MINUTES
TOWN OF NORMAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONFERENCE ROOM C, CITY HALL
100 EAST PHOENIX AVENUE
NORMAL, ILLINOIS
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2007
12:00 p.m.
Members Physically Present
Bruce Warloe, Bob Ward, Anne Matter, Kathy Burgess, Matt Felumlee
Members Absent
Nancy Armstrong
Others Present
Lauren Kerestes, Associate Planner; Debbi Feid, Office Associate; Steven Mahrt, Corporation Counsel; Lynn Watson, Court Reporter; Donald Wilcox, Attorney; Jane Sumrall
Call to Order
Ms. Matter called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. and noted a quorum was present.
Minutes:
Mr. Felumlee moved to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2007 regular meeting. Mr. Warloe seconded. The motion carried.
CA-06-01-03, 20 Broadway Place, New Windows
Ms. Kerestes reviewed the history pertaining to Certificate of
Appropriateness originally submitted on December 28, 2005 for
the replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows on the front
and sides of the house at 20 Broadway Place.
Originally, the case was brought before the commission on March
14, 2006 and the Certificate of
Appropriateness, CA-06-01-03 was denied by the commission. The
applicant then appealed to the Normal Town Council who upheld
the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision. The matter was
then turned over to the courts. The purpose of the commission
meeting today is to rehear the original case, Certificate of
Appropriateness CA-06-01-03, and provide a transcript.
Mr. Wilcox spoke about the history of the property at 20
Broadway Place. Mr. Wilcox said Ms.
Sumrall lived at the property from 1987 to 2005. Although Ms.
Sumrall still owns the property, her daughter, Kate, is now
living at the house with her husband and son. Mr. Wilcox said
that early in 2005 Kate Sumrall set out to replace the gutters
and siding. In providing an estimate the contractor said it
would be less expensive if the windows were also replaced at the
same time. Mr. Wilcox noted that window replacement made sense
to Ms. Sumrall, because the windows had been in disrepair, many
of them inoperable since she had moved in almost 20 years ago.
He said that although Ms. Sumrall knew she owned a house in a
historic district, it did not occur to her that this work would
need to be approved and that the contractor’s estimate did not
list historic approval as a pre-requisite. Ms. Kerestes noted
that the contractor’s estimate also did not list standard
building permits either (nor were they obtained), but they are
also necessary, regardless of whether the property is in a
historic district or not. She said that it is the responsibility
of the property owner to obtain necessary permits. She also
asked for clarification on the operability of the windows over
the years as to determine their condition.
Mr. Wilcox said he thought the replacement windows looked no
less historically correct than the original wood windows. Mr.
Wilcox said the character of home has not been destroyed and a
layman could not tell the difference between the old and new
windows. Mr. Wilcox listed other residences on Hillcrest and
Virginia that have had window or storm windows replacements that
he thought looked the same as those replacements at 20 Broadway
Place. He also provided a revised Certificate of Appropriateness
with some alternatives in the instance that the original
Certificate of Appropriateness was denied. The alternative
preferred by the applicant would be to adhere exterior muntins
to the existing vinyl windows.
Ms. Matter noted that this work was done without going through
the proper channels and a building
permit was not obtained. Ms. Matter noted the visual difference
between a window with a storm and one without invalidating Mr.
Wilcox’s comparison of the windows on the homes on Hillcrest and
Virginia to 20 Broadway Place. She said that the property owners
at 1302 Hillcrest and 301 W. Virginia had not replaced the
windows, but rather had custom, historically appropriate wood
storms made to go over the original windows. She stated that the
purpose of the commission is to preserve the Town’s heritage and
building environment which includes preserving the appearance
and character of landmark properties and those in historic
districts.
Ms. Burgess said that Ms. Kerestes has always been diligent
about sending notifications to
historic districts throughout the year reminding them of the
process for Certificates of Appropriateness and Bone Grants.
Ms. Matter said the original Certificate of Appropriateness
should be considered as if for the first time. She noted that
any alternatives presented today would be considered after the
decision on the original application.
Ms. Kerestes said that based on provisions as part of the
Historic Preservation Code, staff recommended denial of the
Certificate of Appropriateness, CA-06-01-03 the replacement of
wood windows with vinyl. She cited the following provisions:
- Sec.15.16-2(E)(8)(c) Muntins. Window muntins must have appropriate dimensions 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 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 historical 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.
The Commission said that it is difficult to know exactly what
they would have approved if this case had come before them prior
to the work being completed. In the end they determined that
regardless of the applicant’s failure to follow regular process,
vinyl windows are not appropriate replacements.
Mr. Warloe moved to approve the original Certificate of
Appropriateness dated December 28, 2005, as submitted. Ms.
Burgess seconded.
Ayes: None
Nays: Ms. Burgess, Mr. Felumlee, Mr. Ward, Mr. Warloe, Ms.
Matter
The motion was denied, 5-0.
Mr. Mahrt noted that for the purposes of the court, the
transcript could be complete. He said that the Commission could
discuss alternatives for the applicant to pursue or recess and
discuss those details at a later date. The Commission determined
that it would be best if the applicant met with staff and
provided a new Certificate of Appropriateness with the best
alternative in replacing the vinyl windows. The Commission
mentioned project phasing and Bone Grant possibilities to assist
in the replacement of the windows on the front and sides of the
property, since those are visible from the public right-of-way.
Mr. Warloe motioned to bring a different Certificate of
Appropriateness before the Commission with an alternative at a
later date. Mr. Ward seconded.
Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Felumlee, Mr. Warloe, Ms. Burgess, Ms.
Matter
Nays: None
Motion declared carried, 5-0.
Other Business
APPROVED (Expedited Review):
| CA-07-05-10E | 1304 Broadway Place | Re-pour and paint side steps | Approved |
| CA-07-05-11E | 13 Broadway Pl | Reroof, asphalt with asphalt | Approved |
| CA-07-05-12E | 1109 S. Fell | Replace gutters/downspouts | Approved |
| CA-07-05-13E | 821 Normal | Reroof, asphalt with asphalt | Approved |
Adjournment
There being no further business, Ms. Matter moved that the
meeting be adjourned at approximately 1:10 p.m. seconded. The
motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbi Feid
Office Associate