Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 1800 South Street – Training Room Geneva, Illinois 60134 April 21, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the April 21, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Andersson, Salomon, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke Absent: None Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert; Development Dir. DeGroot Others Present: Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects, Inc., 28 S. Water St., Batavia; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Colin and Gloriann Campbell, 18 S. 6th Street, Geneva; Marty Smircich, 909 Batavia Avenue, Geneva; Christine Bordage, 40 S. Lincoln, Geneva; Sandra Ellis, 209 Peyton Street, Geneva; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Chairman Roy explained the protocol for the meeting. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2015 Anderson stated she was not present for her first vote and had recused herself. She asked that the “abstain” vote be deleted. On page 8, last paragraph, third line, Andersson asked to delete the words “structural integrity” and insert the words “architectural integrity.” Motion by Andersson, seconded by Zellmer to approve the minutes with revisions. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0-2 (Salomon and Zinke abstain). 4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects A. 28 N. First Street (Case No. 2015-029) Applicant: Batavia Enterprises, Inc., Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects, Inc.; Application for Window Modifications. Per Preservation Planner Lambert, the proposal before the commissioners was a concept review to remove -- in the addition portion only -- the second floor single windows and replace them with double windows. Mr. Steve Vasilion, with Vasilion Architects, stated the current windows he was replacing were old, single-pane clad Pella windows and would be replaced them with clad Pella double windows for attractive tenant space. The stone header and sills would match and the new windows would fit within the opening. The masonry between the original windows would be tooth- filled using the former brick. While he wanted a formal approval, he did not have the construction plans finalized when he applied today for a permit. He asked for that consideration, if possible. Questions followed regarding the rhythm of the windows and when the addition was added. Mr. Vasilion suspected it was in the 1970’s.  Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2015 Dialog followed as to when the petitioner would be receiving the building permit for the project and concerns were raised about following the window policy and adhering to it. Mr. Vasilion said the petitioner was concerned about receiving the permit later and having to wait until next month for approval. Discussion then followed that the petitioner’s interior work could take place until final review next month. Supportive consensus was received by the commissioners. 5. Old Business A. Continued Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Discussion (Attached Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance revised per prior HPC discussion, public comment and staff review.) – Mr. Lambert referenced the draft ordinance which considered comments received from the commissioners, public, and staff. He reviewed the ordinance changes section by section. The chairman invited the public to speak on the definitions. Mr. Marty Smircich, 909 Batavia Avenue, Geneva, reminded the commissioners that he had inquired about the definition of “applicant” and whether groups and outside associations had to be non-profit. He understood from the last meeting that they could be for-profit but it was not mentioned. Turning to Section 3.3.3.q. he stated the language referred to cooperation with nonprofits and questioned whether the definition should be inclusive to be compatible with the rest of the document. Wherein, Mr. Lambert explained it was Title 3 of the City code that was being referred to and was not referring to the “applicants” per se, but referring to a general definition of organizations, etc. He clarified the difference, pointing out that in the ordinance’s definition, there is no distinction between non-profit and for-profit organizations. Mr. Smircich asked for clarification of the definition of landscaping. Mr. Lambert stated the commission was not determining specific, historical plants for an applicant to plant. Mr. Lambert reviewed Section 10-6-6, Historic Landmark Designation and reviewed some of the more detailed verbiage that went into this section from comments he received from the commissioners and public. The focus of this section was on parallelism with language and fees, and was an overall clean-up of the language to the sections following. Chairman Roy invited the public to speak on the above section. Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, Geneva, referring to “Fees” expressed concern that the fees would not be in place after the ordinance was adopted, to which Director DeGroot reassured her they would. She believed the fees were appropriate but felt a cap was necessary; otherwise it was a deterrent. She recommended that the fees be reviewed every few years. Dir. DeGroot shared how the same process worked in the development department currently and added that the city council could determine a cap, if appropriate. Dir. DeGroot offered to obtain some estimates of what a typical case may cost and recommend a cap. Dialog then followed with Lambert reminding the commissioners that the pre-application meeting was to make the applicant aware of the fees and to educate the applicant about the landmarking process and the potential impact, if any, on the property. Mr. Marty Smircich, 909 Batavia Avenue, returned and stated the fees should not be called “fees” but instead, “cost recovery” since they were funds being recovered for the city. He suggested that if the commission or an applicant planned to landmark a person’s structure in a forced preservation situation, the commission and/or the applicant should compensate that person. He suggested that the applicant pay to the owner a $5,000 fee plus a cost recovery fee, since the owner’s rights were being impacted. Mr. Smircich also suggested that staff have a pre-application meeting not only with the applicant but also with the owner, for fairness purposes, and to notify the 2  Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2015 city’s aldermen of same. He stated the ordinance should include a definition of “education.” He found it disrespectful to the homeowner to have a process that was one-sided for the applicant and which included only a simple majority vote from this commission. Mr. Lambert responded and clarified that no action, that he was aware, for the nomination of 924 Sunset was the action of a landmark to cause a delay of work or demolition. He stated it was an incomplete nomination application within the building division during the entire time the nomination was being discussed. The issue was put to rest by the time the application was completed in the building division. Regarding Mr. Smircich’s statement about being the preservation planner being too busy to deal with the aldermen, Mr. Lambert stated that he worked limited hours and by the time he returned to the office, the aldermen already have been notified. Last, he stated he was not aware of any city ordinance which required notification to the aldermen. He reminded the commissioners that he was aligning this ordinance with the other city ordinances for consistency purposes. Dir. DeGroot indicated that staff does notify the aldermen when items of interest in their ward do arise on a weekly basis. Lastly, Mr. Lambert pointed out that in Item No. 5 (pg. 14) notice to the property owner does take place. Ms. Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road (Mr. Salomon leaves at 8:11 p.m.), returned and reminded the commissioners that no one has told her or anyone else in prior meetings to limit their public input just because they were running up costs for the city. Again, she did not want the process to be a deterrent or an exception. Mr. Smircich stated he appreciated the five-day notice but clarified that he was speaking to the pre-application meeting where no one was speaking to the owner or the aldermen. As to the notice, Abplanalp asked if the notice could be followed up with a phone call or be sent via certified mail to ensure an owner has received notification and understands what is occurring. DeGroot and Lambert acknowledged that the notice could be sent certified mail, if necessary. Ms. Christine Bordage, 40 S. Lincoln, Geneva, stated the entire above discussion could be resolved if owner consent was received when an application was filed. She supported having an owner be present at the pre-application meeting, citing the Riverbank Labs matter. Ms. Safanda stated the Riverbank Labs application was contentious. Details followed. Commissioner Zinke pointed out that the chance of having a contentious homeowner would be very rare. She believed there needed to be some trust between the commission, the aldermen and the owner. Mr. Smircich returned (Abplanalp steps away 8:20 p.m.) and appreciated having the owner consent definition inserted into the draft ordinance because he believed reason and agreement made sense which builds a positive platform around preservation versus dissent. (Abplanalp returns 8:22 p.m.) Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, Geneva, reminded the commissioners that the city was a community with zoning codes and restrictions to adhere to. He reminded everyone that every survey taken, asking what was important to the community in the last 20 years, historic preservation was in the top three. Mr. Campbell emphasized that the ordinance gave the city the ability to mediate disputes that arise from a historic building being demolished, or not, when it sat outside the historic district. Currently the city was giving, within the proposed ordinance, the owner many layers of protection. Mr. Campbell said he supported the ordinance as written. 3  Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2015 Ms. Sandra Ellis, 209 Peyton Street, Geneva, was following the discussions for two years and believed that by removing the word “without” in the text “without owner consent”, the commission would not be having such lengthy meetings. She pointed out that while it was mentioned that there had been no real abuse over the years, she noted that two abuses occurred in the past four years – the Sunset Road property and the intended designation of a historic district – which failed once the public knew about it. However, the commissioners corrected her and stated it was a proposed study and the process never started. Ms. Ellis said she was told by Mr. Smircich that four proposed petitions went to the city. She questioned why the commission was not aware of these four petitions. She was surprised by the finding. Mr. Lambert stated he was aware the petitions were “out there” since he was hired but he did not know the details of them However, more importantly, he voiced concern about the mention of “predatory neighbors” and the fact that communities want to protect their district’s character from people who are not invested in the community. He believed this was an essential tool to have “in the toolbox” and emphasized the ordinance was not being used to pit neighbor against neighbor. Commissioner Zinke reminded everyone that the city council had the final word on the applications. Returning to the ordinance, Mr. Lambert reviewed Section 10.6.7. noting the language was revised to be parallel to Historic Landmarks. He pointed out where the language differed. Referring to Section 10.6.7., Mr. Smircich believed the 51% was not right; the fees should be $500 per unit in a district; and said funds should be placed in a fund for education. Reviewing Section 10.6.8 – Neighborhood Conservation Districts, Mr. Lambert noted the commission did not review this section last month but explained that such conservation districts were used across the country. He stated conservation districts were recommended from the Durant Study done in 2002 for the city’s Northwest Addition. Further explanation followed as to the requirements for a neighborhood conservation district, i.e., it was less restrictive, reviewed administratively, and was directed towards homes 30 years and older with different standards for preservation. Mr. Smirch stated that it appeared the city was expanding the responsibility of the current part-time preservation planner, which he did not see a need. Ms. Chris Bordage, 40 S. Lincoln, agreed with Mr. Smircich’s comments and believed it was an overreach of the commission. The requirements for a conservation district were fairly easy and would target her home and area. She preferred to not have the language in the ordinance, especially if there were no tax benefits to an owner. Mr. Lambert reviewed the sections on demolitions, wherein Mr. Zellmer asked if the commission could require a building survey to be done prior to a building being razed. Mr. Lambert stated it could be a requirement of this commission but the question would be as to whom would pay for the survey. Zinke stated that currently the Geneva History Museum had that responsibility and had done it over the years. Comments followed that the survey could become a duplication of services. Andersson recalled the only standard she was aware of for demolition was requiring a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. She agreed the commission should define exactly what was required for such survey. Mr. Lambert believed a black and white photograph of a structure would suffice, along with photos of the critical architectural features, as identified by the commission, which would allow for some discussion to take place by the commission. Dialog followed as to the process in prior years. 4  Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2015 Chairman Roy invited the public to speak. Mr. Marty Smircich, returned and questioned if demolitions were addressed in other areas of the city’s code to which Dir. DeGroot confirmed they were. Mr. Smircich suggested tabling the matter and recommended that the city hold a public hearing on demolition code. However, Mr. Lambert stated if the city wanted to consider a city-wide demolition ordinance it could but it was beyond the purview of this commission. Lambert stated that he and the prior preservation planner stayed away from a community-wide demolition delay because they did not think it was necessary and because there would always be structures outside the historic district that had historic value and it was not how the city’s ordinance was set up. After reviewing the last ordinance sections, Mr. Lambert concluded that his next steps will include the commission authorizing him to make the draft changes tonight and returning with the document at the May 19th meeting for a final direction and/or recommendation. Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zinke to continue the hearing to May 19 2015. Roll call: AYE: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy NAY: None MOTION PASSED VOTE: 6-0 6. Secretary’s Report - National Preservation Month – An update followed on the poster being put together by Commissioner Hiller for the walking tour. Lambert referenced the 4/21/2015 news article in the Daily Herald regarding the status of the Sixth Street School, summarizing that the State finds the building eligible for landmark preservation. Lambert stated Kane County can appeal the state’s decision. Dialog followed on what actions could take place if the state denied the county’s request for demolition. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – Andersson announced her resignation from the commission, effective May 31, 2015, and read an email she sent to the mayor. (attached as Exh. A) She thanked the commissioners and the city for serving on the Historic Preservation Commission. B. From the Public – Ms. Glorianne Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street stated Ms. Andersson will be missed. Per a question, Ms. Campbell stated the History Center will be providing trolley tours of the historic district (perimeter only) during the upcoming Swedish Days. Mr. Smircich confirmed that the Committee of the Whole will be reviewing the ordinance on May 26, 2015. Ms. Liz Safanda announced she visited Ms. Andersson’s office at 25 N. Third Street and complimented the building’s architecture. She encouraged the commissions to visit the building. Zinke asked if the commissioners were allowed to speak to the aldermen regarding the proposed ordinance, to which Chairman Roy said they could. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 6-0. 5  Historic Preservation Commission April 21, 2015 EXHIBIT A April 21, 2015 Mayor Burns and Chairman Roy: As you know, I have planned for some time to resign my position on the City of Geneva’s Historic Preservation Commission. I had hoped to finish out my term, which I thought would be in May of this year, and simply not renew. However, I have recently learned that, in fact, I have one more year to go on the appointment which would take us to May 2016. Nevertheless, I find that the time demands of my business are in conflict with the requirements of the commission. Therefore, I regretfully must follow my original intent and resign now, effective May 31st 2015, as planned, as opposed to waiting until 2016. I have thoroughly enjoyed sitting on the HPC. It has changed quite a bit from when I started in 2003. At that time, we sat around a table with applicants as they told us about their projects. Today, we are recorded and videoed and the dais separates us from the presenters. Back then we received packets of full scale drawings to pour over, and today everything is submitted electronically. In 2003, Dick Untch fulfilled the role of HPC staff in addition to his other duties. Today, we have the knowledge and expertise of a dedicated Historic Preservation planner. Despite these changes, I feel the resolution and purpose of the commission has not changed over the years. I am proud of our accomplishments and our role in preserving Geneva’s heritage and sense of place. Further, I am honored to have served with many fine individuals who have brought so much knowledge and wisdom to the position. I have appreciated their insights and learned from every one. Finally, I can’t say enough about the contributions of the historic preservation staff. From Dick Untch, to Karla Kaulfuss to Michael Lambert, these talented planners have truly helped shape the commission into the gold standard that it is today. Therefore, though I am resigning, I am very confident that I leave the commission and our legacy to our children in good hands. I look forward to seeing the work continue and to the ongoing preservation of Geneva. Sincerely, Nanette Andersson Assistant Chair City of Geneva Historic Preservation Commission 521 West Lane, Geneva, Illinois 60134 630-253-2248 6