Committee of the Whole

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JUNE 1, 2015 PRESENT: Mayor Burns, Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Simonian, Seno, Singer STAFF PRESENT: McKittrick, Dawkins, DeGroot, Lambert CALL TO ORDER Mayor Burns called the meeting to order at 7:59 p.m., noting that all Council members were present. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 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. Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Bruno to bring the discussion on this matter back to the floor. Mayor Burns suggested allowing those aldermen who did not speak at the May 26 meeting a chance to speak first. He asked audience members who wished to speak to not repeat points made last week. He said the three issues to be discussed tonight are owner consent, establishment of conservation districts, and whether a neighborhood or community can vote for or against by a plurality, or 51 percent, of those citizens affected by either a conservation or historic district. Also, any Council member can read into the record any correspondence received on this matter. Ald. Bruno gave responses to a number of items brought forward by residents as follows: Residents can be “blindsided” with restrictions when moving into a historic district – Ald. Bruno’s response: historic district information is provided in legal property descriptions, mailings sent to all district residents. House color restrictions – response: colors are not restricted. HPC not involved where permit not required. References to “debacle” or “abuse” when describing ordinance – response: original ordinance has been refined and refinement continues with revised ordinance. Budget bloat with additional conservation districts – response: ordinance language does not cost money, implementation does. One resident says, “America is defined by voting and property ownership.” – response: America is defined by much more than that, including due process. Ordinance provides a great deal of due process. Ald. Bruno said that while some people might look at regulations and codes as restrictions, regulations are more about protection. Fees are too low – response: higher fees seem arbitrary, even punitive. Fees should be no more than cost recovery. Fear of rampant landmarking with this ordinance – response: unfounded. Happened once in 32 years. Brought up former case regarding vinyl window installation – response: courts have always agreed with the City. In that situation, a slightly higher grade window would have been permissible. The City wants to preserve everything at all costs through the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) – response: statistics show this to be false. 15 of the last 17 demolition requests have been approved, and the vast majority of requests have been approved. “We like preservation but… .” – response: Once engaged, those who sent emails were surprised to learn that information gotten through other sources did not jibe with the facts. Property values are depressed – response: many ways of calculating that, but great majority of studies show property values are increased. Tax incentives for being in a historic district or landmarked are not real or achievable – response: They are achievable. Ald. Bruno said he received one himself, as did some of his neighbors. HPC meetings are unfriendly to the public – response: Ald. Bruno said that is wrong. He said he was at the meeting and the HPC methodically and efficiently went through the ordinance. “We were told that district designation discourages improvements and would not allow an addition.” – response: that is wrong and a myth. Many demolitions have been approved with some approved additions dwarfing the original size of the house. And most requests do not have to appear before the HPC if it does not affect the streetside façade. Ald. Radecki asked Ald. Bruno if there was any statement by a proponent of the proposed code that was not accurate. Ald. Bruno said there was not a lot of detailed discussion by the proponents. Ald. Cummings asked Preservation Planner Lambert to go through the process using a hypothetical example of two next door homeowners where one wants to create a historic or conservation district, and later enlarge that district. Planner Lambert answered that it would be a difficult district to achieve because neither owner would have 51 percent approval. He said, however, that if someone wanted to add to or remove from that district it would go through the standard process. Planner Lambert then went through the application, review and public discussion process in detail. Ald, Cummings said he would like to see a 51 percent plurality to opt into a conservation or historic district, not opt out. He also opposed conservation districts. Planner Lambert said that one of the purposes of the pre-application meeting is to determine if the proposed district is justified and logical. Ald. Cummings also expressed concern with the 15-day district notification time. Ald. Maladra spoke of leadership, saying that the Council’s job is to view issues in the context of what is in the best interest of current and future stakeholders. He said that today preservation is feared, but 15 years ago the destruction of historical properties was feared. He cited the proliferation of historic districts, and felt the quality of Geneva’s neighborhoods help define the Geneva brand. He said preservation is important but not everything can be preserved, adding that change is important and cannot be stopped. He opposed a conservation district, calling it overreaching. He also expressed concern with landmarking, seeing it as an action taken against his property by someone else, requiring him to defend his property. Nevertheless, Ald. Maladra said he could see both sides of the problem, explaining that he objected to someone feeling his property was under siege, but also objected to someone defending property rights only to sell his or her house to a developer who wanted to tear it down, changing the fabric of the neighborhoods. Dir. DeGroot said that in the pre-application meeting, whether it be for a district or landmark, owner consent will always be encouraged. He said that a $1,000 deposit by non-owner applicants is intended to further invest the non-owner applicant in the process. With owner consent, the $1,000 is waived. He continued by saying that should the application go forward, a two-thirds vote of the Council will be required for approval. Ald. Maladra did not see the $1,000 fee as a deterrent to non-owner landmark applicants. Planner Lambert cited four criteria considered for landmarking, those being a significant piece of architecture per Park Service standards, a significant community event having occurred on the premises, the work of a master builder or architect, or a yield of some type of archeological significance. Ald. Maladra also questioned the owner notification timeline, saying that the owner should be involved early on in considering the merit of the application. Ald. Radecki cited basic rights of property ownership, noting that when those rights are restricted the value of and demand for that property tends to decrease. He felt that while the proposed code gives elected officials the final decision, it gives too much authority to private individuals, special interest groups and volunteer boards to initiate tactical execution to control another’s property. He also felt that a homeowner is put at a disadvantage if he or she does not have the resources to mount an effective appeal. He supported the required two-thirds Council vote, but felt that some of the Council’s responsibility is being transferred to private individuals. He said that he can accept responsibility to his constituents if a significant structure was lost because he voted to require owner’s consent, but added that he cannot accept responsibility for potentially costly and significant restrictions placed on one’s property because he voted to give private individuals the right to do that. He therefore said that he would oppose the code being considered and would ask that it be sent back to be reworked to include owner consent for landmarking, require 51 percent approval of the residents impacted when creating additional historic districts and eliminating the concept of conservation districts. Ald. Simonian said he opposed the conservation district. He felt the owner consent issue creates a conflict when landmarking requires owner consent, yet when a historic district requires only 51 percent of the residents to create, those not in favor are denied owner consent. He felt that it is possible to have owner rights as well as preservation, saying that there are other ways to protect landmarked buildings without violating owner rights. Using his own neighborhood as an example, he said that most homeowners preserve their homes as they see fit, take care of their homes and add onto their homes. He felt that owners police themselves and take care of their property, adding that people buy homes in certain areas for a reason and know what they want to do with those homes. He said that he supports owner consent, but that the HPC and City Council should have, with unanimous agreement, the authority to stop a demolition when it is felt that it is not in the best interest of the community. He also felt that homeowners should be able to opt out of a historic district. Ald. Burghart read a letter (Exhibit A) from Michael Olesen, 202 N. Sixth St. and owner of Stockholm’s, in which he advocated greater protection of owner rights. She requested that the letter be placed in the record. She then went on to convey her own feelings, saying she believes historic preservation has served Geneva well and is the envy of other suburbs; however, with or without owner consent, she wondered if a new historic district or conservation district could ever be created given the prevailing fearful atmosphere. She has seen no abuse of the power to landmark a building without owner consent. She felt it would be difficult to secure a supermajority of the Council to landmark a building over an owner’s objection. She saw this as an obstacle should an outside developer wish to demolish a significant building for development. Ald. Seno stated that owner consent is needed, and she opposed conservation districts. Ald. Marks wished to explore Ald. Simonian’s comments regarding stoppage of historic building demolition by unanimous HPC and Council agreement. He asked how other municipalities deal with this issue. Planner Lambert said that he knows of no other community that requires 100 percent agreement for landmarks or historic districts, but some communities do require a two- thirds majority or a simple majority. He mentioned that some communities have a demolition delay ordinance, but did not find it appropriate for Geneva. Ald. Marks said he would like to hear more about demolition delay, which he saw as a cooling-off period when the demolition of a building deemed historic is involved. He also opposed the conservation district concept, supported the 51 percent approval requirement and owner rights. Motion to eliminate the conservation district from the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Cummings to eliminate the conservation district from the Historic Preservation Ordinance as it is now written. Ald. Bruno said he does not see the creation of a conservation district as granting additional authority to the City or the Council and saw no reason why it cannot be discussed, as it had in the past. He felt that it contributed to a well-rounded ordinance and fleshes out the vocabulary. Ald. Cummings said the ordinance language regarding the conservation districts is “fuzzy”, noting words such as “discourage.” He said that “discourage” implies that the process could be dragged out, with nothing being delineated. Mayor Burns noted that removing the language regarding the conservation district from the ordinance does not preclude the creation of a district. Planner Lambert explained that the language is left open-ended because each conservation district carries its own set of guidelines. He also clarified that a conservation district is not intended to serve as a lesser historic district, the conservation district having its own set of guidelines. Ald. Bruno said that it is not the ordinance nor the HPC that creates a conservation district, but the City Council that does so. From the audience, Margaret Eagan, 402 Campbell St., supported the HPC’s efforts, saying it has done incredible research and thought in developing the Historic Preservation Ordinance. She said she was surprised to see that some of the Council members appeared not to have completely read the ordinance. She supported the new ordinance and encouraged Council members to heed the recommendations of Staff and the HPC. John Laukaitis, 728 Richards St., spoke against the conservation district, saying that any area can become a conservation district and provide a number of burdens for those homeowners. He said the area around his house is a mix of working class homes, some of which might be considered historic. He felt the establishment of a conservation district in that area would add another level of bureaucracy to the permitting process should a person of modest means want to repair his or her house. Elizabeth Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd., said as one who has attended many HPC meetings over the years, she has found them to be very educational and an effort is made to provide homeowners with information. She felt that if the conservation district was implemented it would serve as a tool to further educate applicants. Caroline Zinke, 314 Euclid Ave. and HPC member, asked Planner Lambert if reviews for conservation district work permits come before the HPC or Planner Lambert’s office. Planner Lambert responded that all work within a conservation district would come before him and not go to the HPC at all. There being no further discussion on elimination of the conservation district, roll call: 9 yeas: 1 nay (Bruno) Motion carried. Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Radecki to continue this meeting to a June 15, 2015 special Committee of the Whole meeting. V/V: 10-0 Motion carried. ADJOURN On a motion by Ald. Marks, second by Ald. Seno, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.