they remain good neighbors. O'Donnell There certainly are benefits and there are also areas that we have had in designated historic areas where people have come to us complaining that they can't use specific window or siding and it costs them more money and even to the point that it costs them enough money that they can't do the job they want to do. Bailey/ Yes, I've heard those arguments and some of them I believe are reasonable and some of them I believe are red herrings. But I think that we just have a different approach to this. EllioW And I think we have about covered the differences and the gap is more than that chair and unfortunately I don't think either one of us is going ... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 6 Bailey/ Well, I really disappointed to see this on the agenda because I thought we had sufficiently discussed this the other night and I thought we were in agreement that we would send a letter of apology to acknowledging our bad process and that we would not stop this process from going fot~vard. Keeping in mind that these people were not interested in a local historic overlay and I thought that was a wonderful compromise. But I think this pushes it in a direction that's not a wonderful compromise. Elliott/ That was a compromise among the Councilors but it wasn't a compromise for those people who own those properties in that district and we're telling them we don't care what you think, how you feel, what you want, what you planned. We're going to do with it as we see fit. Bailey/ That is not what I was communicating to them. I was communicating that my priorities for a neighborhood, and not necessarily for individual properties, and I saw a benefit to commercial businesses in this area for having this designation. Wilbunf And it was my decision to place it on the agenda, Ernie was gone, because I had enough of you communicated with me that you had a change in opimon about whether or not that could be done but I agree with you Regenia that was not what I was communicating with the neighborhood so please don't project that onto my... Champion/ I don't see that it can do any great harm just send a letter and ask the State to remove those properties. Either they will or they won't. Lehman/ Let me just say, first of all I think the property owners are making a mistake. And I absolutely agree there is no evidence that I have seen that shows that historic designations have decreased property values and in fact the contrary I think is normally the case. I do think there is a serious process question here. I can't image we can not draft a letter to the State asking them, explaining the flaws that we perceive in the process, a copy of Karin Franklin's memo, and asking them please do not compromise this entire area but please remove these eight properties and we will deal with those separately. I think that's a reasonable request in view of the fact that notice was not appropriate. I don't think it's inappropriate if we do that I ah I do think that if we go through with this designation does go through and these people right or wrong oppose being local restrictions placed on them four or five years or whatever from now that it will probably automatically follow that that occurs if they are not part of that district and they have to reapply or maybe they get included anyway somehow at some point and at least they would have some opportunity to express themselves and had they have had that opportunity and they were still included I would not be particularly sensitive to them. But I don't think they had that opportunity. I think we'll craft the letter as best we can that we would like the entire district in tact with the exception of those properties and this is why. Dilkes/ I think you need to put a motion on the table so we understand exactly what letter you want sent. Remember there are two options that are being talked about here. One is the letter asking that they be removed, those properties be removed from the district, and the other one is that he be sent back to us for re- processing or whatever. Those are two different things. Lehman/ Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 7 Dilkes/ My sense from Karin, you know what I understand of the process, is I think it is unlikely that they are just going to take because of the way they view the nomination process and what goes into making that nomination that they're just going to on their own accord take out some properties cause you ah want them too. So you need to consider that. EllioW From everything that I have seen with correspondence and communication with the State society that every concern, every ah request, has been responded to with the 50 percent plus 1 and I just feel badly that there's a division of thoughts and we both feel very sn'ongly and feel that what we're pushing for is right. I feel badly that is kind of a black eye for historic preservation which has done many good things in this City and should do many good things in the future and this process has really been upsetting. I gather that there are perhaps three of us who would like to have that letter say we would like for the commercial appendage in question to be deleted and if that can not be done then we would like to withdraw the entire nomination and start from scratch. I think that there are, I don't know that there are enough votes to do that, so I would at least want to have the letter requesting that the seven or eight commercial properties be deleted. I'm not sure... Champion/ Is that a motion? Lehman/ Is that a motion? EllioW That's a motion. O'Donnell/ Second it. Lehman/ I have a motion and a second to write the historic, State society, asking if the commercial properties in the Northside Historic designation be deleted, and obviously reflecting the conversations that has occurred earlier. Discussion. Dilkes/ Has it been seconded? Lehman/ seconded by Champion. Karr/ O'Donnell. Lebanan/ Made by Champion/ Ellio~O'Donnell Lebanan/ Did you second it? You don't look like Champion. Champion/ I seconded before Mike seconded it. Vanderhoef seconded it. O'DormelV I look more like Connie than Dee. Wilburn/ You have a request for comment from the public. Gelman/ Any public comment to that? Lehman/ Yes. Go ahead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 8 Gelman/ Tom Gelman and I'm here on behalf of Mercy Hospital. A portion of Mercy's property is directly affected by the application. It's included within the district. I need to apologize and say I am sony to be reactive on behalf of Mercy. We would rather have been proactive and participated more in the process and to the extent that we have failed to do that when we have had opportunity we regret it. We will be keenly involved in the process from this point forward. The area is very important to Mercy. The area that includes its own property, its own campus, plus the immediately adjacent areas is very important to Mercy for obvious reasons. Mercy wants to be a good neighbor but Mercy needs to fulfill its mission in this community which is to be a leading community hospital for a large area and the real estate is an important concern for Mercy. I also apologize we do not know all the facts and circumstances leading up to where we are today and if I make any misstatement of fact please I apologize in advance. But it seems to me what would be helpful for Mercy is to at least preserve the status quo and that would mean requesting that the application be withdrawn. The issues that you have discussed among yourselves and the disagreements and the concerns that you've raised are enough from my standpoint to preserve status quo until some of these matters can be resolved. I was also concerned a little bit in the discussion when they were talking generally about historic preservation and the historic preservation ordinance because the historic preservation ordinance expressly in its purposes is not intended to stabilize neighborhoods or preserve neighborhoods. That is not a function of the historic preservation. Historic preservation by the express language of the statue, by the express language of the national provisions are related to preservation of historic structures not for preservation of neighborhoods. Now yes indirectly we maybe preserving neighborhoods by preserving structures and I understand that. But if the principal motivation is to preserve neighborhood it is not a historic preservation issue it is zoning issue. And it should be tackled and addressed as a zoning issue. And so if that's the motivating factor here it is to stabilize the neighborhood keep places from becoming parking lots or prevent uh encroachment in the neighborhood of undesirable uses that's merely a zoning issue and should be handled as such. So if we keep it in the context of historic preservation Mercy's direct concern is that it has a parcel of land with no building on it that has been included in this district and that will make it more complicated and more difficult for Mercy when its evaluating community needs and determining what to do with that vacant parcel of land which is now a parking lot. It will make it more complicated and more administratively difficult and more expensive more time consuming to develop that and Mercy objects to that parcel, being a vacant parcel, being included in the district. Additionally the surrounding neighborhood is all zoned commercial presently as you all are very much aware and there are many many types of uses that are consistent with the hospital use and other commercial uses in the neighborhood that could be developed in that area that are important for this community's future and community well being in terms of health. And I think yes it is a balancing of community interests as many of you have discussed. But we also have a very important community institution that is housed within and within the perimeter of this district and there's a very important balancing of community interests as well in terms of actions that may preclude or limit the hospitals capacity to do or provide a community service. It has no immediate plans to expand into any of those areas but those areas because they are immediately adjacent to the hospital are always important to the hospital. And the flexibility of use is very important to the hospital. I think the hospital's position at this point would be that it would not like to see any restrictions placed upon its property as well as property immediately adjacent within the commercial district that would increase any restrictions other than the current zoning restrictions This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. //3 Page 9 that are on those properties. And so at this point I again don't know what you can do in the process because I am not familiar with this federaFstate/federal process but if what we have is an application that was filed by the city. Was the City the applicant? It seems to me the applicant would always have the prerogative to withdraw the application and that may in fact be easier than trying to modify the application at this point. But preserving the status quo might be the most appropriate step to take given the fact that there are questions about the process and certainly given the fact that Mercy for one would like to be proactive and participate in the process and be a player in the process rather than have to be forced to be reactive in the current situation. We'd much rather have been involved and engaged in that process. And I'm sorry that we have to respond in this way. If you have any questions about Mercy's concerns or positions I'm happy to help. Glenn is also here from the hospital as well. I don't know, Glenn has been at another meeting, I don't know if you've spoken before? Yes, Glenn Winekauf from Mercy hospital. Thank you. Lehman/ Thank you Tom. Gelman/ Thank you. Kammermeyer/ John Kammermeyer. It is also my impression with impact from various sources including people I know at the University and my legal counsel that mostly likely at this point the only way to change the district and remove our commercial properties is for the applicant to withdraw the application, reprocess it and resubmit it. If that is done there will be the $3600 fee and is you are well aware I and my fellow commercial property owners have made the offer to the Council and we are more than willing to pay that $3600 fee and save the City any expense or cost and that is a very serious offer. In fact I would prefer doing it that way. The other comment Emie about two years ago, I am in the process of digging that out, information and maps, but my distinct impression from things that I have seen is that the original outline for the Gilbert-Linn district for the grant two years ago was two small strips along Gilbert and Lirm separate and that the area that is now involve din the district is about 30% bigger than the original grant. I'm sure of that but I am digging out and will get to you when I have that information. SO changes to occur with these grants and again our number one concern is that there is data showing that residential properties included in a historical area like this evidentially value do rise. There isn't that data necessarily for commercial properties. There's data showing some commercial properties suffer and my own experience again says that my value from my point of value would properly suffer here. So that's a big concern and then the other thing is that sooner or later and you folks again may not be sitting here to help us, that very likely sooner or later there will be a proposal, if we are in the national registry, to put us in a local district and that would be from our point of view bad news. Thank you. Lehman/ Other discussion? Elliott? At this point could you reiterate where we are? At logger heads? Lehman/ Well the motion is that we send a letter to the State asking that the commercial properties who have objected to being a part of this district be removed, and accompanying that letter a copy, and the reason why what we consider to be a flawed process of notifying those folks in the district. Basically that is the motion on the table. Now if it's more than that then I suspect we wait until after we get a response from the State. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 10 EllioW Okay. Dilkes/ I don't know, do you know Jeff, what the timing is on that in terms of when it goes to... Davidson/ I don't. Dilkes/ Okay, so I don't know what the window is for withdrawal. I don't know if we can send this letter, get a response to that, and follow up on that with a request for withdrawal. So... O'DormelV Would this not be a cleaner process to withdrawal completely and resubmit minus the commercial properties? Would that not be a cleaner process? Champion/ I thought we already had that discussion. Ellio~ The only thing is that if we don't have too I'm sure that Regenia would feel better about not doing that. Champion~ ...not doing that. O'Donnell/ But we have a time element. Champion/ I'm going to call the question. EllioW And I don't mean just Regenia. I mean there are a lot of people who would feel better about that. Lelm~an/ Okay, Connie called the question. Is there a second to that? Dilkes/ On the floor. Lehman/ Is there a second to that? If there's no second continue Robert. EllioW The end result, I'm sorry Connie, the end result I want it done but I would like done in a way that is at least perhaps represents some kind of a compromise if that's possible. Can we call them? Lowell Soike or something and see what. Atkins/ I wouldn't ifI were them. I'd want something in writing. Lehman/ May I suggest that we can determine the amount of time that is still available to us and we can have that information by next Wednesday and we're having a special meeting next Wednesday at 11:30. ElliottJ Okay. Lehman/ But I think we need to act on this letter. We'll have the letter prepared and ready to send if the timing is different that will be another discussion at that time. EllioW That's fine. Lehman/ Okay. I don't think Champion/ I think you should send the letter now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 11 Lehman/ Okay. Atkins/ What is this letter? Dilkes/ We know it's the letter is to request that the commercial properties be removed from the ElliottJ That's it. Dilkes/ from the application for designation. Letanan/ And I think we've said some things that I really don't agree with. I don't believe that we and anybody involved in this intended to raikoad anything. Champion/ No. Lehman/ That we intended to mn over anybody. There is some oversights that are significant I believe but I don't think anybody did anything intentionally to hurt anybody. O'Donnell/ I agree totally with that. Lehman/ So let's kinda operate in that spirit and we'll get this if this passes we'll get the letter ready to send out. EllioW I used the word rough shod that did not mean it was intentional but it was the result and if you would like I would be happy to apologize for using that word. Lehman/ No, we all EllioW Any mistakes made were honest mistakes from people trying to do the right thing. Lehman/ I think that's to be tree. Roll call. (roll call) Motion carries, 6/4, Wilbum and Bailey voting "no". Is there a motion to adjourn? Elliott/ So moved. O'Dormell/ Second. Kart/ Mr. Mayor could we hold on one second. Lehman/ Sorry. Karr/ you had mentioned in your discussion the possibility of revisiting this as early as next Wednesday, that agenda is posted are you directing us to amend that to include that discussion? Lehman/ I think that O'Donnell/ We wouldn't know. Champion/ No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004. #3 Page 12 ElliottJ Yea, but let's put it on. Lehman/ I think we put it on the agenda. Karr/ So we are amending the agenda Lehman/ There's nothing to be, if it Dilkes/ At a minimum we will be providing you with information possibility so Lehman/ That's right. Champion/ Right. Lehman/ SO put it on the agenda. Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell/ We already did. Lehman? And a second. All in favor. We are adjourned. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 9, 2004.