Urbana commissioners press staff over exclusion from civic-center Section 106 review

The Urbana Historic Preservation Commission spent much of its July 1 meeting pressing city staff for an explanation after commissioners say they were not included in the Section 106 review for the Urbana Civic Center.

At the start of a long study session, Olivia, director of Community Development Services, walked the panel through the department's internal case schedule and explained how an application received April 27 put the case on the commission's June 3 agenda and created a tight turnaround for subsequent council action. "It is a priority for me and for this department that we maintain a good working relationship and we're really looking forward to continuing working with this commission moving forward," Olivia said, describing staff's intent to refine case management and Section 106 procedures.

Commissioners said the response did not explain why the commission was not invited as a consulting party earlier in the process. Several members said they were surprised and concerned that the commission's views had been represented to the state without broader internal consultation. "It was astonishing that a process' that should have involved us unfolded without our input," one commissioner said during the meeting, describing a perception that staff or outside parties had moved ahead without solicitation of the panel's expertise.

Olivia told commissioners she had not been directed to withhold or edit information. "Since my time with the city I have not been asked to do that," she said, adding that the planning division prepared the recommendation and that she had answered council questions in her capacity as director. She acknowledged the process could have benefited from "more robust conversation" and noted the department had hired staff with SHPO-qualified training and planned additional training to strengthen the Section 106 review.

Commissioners raised several concerns that bear on how federal Section 106 reviews intersect with local land-use processes: limited public access to meeting minutes and video near case deadlines, the short calendar windows Section 106 can impose, and unclear internal roles for the commission secretary and staff liaisons. Kate Himmick, the planning staff member serving as commission secretary, and Evan Alvarez, principal planner, described efforts to index historic-survey records and produce a GIS layer so staff can deliver needed background information more quickly.

Directors and commissioners also discussed the zoning ordinance's timing rules: staff noted a clause directing council consideration within 60 days after the close of a public hearing and said continuances are possible but must be handled with that statutory timing in mind.

Next steps included a plan for staff to draft clearer written procedures and proposed bylaw edits that would clarify secretary responsibilities and communication protocols. Commissioners voted to continue the bylaw/Section 106 study session to Aug. 5 to let staff prepare redlined language and to revisit outstanding questions with the chair present.

The commission will take up the bylaw revisions and the Section 106 response process again at the August meeting; staff said it will also pursue training opportunities for commissioners and planners to better align local practice with federal consulting-party expectations.