McLean County Times

Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met Nov. 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present: Kathy Burgess, Nancy Armstrong, Chris Niebur, Robert Porter, Larry Schumacher, Anne Matter

Members Absent: Justin Vickers

Others Present: Tessa Ferraro, Associate Planner; Hannah Neal, Inspections and Planning Office Associate; Mark Clinch, Director of Facilities and Energy Management; Robert and Abby Murphy, 511 North School Street

Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 12:27 p.m. by Ms. Matter.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Schumacher moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting on October 10th, 2023. Ms. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Public Hearing:

a. CA-23-11-48: Window Replacement, 511 N School Street

Ms. Burgess moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Mr. Porter seconded.

Owners Robert and Abby Murphy are wanting to replace a total of 13 windows at their dwelling at 511 N School with vinyl windows, and replace the wood frames around the windows with aluminum wrapped frames. Mr. Murphy began by explaining they are replacing the top left window and the lower left window on the east elevation on School Street (front of house). Mr. Murphy said the window on the upper left has lost its argon, and since it is a double window, they would rewrap the whole frame in aluminum. The bottom left window is having the same issue, and the same solution has been proposed.

Ms. Matter asked if the other windows are vinyl, and Mr. Murphy said all the windows in the house are vinyl today except for the kitchen window, and the two back windows on the mud porch. The two portal windows on the side of the house are also wood, however they are not being replaced. Mrs. Murphy added that the vinyl windows were there when they moved in.

Mr. Murphy continues with window 5 in the staff report and says it needs to be replaced as it no longer fits the frame. He points out that the yellow window in the presentation is one of the previously mentioned portal windows and will not be replaced. Windows 6 and 7 in the report are basement windows, one of which is already broken, the other they are just going to replace. Window #4’s also lost its argon and the window and framing needs replaced. The upstairs window (#3) is broken, and the window and framing need replaced.

Mr. Schumacher asked if any casing would be done on the window marked in yellow in the report (south facing).

Mr. Porter asked if there were 2 additional windows that weren’t vinyl.

Mr. Murphy said yes, and they will not be replacing them.

He also pointed out that the #9 window has already been replaced. Windows #10 and #11 are being replaced, and window #8 is an old deteriorating wood frame window and would be replaced with vinyl.

Ms. Ferraro pointed out that this window (#8) currently has mullions, the proposal is for no mullions so it would match the rest of the windows. She also said the proposal is to have an aluminum wrap for the frame instead of the wood. This would allow the contractor to mimic the same profile of the existing wood frames around the windows.

Ms. Matter asked why he wanted to do the aluminum wrap as opposed to wood, and Mr. Murphy said that the wood had deteriorated. Ms. Matter then asked what would happen to the wood windows remaining in the house. Mr. Murphy said that they are going to repair and paint as much as they can but if they are also deteriorated, they will look at replacing them.

Ms. Matters asked to clarify if he would replace it with new wood and then do the aluminum wrap, and Mr. Murphy confirmed that would be the process.

She asked if all windows would end up with aluminum wrap and Mr. Murphy clarified that if they don’t need it, they will just be repainted.

Mr. Murphy also stated that updating the windows will depend on what’s more economical. If it is cheaper to replace, he will do so or if it’s cheaper to restore he will do so. He said the most recent bid stated that it is more economical to replace it with new wood and do the aluminum wrap.

Mr. Niebur thinks that if the contractor hired can visually keep the profile, that the aluminum should be acceptable.

Ms. Matter commented that the visual consistency of the windows is the most important thing to be considered when determining replacement/repairs.

Ms. Burgess asked Mr. Niebur if he would be able to tell if there were two different applications on the trim.

He thinks if the colors match, the difference wouldn’t be noticeable from the street.

Mr. Murphy asked if PVC would be an option and Mr. Niebur said that PVC doesn’t hold paint well and would not hold up over time.

Ms. Burgess said she would feel more comfortable if Mr. Schumacher or Mr. Niebur could sign off on the material prior to the replacement.

Ms. Armstrong asked if the owners would be willing to replace the vinyl windows now and hold off on the wood frames. She wants him to be able to have the windows in before winter, and doesn’t want to cause a delay, but she would like more time to consider the framing.

Mr. Murphy asked if she would like him to put temporary framing around it, and Ms. Armstrong said no, but wanted to know if he must remove the frame to put the vinyl in. Mr. Murphy isn’t sure, but he thinks that it’s likely.

Mr. Schumacher agrees that it would probably have to come off.

Mr. Murphy said it would depend on how the windows are going to be sealed up. He is pretty sure the intention is to. Mr. Schumacher is worried about wood rot and Mr. Murphy is worried about that as well due to previous projects done on this house.

Mr. Niebur asked if Mr. Murphy could ask his contractor what it would take to match exactly. He also asked if the contractor could match exactly, if it would be Bone Grant eligible.

Ms. Matter says the Bone Grant wouldn’t cover the aluminum, but it could cover the wood. She clarified that it would need to be a restoration with the same material.

Mr. Niebur said that if the contractor can do so, it may be more expensive, but the Bone Grant could possibly cover part of the cost.

Ms. Matter said there is no problem replacing the windows since they’re already vinyl, and Ms. Burgess added that they really love the profile of the window frames, and they don’t want to risk losing it.

Mr. Murphy wanted to know if he needed to remove all the old wood and put on new wood or is it ok to use some of the older wood for it to be considered a restoration.

Ms. Burgess said old vs new shouldn’t make a difference if it’s the same material and matches the profile.

Ms. Matter said we could give partial approval for the certificate of appropriateness and then take the time to look into if they can do a composite or wood.

Mr. Murphy said that his contractor can use either, it would just be a matter of getting a new estimate.

Mr. Niebur said he would need to do the frames as a separate quote, since that would be the part eligible for the grant.

Ms. Matter said otherwise we would have to have a guarantee that the contractor would be able to match the current profile with the aluminum.

She went on to say that the hard part about that would be that we would have to see a sample and have someone look at it for approval.

Ms. Burgess asked what contractor Mr. Murphy was using and he said AAA out of Lincoln.

Ms. Matter went on to say that she didn’t want to make the project more difficult than it needs to be, and asked if he must take the framing out to put the windows in if it was going to cause issues.

Mr. Niebur clarified that it is an extra step, but it isn’t a big extra step.

Ms. Burgess asked if he could contact his contractor right away to get the quote, however they wouldn’t be able to expedite the Bone Grant.

Ms. Matter added that there is no way to expedite the Bone Grant since it hasn’t been applied for. But he could apply for the Bone Grant for December’s meeting. She said it would cover up to half of the cost of the project up to $6,000.

Mr. Murphy asked if he pursued just replacing all the window frames with wood instead of partially replenishing, he could come back and apply for the Bone Grant.

Ms. Matter said if it is worded appropriately because typically you can’t come back after the project has started just to ask for the Bone Grant. She suggested that we approve wood composite replacement that is the same as the current profile.

Mr. Murphy asked if that would include the aluminum if he could guarantee a match. Ms. Matter said no, it would need to be original material for the Bone Grant.

Mr. Niebur asked what the project timeline was, and Mr. Murphy said they weren’t under a specific time crunch.

Ms. Matter asked if he could wait to start the work until the December meeting for approval of the Bone Grant and Mr. Murphy said yes.

Mr. Schumacher asked if they could approve aluminum wrap or wood composite in the meantime? Ms. Matter said it would probably be better to do all the work at once, and that it would be to his advantage if he is willing to wait to see if he qualifies for the Bone Grant.

Mr. Murphy said yet again that he had no specific timeline, and that would be fine. He is going to find out what the price change would be to use wood or wood composite and will go with what is the most economical.

Ms. Matter clarified that he needs to make sure he has separate estimates for the windows and the framing since the Bone Grant would just cover the framing.

Ms. Ferraro added that typically for a Bone Grant you must have two estimates from two different contractors to qualify. She asked if that would still be required.

Ms. Matter said normally they would but for the sake of time for the homeowner they would be willing to waive that requirement.

Mr. Murphy said the wording on the contract is just for aluminum and if he can make it look the same, he thinks there’s a good chance that he will go with the aluminum. And then next summer when he goes to continue the project, he will consider what still needs replaced and whether to use aluminum or wood on the remainder of the house.

Ms. Matter said that whatever material he decides on should be consistent, she thinks some wood and some aluminum would be noticeable over time.

Ms. Matter asked if he was still leaning towards the aluminum and if so, he needs to positive it matches the existing profile.

Mr. Murphy asked for clarification on what composite material is.

Mr. Schumacher said it looks like wood, but it is more durable, and better in the long term. He also said some contractors don’t like it because it can be brittle to work with.

Mr. Murphy said he would either go with all wood, in which case he would come back for the Bone Grant or do the aluminum. If he goes with the wood, he will hold off and do all the windows at once.

Ms. Matter said to approve it needs worded as “aluminum needs to be an exact match” and if it doesn’t the Town can come back and say that it wasn’t approved and make him take it down.

Mr. Murphy said he is leaning towards the wood since it is the simplest solution.

Ms. Matter asked to amend the motion to “if aluminum wrap is used, it must have the same profile and will need to be approved, but that the wood or wood composite is recommended, and a sample will be required to move forward.”

Ms. Burgess added if the owner is not comfortable making the call, he is welcome to have one of the Commissioners look at it.

Mr. Murphy said he wants to go look at the windows in the house and make sure all the original frames are the same.

Ms. Matter asked if we’re all understanding what the motion is.

Ms. Ferraro asked if she could reiterate the conditions for the minutes “If you use the aluminum wrap it must be an exact duplicate of what is there now, and he will have to bring in a sample for us to approve. Or he can use the wood or wood composite. If he uses wood or wood composite, he can come back in for Bone Grant approval, and the wood or wood composite would most likely be approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness”.

Ms. Matter said yes, it would likely be approved and added that ultimately, they would prefer using the same material as the original frame.

Ms. Ferraro asked if the wood composite would be approved under this Certificate of Appropriateness or if the owner would need to submit a new Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. Matter said if he is going to do the wood or wood composite, he would not need to submit a new Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher, Ms. Matter Nays: None

The motion carried 6-0.

b. CA-23-11-47: Electric Vehicle Charging Installations, 305 E Pine

Ms. Burgess moved to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Schumacher seconded.

Ms. Matter asked Mr. Clinch to confirm how many types of charging stations.

Ms. Ferraro offered to explain and went on to say “As you know, 305 E pine is a local landmark. It currently has two non-historic additions on the west and the south side that are both approved to be demolished. So, this Certificate of Appropriateness is part of a larger Town initiative to increase the accessibility of electric vehicle charging stations across town. Right now, we are hoping to get a grant to install a level 3 charging station at Spragues which is a lot more expensive than the level 2 charging stations. Even if we don’t get a grant, we would still like to install a level 3 charging station. In front of you, the picture to the left shows what a level 3 looks like. To the right is an example of a wrap that is similar to what we would like to have. It would have the Route 66 theme and would have the Town colors and themes. In addition to level 3, we would like to also install level two chargers.

Ms. Matter asked what the difference was between level 2 and level 3.

Ms. Ferraro said a level 3 is a faster charger, someone could charge in a half hour. A level 2 is a slower charge, at least 4 hours. There is not a solidified location as to where to install the charging stations. The ask is to have the whole site approved to install the chargers. What you’re seeing now are our top considerations. Options 1 and 2 could be where level 3 may go, and the level 2s could go where the existing fueling stations are and we could add a fabrication to go over the existing fueling stations, so they look like what they are now.

Ms. Matter says that her concern is that “if you put level 2 where the original pumps are, you would have cars sitting there all day. I don’t have a problem putting charging stations in, just not there. And the other option behind the building is better because you don’t see it from Route 66.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the garage section in the presentation was going to be demolished and Ms. Ferraro said that it should be demolished within a year or so, and the back is slated to be demolished but there is no timeline yet.

Mr. Clinch added that the timeline for the demolition would depend on finances. He says either on the side or behind the building would work for either style pump.

Ms. Matter says she’s ok with either pump going in the top left corner of the lot because cars parking over there are not distracting to the building.

Mr. Clinch pointed out where the power would be pulled from on the property. Ms. Burgess asked, “how many charging stations would we end up with.”

Mr. Clinch said one level 3 and one to two level 2s, and it is possible to share a circuit with the level 2 and level 3 chargers, it would just affect charging speed.

Ms. Burgess said that she would agree with Ms. Matter that putting the charging stations where the pumps are would take away from the nostalgia of the historic property.

Ms. Matter asked “What is the town’s intent with the chargers, who are we supplying them for? People that are travelling on Route 66 or locals?”

Mr. Clinch said that his understanding is that this is one of multiple locations that would be desirable for people on a destination trip on Route 66, and the deployment of electric vehicles is something everyone is heavily invested in, and until it becomes widely distributed it could serve as an economic tool to draw people into Normal from the interstate. This will likely eventually also have tariff associated with it, likely enforced through an app, which would allow the Town to apply a fee if someone stays at a charging station too long.

Ms. Burgess asked if we look at option 2, would it be possible to add all level 2 and 3 charging stations in that area.

Mr. Clinch said probably, but the more flexibility they have for charger placement would be better in the long run because down the road we want to leave room for further development (green space, a patio etc.....).

There is general agreement that option 1 would be the best use of the space. Ms. Matter asked where parking would be for a non-electric car.

Ms. Ferraro pulled up a satellite image to see the full view of the plot.

Mr. Clinch noticed on the image that there is a walnut tree near option 1 that may create some complaints. “We would prefer not to chop down the tree, so the east side of the lot may be a better option.”

Ms. Matter points out that this location was not on the proposal, but it is clarified that general flexibility of the property is what the motion is for.

Mr. Clinch responded with “We are asking for use of the entire site.”

Ms. Burgess added “as long as you can keep the historical site unobstructed it should be fine.”

Ms. Armstrong wants to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness to say that the committee does not approve of a station anywhere where it would detract from the historic façade of the building.

The Commission stated they would approve the east side of the building or further back on the lot.

Ms. Ferraro asked for clarification on which options and locations would be okay.

Ms. Armstrong stated option 2 would not be desirable since it is closer to the front of the building.

The areas approved for an electric vehicle charging station are the northwest corner (option 1), the northeast corner of the parking lot (as long as a car charging there would not be in a photo of the historic building), the area behind the structure, and the southeast portion of the parking lot.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher, Ms. Matter Nays: None

The motion carried 6-0.

Other business:

Ms. Armstrong noted that she was pleased with the Historic Preservation postcard that went out to property owners in the districts.

Ms. Matter said that she thought the mailing that went out was very clever.

Mr. Schumacher said, “So we do have a mail list for everyone in the historical district” and Ms. Matter said yes.

She went on to say that she thought it was very clever and the photos were nice, but that Ms. Burgess did have one suggestion.

Ms. Burgess added “ and I think it depends on how effective all of this is and I will echo what Ms. Matter said, I thought it was worded very well, but I wonder if we still get some people that don’t recognize that they’re supposed to get a Certificate of Appropriateness where it says “before wielding a power drill or swinging of hammer get a stamp of approval, aka a Certificate of Appropriateness” it could be “get the required Certificate of Appropriateness” and that leaves no confusion, it’s not just an option, and you’re more apt to read the back.”

Ms. Ferraro said she thought that was a good suggestion and Ms. Burgess added that it will only be necessary to change if they continue to see the same issues.

Ms. Matter said the next time we send it out it wouldn’t be a bad idea to just do it.

Mr. Schumacher said that they are a group worthy of sending an annual communication to give them an update on changes that have gone on.

Ms. Ferraro said that they do send an annual New Years letter.

There was discussion of a historical house in Normal where the siding was pulled off and the correct Certificate of Appropriateness was not acquired, and Ms. Ferraro said that they did get a permit to update the kitchen interior, which led them to replace a picture window that they still need a Certificate for. It is a noncontributing structure, but they are going to send a Certificate of Appropriateness in.

Ms. Burgess wants to have a discussion when Mr. Vickers is present about putting a resource on the website for historical homeowners showing examples of acceptable updates. An example of a fence was given, and how it might be helpful to show what kinds of fences are appropriate for certain styles of architecture. She thinks this could help bypass future issues. She asked if there was an ISU student or an intern that could get this done.

Ms. Ferraro says that there is an intern that has this project on his list and hopefully it will be in the works soon. It might take a while to compile it all and make it intuitive on the website.

Adjournment:

Ms. Matter adjourned the meeting at 1:39 PM

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4831