Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/2013M Heritage Commission City of Elgin Elgin Heritage Commission August 6, 2013 Approved 10-1-13 A. The meeting of the Elgin Heritage Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers by Chairman Bill Briska. 1. Members Present: William Briska, Elizabeth Femal,Tom Krebsbach,Judith Rivera, Scott Savel,Judy Van Dusen, and John Wiedmeyer 2. Members Absent: Rebecca Hunter and James Halik 3. Others Present: None 4. City Staff Present: Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner Amy Munro, Historic Preservation and Grants Planner B. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the July 2, 2013 minutes. Motion seconded by Commissioner Femal. The motion passed 7-0. C. Recognize Persons Present: Dan Miller Chairman Briska welcomed and introduced the Commission's new member,Judith Van Dusen. Chairman Briska lauded Commissioner Van Dusen's genealogical and archival assistance at the Elgin Area Historical Society Museum. D. Plaque Applications: 1. 711 Brook St. (Tabled July 2, 2013) A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to untable the item. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wiemeyer. The motion passed 7-0. The applicant revised their Statement of Significance to include a more detailed architectural description regarding the house's Queen Anne architectural style. Since the plaque was scored on the criteria of architectural significance, historical significance and current maintenance, and received the following average scores in each of the three categories. Architectural Significance: 7.6; Historical Significance: 7; Current Maintenance:8.58 Because the application received more than the minimum of 6 points in each category it was eligible to be awarded a plaque. A motion was made by Commissioner Krebsbach to award a plaque with the following inscription: 1891, Karl & Louise Schmidt. Motion seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention (Van Dusen). Elgin Heritage Commission:Minutes Page 2 August 6,2013 2. 713 N. Grove Ave. The plaque was scored on the criteria of architectural significance, historical significance and current maintenance, and received the following average scores in each of the three categories. Architectural Significance: 8.16; Historical Significance: 6.3; Current Maintenance: 9.08 Since the application received more than the minimum of 6 points in each category it was eligible to be awarded a plaque. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to award a plaque with the following inscription: 1927, Carl & Mathilda Rauschert. Motion seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention (Van Dusen). 3. 851 Brook The plaque was scored on the criteria of architectural significance, historical significance and current maintenance, and received the following average scores in each of the three categories. Architectural Significance: 4.42; Historical Significance: --; Current Maintenance: -- Because the application must receive a minimum of 6 points in each category to be eligible for a plaque award, the application was deemed ineligible and denied.The house is clad with aluminum siding over stucco. Should the siding be removed, the Commission recommended that the applicant re-submit the application. 4. 372 Congdon The Commission reviewed the application and requested that additional historical information be provided in the application's Statement of Significance before conducting further review of the application. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to table review of the plaque application. Motion seconded by Commissioner Krebsbach. The motion passed 7-0. 5. 841 Bellevue The plaque was scored on the criteria of architectural significance, historical significance and current maintenance, and received the following average scores in each of the three categories. Architectural Significance: 7.85; Historical Significance: 7; Current Maintenance: 7.64 Because the application received more than the minimum of 6 points in each category it was eligible to be awarded a plaque. A motion was made by Commissioner Femal to award a plaque with the following inscription: 1928, Louis& Marie Joerns. Motion seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed 7-0. 6. 1183 Duncan The plaque was scored on the criteria of architectural significance, historical significance and current maintenance, and received the following average scores in each of the three categories. Architectural Significance: 8; Historical Significance: 7; Current Maintenance: 7 Because the application received more than the minimum of 6 points in each category it was eligible to be awarded a plaque. Elgin Heritage Commission:Minutes Page 3 August 6,2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to award a plaque with the following inscription: 1913, Walter& Martha Taylor. Motion seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed 7-0. 7. 111 N. Porter The Commission reviewed the application and requested that additional architectural information be provided in the application's Statement of Significance before conducting further review of the application. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to table review of the plaque application. Motion seconded by Commissioner Fremal. The motion passed 7-0. E. Old Business 1. Cell Phone Tour Website Status Update Ms. Munro updated the Commission on the website.The City's website Multimedia Production Specialist is working with the graphic designer. A concept webpage will be available in the near future. 2. NHS and the Elgin Bungalow Initiative Update Chairman Briska updated the Commission on the Initiative. A Request for Proposals has been sent to consultants. Proposals are due in August. The proposals will reflect the development of a Bungalow field guide and recommendations for a potential citywide thematic historic district. 3. DRSC Appointment Resolutions: Appointments from four members to three to five members, term limits for DRSC, and at-large member position creation Ms. Munro announced that she is working on this resolution. 4. 2013 Historic Rehabilitation Grant Update a. Homeowner Reimbursement Policy Discussion Staff updated the Commission on the 2013 grant applications. The grants were placed on the July 24, 2013 Committee of the Whole Agenda. However,the item was tabled due to a citizen request that the Council consider amending the grant program's reimbursement policy to include reimbursement for homeowners who serve as their own contractors. Due to staff's request to allow additional time to assess the benefits of amending the existing policy and in addition to the Council's request for the Elgin Heritage Commission to provide a recommendation on this matter,the Council tabled the item. Discussion took place regarding the City's Historic Architectural Rehabilitation Grant Program Guidelines for Homeowner Reimbursement.The current guidelines require that applicants submit a minimum of two estimates from which, the lowest estimate will be funded 50%or 75%by the City. In the event that the respective property owner performs any element of the project on their own,the property owner is reimbursed for material costs only. Elgin Heritage Commission:Minutes Page 4 August 6,2013 Mr. Dan Miller presented his request to revise the City's policy. As a past grant recipient and longtime Elgin historic district resident, he expressed concerns with the current policy. Mr. Miller stated that the homeowner reimbursement policy was initially launched to address the Council's concern with the perception of wrongdoing. He disagreed with this perception and highlighted the City's current policy for the submittal of two estimates by a homeowner in relation to his request to see a homeowner reimbursed for labor. He suggested that the City should award the homeowner a grant based upon the lowest amount and that the homeowner should then be able to apply this amount to labor and materials. It should not matter to the City whether a homeowner elects to hire a contractor or do all or a portion of the work themself. He emphasized that the work would still have to be done within the grant's 18-month timeframe and follow the City's Design Guideline and Code requirements. Chairman Briska requested staff to present their recommendation to the Council. Mr. Saher shared staff's position on the matter. He reiterated the homeowner's eligibility to participate in the program even if performing the work on his or her own and the program's 50%or 75% reimbursement of the material costs for approved work. With regard to the proposed amendment, and the belief that the idea had good merit, staff evaluated impact that such a change would have to the City. Based upon their review of the proposal, the staff recommendation is that the existing policy should not be amended due to the following concerns: 1. The program will cost the city more money. In addition to the cost of materials, labor costs will now be added. 2. The proposal will undermine the City's bidding process and the effort obtain the lowest responsive bid. Given the current requirements of applicants to obtain a minimum of two bids, homeowners have an incentive to obtain the best and lowest bid. A homeowner's self-performance intent would compromise the bidding process due to the fact that the homeowner would be seeking to receive funding from the City rather than making a payment to the City. Any incentive to receive the lowest bid would be removed as the homeowner's bid search would result in higher or less competitive bids for the labor. 3. Historic rehabilitation often adds another layer of complexity to construction projects.The proposed policy may increase the numbers of homeowner to self- perform on grant work who may not have the skills to complete a project in a manner that results in a quality historic preservation project and/or within the expected 18-month project timeframe. Additionally,from an administrative perspective, inexperienced homeowners who self-perform will require additional staff time to assure that the Design Guidelines are being met and that the Code requirements are satisfied. Elgin Heritage Commission:Minutes Page 5 August 6,2013 4. From a public policy standpoint, staff does not believe that the City should pay a homeowner for making improvements to their home projects.The spirit of the program is to enhance a homeowner's rehabilitation efforts, not to provide additional income. For example, a property owner who goes to Home Depot should not be paid out for taking the time to do a project that he or she was planning to do. The Commission discussed the benefits of the proposed homeowner reimbursement policy amendment as well as the concerns expressed by staff. The Commission also discussed the potential fraud that could result from this amendment as well as the fraud that can occur as per the existing program guidelines.The Commissioners discussed the need for a check and balance system. Under the proposed amendment, Mr. Saher suggested that potentially a third party verification would be required.This would cost the city additional money. Commissioners discussed the spirit of the program, as well as details that may need to be specifically outlined in the program guidelines. Of particular issue is the contractor who may hire a subcontractor who is the homeowner to perform the work on a project. In this instance,the homeowner is then being paid for labor; however, several commissioners raised the issue that the City should not be able to dictate the homeowner's contractor selection.The Commission suggested that the Legal Department provide a finding as to the legal requirements. Mr. Miller, upon hearing the Commission's discussion as well as Staff's recommendation, expressed his willingness to relinquish the idea; however, he still believes that homeowners should be reimbursed. Several members expressed concern about contractor and subcontractor applicants who are homeowners. Given the number of questions and issues associated with the proposed amendment,the Commissioners recommended that the existing policy remain in place. Also, it was highlighted that the current pool of applicants have been waiting and need to get their projects started. However, the Commission also noted the need for the existing policy to be reviewed by the Legal Department and directed staff to pursue a legal opinion regarding the current reimbursement policy and the potential language that may need to be outlined in the grant program's guidelines to avoid fraud or misinterpretation with regard to the homeowner and contractor specifications. A motion was made by Commissioner Krebsbach to recommend to the City Council that the homeowner reimbursement policy not be amended and to direct staff to seek clarification from the Legal Department regarding the existing policy to address any details that may require additional specificity to avoid fraudulent activity. Motion seconded by Commissioner Fremal. The motion passed 7-0. F. New Business 1. Heritage Commission Budget Increase Request for Historic Interpretive Signage Installation Chairman Briska discussed the need for funding for interpretive signage installation throughout the City's historic districts. Discussion took place regarding potential signage installation sites. Elgin Heritage Commission:Minutes Page 6 August 6,2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Femal to support Chairman Briska's request to the City for additional funding to be added to the Commission's budget to finance the signage installation. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed 7-0. G. Staff Announcements,Other Business: None. H. Adjournment A motion made by Commissioner Savel to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Krebsbach and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Historic Preservation and Grants Planner