Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee

Village of Arlington Heights Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Planning Department Conference Room, 2nd Floor Arlington Heights Village Hall 33 S. Arlington Heights Road Arlington Heights, IL 60005 April 28, 2015 6:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes - 3/24/15 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update - PC#14-020 V. NEW BUSINESS VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services, such as an American Sign Language interpreter or written materials in accessible formats, should contact David Robb, Disability Services Coordinator, at 33 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005, (847)368-5793 (Voice), (847)368-5980 (Fax) or drobb@vah.com.  Item: Minutes - 3/24/15 Department: Planning & Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes Minutes  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: March 24, 2015 Project Title: Comprehensive Plan Update Petitioner: Village Of Arlington Heights Attendees: George Drost, Chairman Mary Jo Warskow, Plan Commissioner Joe Lorenzini, Plan Commissioner Terry Ennes, Plan Commissioner Bill Enright, Deputy Director Planning and Community Development Chairman Drost convened the meeting and asked for approval of the February, 2015 meeting minutes. Those present at the February meeting approved the minutes. Meeting Discussion: B. Enright began discussions on the survey of the community. The proposed survey is 16 questions and include photos of corridors to assist with the questions. The survey will be placed on the Village web page. We will also post a link on our Facebook account which has over 5,000 friends, as well as Twitter and E-blast. Commissioner Warskow suggested we inform the Library and post a flyer, as well as the Senior Center. Commissioner Ennes also suggested we let the Chamber of Commerce know about the survey. Chairman Drost suggested the Park District as a good source of outreach. B. Enright confirmed that he will let all those agencies know in order to get the word out. We will also let the Daily Herald know and ask that they have a brief in the paper. The discussion then centered on the draft survey. The Subcommittee liked the survey and felt that it was in good shape with a few modifications. Commissioner Ennes, regarding question #6, thought that the question should not be directed solely to non residents, but rather both residents and non residents who may work in the Village. All agree to modify that question. Commissioner Warskow asked about question #9, and suggested that the word “restrict” is too negative and should be changed to “limit”. All agreed. Regarding question #10, B. Enright indicated that he would not state “see more” as that is a leading question. The question will be changed to say “more, the same, or less”. Chairman Drost thought that the items listed in #10 were established uses. Commissioner Ennes suggested for #10 adding an open ended fill in the blank so that persons could add a use that is not listed. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\9C4C79B8-2E82-427F-8B33-400690A4B4F1\Arlington Heights.2992.1.MinutesMarch2015.doc  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE There was discussion among the Subcommittee regarding the language used in #11 regarding the “quality” of “parks”. Commissioner Warskow suggest that rather than asking about the quality of parks, ask instead if persons wanted “more open space”. Asking about quantity is different that asking about quality. Also open space can be something other than a park, such as a praire. Commissioner Ennes thought that quality and quantity are one in the same to an extent. It was agreed that the question should read “The amount of open space in the Village”. Regarding #12, Commissioner Lorenzini asked if there was a way to incorporate cost factors into persons throughts on improvements. Commissioner Ennes added that the overhead utilities are more likely to have power outages, so burial underground would provide benefits to the community in addition to the aesthetics. Commissioner Warskow liked that this question (#12) included storm water drainage as that is a major aspect of land use and development. Regarding #13, the word “improving” transportation options is too open ended; maybe change to “expand”. Commissioner Lorenzini thought that it may be a good idea to leave it more open ended. After some discussion it was decided that the word “expand” should be used to provide clarity to the question. Commissioner Lorenzini suggested that for #14 we include two columns for each listed item. One column for Quantity and another for Quality. Commissioner Warskow asked what we were trying to achieve with this question. It was nice to ask the question but thought it was probably not helpful. Commissioner Lorenzini the visual questions which include evaluation of the content of photos provided. Commissioner Warskow asked that photo A be updated to more clearly show the parking area. Regarding the last couple corridor questions, Commissioner Warskow suggested that we ask persons to rate different aspects of the corridor with items such as building appearance, walkability, etc. All agreed. B. Enright indicated that he would make the changes to the survey and email to the Subcommittee for review. The survey would then be posted on-line. The Subcommittee agreed to meet again on April 28th at 6:30pm. to discuss the survey results and historic preservation. RECOMMENDATION None at this time. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM. George Drost, Chairman Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Bill Enright, Recorder C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\9C4C79B8-2E82-427F-8B33-400690A4B4F1\Arlington Heights.2992.1.MinutesMarch2015.doc  Item: Comprehensive Plan Update - PC#14-020 Department: Planning & Community Development Historic Preservation Per our previous discussions, the Subcommittee determined that the Comprehensive Plan should include a section on historic preservation. Please find attached a draft section on historic preservation. Some of this information is posted on the Village web page, including the School of the Art Institute study of the central part of Arlington Heights. I have also included that study in this packet. Survey The Comprehensive Plan survey was posted April 9th, and to date we have had 273 responses! The Daily Herald has agreed to write a brief article this weekend, and we have asked the Park District and Library to post a flyer regarding the survey at each community park and at the library. In addition we requested that both agencies post a link to the survey on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. At our meeting I will present the updated, early survey results. Next Steps / Meeting I am hopeful that we will have a first draft of the Comprehensive Plan ready for review by the end of May or June at the latest. The Village is hiring Teska and Associates to assist with layout and design of the document. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Historic Preservation Exhibits Historic Preservation - Art Institute Report Report Historic Preservation The Village of Arlington Heights has a rich local history including the presence of four major development periods which added distinct architectural styles and character to residential neighborhoods. These four periods of growth and development cover the establishment of the Village of Arlington Heights by the Dunton family in the early 1800’s thru the current re- development of the downtown area. The first distinct period of growth occurred during the railroad expansion and consisted of homes located around the railroad station. These homes varied in design from highly ornamental designs that mimic Victorian styles to simple designs as availability and cost of lumber became affordable. The second major expansion occurred with educational and religious buildings, including the creation of high-end residential communities such as Stonegate and Scarsdale. During this period numerous French, Spanish, American Bungalow, and Frank Lloyd Wright style houses were built. The third major historic event that impacted Arlington Heights’ architecture and development was brought on by the rapid expansion after World War II, which resulted in the creation of large residential neighborhoods. Many ranch, split-level, tri- level, lustron, neo-colonial, cape cod, minimal traditional, cube, and mansard designs are a result of this time period. The last major period of architectural distinction is the current downtown revitalization. The creation of the downtown as a pedestrian friendly location and the creation of numerous high-rise residences has increased the livability of the downtown area and impacted the architectural character of the downtown. Although the Village requires a development plan prior to allowing demolition of a home, there is no Local Preservation Ordinance to preserve buildings of historic significance. In 2004, the Village adopted Single Family Design Guidelines, which provide design direction for new homes and additions. Homes should take into consideration the character of the existing neighborhood, site layout, relationship of the home to adjacent homes, bulk and massing, and use of materials. However, without a preservation Ordinance, how can the Village ensure that the historic structures within the community will not be compromised? Growth and Architecture The Village’s patterns of growth and development can be seen in four distinct periods as mentioned above. Each period left its own physical mark on the Village giving its unique suburban character. 1830 – 1900: Railroad Village – Village town platted by the Dunton family with lots centered around the train depot. Many of the Village’s historic homes are within the original town. 1900 – 1945: Inter-War – Stonegate and Scarsdale are newly platted neighborhoods for higher end housing. The Great Depression slows development during this time period. 1945 – 1980: Post War Boom – Great expansion of the Village borders to the south and north, with more suburban type of development typical of the 60’s and 70’s. 1980 – Present: Downtown Revitalization – higher density development to include a mix of land uses centered around the train station. The architectural styles seen in the Village include Craftsman, National Folk, Folk Victorian, American Four Square, Queen Anne, Italiante, Colonial, Tudor Revival, Chicago Bungalow, Split level, Post WWII Cube, among others. Currently, there are three structures in the Village listed on the National Register of Historic Places, although many others would qualify as well. 1) The Mueller House: 500 N. Vail Avenue 2) The Banta House: 514 N. Vail Avenue 3) Wheeler-Magnus Round Barn: 811 E. Central Road Comprehensive Plan The following historic preservation related goals and policies are included in the Comprehensive Plan: Goal To preserve physical resources of historic value which exemplify the cultural, political, economic or social heritage of Arlington Heights. Policy Whenever specific land areas and/or existing structures come under review for general planning progress, or in conjunction with a specific land use petition, consideration should be given to identify for possible preservation purposes, land areas or buildings that meet any of the following criteria: a. Structures that exhibit a high quality of architectural design reminiscent of the past. b. Structures that exhibit unusual or distinctive design, or construction technique which contribute to the architectural interest of its environs either as an accent or a counterpoint. c. Land areas that have long provided an established or familiar visual presence in Arlington Heights by virtue of: a unique location; distinctive physical characteristics; or historical association. Goal To preserve and protect existing and future residential neighborhoods in the Village. Policies To preserve and renovate housing of historic or aesthetic value and upgrade and renovate public improvements and facilities in Village neighborhoods. To prepare realistic plans for the areas in and around downtown with all necessary safeguards for fine residential and historical properties. These stated Goals and Policies serve as guidance, however they do not control the use of land unless supplemented with enacted codes such as a Preservation Ordinance. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago Study In 2004, the graduate program in historic preservation at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, conducted a study of historic buildings and areas of the Village. This report inventoried 450 residential structures and 34 commercial structures. The area inventoried is depicted here: (Note: a new, more clear map will be created) Neighborhood Conservation Districts The area surveyed was further broken down into 7 potential Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD). A NCD is a preservation planning tool employed by communities to identify and protect the distinct physical character of established neighborhoods. A map of the potential NCD’s is depicted on the following page. Each structure evaluated in the survey was rated as one of the following: Exceptional: These are structures that could be eligible for landmarking on the National Register of Historic Places Notable: Structures that have integrity and strongly contribute to a potential historic or conservation district. Contributing: Properties that contribute to a district but due to alterations cannot stand alone as landmarks. Unrated: Structures that do not contribute to the historic area. The following chart lists each of the potential NCD’s and the number of structures rated either Exceptional, Notable, Contributing, or Unrated. Area Exceptional Notable Contributing Unrated A 6 28 17 4 B 8 10 29 17 C 7 17 22 18 D 1 27 67 31 E 0 26 23 10 F 6 9 15 3 G 0 8 12 4 The study area did not include Scarsdale or Stonegate, therefore those two areas should be added to the map but as areas for future study as NCD’s. The goal of any NCD is to sustain and preserve the neighborhood’s character by defining procedures and policies for new construction, alterations, demolition and additions to existing structures in the district. Typically, the community formally establishes an NCD via a Conservation District Ordinance (CDO). Because a CDO does not impose the same level of scrutiny or protection for historic structures in districts as a preservation ordinance does, conservation district programs have been designed to be used congruently with a preservation ordinance. As mentioned, the Village already has a review process for new homes throughout the Village that are required to address the design guidelines, which take into account the characteristics of the neighborhood. Although zoning regulations for single family lots in the Village have been modified to limit Floor Area and impervious surfaces, the Village does not have unique zoning standards for the possible conservation districts. Since each district has unique development attributes, the Village may want to consider reviewing each recommended NCD in order to determine if zoning and design standards need to be created for each specific NCD. Historic Preservation Ordinance with Commission and Local Landmark Process In 2005 the Village Board discussed the concept of a historic preservation ordinance. There was interest in doing so however in order to properly implement such an Ordinance, additional staffing would be required. Due to financial constraints, this issue was not pursued. The Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-48.2-1 et al) sets forth regulations with respect to local municipalities rights regarding the preservation of certain structures. As a result, many communities have adopted local Historic Preservation Ordinances and that include a local landmark nomination process. These Ordinances typically include the establishment of a Historic Preservation Commission, the criteria for the designation of Local Landmarks or Districts and the nomination process, the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria and process, and the Certificate of Economic Hardship process This option would allow the Village to acknowledge structures that are historically significant and to impose more stringent review measures on said structures. It is important to note that the federal government has various tax credit programs that are available to property owners of structures (in conjunction with a rehabilitation project) that have been established as “historic” via a locally adopted Historic Preservation Ordinance. These tax credits encourage the preservation of “historic” structures rather than the demolition of said structures. Historic Preservation Strategies The following are suggested strategies to further expand on current Village practices related to historic preservation: ▪Continue to require Design Commission review of designated homes within historic areas. ▪Designate Neighborhood Conservation Districts. ▪Evaluate Stonegate and Scarsdale neighborhoods for possible designation as Neighborhood Conservation District’s. ▪Further study each of the Neighborhood Conservation Districts for possible district specific zoning overlays and / or develop district specific design guidelines. ▪Continue to provide Historic Preservation information on the Village web page and enhance public education. (Photo Montage of various homes. The intent is to include various photos in the Comprehensive Plan to depict architecture in the Village)