HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-09 TranscriptionPage 1
ITEM 2. 608, 610, 614 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET — MOTION TO SET A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR JANUARY 6, 2015 ON AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING
THE STRUCTURES LOCALLY KNOWN AS 608,610 AND 614 SOUTH
DUBUQUE STREET AS LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
Payne: So moved.
Throgmorton: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by ... Throgmorton. Um, so the way we're going to do
this this evening ... or this morning. There (laughs) there is, uh, we have ... we
have exactly one hour and we have to leave, uh... uh, because of patient
appointments and other things, at 8:01. So we're going to vote by 8:00 or right at
8:00. We're going to, um, grant 45 minutes of community input, audience input,
and there's been requests to have expanded timeframes and ... and more than five
minutes. I'm going to stick with what we do all the time, which is five minutes
max per person, and uh, given ... given the audience, I'm going to ask that we have
a pro, a con, a pro, a con ... that we alternate back and forth. Um, I think that's the
fairest thing to do, and I'm going to keep track of time, um, five minutes per
person, uh, max, um, and I would ask you to try to not repeat what has been said
before you, because we need new information, and I wan ... want to also, uh, and
I'm speaking quickly because I want to get to this, but I also want the audience to
understand that we have received voluminous communication email and
otherwise from the community. Um, I can assure you the Council has looked at
those materials. So, with that, I'll open it up. We ask you ... that you ... per
protocol, sign in and give us your name verbally. So there's no particular, uh,
way to get started here.
Trimble: Well my name is Alicia Trimble. I am the Executive Director of Friends of
Historic Preservation. (mumbled) What the community is asking today is
nothing extraordinary. We're asking you to follow the City's adopted Riverfront
Crossings' plan and use the zoning tools you have available ... to you to implement
that plan. Riverfront Crossings is a great plan. It's a beautiful vision for a
sustainable neighborhood that contains charming historic buildings, as well as
significant new development, and it's a great plan because so many people
participated in drafting it. Just looking at the City's web site you'll see that the
City brought in nationally -recognized experts and urban designers to help craft
the vision, that over 300 citizens participated in several meetings, and it included
their comments to help make the vision better. When the plan was presented, it
was widely welcomed and praised for its vision. This very room was packed,
standing room only, uh, when have we ever seen such excitement for a City
planning document? One of the key elements of the plan is incorporating the few
historic buildings that are left in the neighborhood to add charm and value. Now
this ... this is why I want to do a visual today. This is actually in the
Comprehensive Plan of what this block is supposed to look like. And as you can
see, there's substantial new development, as well as the historic structures
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 2
remaining on the block. This is some place where retirees or young professionals,
or young families, might want to live, and we wanted a neighborhood in
Riverfront Crossings. Now, I'm going to briefly go over some history and culture
very fast because we don't have much time this morning, but I want you to know
this is landmark -worthy. It's associated with at least three prominent pioneer
families in Iowa City. It was part of the historic railroad district, and remember,
Iowa City was the end of the railroad line for quite a while. It's also the first
working class neighborhood of Iowa City, and these cottages are the last
representations we have in that area of the working class. There's also a high
degree of integrity, meaning the buildings haven't been moved and they've been
varied very little. And it's associated with the actualist poetry movement. The
National Trust for Historic Preservation has been in touch with me, and they think
there might be international historic rest... recognition for the middle cottage
associated with the poetry movement because all the other buildings associated
with the movement were raised in, uh... uh, in the 70s and 80s. I'm going to go
over a few arguments cause I know I'm not going to have an opportunity to get
back up here. One is tax revenue. That if we build something there we'll have
more tax revenue. Absolutely, but we'll be short-changing ourselves for the
future. The ... the block you see, on ... on the upper left, is some place people want
to invest in. They're people who are going to want to live there long-term.
They're gonna spend their money downtown, as we wanted, and they're ... and
they're absolutely going to have a higher property value and some place people
want to live, retire, even a student apartment building. I also want you to know
what little footprint we're talking here. This, uh, blue outline represents the
proposed building. The red off ...outline is the three cottages, with some yard.
That space can fit in this little divot back here. Uh, there's plenty of room on this
block for both redevelopment and saving the cottages. I also want to clarify,
because there's been some miscommunication that the second structural
engineer's report found the cottages safe to occupa... occupy right now as they
are. And I ... I also found out from your packet on Friday that Mr. Pacha is
offering $25,000 a cottage to move the cottages, but I want to know ... let you
know there's several reasons why that won't work. First, moving the cottages
would destroy their integrity. It would basically make them not historic. The
cottages are also built not a hill, so they can't be moved in their entirety. There's
nowhere to move the cottages. I looked for at least a mile radius around this
neighborhood. There's no place for them to go. And lastly, it would probably
actually take close to half a million dollars to move the cottages, put them back in
the ground, and hook up all the ... the necessary, uh, services. So, I wanted to look
a little bit at, um, time we're talking about here. Now, we're ... we're on the 9th
Within one week, the landmark application is going through Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which means the
moratorium could be 60 days or until you choose to vote. You could chose...
choose to vote on the 6th, which means we'd actually have a 28 -day moratorium.
And since we know several tenants on this block have leases through July,
development won't be starting until at least August of 2015, meaning that this
moratorium won't hold up any development on this block. And lastly, I want you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 3
to know that there's precedent for the Council setting a public hearing to delay the
demolition of historic buildings. In 2001, the Council set a public hearing to save
the Carnegie Library building. As a result, today we have the beautiful building
that graces Linn Street. In comparison, there's the case of the Red Avocado. In
that case we were told there was nothing City Council could do. The zoning for
redevelopment was already in place. This case is so much different than that of
the Red Avocado. Here the developer's asking for a five -fold increase in
development potential, and the new Riverfront Crossings' plan has transfer of
development rights, so that can be achieved while still saving the historic
cottages. Unlike the Red Avocado, you have the tools to save these charming
cottages. We ask that you use them today to enact our community's vision.
Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments.
Jacob: Good morning! I'm Jim Jacob with VJ Engineering. I'm a ... structural engineer.
Been doing structural engineering in this community for, uh, 40 years. Uh, I'd
like to, uh, give you, uh... quick, uh, assessment of the, uh, structural capacity of
these buildings. Have to get my glasses on to see this. Okay. This is a, uh, the
614 building, the collapsing brick, uh, near a north window of the, uh, basement
area. You can see, uh, this is actually new brick that's been filled in. The ... the
brick (can't hear) aren't tied together. The lintel over the top is ... is collapsing at
the bearing. More, uh, damage at that same, uh, lintel, in the north wall of 614.
See the ... brick deterioration. This is actually... this is a brick pocket. This is the
south wall of the 614 building. This is a brick pocket where the ... the wall is
actually bowing outward and ... and the ... the floor joist is pulling away from the
brick wall. These are actually floor joists that are cut off in that same building.
This is showing an example of the, uh, south wall of 614, how the ... the wall is
pulling away ... this is an interior perpendicular wall. The exterior wall is bowing
outward and ... and pulling away. This is near the floor joist. Further down you
can see that the crack, uh, tapers down to the, uh, slab. This is, uh, some of the
limestone rubble that goes up about five feet in ... in the basement area and the
deterioration of the ... the limestone and the mortar itself. This is ... is the complete
deterioration of the west brick, right at, uh, below -grade. You can see, uh, a lot of
the damage to the ... the brick, uh, moisture and freeze -thaw action is ... is
deteriorating that brick, turning it in ... back into just clay powder. This is
remnants of the, uh, mortar and brick as it deteriorates and ... and accumulates on
the, uh, ledge of the ... the limestone rubble. This is an area at the, uh, southwest
corner of 614. This is the way we found it. After 30 seconds of...of popping off
the, uh, you can ... you can easily access the, uh, interior of the brick wall.
The ... the mortar is completely, uh, turned to powder. The bricks are
deteriorating, as we saw evidenced on the inside of this same wall in that earlier
photo. More damage to ... to brick and mortar. Caulk that's been applied over the
years, cracking through the mortars. Again, the mortar and ... and face ... faces of
bricks, entire bricks are ... are, uh, deteriorated away. The mortar is just, uh, a
powder. You know, huge, uh, cracking and ... and settlement occurring. This is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 4
on the east wall, where there's no, uh, frost protected footing under this, uh, this
wall. Uh, deterioration and ... and poor masonry in the, uh, chimney area in the
east wall of that 614. More damage, uh... undermining of the, uh, foundation and
the, uh, south ... or I'm sorry, the northeast corner of that ... that building.
More ... general deterioration of brick, big cracks that ... that have been patched in
the past that you can see in numerous places where the ... the, uh, wall is falling
apart. More of the same. Now we're at the 610 building, the middle... middle
structure. Huge, uh, tuckpointed, where we've had cracks before that have been
tuckpointed and ... and recracked. This is an area of...of original brick that, again,
the, uh, mortar is completely shot. The, uh, brick itself is ... is deteriorated. You
can see again huge cracks that have ... have occurred in the past and been patched.
Interior of that is ... is completely powdered and brick gone. The bowing of the
walls, which I'm going to talk about in a minute. Large cracks, deteriorated brick,
large cracks again. Going back to that one, you can see this is all new brick in -fill
in this area. Cracking near the east wall where we have the, uh, no footing.
Interior of the ... the 610 building showing, again, that the, uh, the brick (can't
hear) have ...have separated and ... and are deteriorated. Large bowing in the, uh,
the 608 building on the east wall. This is the east wall of that. You can see
the... the... the large bow here. We measured that bow from corner to corner. We
have a three-inch outward bow of that wall.
Hayek: Mr. Jacob, your five minutes are up.
Jacob: Oh my god!
Hayek: Yeah.
Jacob: Well, can I conclude by saying that the ... the bowing, if I can get to a slide really
quickly.
Hayek: You need to do it quickly!
Jacob: Oops, I just went too far! The ... the bowing in the wall creates an unstable
condition. When ... when the wall is bowed outward in the three -inches here, and
we apply the vertical load, uh, to that wall, we have a bending moment that's
induced in that wall and that ... that's what's going to cause the buckling and the,
uh, unstable condition.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments!
Cole: Good morning, my name is Rockne Cole and I'm here in my capacity
representing Will Ingles and Susan Hultman who are current tenants at the
cottages located at 608 and 610 S. Dubuque Street. As you know, this year we
are celebrating the 175th anniversary of the City of Iowa City's founding. It
would be indeed ironic and tragic that as we celebrated our cherished history, we
allowed the demolition of worker's cottages, without allowing just 60 days, so
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 5
that both sides can make their case to you, as well as the citizens of Iowa City to
get these things preserved. Mr. Jacobs ran out of time. I would like to give him
60 more days to have the opportunity to consult with you, with City staff, with
Miss Dugan, to see if instead of just sort of, um, having two ships passing in the
night in terms of these structural engineering reports, that they can work to ... to
identify whether they can come to agreement on those, to assess the structural
soundness of these buildings. Alicia Trimble has covered in detail the historical
reasons related to why you should give us these 60 days. But I'd really like to
focus on one aspect to the determination that these buildings were structurally
unsound, according to the expert hired by Mr. Hodge. All of these opinions, and
all of these assessments, came after one moment, and that moment was when Mr.
Hodge filed an application, or informed the Planning and Zoning Commission
that he intended to raze these buildings. Those cottage are the most historic
buildings on this block. They are the one thing standing as an obstacle, um,
preventing, uh, that development to occur, and they know that. Since this report
was issued on November 20th, um, of 2014, they have made no effort to talk to
Miss Duggan and to assess whether there can be elements of commonality. We
have informed the City that we would like to, on behalf of the tenants, work with
the City of Iowa City to present that opinion from Miss Duggan, that in fact the
buildings are structurally sound, and moreover, one of the things I want you to
focus on, because it's very important, is the addendum that Miss Duggan's
provided to you. It was her opinion that those cottages were structurally sound,
even without any repairs done to the building. Although she did identify repairs,
and secondly, we will be providing a cost estimate. Because of the time we have
not had time, from a mason to identify how much it would cost to repair those
buildings. So we're not going to be able to decide all of those issues today. All
we're asking for is 60 days so that the people of Iowa City can have a public
hearing to protect the memory of those workers that built our community. The
humble among us — the seamstresses, the bricklayers, the blacksmiths, the writers,
the poets, the people that made Iowa City, Iowa; respect their memory and give
this community 60 days so that we can have an opportunity to protect those
cherished historic structures. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments.
Cook: Good morning, I'm Casey Cook ... and I've got, uh, a letter that I'd like to
distribute to the Council, if I may. I'm a commercial real estate appraiser. I've
been, uh, working in Iowa City and Johnson County since 1985. And um, I was
hired by, uh, Mr. Pacha to do two appraisals. Um, the first appraisal reflects the
value of the property in the event that it were developed in strict accordance with
the River Crossings' plan, and the second appraisal pertains to the property as
developed to its highest and best use, with a four-story predominantly residential
property in place. The litmus test of a good appraisal is that its values are the
same, regardless of whether you're doing it for the bank, the developer, the
property owner, or the city. These appraisals meet this test. The letter before you
was written in October of last year. It puts the focus on the difference between
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 6
the River Crossings' plan and the Hodge plan. It's important to understand that
this letter is the distillation of approximately two weeks of research and analysis
by our firm. It comes down to this, and I direct you to the last page of that letter.
There's a table there, and this is the one thing that I modified from my earlier
letter, because I didn't want to overstate the case. You'll see, um, across the top it
shows the land value per square foot under the Hodge plan and under the River
Crossings' plan, with the ... with the, uh, three cottages in place, the value of the
land under the Crossings' plan is $15 a square foot. If those cottages are
removed, and the site can be fully developed, the, uh, value of that land is $60 a
square foot. That's a difference of $2,026,000. If both ... if the properties were
improved, under, uh, both plans, fully improved and ... and the Crossings' plan
that involves preservation of the cottages and building some new construction
behind them, the assessed value would increase from the current base of a
$1,029,000 to $3,621,000. In contrast, the Hodge plan, the assessed value would
increase to $14,158,000. An increase over the Crossings' plan of $10,500,000.
The modification that I made was to, um, illustrate the, uh, the recent rulings that
they've had at the, uh, the PAAB, the Property Assessment Appeals Board at the
State, that there... they're interpreting the new tax laws to mean .... that if a
property is a preponderance or... or... of residential, the whole property is going to
be assessed as residential, even though it might have 30 or 40% commercial in it.
That's an important distinction as you all fully appreciate. The River Crossings'
plan specifically notes that the preservation of the cottages is preferred, but not
required. With regard to planning principles, I believe it is critical to preserve and
expand property value which sustains and increases tax base from which the City
derives most of its operating revenues. This is more critical than ever. In light of
the State -mandated property tax reductions that impact our apartments, our
commercial base, and more recently, the taxation of mixed use projects at
residential rates. Since the recent failure of the sales tax initiative, we will be
becoming increasingly reliant on the income stream from property taxes. In short,
it is about the money.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments.
Ingles: Good morning, thanks for holding this meeting. Uh, since the development of the
Riverfront Crossings' district master plan, the cottages at 608, 610, and 614 S.
Dubuque Street have been designated for preservation by the City.
Hayek: Could you give us your name, sir, for the record?
Ingles: William Ingles, 608 S. Dubuque Street. The recent inspection report by the
structural engineer Shana Dugan confirms that while spotty tuckpointing
maintenance is called for, the cottages are structurally sound and therefore
certainly worthy of continued preservation. Alicia Trimble's research into the
cottages history is admirably documented and indisputable. I urge all concerned
to read her findings. It's a fascinating and enjoyable study, but there's much more
about the cottage's history that couldn't be included in Alicia's findings because
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 7
so much of it is anecdotal rather than archivally documented. I know this because
in 1986, 10 years before Ted Pacha set foot on the property, the Building
Inspection Services Department required the then -owner, Freda Hieronymus and
me, to prove the cottages had been tenanted since their construction because I
wanted to continue to use the building as both a business and a residence, and a
young Doug Boothroy at the time wasn't too sure that's how the cottages had
been always used. Freda and I put together a very detailed roster of residential
and commercial owners and tenants that dated back to 1859, when the cottages
often served as that area's version of `bed and breakfast.' Thanks to previous
residents, the current and retired letter carriers of the neighborhood, to long-term
neighbors, to Irving Weber, and to the Johnson County Historical Society, we
assembled both a documented and common knowledge history, the early part of
which revealed that the cottages served as owner -occupied layover stations for the
railroad and stage coach travelers, as pony express depots in 186...1869,
59...1865. Um ... and as homes to the builders of Iowa City and the University of
Iowa. Our findings thoroughly satisfied Mr. Boothroy at the time, which is why
I've been living and working therefore the past 28 years. Given the documented
and common knowledge usage history of the cottages, given their unique and
charming architecture, and per the City's own Comprehensive Plan calling for the
preservation of the cottages, I hope you'll agree that they deserve to be preserved
for generations to come as historic landmarks. As some of you have seen on your
recent guided tour, conducted by Ted Pacha, there's nothing currently wrong with
the cottages that cannot and should not be repaired. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for your comments.
Stutsman: Good morning! My name is Jill Stutsman, and I am a third generation Iowa
Citian. Um, my family was originally brought here from Germany as master,
um...
Hayek: Ma'am, can I just ask, are you... speaking in favor of the motion or against it?
Stutsman: In favor.
Hayek: Okay. Well you're... we're... we're doubling up here. I'll let you proceed, but
then we'll do two ... uh, on the negative.
Stutsman: Okay! I'm sorry!
Hayek: Go ahead!
Stutsman: Um ... as master masons, and um ... I know the... tremendous amount of history of
Johnson County, and I'm certain if you went underground at John's Grocery, you
would find the exact same thing as the pictures that were shown of the pintucking
and the walls that are crumbling, etc., and I don't see anybody out there wanting
to shut them down in one week. Um, I ... am also a bit disturbed, having grown up
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 8
in this town, by the amount of, uh, properties that are being bought by certain
individuals who... pay them off by renting them to the University, which takes
them off the tax roll, and uh... then turns around and sells `em for an exact profit
of what they paid for `em to begin with, after collecting rent on `em for a few
months! So, I ... find that a disturbing thing, if you think about Menard's and you
think about the Hieronymus lot and all the other places they've torn down to build
more apartments. You're making it so I don't even go downtown anymore!
Unless I go to Herteen. I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous! There's nothing
for a family to go downtown for. And that's all I have to say! I think they are a
very important part of our Iowa City history and should be maintained.
Hayek: Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you!
Sullivan: My name's Adam Sullivan. I've lived in Iowa City for 23 years. Um, I'm not a
historian or an architect so I can't speak to whether these can or should be
preserved, but I do want to speak briefly to the process by which ...which is going
on here. I understand you have two reports from, uh, architectural engineers.
Hayek: Mr. Sullivan, are you in favor of the motion?
Sullivan: Opposed to the motion.
Hayek: You're opposed to the motion. Okay.
Sullivan: Um, my understanding is you have two reports from ... from experts, uh, one says
they can be preserved, one says they can't. Um, one was commissioned by a
developer, one was commissioned by a group that's stated purpose is to preserve,
uh, the cottages, and so, um, I'm skeptical that either of those is an unbiased
report. Um, and so I'm worried about the precedent that's set here. So if you go
ahead and do, uh, move to protect these cottages, I'm worried that in the future,
anyone can go out and hire their own expert, um, to get the finding that they're
looking for, bring that to you, and move forward that way, and so, urn ... I ... I
would urge you to ... to think about this very carefully, uh, about what future
precedent is set here.
Hayek: (mumbled) comments.
Pacha: My name is Ted Pacha. I appreciate... sincerely appreciate your time this
morning. Please do not mistake my hurriedness for not being sincere and
respectful of you, but I've got to get my five minutes in. Uh... I apologize that
you have ... even have to have this special session. My intention was to go and do
a simple thing, rezone my property that I've owned for over 30 years. I'm a life-
long resident of Iowa City. I've been fortunate to accumulate this property over
30 -plus years from people like Freda Hieronymus. I told the Planning and Zoning
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 9
Commission at the first meeting that I've been battling cancer for the (mumbled)
last four years, which is embarrassing to have to talk about in public, but
my ... with my most recent cancer treatment ending in ... in the spring. I now feel
very vulner..vulnerable, as some people do, and you think you want to start about
getting things in order for your family. You received a letter a few weeks ago of
how I've decided to pursue selling my property. I hesitate to use the word
`history, ` but I have a huge history with that area, those two blocks. I grew up at
422 S. Dubuque Street, delivered newspapers to those buildings on Prentiss and
Dubuque. They've had many businesses over the years — Video Hut, In/Out
Upholstery, White Front Cafe, the Gazette Newspaper office, and on and on. No
one cried wolf when those businesses moved on and other businesses came in.
Times change, buildings deteriorate beyond their useful life, it's time for me to
move on. A simple regress... request of the P&Z to meet exactly what the
Riversun ...Riverfront Crossing plan called for has turned into this. Here's just a
short list of what I've endured in the last six weeks. I spent tens of thousands of
dollar so far and not even sold the property. Gotten even close to it. Hired a
structural engineer who has 40 years experience in this community and has done
work for the City. He reported that the structures pose a danger to the occupants
and bystanders, and strongly recommended buildings be vacated (mumbled) A
group that calls themselves `Friends' starts their campaign. The November 25th
newsletter states they completed a second engineer's report as requested by the
P&Z Commission, which is not true. The press was told the buildings were fine
and solid, two weeks before that report ever was put in writing. The Friends
entered my properties without my knowledge or consent to do a study, had keys
to my buildings without my knowledge or consent, the Friends have written
applications to the State and to the City and so forth for preservation. Where is
that spirit of cooperation? Not one single person has spoken to me from the
"Friends." I've been threatened with lawsuits. I've been contacted by an attorney
stating I can't step into my own buildings. Other tenants on the block are
questioning what's their fate, what ... where are they at. I've lost two tenants in
buildings not associated with these three. One gentleman has moved out of
his ... his, uh, hut, uh, because he understood the, uh, structural problems and so
forth and didn't want his clients to have a problem. I've rec... received emails
questioning my integrity (mumbled) stating that I hired an engineer that was
biased. I never met Jim Jacobs before in my life before we brought him in. Both
the City and I recognize the danger and risk to the health and safety of my tenants
and passersby from the report from VJ Engineering. What am I to do if this
Council, or an attorney, or someone else stops me from moving forward with this
process? I no longer have insurance on my buildings. I have a severe, severe
liability. The City has already made it clear that it's my liability and not theirs.
So obviously I must continue to work with the tenants. I have one moved; he's
very happy. Two blocks away. So obviously... and... and I assisted him with his
lease and so forth to get him out of those dangerous buildings. As John Yapp's
memo dated December 3rd to Tom Markus: based on the VJ Engineering report,
on November 24th the City issued a Notice of Violation requiring the structures be
vacated, and that nuisance be abated through repair or demolition. It should be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 10
noted again that I offered these old buildings to the Friends and have heard
nothing from them. Once again, I apologize for your time. I see the things on
your docket and I can't believe that this is one of the most important ones for the
City Council. As a life-long Iowa Citian, I'm asking ... I'm pleading that this time,
this time, respect the land owner's rights on this ... a ... a property that I've put
together over 40 years, and allow me to have one more thing to check off my
bucket list. You said you had all these emails and so forth. I ... I sympathize with
you. My son came all the way from California, from grad school, and said,
originally the petition title was ... was stated `public landmarks,' `public
landmark,' `public landmark.' In mid ... mid -petition it was changed to `what we
need to ask the City for ... City Council for is to set a public hearing.' Now in a
paper petition that would never happen. So the same names that voted for this
now all of a sudden were transferred over to here and they still go on.
Hayek: Mr. Pacha, your five minutes are up.
Pacha: Thank you very much.
Hayek: Thank you. No, I'm (several talking) treating the last one as ... (several talking) I
think we were (several talking)
Pettit: (mumbled) My name is Joseph Pettit. I'm a student here. Also a life-long
resident. I'd like to address the points made by, uh, gentleman before Ted Pacha
and maybe some of Ted Pacha's points. Uh, the point that if... or that this, the
decision for, uh, saying a moratorium on the cottages would set precedent and that
the, urn ... that anybody could get a structural engineer on their side to present a
point, uh, just seems somewhat fallacious. Uh, I have to admit that ... yes, there is
probably going to be some bias involved in finding structural engineers, but it... it
can be mitigated. I'm ... fairly certain about that. This might also be just a one-
time issue that might not happen again, but don't count on me for that. Also for,
uh, Ted Pacha's points about the, um ... uh... we said ... we said that nobody raised
a fuss over the Gazette buildings or other properties and businesses that have
since been ... razed or redeveloped. Uh... my ...my understanding of that
was... sorry... is that ... people might not have really cared or have known about
the historical value behind the buildings that have been ... that have vanished. It
mi ... maybe this is a sort of watershed moment that people realizing that there
is ... a little more history in Iowa City than we thought. Um ... one of my own
points is that the... I think things have moved a little too quickly, and that there's
still not enough information to go on about the cottages. Um ... uh, Will has, uh,
stated ... I think the ... I remember that the report commissioned by Friends of
Historical Preservation has identified that Will has used some structural jacks in
his building to help support the floor, and uh, it takes some of the weight off of
the joists. Uh, I ... I was here November 20th to see, um, Mr. ...um, Mr. Jacob's
report about the cottages. Uh, essentially what was here is what was presented to
the Planning and Zoning Committee. There wasn't anything said by him about
the structural jacks. Uh... also ... I might as well make this last point. Even, well
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 11
as (mumbled) I might be phrasing it. I think there are people within and outside
of this community who will be willing to sacrifice for these cottages. I don't
know the legalities or the, uh... all the bureaucratic maneuvering that might be
required to purchase the land from, uh, Ted Pacha, and transfer it to a limited
liability corporation, but I am fairly certain that... given enough time and enough
publicity that the funds to ... to preserve these buildings could be raised. I don't
know how long it would take, however. I don't have any estimates on that.
Or ... or that some solution that could be mutually beneficial to both Ted Pacha
and the current tenants could be found. As ... as such, I would like to encourage
the Council to move forward on the moratorium.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments. We need a ... we need a, someone to speak on the
other side.
Michaud: I'm kinda complementary, but go ahead.
McCarragher: My name is Jim McCarragher. I'm attorney for the owner. I'm here on behalf of
its manager, Ted Pacha. As the Council considers whether it should set a public
hearing, I would like to offer three matters for consideration. The first is the
pr... is the property owner. When you buy a piece of property you buy it, you
don't rent it, because you want to be able to use it for the purpose you want to,
and if later in life you need, you want to be able to use it for the best interest of
your family. If someone would like the owner to consider some specific use of
their property, shouldn't they, at least the owner would expect, is they would
come to you and talk to you about it, so when you're making major decisions
about the building, you can take that into consideration. What concerns me here
is that historic buildings don't become historic buildings when the zoning
application's made. What concerns me is the last minute, after the owner has
gone in, made major cost concerns, has gone through the talking to the staff of the
City, has even received their initial recommendation that the plan be approved.
Someone comes in and says to the owner, no, we have a different opinion
regarding what can and cannot be done about your property at that time. No one
came to Ted to discuss any historic value of this... of these buildings until he
sought to sell the property for the purpose ...he had spent time and money
considering because of his health reasons. That these buildings were thought to
have been historic landmarks, then Ted should have been approached before that
decision, to develop the spending of the money, the receiving of the approval
from the City, and being just confronted for the first time at the Planning and
Zoning meeting. To vote yes today to set a public hearing in the future rewards
the last-minute attack on the property owner's decisions. Second point, liability
upon a single owner rather than multiple. One of the criteria set forth in the
Friends' application for historic landmark designation that has not been met
involving multiple buildings is diverse ownership. The financial burden of the
historic landmark designation for not one but three buildings in this case falls
upon one owner. It's unlike the normal situation where you have diverse
ownership, even if as some people would say, the buildings are capable of repair,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 12
which Ted based upon the opinion of Jim Jacobs, does not believe it's possible, it
would be a long process fraught with injury, risk, extremely expensive, all falling
on the shoulders of one individual with little ability to recover the funds, let alone
any chance of yielding a reasonable return. In addition, one owner, not multiple
owners, is exposed to liability based on Jim Jacobs' report, and the City's Notice
of Violation, where the buildings have been declared by a certified
strub... structural engineer and the City has declared the buildings dangerous and
unsafe, the potential liability is substantial. If repairs are sought in this particular
case, uh, the... the... the buildings cannot be repaired. As the Council knows,
Morningstar Studio has issued a report which differs from Jim Jacobs in the
conclusion. Whether some other than Ted want to use that report to dismiss Jim
Jacob's opinion, the buildings are unstable, unsound, and unsafe. Ted as the
owner of the property, and as the policy of the City as well, cannot ignore that
opinion. If someone were to be injured in this building, do you think that
person's going to say, oh, it was okay for you to ignore that structural engineer
report? I don't think so! This is already apparent where Ted has indicated to you
he has lost all insurance on the buildings. The combination of this is that his
liability exposure is substantial. To this end, Ted has been attempting to work
with tenants to vacate the buildings and make several generous financial
incentives. One of the three have accepted; the other two have not. To the
Friends, we've indicated we've made offers to them, as well. They have not
responded. To vote yes today, to a future public hearing, delays a method which
Ted can have to protect the safety of the people and remove a substantial risk of
liability from the shoulder of one individual. Finally, these buildings are unsafe!
Jim Jacobs, structural engineer from VJ Engineering, a long-standing engineering
firm in this community and once which the City has worked with over multiple
times in the future, reviewed the buildings and ... and indicated that from his
examination they were unsafe and unstable. The ... the walls were badly
deterior ... the brick units were badly deteriorated. They have little strength. The
masonry walls of the structure are badly deteriorated, showing uneven settlement
with bowing and cracking, are beyond their useful life and are unstable. The
buildings essentially are in ja... danger of collapse. In Jim Jacobs' opinion, the
structure poses a real danger to the tenants, their guests, and bystanders, whether
they are occupied or not! They're not stable! The City staff present... present at
the time Jim Jacobs made his presentation issued a Notice of Violation after his
presentation. Jim Jacobs has reviewed the report of the Morningstar Studio, stands
firmly in his opinion, and in short time (mumbled) day that he had explained to
you why he still stands on that opinion.
Hayek: Mr. McCarragher, your five minutes are up.
McCarragher: To vote yes to ... to set a future hearing today continues to expose the tenants, who
have not yet agreed to leave, their guests and customers, and any person in the
immediate vicinity of the buildings to risk of serious harm. I ask that you vote no
for a public hearing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 13
Hayek: Thank you.
McCarragher: Thank you!
(male): (from audience) I thought attorneys were supposed to tell the truth! (several
talking in audience)
Hapel: My name is Teresa Hapel. I'm a resident of Iowa City. One of the things that
we've been hearing a lot about in this discussion this morning is owner's rights. I
believe very strongly that owner's rights also imply owner responsibility. What
we're hearing is that these properties are not sound and not safe. That's what one
report says. The report commissioned by the person who wants to tear them
down. Another conflicting report says the properties are entirely sound. Not
entirely sound, that they have structural difficulties ... common to buildings of that
age. However, what I'm questioning is, why have these buildings been allowed
by the owner to deteriorate to the point that they are no longer considered to be
sound? If the owner has a right ... has a ... has a right, he also has a responsibility
to maintain those properties. Those properties have tenants. Why have those
properties been allowed to be deteriorated so that those tenants are now
supposedly at risk, in the properties that they are paying rent for? I also believe
that the owner has worked hard to maintain ... to ... to acquire these properties over
the years. Um, he certainly has a right to make a profit on these properties. That
is why he probably owned ... owns them in the first place. But he also has an
opportunity to preserve part of Iowa City's historic, uh, heritage. He is not only
an owner of this property, he is a steward of this property. No one says that he
cannot develop these properties. All we're asking for here is a 60 -day
moratorium, so that we can hold a public hearing. If the public hearing is held
sooner than that, then the decision is made. There is a strong possibility that these
properties will not be found to be historic. In which case the owner can do as he
wishes. But, again, I come back to, if the properties are unsound, that may be
because the owner has let them deteriorate to that point and has not properly
maintained them. We've heard that the owner no longer has insurance. I'm not
clear that that is because the insurance companies will no longer insure these
properties. Perhaps that is because the owner chose to discontinue insuring these
properties, perhaps because he anticipated selling this property and razing the
buildings. So I think that we don't lose anything by having the decision to hold a
public hearing. It gives us a little bit more time, so that we can truly find out what
is the status of these buildings. We have conflicting reports from conflicting
parties. I don't think we have a ... a... a property appraisal, a property ... a
structural engineer's report that either side can feel is ... fair and impartial. So I
would urge you to take 60 days, at most, to hold a public hearing. If the public
hearing is held sooner than that, the decision can be made sooner. All I see
is ... urgency on both sides. I see a sense of urgency on both sides, and my
experience is that a situation that is urgent is rarely important, and a situation that
is important is rarely urgent. Please take the time to make a ... a good, informed
decision. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 14
Hayek: Thank you. It is now 7:46. We are going to cut off audience (both talking,
member of audience and Mayor) We have to! There's been an even amount on
both sides and we have to shut this down for Council deliberation, and I know
people wanted to speak. So I'm going to shut ... shut this down. At this time we
can have, uh, Council discussion and deliberation on the pending motion.
Dobyns: About three years ago (clears throat) when I started on Council, Councilperson
Throgmorton and myself walked the area, and I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I
thought the three cottages and the land that they were sitting on was very quaint
and worthy of historic contemplation. However, I'm a little bit concerned that
if...myself with really no knowledge of this area sort of has that sense, why, uh,
those who are interested in, um, historic preservation in our community waited
until the 11 th hour to start these deliberations and sort of exploit the drama of the
situation. I'm concerned about that, but nevertheless I understand, um, hope. Um
(clears throat) I think the, uh... law appropriately codifies the rights of the owner,
uh, regarding the super -majority. I think it's going to be extraordinarily difficult,
um, if we move this, uh, forward, um, that this Council will vote, um, to apply
against, you know, vote a super -majority. So I think ultimately, um, that the
owner will probably, uh, get what may be very much his due right. The concern
is that I understand hope. There is, uh, the hope that these buildings can somehow
be structurally made... good integrity. The hope that going forward that this
property can somehow not only preserve the buildings but the area around it, and
money comes in and makes this a really good area. The hope that, um, the taxes
that we will lose will be worth it because of the historic nature of the area. The
hope is indeed thin, but I've seen lots of people hang on very thin hope before. I
guess be careful what everybody asks for; you may get it. This next month
there's a lot of things going on and there's a lot of things that need to be, uh,
done. I will vote, um, to uh, call the public hearing at the beginning of January
and uh, preserve what I think what little hope of this exists.
Mims: I'm really concerned about the ... the process and the precedent that this sets. Um,
as other people have said ... you know, we have a number of historic buildings in
areas in this community and I think when you look at this Council, there is no
question that we have been supportive of that, and if my recollection is correct,
we voted 7-0 on the Jefferson Street Historical District. I believe we voted 7-0 on
the ... the Horace-Mann-Goosetown Conservation District. So this Council, I
think, is very sensitive to and very concerned about preserving those buildings
and areas in this community. Those came to us through what I believe to be an
appropriate and timely process. I am very concerned, as at least one member of
the audience and I know Members of Council have indicated before, about kind of
the 11th hour approach on this, and I'm concerned about that happening to other
property owners in the future. Um, I would strongly ... the only thing that is
before us today is whether or not to set the public hearing. That is the only thing
that we are voting on. There are lots of things that have been talked about
that ... in one respect are irrelevant as of this moment. There's, you know,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 15
conflicting structural engineering reports. There's conflicting opinions on, you
know, historic value of the buildings, whether they're structurally sound or not.
My focus is on the process and what that says to us going forward. Because of
that, I am going to vote no on setting the public hearing. I think it is imperative
that people who ... who support, and I ... and I support historic preservation in this
community in the right locations and places, get out in front of these issues and
these locations and spaces and do your due diligence and start that process before
the I lt" hour of a property owner trying to move forward with plans for their
properties. So I will be voting no for the public hearing.
Hayek: I, um, I don't think this would get a super -majority at...at a public hearing.
That ... that's my reading of...of...ofthe landscape, but as Council Member, uh,
Mims indicated, our decision today is whether to set a public hearing, and until
last night I was, uh, I was inclined to do so, um, based on my ... my reading of the
Riverfront Crossings' plan, which does call out these cottages, and so I dug into,
uh, those materials a little bit more. And ... and I started it with the sense that, you
know, the ... the reference to those cottages may create, at least on my part, a ... a
moral, if other obligation to ... to, uh, to ... to set a public hearing and trigger the
machinery of our Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office, and ... and more staff and
Council time, but if you look at that plan, which has been cited in some of the
comments this morning, it's part of a chapter on conceptual development
opportunities, and it ... there's language in it about, uh... uh, offering ideas
and ... and about encouraging property owners to, uh, preserve their structures
through incentives, such as a den... density bonus. Um, but it's clear from
that ... from the language in that plan, that... that... that the ... the decision is up to
the property owner. Um, now there is precedent for this approach. Look at the
Tate Arms building that's being preserved, uh, not far from ... from this location.
Here the property owner has not pursued this. Uh, he has neglected the buildings
over the decades, as I'm sure have owners, uh, prior to ... to him. Um, the ...the
City has as ... has been asked to pursue this. Um, but as has been indicated before,
uh, the City's been asked to do this in the 11th, and I would say l ltn and a half
hour, um, and under circumstances that ... that at the end of the day make me
uncomfortable about the fairness, uh, of it all. I think the right way to do
preservation is through either incentives or an orderly process, um, but not this
process. Um, and I consider the public interest to trump individual property rights
on issues of historic preservation under certain circumstances. I think this
Council's been good on historic preservation over the years, and frankly one of
the proudest moments of my seven years on Council was casting a... a vote on the
Gilbert -Linn, uh, historic zone, and I think it passed by one vote. Um, that was a
hotly contested matter, um, but the process was good. It was ... it was ... it was
done correctly. Um, and the process has been good for multiple actions that the
City has taken in recent years to, uh, to ... to preserve his ... historic structures
and ... and areas in this community. I ... I've got a problem with the fairness of
all... of... of this, and so I ... I feel compelled to vote no.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 16
Payne: I'm not going to take tons of time. I agree with both Susan and Matt, um, I think
the ... the big thing here is ... is ... the process needs to be, needs to have a better
process than what we're going through right now, and um, I... agree that the
property owner has rights that are kind of being tramped on with this process, and
I will vote no!
Throgmorton: I'll say a word about process. The buildings have been there for 160 or ... or so
years, 150 years. Uh, they have been... occupied that whole time. There's been
no indication up till ... what, um. ... I ... I don't know, no public indication until
roughly a month ago that these buildings might be demolished and tenants told to
get out of `em quickly. So I think actually the attorney has it precisely
backwards. People were surprised to discover that tenants would be told to
vacate, and that the buildings would be demolished like that. So, I do agree with
Susan that, uh, advocates of historic preservation are clearly on notice now that in
any areas zoned high density or in the Riverfront Crossings' district, any historic
building in ... in any of those districts is at risk of being torn down, like that. So
I ... I think, as a matter of fair process, we ... absolutely should schedule a public
hearing without at this moment considering the merits of whether or not we
should approve the historic landmark designation or not. So I'm gonna ... I'm
gonna vote in favor!
Botchway: I'm going to vote in favor as well. Um, I will say though I do not like this
process. I do not like the last minute of it. It... it, um, obviously as I ran in here,
um, 10 minutes late, it speaks to the ... trying to make decisions, you know, within
a week of finding something out I think is just tough, especially with this level of
importance. Um, however, there was a couple of comments, um, even tonight
that I think spoke to something that I, I mean, I honestly say I was a little upset
about, you know, the fact that, you know, this is, um, the argument I guess
opposed has, uh, has trumped up that, you know, this is a situation where the
buildings are structurally sound, or unsound, um, but if that was the case, you
know, there ... I feel there's a responsibility to work on that prior to this particular
occasion. It almost seems like a ... a play almost. And I'm not saying that it, but
to me, it almost seems like a play almost, um, to us to say that, you know, at this
moment because you're doing a specific thing with this property, the buildings are
now unstructurally sound and so I ... I have a problem with that and uh... and
maybe that's why I'm ... or (mumbled) that's why I'm voting on this particular
way because I would like more information regarding that. I just think it's ... I
think it's weird. I think it's, um, it... again, it seems a little sketchy and ... I don't
think that's fair, and so when I ... when I look at the unfairness of, um, you know,
how we're going about changing this process, but I also look at the unfairness of
how these events kind of, um, happen for, um, the actual, uh, people in the
property, but also kind of how this ... has come to bear, based on the fact that
again, you know, structural engineer was found for the opposing side and uh, you
know ... these buildings have ... seem to be, and again from the pictures and I' in
not an expert, had been in disrepair for a long time, that now that arguments being
used as a reason. I ... I have a problem with that, and the fairness of that, as well,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.
Page 17
and so I'll err on the, um, the side of yes, um, to have a public hearing, and I'll be
interested in hearing more thoughts and more comments, um, about it.
Dickens: I'll be voting no on it. I ... I just have to go off the ... all the reports that we've
heard. The fact that the owner has no insurance, liability factors, the fact that the
City has issued all these permits based on the information they have. I'm going to
have to follow it and go no.
Hayek: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All those ... all those opposed
say no. It appears to fail on a 3-4 vote, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Dickens in the
negative.
Dobyns: Move to adjourn.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Payne: So moved!
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Botchway. Discussion? All those in favor say
aye. Opposed say nay. The motion carries.
Dobyns: Move to adjourn.
Payne: Second!
Hayek: Moved by, uh, Dobyns, seconded by Payne to adjourn. Discussion? All those in
favor say aye. Opposed say nay. We are adjourned. Thank you!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of December 9, 2014.