MONROE - Concerns about building owners' inability to appeal restoration decisions did not prevent the Monroe City Council from approving a preservation plan for the City of Monroe Downtown Historic District on Tuesday.
The Common Council voted 6-4 to approve the resolution, which establishes district boundaries, and adopts and implements guidelines for proper restoration of buildings. The guidelines are intended to preserve portions and features of properties, which are significant to historic, architectural and cultural value.
Aldermen Mark Coplien, Chuck Koch, Thurston Hanson and Kent Kallembach voted against the resolution. The city's Historic Preservation Commission wrote the plan and offered it to the council for final approval.
The council had tabled final passage of the plan after an Aug. 5 public hearing because some aldermen thought it included too many harsh restrictions.
Those concerns appeared to be eased earlier Tuesday, when Hanson, Kallembach and Alderman Dan Henke met with the commission. Alderman Jan Lefevre also was present, as a commission member.
Henke and Hanson expressed satisfaction after commissioners said an appeals process was written into the plan. That process would allow building owners to appeal rejections of plans by the commission to the council.
But City Attorney Rex Ewald told aldermen Tuesday night that he doesn't believe the council has the flexibility to deviate from the plan's guidelines. He said about 11 to 12 pages of the 100-page plan read not as a plan, but rather as city code.
Council members may be "comfortable" with the idea of having an appeals process, Ewald said, "but as a matter of law, I don't necessarily agree with that."
Ewald said he agreed with Dr. David Riese, chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, that "tough standards are OK." But some portions of the guideline use terms such as "shall" and "strictly prohibited," from which the council would not be able to deviate in an appeals process, he said
"You would be repealing this guideline," Ewald told the council. "I think the plan is a good idea, but there's a misconception here. ... The players think they can be flexible, but I don't think they can be."
Two motions on the plan failed before final passage.
One motion, made by Hanson and seconded by Koch, to return the plan to the commission to modify guideline wording failed 6-4. Coplien, Koch, Hanson and Kallembach voted to send the plan back for rewording.
A later motion, by Koch and seconded by Keith Ingwell, to table a vote until Sept. 16 to give the commission time to reword the plan if it wanted to also failed on a 5-4 vote, with one abstention. Coplien, Koch, Hanson and Kallembach voted for the measure. Alderman Neal Hunter responded to the roll-call vote with "Whatever," which was recorded as abstaining.
Coplien, Koch and Hanson said the plan should be written correctly before being voted on.
"We have legal advice saying it's not legally correct. Why approve something that's not correct?" Coplien said.
Koch and Hanson both said the plan gives city government too much control over building work in the district. Koch said the guidelines give "too much control over what a person does with his own property."
Coplien had been ready to abstain in a final vote because of a conflict of interest. A building he is ready to work on would be subject to the guidelines, even though the building owner had a contract with "things (like the color of the building) already picked and chosen." Only buildings and items on buildings that are "on site at the time it becomes law" can be exempted, or grandfathered in, Ewald said.
When it was believed an appeals process would be available, Coplien was ready to vote to approve the plan. But he changed his mind after Ewald expressed his opinions. That change in course also persuaded Hanson to vote against the plan.
Henke still favored the plan because "things that are prohibited probably should be," he said.
Lefevre told the council a plan is needed immediately, because the commission has people "lined up" for applications. The commission has a facade grant program available for building owners in the Historic District which offers 50 percent funding, up to $10,000, for a facade repair or replacement projects.
After the meeting, Lefevre said she had spoken to Riese and said the commission would take another look at the plan to do some "tweaking."
"We want to make sure everything complies," she said.
The Common Council voted 6-4 to approve the resolution, which establishes district boundaries, and adopts and implements guidelines for proper restoration of buildings. The guidelines are intended to preserve portions and features of properties, which are significant to historic, architectural and cultural value.
Aldermen Mark Coplien, Chuck Koch, Thurston Hanson and Kent Kallembach voted against the resolution. The city's Historic Preservation Commission wrote the plan and offered it to the council for final approval.
The council had tabled final passage of the plan after an Aug. 5 public hearing because some aldermen thought it included too many harsh restrictions.
Those concerns appeared to be eased earlier Tuesday, when Hanson, Kallembach and Alderman Dan Henke met with the commission. Alderman Jan Lefevre also was present, as a commission member.
Henke and Hanson expressed satisfaction after commissioners said an appeals process was written into the plan. That process would allow building owners to appeal rejections of plans by the commission to the council.
But City Attorney Rex Ewald told aldermen Tuesday night that he doesn't believe the council has the flexibility to deviate from the plan's guidelines. He said about 11 to 12 pages of the 100-page plan read not as a plan, but rather as city code.
Council members may be "comfortable" with the idea of having an appeals process, Ewald said, "but as a matter of law, I don't necessarily agree with that."
Ewald said he agreed with Dr. David Riese, chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, that "tough standards are OK." But some portions of the guideline use terms such as "shall" and "strictly prohibited," from which the council would not be able to deviate in an appeals process, he said
"You would be repealing this guideline," Ewald told the council. "I think the plan is a good idea, but there's a misconception here. ... The players think they can be flexible, but I don't think they can be."
Two motions on the plan failed before final passage.
One motion, made by Hanson and seconded by Koch, to return the plan to the commission to modify guideline wording failed 6-4. Coplien, Koch, Hanson and Kallembach voted to send the plan back for rewording.
A later motion, by Koch and seconded by Keith Ingwell, to table a vote until Sept. 16 to give the commission time to reword the plan if it wanted to also failed on a 5-4 vote, with one abstention. Coplien, Koch, Hanson and Kallembach voted for the measure. Alderman Neal Hunter responded to the roll-call vote with "Whatever," which was recorded as abstaining.
Coplien, Koch and Hanson said the plan should be written correctly before being voted on.
"We have legal advice saying it's not legally correct. Why approve something that's not correct?" Coplien said.
Koch and Hanson both said the plan gives city government too much control over building work in the district. Koch said the guidelines give "too much control over what a person does with his own property."
Coplien had been ready to abstain in a final vote because of a conflict of interest. A building he is ready to work on would be subject to the guidelines, even though the building owner had a contract with "things (like the color of the building) already picked and chosen." Only buildings and items on buildings that are "on site at the time it becomes law" can be exempted, or grandfathered in, Ewald said.
When it was believed an appeals process would be available, Coplien was ready to vote to approve the plan. But he changed his mind after Ewald expressed his opinions. That change in course also persuaded Hanson to vote against the plan.
Henke still favored the plan because "things that are prohibited probably should be," he said.
Lefevre told the council a plan is needed immediately, because the commission has people "lined up" for applications. The commission has a facade grant program available for building owners in the Historic District which offers 50 percent funding, up to $10,000, for a facade repair or replacement projects.
After the meeting, Lefevre said she had spoken to Riese and said the commission would take another look at the plan to do some "tweaking."
"We want to make sure everything complies," she said.