Committee of the Whole

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES November 16, 2015 Present: Mayor Burns, Ald. Bruno, Burghart Cummings, Kilburg, Maladra, Marks, Radecki, Seno, Simonian, Singer Absent: None Also present: McKittrick, Dawkins, Radovich, DeGroot, Lambert, Westendorf 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Burns called the meeting to order at 7:54 p.m. 2. ITEMS OF BUSINESS a. Recommend Approval of Draft Ordinance Amending Title 3, Chapter 3; and Title 10, Chapter 6 of the Geneva Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance) Mayor Burns noted that this is a continuation of an ongoing discussion. Preservation Planner Michael Lambert reviewed the development of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to this point, noting that seven public reviews have previously taken place since last May. He said the major revisions made thus far include elimination of neighborhood conservation districts, incorporating requirements that preclude historic landmark designation over owner objection but allow for due process, requiring two-thirds majority vote of the Council for historic district designation when 20 percent or more of the owners within that district file an owner objection. Additionally, he said minor text corrections have been made and some definitions expanded and added. Also, building landmark designation was moved back to structures of 30 years or older from 50 years or older. Dir. DeGroot then reviewed the steps in the landmarking process as covered in the ordinance. Ald. Maladra questioned why a property owner would not be notified when the City is first made aware of non-owner landmarking interest. Dir. DeGroot answered that the City first wants to vet the inquiry and then encourage the applicant to notify the owner; however, he said that the City could notify the owner as well. He added, though, that if the application was not valid, notification at the outset might needlessly upset the owner. Ald. Cummings also felt that owners should be notified as soon as the City is approached about landmarking. Ald. Bruno felt it would be unfair to create owner angst if the application was clearly not going to move forward (Ald. Cummings would later say an owner 1 will have angst whenever notified). Ald. Singer wanted owners to be notified by registered mail. Ald. Simonian went through the ordinance, noting his edits, suggestions, questions and comments. He would provide Dir. DeGroot with the marked-up copy. He asked about preventing attempts to rescind landmarked properties or historic district designations, with Dir. DeGroot addressing his concerns. Mayor Burns asked if there is a “tool of last resort” in the revised ordinance that would allow the Council to stop a “nefarious” action (e.g. owner/developer opposing landmarking in order to demolish a historic building and redevelop the property). Pointing out that an owner can ultimately veto the landmarking of their property, Ald. Burghart suggested giving the Council the authority to override that veto by a two-thirds majority vote as a last resort. Ald. Bruno agreed with Ald. Burghart, saying an option of last resort should be re-introduced. Moved by Ald. Bruno, seconded by Ald. Burghart to remand section 10-6-6 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance back to Staff to provide language giving the City Council authority to landmark property without owner consent by a two-thirds majority vote of those holding office. Ald. Marks felt the majority vote should be three-fourths (8 votes) majority. Ald. Bruno and Ald. Burghart amended their motion to reflect a three-fourth majority holding office. Ald. Maladra agreed that the City needs a tool of last resort in case the situation, although unlikely, arises. Mayor Burns then called for public comments. Marty Smircich, 909 S. Batavia Ave., reminding the Council that he is a strong proponent of owners’ rights, felt requiring a unanimous Council vote to override should be considered. He suggested that detailed review be carried out as to the due process legalities of the issue relative to National Register recommendations. Roll Call on the motion as amended: Ayes: 10 Nays: 0 Motion carried Turning to the issue of reverting back to 30 years as the minimum age of a building to be eligible for landmarking, Ald. Marks felt that 50 years was a more appropriate age requirement. Sandra Ellis, 209 Peyton St., had several comments, beginning with her feeling that a building should not be considered historic if it is only 30 years old. She also objected to the use of the term “interested parties” instead of referring to those with a vested economic 2 interest, saying “interested parties” is ill-defined. She also felt that public hearings on historic designation should be held before the COW, not the HPC, and that an owner should be notified of landmarking possibilities at the outset. Planner Lambert addressed the issue of the 30-year rule, saying most historic ordinances in Illinois use 30 years in the belief that a building under 50 years old could have local historic significance other than its age. Ald. Maladra agreed, saying that a 30-year requirement would enable landmarking if the building meets the other four landmark requirements stated in Standards for Designation of Historic Landmarks. Ald. Bruno felt 30 years was appropriate. Ald. Radecki said that prior discussion pointed to 50 years, which he supports. Planner Lambert reminded the Council that the 30-year rule also applies to works of art and other objects that might be threatened. Ald. Simonian said that 50 years was what was agreed to and should be retained. Resident Smircich recalled that the opposition to the conservation district was based largely on it using the 30-year rule. He supported 50 years. Referring to other aspects of the ordinance, He said that “vested interest” should replace “interested parties”, that restrictions on which the Council can rule on criteria in the preservation code should be eased, that all survey information should come from a professional third party authorized by the Council, sufficient notice should be given preceding informational meetings, 30-days’ notice should be given for public hearings, “other criteria” used by the HPC should be authorized by the Council, and immediate notification of owners and the aldermen in that district should take place if a historic district is proposed. Ald. Kilburg felt that an instance might arise where a 30-year-old building could have historic significance. Dir. DeGroot said he failed to get a clear message that the Council wished to set the time at 50 years and did not intend to go against the Council’s wishes. Ald. Bruno said that, as a past member of the HPC, he could not remember an instance where 30 years vs. 50 years ever became an issue. He also said that he trusts Staff to notify the proper parties if a significant historic designation issue is brought to its attention. Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Seno to change historical consideration from 30 years to 50 years throughout the ordinance. Ayes: 6 Nays: 4 (Bruno, Burghart, Cummings, Maladra) Motion carried Referring to ordinance wording, Ald. Maladra said it was clear to him that resident participation was required in the historic designation process and the term “interested parties” referred only to public hearing participation. Atty. Radovich said he would review 3 the language. Elizabeth Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd., felt that an “altruistic interest” should also be considered when it comes to proposing historic designations. Moved by Ald. Radecki, seconded by Ald. Seno to return to having “vested economic interest” included and to direct Staff and the City Attorney to see if there are any legal issues in doing so. Ayes: 10 Nays: 0 Motion carried Mr. Smircich felt that requiring a written objection to be notarized is a roadblock to due process. Atty. Radovich said this process reflects the State zoning code. Atty. Radovich also encouraged Council members to immediately direct any comments to Staff for incorporation into future discussion on this matter. 3. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Ald. Simonian, seconded by Ald. Bruno. V/V: 10-0 Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Submitted by City Clerk Landberg 4