Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met Oct. 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Members Present:
Nancy Armstrong, Kathy Burgess, Chris Niebur, Larry Schumacher, Justin Vickers, Anne Matter
Members Absent:
Robert Porter
Others Present:
Tessa Ferraro, Associate Planner; Kevin Sheahan, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Katie Lieb, Engineering Office Associate; David Anderson & Darcy Drexler, 705 Broadway
Call to Order:
Ms. Matter called the meeting to order at 12:29pm.
Minutes:
Ms. Armstrong motioned to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2023, regular meeting as written.
Mr. Schumacher seconded. The motion carried.
CA-23-10-40: Chimney repair and partial reconstruction, 805 Normal Ave
Ms. Ferraro went over the report. The brick chimney at 805 Normal is showing signs of deterioration due to weather, age, and a racoon infestation. The property owners would like to repair the chimney and restore it to working condition. The chimney is currently only used for aesthetic purposes; however, when the repair is complete, it could be used as a gas or wood burning fireplace. The repair would include demoing approximately 6’ of the top portion of the chimney (above the roofline), including the concrete cap at the top. The chimney above the roofline would be re-laid with new brick that closely resembles the existing brick. The chimney below the roofline would also be tuckpointed where necessary.
Ms. Matter asked if they left the lower portion of the roof off of the McClure estimate.
Ms. Ferraro verified yes.
Ms. Matter asked if they had a sample brick.
Ms. Ferraro stated they did not.
Ms. Matter said that her only concern would be that the bricks wouldn’t match.
Mr. Vickers said it looks like a standard brick that they would have easy access to.
Ms. Burgess motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as requested. Nr. Niebur seconded.
The motion carried 6-0.
BG-23-10-15: Chimney repair and partial reconstruction, 805 Normal Ave
Ms. Matter went over the 3 estimates and amounts. She stated that in her opinion the chimney is something they would like to see saved and is a good qualifier for Bone Grant funding. She also asked for clarification on the amount.
Ms. Ferraro said with the new Town Council action, the maximum amount for a Bone Grant increased to $6,000 for every property in a historic district or landmark, as well as $20,000 for tile and slate roof restoration projects.
Ms. Matter stated the McClure estimate is not comparable to the other estimates, so she would support a Bone Grant for the higher estimates rather than the McClure one, which would be half of $11,400.
Mr. Niebur said if they end up using McClure, to bring in a receipt saying they ended up using the $8,000 estimate, as opposed to approving the higher amount. Then, they would only be eligible for $4,000 in funding.
Ms. Matter stated they should get a more detailed estimate from McClure.
Mr. Niebur agreed.
Ms. Burgess asked if they should approve the lower of the 3 comparable bids.
Mr. Niebur said he would still ask for a picture of the new brick next to the existing. He said they may find something close, but it may be tricky since it is an older brick.
Ms. Ferraro asked if they wanted that as a condition of the Bone Grant since the certificate was already voted on.
Mr. Schumacher stated it should be part of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ms. Burgess moved to amend the approval of CA-23-10-40 with the condition that a sample and picture of the proposed brick be provided and approved by the chairperson. Mr. Vickers seconded.
Motion carried 6-0.
Ms. Ferraro asked the commissioners that if the McClure estimate does not cover below the roof line, would they be willing to still approve the work based on that estimate?
Ms. Burgess stated it is still a restoration just from the roof up, but she thinks below is maintenance anyways.
Ms. Matter said they would want the work to be consistent. She would ask the homeowners to check with McClure and confirm the project scope. She also said to check to see if any tuckpointing would be done.
Mr. Niebur said McClure may intend to work on the lower portion of the chimney and just did not include it in the estimate. He stated they just need to clarify the scope.
Mr. Sheahan asked to clarify which amount they would get based on the scope.
Ms. Matter said $4,000 for McClure which would be half, or half of the Force estimate of $11,400 if the McClure estimate is not comparable.
Mr. Schumacher motioned to approve the Bone Grant, with the amount to be determined by the lowest comparable estimate once more information is obtained from McClure. Ms. Armstrong seconded. The motion carried 6-0.
CA-23-10-41: Stained glass window replacement, 705 Broadway
Ms. Matter said the home previously had a stained-glass window featuring the letter “P,” however it was not original to the house. This is a post-project approval in which the applicant had replaced the stained-glass window with a new one. She stated the Commission does not like to approve things in this manner, but is happy the applicants know the process moving forward. She is happy that they put in a stained-glass window instead of something else.
Mr. Anderson said he had designed it himself.
Ms. Matter said they need to make it clear about the typical process and Ms. Ferraro verified she spoke to the homeowner.
Mr. Anderson stated they are doing another stained-glass window, but they are hanging it up inside.
Ms. Ferraro said only exterior changes need to go through this process, so the interior window would not need any approval.
Ms. Burgess said that she wanted the homeowner to know that the home is a landmark, however it is just for the house and not for the garage.
Ms. Drexler stated they intend to paint the garage, but they won’t need to come to the commission.
However, they will soon be doing a railing on the porch and would need to come back.
Ms. Burgess confirmed.
Ms. Burgess motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as requested. Ms. Armstrong seconded. The motion carried 6-0.
CA-23-10-44: Railing addition, 708 N School St
Ms. Ferraro went over the report. The staff is not in favor of the proposed railing because it is not a historically accurate railing. They recommended a simple design with either all wood or all metal, but not a mix of both.
Ms. Burgess, Ms. Matter, and Mr. Schumacher agreed.
Ms. Burgess stated they just requested another homeowner to remove one that hadn’t been approved that looked like this one.
Ms. Matter asked if they recommended something different to the homeowners.
Ms. Ferraro responded that she spoke to the contractor, and they wanted something like their neighbors but came back with something different. She had told the contractor that the railing submitted would likely not get approved, however the property owners wanted to move forward with it anyway.
Ms. Burgess explained a good example of one that would be approved.
Ms. Matter said they could point it out to them.
Mr. Schumacher asked if they were putting a railing on both sides.
Ms. Ferraro confirmed yes.
Ms. Matter stated it is important for them to know they aren’t denying a railing just this one and asked if a new one could be expedited.
Tessa stated yes, if they submit one on similar to what has been talked about at the meeting.
Mr. Niebur said it’s mostly the caps that are the issues and if it was all wood it would be better.
Ms. Burgess said if it is all wood, they could clarify the spindle would be in the center and not on an angle. She said the style is still important.
Ms. Armstrong said they do specify the spindles are in between, but they need to clarify the style.
Mr. Niebur said that the commission could give good examples on what is approved.
Mr. Vickers motioned to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness as requested. Ms. Armstrong seconded.
Motion carried 6-0.
Other Business:
Mr. Vickers asked about one of the expedited certificates. Ms. Matter and Ms. Ferraro responded.
Mr. Vickers asked if the expedited certificate could apply for a Bone Grant. Ms. Ferraro said she mentioned it to them, but they weren’t interested.
Adjournment:
Mr. Vickers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Matter. The meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m.
https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4790
Alerts Sign-up