McLean County Times

Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met March 12.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present:

Kathy Burgess, Nancy Armstrong, Chris Niebur, Larry Schumacher, Anne Matter

Members Absent:

Robert Porter, Justin Vickers

Others Present:

Associate Town Planner Tessa Ferraro, Office Associate Hannah Neal, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jason Querciagrossa

Call to order:

The meeting was called to order at 12:30 by Ms. Matter.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Schumacher moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting on February 21st, 2024. Ms. Armstrong seconded.

Public Hearing:

a. CA-24-03-08: Window Replacement, 603 Normal Ave

Ms. Armstrong moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request; Mr. Niebur seconded.

Ms. Matter asked if anyone wanted to say anything about the project.

The contractor, Justin Bratcher, opened with saying that this is a continuation of a project that he’s been working on for many years. They have been working on replacing all of the windows of the house and are asking to complete the last of the upstairs windows. The new windows are very similar in style to the existing ones. The only difference would be that the new windows would have a three-over-one muntin pattern, instead of the current four-over-one pattern. He also mentioned that all of the aluminum storm windows would be removed.

The homeowner mentioned that they are having issues with the old aluminum storm windows leaking and doesn’t feel they are worth keeping.

Ms. Armstrong asked if they were planning on changing the surrounding frames.

Mr. Bratcher said that there is one small piece of trim on the outside that is being replaced but other than that it will look exactly the same.

Ms. Matter pointed out that the applicant turned in 3 bids, but Marvin windows is the only one that proposed approved historic materials.

With no further questions Ms. Matter called for a vote.

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

The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved.

b. BG-24-03-02: Window Replacement, 603 Normal Ave

Ms. Burgess made a motion to approve the Bone Grant, and Mr. Schumacher seconded.

Ms. Matter asked if anyone had any concerns or reasons why the Bone Grant wouldn’t be approved.

There was no response from anyone on the commission, but the contractor did ask Ms. Matter to clarify that they had everything needed on their end.

Ms. Matter said yes that they had the three bids, and asked Ms. Ferraro to clarify the amount that was approved for the Bone Grant.

Ms. Ferraro started off by saying that she did not count the back window in the Bone Grant funding, as it can’t be seen from the right of way. She based the grant off of the Marvin quote, which proposes wood windows clad and the aluminum, with a total of $13,002.00. Up to $6,000 of that is eligible for grant funding.

Ms. Burgess asked if that included the cost of painting.

Ms. Ferraro said that was removed from the cost as well. She just included the cost of labor and installation.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

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

The Bone Grant is approved.

c. CA-24-03-09: Façade restoration and rear garage door, 305 E Pine

Mr. Niebur moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, and Mr. Schumacher seconded.

Ms. Ferraro reviewed the report. 305 E Pine is a local landmark designated in 2011. The property was built around 1930-1931. Historically it was a super service station along Route 66. It has been approved to have two non-historic additions be demolished without a certificate of appropriateness. In 2022 the Historic Preservation Commission approved the restoration of the facades when the demo occurred, and it was recently reapproved a couple months ago through an expatiated process because the 2022 approval had expired.

The Town’s facilities department was getting ready for the demo and discovered the opening at the rear of the building appeared to have a garage door previously. It is directly across from the front garage door. The Town of Normal wanted to bring this to the Historic Preservation Commission and see what their opinion was, as the goal is to restore it to be the most historically accurate. Right now, the current project scopeentails filling in the opening with brick. If it’s determined that a garage was previously there, the project could be adjusted.

There are certain features of the architecture that suggest there previously being a garage door. At the top of the opening there is a soldier course of brick that seems to be framing an opening, which matches the garage door opening in the front of the building.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the bricks matched, and Ms. Ferrero said that she believes it’s the same, but no testing has been done to her knowledge.

She went on to point out that around the framing the sides have finished brick, which also suggests an opening for a door. The Town also spoke with Ms. Ryburn, who currently owns the building, and she said that when she first purchased the building, the owner's son suggested that there may have been a garage door in the back as well because his dad would drive vehicles through the building to the back of the lot. Finally, there is a steel lintel running across the top indicating that support was needed, and they believe the original is likely behind the brick.

Mr. Nieber said that he suspects that it was originally 2 garage doors because of the horizontal brick. He thinks they may have put the steel in because they added the roof on the back. He went on to say that you usually don’t see that sort of brick layout on one door.

Ms. Burgess countered with saying she believes that style was typical in the 30’s.

Ms. Matter agreed, and said she thought the same thing, but the front door has the same pattern and only has one door.

Ms. Ferraro said that she had noticed this as well, and referenced a suggestion from the previous Associate Planner, which included an option for 2 garage doors on the front because of the change in the brick, or an acordian style garage door. At the time the Commission voted to approve any of the three options depending on the staff’s recommendation. She added that based off of a photo from 1951, it does appear that the front of the building had the samegarage door that is there today.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the inside construction of the current door was the same as the photograph shown.

Mr. Clinch said there was a size difference, and that the current door was wider.

Ms. Ferraro said that if we were to add in a garage door to the back, it would match the current door on the front. She also said that after some plumbing had been removed, it would also be functional.

Mr. Niebur asked what had happened with the previous garage door replacement project, and Mr. Clinch said that it had been tied in with the current demolition project.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the floor in the garage had been replaced and Mr. Clinch said that it had been poured over.

Ms. Matter said that it overall makes sense to try to restore it as one garage door in the rear of the building.

Mr. Clinch said that the goal for this project is to be completed by 2026 and wanted to verify that the Certificate of Appropriateness was good for 2 years.

Ms. Ferraro said that typically a Certificate of Appropriateness is good for 1 year, but it could be amended in this circumstance for 2 years.

Ms. Burgess said that it would make sense to make this exception given the project’s time frame. Ms. Matter asked if the motion was clear or if we needed to amend it to be more specific. Ms. Ferraro said that it would just need the amendment to extend the approval for two years.

Mr. Neiber moved to amend the approval for the facade restoration for the garage door for a period of 2 years.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

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

The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved.

d. Other Business:

a. Discussion of Zoning Code Text of Sec. 15.16-3 (A), Interim Control on demolition permits

Ms. Ferraro said that staff has been going through the zoning code and trying to clean up any inconsistencies. One that came up was in the HPC code about interim control on demo permits. Currently, if a demo permit is submitted, regardless of the age of the building, Ms. Matter will review it to make sure it doesn’t have any historical significance before moving on to the building inspectors. Ms. Ferraro said that there were two points on this that she wanted to bring to the Commision. First, as of now there is not an age age limit on the building that would require the HPC’s review, and asked if there should be. It was suggested that perhaps if a building is over 50 years old, then it should be reviewed, instead of Ms. Matter reviewing every building that comes up for demolition.

Ms. Matter said that seemed appropriate.

Ms. Burgess asked if that would adjust as time went on and Ms. Ferraro said yes.

Ms. Ferraro then brought up that the code states that demolition permits either need reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committe or an executive committee. She asked if the commission would like to maintain the current policy or if they think there should be a different process, perhaps where the chair and the vice chair review the permits.

Ms. Matter wanted to add that previously, if there was a demolition permit that she wasn’t sure about, she would bring it before the whole group. She feels it may be an unnecessary step but is comfortable adding a second person if the rest of the commission agreed.

Ms. Burgess asked if this process would need to be done in person, and Ms. Matter said no, that they often do it through email.

Ms. Burgess said that from a procedural standpoint, it might be a good safeguard.

Mr. Schumacher added that assuming the chair won’t always be Ms. Matter, it might be a good procedure to put into place.

Overall, it was agreed that having a second signature would be good practice.

Ms. Matter announced that she will be stepping down from her position due to relocation. While she does not have an official resignation date yet, she wanted to put it on the Commission’s radar.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:03 PM.

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4936