MINUTES
TOWN OF NORMAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONFERENCE ROOM C, CITY HALL
100 EAST PHOENIX AVENUE
NORMAL, ILLINOIS
REGULAR MEETING
March 14, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Members Present
Bruce Warloe, Nancy Armstrong, Kathy Smith Whitman, Anne Matter, Kathy Burgess
Members Absent
Bob Ward
Others Present
Lauren Kerestes, Associate Planner; Debbi Feid, Office Associate; Don Wilcox, Attorney; Jane Sumrall, 29 Pendleton Way, Bloomington and owner of 20 Broadway Place; Alexander & Destiny Robertson, 716 N. School; Mark Peterson, City Manager; Chris Koos, Mayor
Call to Order
Ms. Matter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted a quorum was present.
Minutes:
Minutes of February 14, 2006 special meeting were approved as submitted.
CA-06-03-08, 716 N. School, New fence
Ms. Kerestes distributed photos of the existing fence at 716 N. School, a wooden stockade fence with lattice at the top that surrounds the in-ground pool in the back yard. The Robertsons would like to replace this fence with a vinyl fence similar in style and height. The Robertsons’ home is the second property south of the intersection of School and Lincoln Street and their rear yard is visible from the public right-of-way on Lincoln. Even though the fenced area is not visible from School Street, it is visible from the public right-of-way on Lincoln. Ms. Kerestes said that staff supported the request for the following reasons:
- A fence can easily be removed.
- The new vinyl fence would replace an existing, not well maintained wood fence in the rear yard that is only partially visible from Lincoln Street and not visible from School Street.
- The new fence would replace the existing fence that is required to enclose the in-ground pool. If the home historically had a rear yard fence, it would not have been of the height or scale required for screening an in-ground pool; however no fence would be determined “historic” in this case.
- The new fence looks much like the existing fence; however, the material is different. Since maintenance has not been afforded to the existing fence, vinyl may be a more attractive, “less maintenance intensive” alternative.
- Staff does not feel that this would set a negative president for properties in the future. First, if this property had been further into the block, the HPC would likely not have reviewed the case, because the fence/pool would not have been visible from the public ROW. Second, this case is unique, because this a rear yard fence, not to screen the yard, but to screen the pool. The height, style and material would not be appropriate for the front yard of this property or any future property.
Ms. Robertson said that they desired to replace the wood fence, because it posed aesthetic and safety concerns. She said that they chose vinyl to avoid maintenance and a similar situation in the future. She also expressed that she felt the same historic district design guidelines did not apply in this case, because the fence was not visible from School Street on which the home fronts, but from Lincoln. Ms. Kerestes clarified that the Commission reviews changes to properties from the public right-of-way, not necessarily only the public right-of-way in front of the property.
Ms. Armstrong was concerned that approving a vinyl fence at 716 N. School would set a precedent and allow not only other vinyl fences in rear yards, but also vinyl fences in side and front yards that are more readily visible from the public right-of-way. The Commission agreed that the applicants could replace their fence, but that vinyl was not an appropriate replacement material.
Ms. Smith-Whitman moved to approve this application, Mr. Warloe seconded.
Ayes: None
Nays: Mr. Warloe, Ms. Burgess, Ms. Smith Whitman, Ms. Armstrong,
Ms. Matter
The motion was denied.
The Commission discussed what alternatives they would likely approve and concluded that a similar wood fence would be appropriate. Ms. Armstrong said that she may even be able to supply a photo of another wood fence that would look very similar to the proposed vinyl fence.
Ms. Kerestes explained to the property owners what courses of action they could pursue following the denial of their application. She said that they could file an expedited Certificate of Appropriateness form to replace the existing fence with the same or a similar wood fence, they could file a Certificate of Appropriateness for a different style of wood fence, or that steps could be taken to appeal the Commission’s denial of their Certificate of Appropriateness request for the vinyl replacement fence. Ms. Kerestes explained how this process would work and provided the applicants with a copy of the code that described the appeals process. Ms. Matter requested that the applicant contact staff with further questions and concerns outside of the meeting.
CA-06-01-03, 20 Broadway Place, New Windows
Ms. Jane Sumrall and her attorney, Mr. Don Wilcox, were present to answer questions about the work that had already been done at 20 Broadway Place this past December. This work included the replacement of fifteen original wood windows with vinyl clad windows having muntins in-between the panes. The work had been completed by Custom Concepts without approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and without a permit from the Town Inspection Department.
Ms. Kerestes provided background on the property since December as outlined in the staff report and the letter to Ms. Sumrall and her daughter Kate Sumrall, current tenant of 20 Broadway Place. She also noted that Ms. Jane Sumrall was aware of the historic district review process having filed a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Bone Grant application in 1998 for work related to her front porch.
Ms. Kerestes explained that the Commission needed to formally make a decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness filed by Kate Sumrall in December 2005. She said staff recommended that the Commission deny the application request for the replacement of the original wood windows with vinyl replacements based on the following code provisions:
- Sec. 15.16-2(E) (8) (c) Muntins. Windows muntins
must have appropriate dimension and depth to be compatible with
windows found elsewhere on the landmark or within the historic
district. This may require the adherence of muntins to both
the exterior and interior of the window, as the Historic Preservation
Commission deems appropriate, however muntins between the glass
panes will not be approved.
- Sec. 15.16.-5(F) (2) The distinguishing original
qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and
its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration
of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature
should be avoided when possible and reasonable.
- Sec. 15.16.-5(F) (6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
Ms. Burgess moved to approve the application, Ms. Armstrong seconded.
Ayes: None
Nays: Ms. Smith-Whitman, Ms. Burgess, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Matter,
Mr. Warloe
The motion was denied.
Mr. Wilcox spoke about the work that had been done. He distributed photos of the house before and after the work had been completed. He also provided photos of other designated residences that had also replaced windows, 1302 Hillcrest and 301 W. Virginia. Ms. Kerestes explained that in both of these instances, the actual windows were not replaced, but rather custom wood storms were built to shield the original windows. Mr. Wilcox asked what the difference was between having exterior storms and double pane windows with muntins in-between the glass panes since both produce a glare and do not appear as true divided lites. The Commission said the difference was threefold, first that the storms could be removed and the original integrity of the windows was intact. Secondly, wooden storm windows are historically appropriate; vinyl replacement windows without three-dimensional muntins are not and finally, that there is a visual difference between windows with storms and those without.
Mr. Wilcox said that he obtained a sample of a vinyl window that had a vinyl muntin grid adhered onto the exterior of the glass with special glue. Mr. Wilcox asked if that would be an acceptable alternative to replacing all of the already installed vinyl windows.
The Commission discussed this alternative and concluded that this would not be an appropriate solution, because it would not have likely been approved even if the replacement windows had not yet been installed. The Commissioners expressed concern about the durability of the adhesive used to attach the grid to the glass. Mr. Warloe said he was apprehensive about the casement edging that outlined the window. He felt this made a large difference in the appearance of the windows in relation to the rest of the façade.
The Commission noted that even with an adhesive grid, the windows were still a non-historic material that did not match the original windows in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The Commissioners felt the best alternative to preserving the original wood windows would be to install appropriate wood replacements.
Ms. Matter told Ms. Sumrall and Mr. Wilcox that the Commission and staff would work with them to obtain the most desirable outcome. Ms. Kerestes said she could provide Ms. Sumrall and Mr. Wilcox with contractors that had done similar work to designated properties. The Commission said they would consider extending the time frame for the replacement process beyond the typical one- year allotment if the property owner chose to replace the windows with appropriate wood windows with proper muntins. The Commission also said that appropriate wood replacements would be likely candidates for Bone Grant assistance.
Ms. Kerestes outlined the options for the homeowners in response to the Commission’s denial and provided Ms. Sumrall and her attorney with a copy of the code that outlined the appeals process.
Ms. Matter suggested they could contact Lincoln Wood works for an estimate for windows.
Other Business:
- Masonic Temple acquisition
Mr. Peterson and Mayor Koos explained that the Masons would like to sell their building at the corner of Broadway and College Avenue in downtown Normal. They said that the Town would be interested in purchasing it and possibly tearing it down to accommodate the parking demands in the downtown area. There was much discussion about this 1920s building, its integrity and importance as one of the only remaining substantial historic buildings downtown. The Mayor and Manager explained that they have had several retail and commercial developers look at the building, but many were deterred by the inaccessible, many tiered floor plan. The commissioners agreed that it would be desirable for the Town to pursue purchasing the property with the condition that there would be a timeframe in which the building could be marketed to potential commercial, residential or public uses prior to demolition. The Commission felt there was much potential for an adaptive reuse of the building.
- 402 W. Virginia- minor construction changes reviewed.
Ms. Kerestes said that minor
changes had been approved to allow the property owner to build
an architectural shingle instead of standing seam roof and permit
Hardi-board siding instead of brick.
- APPROVED (Expedited Review): CA-06-03-07E, 1117 S. Fell, replace windows- non-contributing structure.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Ms. Burgess moved that the meeting be adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. Ms. Smith-Whitman seconded. The motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbi Feid
Office Associate
Lauren Kerestes
Associate Planner