Committee of the Whole

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES MAY 26, 2015 PRESENT: Mayor Burns, Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Simonian, Seno, Singer Staff Present: McKittrick, Dawkins, DeGroot, Lambert, Dahl, VanGyseghem, Tymoszenko, Babica 1. Call to Order Mayor Burns called the meeting to order at 7pm noting all were present. 2. Approve Minutes from May 11, 2015 Moved by Ald. Bruno, second by Ald. Marks V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. 3. Items of Business a. Recommend Approval of Special Event Application for the Geneva Chamber of Commerce – Festival of the Vine September 11-13, 2015. Moved by Ald. Seno, second by Ald. Marks V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. b. Recommend Approval of Special Event Application for Geneva Chamber of Commerce – Arts Fair July 25-26, 2015. Moved by Ald. Seno, second by Ald. Bruno V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. c. Recommend Approval of Special Event Application for Power In Faith LLC for Use of Parking Spaces and Right-of-Way on South Third Street (Dodson) June 10, 2015 Pending Final Approval from Property Owner, Shodeen Management. Moved by Ald. Cummings, second by Ald. Singer V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. d. Recommend Draft Ordinance Amending Title 4 (Business Licensing), Ch. 2 (Liquor Control) Adding One (1) Class A-5 Liquor License – Foxfire Tavern LLC. Moved by Ald. Marks, second by Ald. Singer V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. e. Recommend Draft Resolution Authorizing Execution of Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget Amendments as Presented. Moved by Ald. Marks, second by Ald. Seno V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. f. Recommend Approval of Certificate of Completion – Prairie Ridge Subdivision. Moved by Ald. Kilburg, second by Ald. Singer V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES – MAY 26, 2015 1  g. Recommend Draft Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Five-Year Agreement with HLR for Wetland Mitigation Management at a Cost Not to Exceed $19,980.00. Moved by Ald. Singer, second by Ald. Simonian V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. h. Recommend Draft Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Contract with Baxter and Woodman Consulting for Evaluation of Short Street Sanitary Sewer Siphon at an Estimated Cost of $28,780 with Additional Work Rate of $665 per Hour. Moved by Ald. Marks, second by Ald. Bruno On a question from Ald. Marks, Supt. VanGyseghem stated that he does not anticipate work outside of the contract but included the hourly rates in the event it would be needed. V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. i. Recommend Draft Resolution Authorizing Three-Year Contract with Rempe-Sharpe & Associates for Waste Water Treatment Plant Storm Water Permit Engineering Services for an Hourly Rate Not to Exceed $4,582 Per Year. Moved by Ald. Maladra, second by Ald. Simonian V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. k. Recommend Ordinance No. 2015-09 Amending Title 4 (Business and License Regulations), Ch. 2 (Liquor Control), Section 4-2-11 (Classifications) and 4-2-12 (Outdoor Seating License) of the Geneva City Code. This item was moved ahead of Item 3j. Ald. Cumming asked if the language for natural barriers could be more clear, noting that at least two existing licensees have this type of barrier and wondered if it was compliant. Cummings suggested a grandfather clause for these existing licensees and their barriers. McKittrick stated that no licensee is currently out of compliance and staff works with each licensee to resolve any issues that may arise. She stated they have never denied an application outright. McKittrick stated that there is currently grandfather clause language in the ordinance that would cover those concerns. At the request of Ald. Cummings, McKittrick stated that she would add ‘composite’ to the allowable fencing types. Business owner Michael Olesen, thanked McKittrick for sending the language to all of the licensees for review. He suggested changing one section related to variances to say “variances will be granted” in place of “variances will be allowed”. j. Consider Draft Ordinance Related to City-Initiated Text Amendments to the Geneva Historic Preservation Ordinance Regarding Formatting, Procedural, and Regulatory Changes to Title 3, Chapter 3 and Title 10, Chapter 6 of the Geneva City Code. Mayor Burns provided information on how the discussion would take place, allowing Dir. DeGroot and Preservation Planner Lambert’s presentation, then opening for public comment, then comment and COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES – MAY 26, 2015 2 questions by the committee. Burns noted that he would entertain a motion to postpone at the 10 o’clock hour if the item was still being discussed. DeGroot presented the information contained in the proposed ordinance, noting the background and process, purpose and goals, key changes, and the previous public discussion via Historic Preservation Commission public hearings. (Exhibit A). Burns then read aloud receipt of several documents and emails to be entered into the record, including postcards and emails from “Geneva Citizens for Property Protection,” as well as emails from citizens supporting the amendments, and cover pages of petitions organized by Mr. Marty Smircich and received in 2011 and 2014 (Exhibit B). Burns also noted two letters of support received from Landmarks Illinois and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (Exhibit C). Burns then invited public comment from all those who had signed up to speak. The following persons spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance (12 total): Mr. Kevin Doherty, 311 S. First St. Nicole Willing, 1202 James St. Christine Bourdage, 40 S. Lincoln Ave. Larry Gies, 200 Foxford Ln. Brian Duniec, 228 Spring St. Michael Simon, 614 Easton Ave. Sandy Ellis, 209 Peyton St. Marty Smircich, 909 S. Batavia Ave. John Laukaitis, 728 Richards St. Paul Zellmer, 418 S. Sixth St. Mike Mueller, 1040 James St. Hans Heymann, 1007 S. Batavia Ave. The following citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance (10 total): Elizabeth Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd. Scott Roy, 1231 Koster Ct. Carl Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd. Charys Wheeler, 256 Kenston Ct. Nanette Andersson, 521 West Ln. Mary Russell, 1221 Kaneville Rd. Jeff Golden, 328 S. Fifth St. Adam Gibbons, 33W777 Hill Rd. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth St. (via email read into the record – Exhibit D) Ernie Mahaffey, 405 and 503 S. First St. (via email read into the record – Exhibit E) (full video of the meeting with comments can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jae- 6cPui8c ) After public comment, Burns called for a brief recess. Discussion resumed at 9:30pm. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES – MAY 26, 2015 3 Burns invited Lambert to clarify and correct some of the statements made earlier in the evening regarding the proposed ordinance including regulation of color within the district, National Register of Historic Places not requiring owner consent for land-marking, percent of sampling communities that require owner consent, age limit and other criteria for landmark eligibility, new construction in the historic district, home values within the historic district, and landmark application fees. Burns then opened up discussion to members of the Committee. Ald. Maladra and Bruno read email statements from constituents who could not attend (see Exhibits D and E) Ald. Singer questioned the timing of owner notification once a landmark application has been received. DeGroot stated that the ‘within 5 days’ wording was practical. The $1000 fee, as noted by DeGroot, was a deposit that would be used and refunded in part if need be. On an additional question of Ald. Singer, Lambert explained the concept of a neighborhood conservation district and how to go about studying the potential for one within a community. Mayor Burns noted the time had gone past 10 o’clock and entertained a motion to postpone to June 8. (Moved by Ald. Bruno, second by Ald. Seno) Discussion followed on waiting until the 8th or moving it to June 1. On a motion by Ald. Bruno, second by Ald. Cummings, the motion to postpone was amended to reflect a June 1 meeting date. V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. Vote to postpone to June 1: V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. Burns stated the item would be listed as “unfinished business” on a Special Committee of the Whole agenda for June 1, 2015. 4. New Business 5. Upcoming Meetings: • Regular Committee of the Whole on Mon., June 8, 2015 at 7pm 6. Adjourn On a motion by Ald. Marks, second by Ald. Seno, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17pm. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES – MAY 26, 2015 4  Exhibit A Amendments to the City of Geneva Historic Preservation Ordinance C O M M I T T E E O F T H E W H O L E – M AY 2 6 , 2 0 1 5 Outline • Background & Process • Purpose & Goals • Key Changes • Public Discussion 2 Background Two historic districts were established independently and listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979 and 1982 The City of Geneva designated a local historic district in 1987 3 Background Approximately 730 structures bounded by Stevens Street, Union Pacific Railroad, Seventh Street, and the Fox River - plus five individually landmarked properties 4 4 Background • 1982 – First Historic Preservation Ordinance • 1987 Update – Addressed newly created local historic district and procedural omissions • 1995 Revision – Standardized process and practice 5 Background • Strategic Plan Vision #1: Recognize, honor, preserve, and enhance community heritage and character. – Goal F: Explore regulations and resources that examine preservation and rehabilitation of historic properties. 6 Background • Community Development Department FY 2014-2015 Goals – Planning Division Goal #6 Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to address: demolition permit application review criteria, expansion of definitions of important terms, minimum building maintenance provisions, procedures for de-landmarking, details on the landmark designation process, economic hardship provisions, procedures for review processing of permit applications deemed not to require Historic Preservation Commission review (staff review only), expiration date of Historic Preservation Commission approval of permit plans, and required documentation of buildings approved for demolition. 7 Process • Staff research and preparation of draft ordinance – May 2013 – February 2015 • Historic Preservation Commission public meetings – February 24, 2015 – March 10, 2015 – April 21, 2015 – May 19, 2015 8 Purpose & Goals • Clarify certain provisions and procedural requirements • Codify current practice and policy • Correct contradictory clauses • Introduce provisions for review of properties • Address evolving needs and concerns • Create a user-friendly document • Balance the inherent goals of historic preservation as a community value with the concern for respecting the right of due process for individual stakeholders • Maintain status as a Certified Local Government 9 Certified Local Government (CLG) • Geneva has been recognized as a CLG by Illinois Historic Preservation Agency since 1997 • To become a CLG, a local government must: – Have a preservation ordinance – Establish a preservation review commission – Have an active local survey program to identify historic resources for landmark or historic district designation – Provide for public participation and due process • The CLG program gives municipalities the opportunity to participate as partners in state and federal preservation activities 10 Certified Local Government (CLG) • Benefits of being a CLG – May participate in state and federal incentive programs • A 20 percent income tax credit is available for the substantial rehabilitation of income-producing properties • A property tax assessment freeze of owner-occupied, principal residences for a period of 8 years, followed by a 4-year period which the property’s assessed value steps up to an amount based on its current value. – Eligible for matching grant funds to assist in the implementation of local preservation programs such as surveys, preservation plans, staff support, and public education 11 Certified Local Government (CLG) • The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency has reviewed the draft ordinance and confirmed that the proposed changes would not jeopardize Geneva’s status as a CLG 12 Key Changes • Re-organization of the ordinance for easy reference and understanding • Expansion of terms and definitions associated with the implementation of stated historic preservation objectives • Identification of required submittals for nomination • Restructuring of the nomination filing process including recognition of owner consent • Identification of applicable fees for nominations • Clarification of standards for review of nominations 13 Key Changes • Enumeration of notification requirements at the time properties are nominated • Identification of project review timeframes • Summation of the submittals required for proposed work at designated properties • Clarification of standards for review of proposed work at designated properties • Introduction of regulations for conservation districts, for the demolition of historic properties, and for relief due to economic hardship 14 Recommendation • Historic Preservation Commission – Approval (by a vote of 6 to 1) of the proposed amendments as presented in the draft ordinance • Staff – Approval of the proposed amendments as presented in the draft ordinance 15 Public Discussion • Landmark & Historic District Designation – Owner Consent – Notification – Fees – Suspension of Work • Neighborhood Conservation Districts 16 Landmark Designation – Owner Consent Existing Ordinance Draft Ordinance • The City Council may grant • In the case of a recommendation for designation of a Historic Landmark Historic Landmark designation for a designation for a property nominated property nominated without owner without owner consent by a simple consent, the City Council may grant majority vote in favor of the designation only upon a 2/3 majority designation. or greater vote in favor of the designation. 17 Landmark Designation – Owner Consent Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Infringement of property rights • Pre-application meeting • Expense imposed on property owner • Fees waived if owner consent is obtained • 2/3 majority vote • One tool in the toolbox – Rarely used – Discouraged – Last resort • Protection of significant properties owned or controlled by non-local, non-invested entities (e.g., a bank or absentee landlord) 18 Landmark Designation - Owner Consent • The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency supports the provision requiring a 2/3 majority vote in cases which the property owner does not consent to landmark designation 19 Historic District – Owner Consent Existing Ordinance Draft Ordinance • Does not address owner opposition • In the case of an application for to a proposed Historic District. Historic District designation where at least 51% of all owners of land within the boundaries of the proposed district declare their opposition to the proposed district, in writing on forms provided by the Community Development Department and filed with the City Clerk within 30 days of the public hearing, the application shall be deemed withdrawn and no such district may be created. 20 Historic District – Owner Consent Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Infringement of property rights • Requiring objection is consistent with zoning law and practice • Forms for objection is overly burdensome • Opponents show up • Using education to build 51% support • 51% objection automatically defeats a to establish a district would be a proposed district more positive approach • Objections must be verifiable • Public information meeting is intended to educate and gauge support • Requiring 51% support to establish a district could lead to gerrymandering 21 Landmark Designation – Owner Notification Existing Ordinance Draft Ordinance • Notice, in writing and by certified • Within 5 working days of the filing of mailed, to the Owner of Record of the an application (whether of not property considered for designation deemed complete) the Preservation as a Historic Landmark shall be Planner shall notify, in writing and by mailed by the Director of Community certified mail, the Owner of Record of Development not less than 10 days the property considered for prior to the public hearing. designation as a Historic Landmark. 22 Landmark Designation – Owner Notification Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Notification should be immediate and should • Pre-application meeting required prior to include inquiries regarding potential landmark submittal, applicant is encouraged to seek applications owner consent • Owners should not be surprised by receiving • Fees are waived if owner consent is obtained notice in the mail once an application has been filed • Aldermen are updated on a regular basis regarding submitted applications and/or • Aldermen should be notified immediately of contemplated projects any application or inquiry • Notification within 5 working days is practical • Advantage is given to the applicant, allowing – Verify application unlimited time to build a case prior to filing an – Prepare good information for the owner application – Prepare certified mailing 23 Landmark Designation – Fees Existing Ordinance Draft Ordinance • The applicant shall bear all costs of and pay all fees • The applicant for the proposed designation of a required in connection with the application for a Historic Landmark shall be required to pay an Historic Landmark designation. application deposit and shall bear all costs associated with the application and designation process. • All fees shall be set by ordinance enacted by the City Council. • The deposit shall be used to cover direct expenses including but not limited to, public notice publication; • Fees have never been clearly established. mailings; and recording and transcribing of public meetings and/or hearings, attorneys’ fees; and/or staff time. • The minimum application deposit requirement shall be set by ordinance enacted by the City Council. • Staff recommends a minimum application deposit requirement of $1,000. 24 Landmark Designation – Fees Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Owner should not incur legal fees or • Fees are waived if owner consent is direct expenses obtained • Owner should not incur additional • Applicant is required to pay to protect construction or renovation costs a community resource resulting from project delays • The deposit, which shall be replenished if depleted, is used to cover legal fees and direct expenses incurred by the City • Permitted work shall be allowed to continue after an application for landmark designation has been filed 25 Landmark or Historic District Designation Suspension of Work Existing Ordinance Draft Ordinance • No exterior architectural feature of • No exterior architectural feature of any improvement or any site which is any improvement, property, or site the subject of an application for that is the subject of an application landmark designation may undergo for landmark designation may alteration, construction, demolition or undergo alterations, construction, removal if such alteration, demolition or removal if such construction, demolition or removal alteration, construction, demolition or would be subject to the issuance of a removal would be subject to a determination of appropriateness building permit issued after the filing after designation. of a Historic Landmark application. 26 Landmark or Historic District Designation Suspension of Work Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Owner should not incur additional • Permitted work shall be allowed to construction or renovation costs continue after an application for resulting from project delays landmark designation has been filed 27 Neighborhood Conservation Districts • The Durant Group studied the Northwest Addition of Geneva in 2002 to determine if the area would be eligible to be listed as a National Register Historic District. • The study area contained too many structures that had been covered in synthetic siding, therefore would not meet the requirements of a National Register Historic District. • A recommendation was made to consider a Neighborhood Conservation District. • The current Historic Preservation Ordinance does not contain a provision for the designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District. 28 Neighborhood Conservation Districts DEFINITION Any area of the city, defined by specific geographic boundaries, that shares related properties with similar patterns of development, architecture and/or period of significance and that may not meet the standards for designation as a historic district but is threatened with obsolescence or deterioration unless protected. 29 Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) Standards for Designation Historic District (must meet all) NCD (must meet 4) • 50 years old, in whole or in part • 30 years old, in whole or in part • Include 1 or more Historic Landmarks along • Possess reasonable, but not necessarily with other buildings, which, while not of such pristine, integrity of scale, design, materials, historic significance to be designated as workmanship, setting, location, feeling or individual Historic Landmarks, nevertheless association contribute to the overall visual characteristics which have been identified as significant • Possess a recognizable neighborhood within the proposed Historic District identity, development pattern, and/or physical character • Possess integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and context • Are united by a natural or purposeful design feature, including but not limited to, a • Establish a sense of time and place courtyard, park, creek bed, garden, etc. • Include a significant number of buildings that • Contains a significant number of sites possess 1 or more demonstration of threatened with natural or intentional significance demolition by public or private action 30 Neighborhood Conservation Districts • Assist in stabilizing areas that may be declining or that may not meet the criteria for Historic District designation due to past efforts that have not respected the architectural character of the area. • Assist an area subject to intense redevelopment pressure that may not be welcomed by a neighborhood but is not protected by Historic District designation. • Assist individual residents and their neighbors who would like to have protection and work towards rehabilitation of all or parts of a Neighborhood Conservation District to establish a Historic District in order to be able to take advantage of preservation-based incentives. 31 Neighborhood Conservation Districts • Afford city staff an opportunity to interface with neighborhood residents to encourage preservation of the character-defining elements of a neighborhood without requiring the strict preservation of individual elements. • Intended to discourage unnecessary teardown, and “inappropriate” additions or new construction, but without the lengthy design review required in a historic district for exterior building alterations. 32 Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) Review Process Historic District or Landmark NCD • May be reviewed either • All projects, including new administratively or by the Historic construction and demolition, shall be Preservation Commission based on reviewed administratively on behalf of the level of review. the Historic Preservation Commission. • Staff has worked with the Historic Preservation Commission to develop • A Permit Review Table could be a detailed Permit Review Table, developed for any established NCD which outlines the level of review to determine what type of work shall required based on the type of work require administrative review by the and the building’s historical Preservation Planner. significance rating. 33 Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) Review Standards Historic District NCD • The original distinguishing qualities • The original distinguishing qualities or character of a building, structure, or character of a building, structure, object, or site and its environment, object, or site and its environment, including constructed landscape including constructed landscape features such as fences, walls, features such as fences, walls, arbors, and paving, shall not be arbors, and paving, shall be retained, destroyed. The removal or alteration if technically feasible and of any historic material or distinctive economically practical. The removal architectural features should be or alteration of any historic material avoided whenever possible. or distinctive architectural features should be avoided whenever possible. 34 Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) Review Standards Historic District NCD • Deteriorated architectural features • Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new replacement is necessary, new material should match the material being replaced in composition, elements and materials may be design, color, texture, and other incorporated whether or not they visual qualities. Repair or duplicate or replicate a deteriorated, replacement of missing architectural historic feature. features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjecture designs or … 35 Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) Review Standards Historic District NCD • Does not contain a standard directly • Non-historic, new materials, including addressing the installation of non- doors, windows, siding, and roofing, historic, new materials. shall be permitted when sensitive to the historic and/or original character of the property provided that the installation of non-historic, new materials does not remove or further damage sound, character-defining elements of the property. 36 Neighborhood Conservation Districts Concerns Rationale for Recommendation • Unnecessary layer of control • Assist in stabilizing areas that may be declining • Additional review time • Assist an area subject to intense and • Additional costs unwelcomed redevelopment pressure • Non-historic means non-historic • Assist residents and their neighbors who would like to work towards Historic District designation • One tool in the toolbox – No districts proposed at this time • Opportunity for education 37 Neighborhood Conservation Districts • The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency views the additional section, which establishes a process for designation of a neighborhood conservation district, as positive as it allows for more flexibility in local historic preservation efforts. 38 Public Discussion • Landmark & Historic District Designation – Owner Consent – Notification – Fees – Suspension of Work • Neighborhood Conservation Districts 39 Questions and Comments • Michael Lambert, Preservation Planner – mlambert@geneva.il.us or 630.938.4541 • David DeGroot, Director of Community Development – ddegroot@geneva.il.us or 630.232.0814 40 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B