HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.16.2002• •
APPEAL HEARING
December 16, 2002
4:45 p.m.
Council Chambers
Members present: Berry, Welper, Greenwood, Clark, Hurley, Getty, Jordan.
Moved by Berry, seconded by Welper that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Six.
Absent: Jordan. Motion carried.
Jordan now present at 4:47 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem stated that the meeting is being held at the request of Michael and Donna
Douglas to appeal the decision of the Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission denying their
request to replace existing aluminum siding for property located at 126 Prospect Avenue.
Noel Anderson, Assistant City Planner, reported that Mr. and Mrs. Douglas resubmitted their
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness requesting to replace the aluminum siding on their
home at 126 Prospect Avenue with aluminum siding, and the Historic Commission again denied
their request.
Councilperson Hurley stated that it is his understanding that councilmembers should base their
decision on whether the Historic Commission acted properly and not about the technical aspects
of the request. Jim Walsh, City Attorney, responded that the city's ordinance gives citizens the
right to appeal a decision by the Historic Commission to the council. The council can find that
the Historic Commission did something wrong in interpreting the rules, but not whether
aluminum siding is better than wood.
Councilperson Clark commented that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation Standard 6 does provide for a narrow
exception for use of aluminum and vinyl siding.
Dan Levi, Chairperson of the Waterloo Historic Commission, reported that Preservation Brief 8
discourages the use of aluminum and vinyl but points out the following three exceptions: 1) The
existing siding is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired; 2) The substitute material
can be installed without irreversibly damaging or obscuring the architectural features and trim of
the building; 3) The substitute material can match the historic material in size, profile and finish
so that there is no change in the character of the historic building. Mr. Levi noted that the key
word is irreversibly as there are concerns vinyl and aluminum are porous material and hold
water. Mr. Levi stated the Historic Commission feels neither aluminum nor vinyl can meet these
criteria. Mr. Levi continued that Brief 8 further states that in cases where non -historic artificial
siding has been applied to a building, the removal of such a siding, and the application of
aluminum or vinyl siding would, in most cases, be an acceptable alternative, as long as first two
conditions are met.
Michael Douglas, 126 Prospect Avenue, stated that vinyl or aluminum siding is not eligible
standing alone, but his neighbor has steel siding. Donna Douglas, 126 Prospect Avenue,
reported that there are a number of houses in the neighborhood/historic district that have vinyl or
aluminum siding.
Mr. Douglas stated that he has shown the council a sample of the wood on his home, and that
there is nothing but particle board, and that there is no evidence there ever was wood siding. Mr.
Douglas stated he and his wife followed all the steps, and that he had requested to put a
Wolverine siding product on his home. Mr. Douglas stated the Historic Commission told him he
could use a cemplank, a cement siding, that they were concerned about using synthetics and that
the guidelines say aluminum and vinyl siding are not recommended.
Mrs. Douglas stated the guidelines are arbitrary and capricious, and if the city wants to make the
guidelines legally binding, then they need to be written in legal language. Mrs. Douglas stated
that neighbors' home on all sides of them have artificial siding which was grandfathered in.
Mr. Douglas presented the council with the Highland Housecall, which was adopted at the
December Highland Neighborhood Board of Directors meeting. The Highland Housecall asks
that three or more Highland residents be represented on the Historic Commission.
Appeal Hearing
December 16, 2002
Page 2
• •
Mr. Douglas stated that he purchased the home with aluminum siding, not wood siding. When
they bought the house in October 2000, they talked to the past president of the Historic
Commission and was told everything is grandfathered in and that the property was historic.
Mrs. Douglas explained the research she has completed regarding rules and guidelines for
historic property. Mrs. Douglas reported that the Historic Commission will not allow a building
permit to be issued unless they approve the work to be done. The Commission can approve a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Significant Change.
Councilperson Hurley asked if it isn't the intent of the Historic District that no matter what
material was in place when the home is purchased, that when it is time for a change that to
preserve a historic district that original material be used.
Mrs. Douglas stated that she received a call from a woman who served on another Historic
Commission saying that the council is wrong and that the aluminum siding is part of the history
of the home.
Councilperson Hurley asked that if it was pointed out that the home was in an historic district
and Mr. Douglas responded he doesn't believe so.
Mr. Douglas stated that the commission is recommending cemplank, and it is heavier. This
material is being used in California. Mr. Douglas stated cemplank is heavier and could cause
stress to the house and could damage the foundation of the house.
Mrs. Douglas stated the council has to decide if the Historic Commission acted arbitrary and
capricious and followed the guidelines. Mrs. Douglas presented information she has gathered.
Mr. Douglas stated he has talked with the past city attorney and council members, and they agree
the city has not followed the code and has not followed appointment of commission members.
Mr. Anderson stated that the guidelines are not specific because the city wants to look at each
request on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Anderson stated that "grandfathered in" means it is okay
until they want to replace a part and then it must be brought into conformance. Mr. Anderson
commented that the abstract would note the property is affected by the Historic District.
Councilperson Getty stated it is the council's job to go along with the Historic Commission's
decision if the council feels they followed the guidelines and deny the appeal by Mr. and Mrs.
Douglas. Councilperson Getty stated a work session will be scheduled after the first of the year
to look at the guidelines.
Councilperson Jordan asked if the council denies the Douglases request can they bring it back if
the council changes the guidelines and ordinance. Mr. Walsh stated Mr. and Mrs. Douglas can
proceed with a new application, appeal to District Court or wait to see if the rules are changed.
Moved by Jordan, seconded by Hurley that the hearing be closed and oral and written comments
be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried.
Moved by Clark, seconded by Hurley that the appeal of Michael and Donna Douglas of the
decision of the Waterloo Historic Commission to deny request to replace existing aluminum
siding with aluminum siding for property located at 126 Prospect Avenue be denied. Ayes:
Seven. Motion carried.
With no further business before the council, it was moved by Jordan, seconded by Welper that
the meeting be adjourned at 5:26 p.m. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried.
Nancy Eckert
City Clerk