Laserfiche WebLink
as the homeowner. She said when looking at the federal guidelines, siding is inappropriate. This is a <br />"Catch 22", as the board can recognize Mr. Pohlid's issues as the homeowner but also recognizes the city <br />ordinance, which requires that they adhere to the federal guidelines. Mr. Lang then reviewed the <br />guidelines. He said the board uses The Department of the Interior and its federal standards because they <br />have done the research that is necessary. It has been determined that the air gap between the newly applied <br />aluminum or vinyl siding and the old wooden siding will result in moisture building up. He said one <br />element with this situation is to preserve and protect the exterior of an architecturally and historically <br />significant structure in the district as well as trying to work at preventing a mistake that may come back to <br />haunt in the future. Mr. Tobin asked for the date on the federal guidelines. Mr. Lang replied it is 1980. <br />Mr. Tobin said that since that time the industry has done many things to overcome problems mentioned in <br />the guidelines. He reviewed new installation methods that eliminate some of the problems brought out in <br />the guidelines. There was discussion about hydrostatic pressure and venting issues. Mrs. VanAuken asked <br />Mr. Tobin if putting the vinyl over the wood will cause the wood to rot using the methods he has <br />described. Mr. Tobin said it will absolutely not rot the wood. It has been proven many times over. Mrs. <br />VanAuken asked about areas where the wood may already be rotting. Mr. Tobin said there is only one <br />place on the house where there is rotted wood. It is the rear porch door and it will be replaced. Mr. Lang <br />reviewed some of the specifications of the proposed work with Mr. Tobin. He expressed concern about <br />corner pieces on the house coming together. Mr. Tobin explained the process for completing the work. <br />Mr. Lang referred Mr. O'Malley to Chapter 165.08, the review process for alterations to landmarks. He <br />said the way he reads this, the board does not have to issue a certificate tonight. They have 60 days to <br />consider the proposal. Mr. O'Malley indicated that is correct. Mr. Lang said rather than feel they are <br />under the gun to come up with an immediate decision at a meeting, some thought needs to be given to the <br />request so the board can absorb all of the information presented. He asked Mr. O'Malley if the board <br />would then table the request. Mr. O'Malley said the code allows a 60 day time period for the board to take <br />time to consider a proposal. Mrs. Davis asked when the 60 day period begins. Mr. O'Malley said a <br />conservation date would be 60 days from the date of the application. Mr. Lang said the date of the request <br />is August 11th. Mr. Tobin expressed concern about the time frame and colder weather approaching. Mr. <br />Lang said the board would not delay the project in an out of the ordinary way. There was a lot of <br />information presented and the board would like to examine the samples provided. Mr. Tobin said he will <br />need approximately 14 working days to complete the project. Mr. Lang said the application indicates the <br />work request is for siding but this project actually involves fascias, soffits, and all of the exposed <br />woodwork on the house, including the porch. Mr. Barker said however the commission decides this <br />matter, he would like to thank Mr. Tobin and Mr. Pohlid for their presentation to the board. He suggested <br />Mr. Tobin consider joining the Landmarks Commission. He added that Mr. Tobin shows a great deal of <br />passion for his work and it is greatly appreciated. Mrs. VanAuken said she would like to see if Mr. Tobin <br />can find soine written material detailing some of the changes that have taken place since 1980. Mr. Tobin <br />said perhaps something can be found on the computer but he is not a computer person. Mr. Lang said they <br />just want to allay some of the concerns that are always raised whenever they get a request to put siding on <br />a house of such historic importance. He said Mr. Tobin's answers have been very illuminating. There was <br />further discussion about some of the other projects Mr. Tobin has worked on. Mr. Lang mentioned the <br />board can approve the request, deny it, or they can postpone making a determination. He said the next <br />meeting is 63 days from the date of the application. Mr. O'Malley said the most conservative interpretation <br />of the code would be to use the application date. He said another reasonable interpretation would be to use <br />the date it was sent to Landmarks, or the date it was heard by the board. Mrs. Lord asked if they should set <br />a continuance meeting or address it again at the next regularly scheduled meeting, Oct. 13. Mr. Barker <br />said he would like to request that they call a continuance meeting to give Mr. Pohlid and Mr. Tobin the <br />opportunity to hear the results and then hopefully get started with the job. <br />P. Barker made a motion to set up a meeting in the next 7-10 days. In the meantime, the bolyd will <br />discuss/review the informltion receivecl tonight and come up with a resolution to Mr. Pohlid's <br />request. The motion was seconded by B. Lord and unanimously approved. <br />2