McLean County Times

Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met April 9.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present:

Kathy Burgess, Chris Niebur, Robert Porter, Larry Schumacher

Members Absent:

Justin Vickers, Anne Matter, Nancy Armstrong

Others Present:

Associate Town Planner Tessa Ferraro, Office Associate Hannah Neal, Assistant Corporation Counsel Kevin Sheahan

Call to order:

The meeting was called to order at 12:34 PM by Ms. Burgess.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Schumacher moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting on March 12, 2024. Mr. Portor seconded.

Public Hearing:

a. CA-24-04-11: Paint preparation of house and fascia, 511 N School

Mr. Schumacher moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request; and Mr. Porter seconded.

Ms. Burgess asked the homeowner to summarize his project.

The homeowner, Robert Murphy, said that they were planning on making any necessary repairs to the wood and painting the window frames.

Ms. Burgess asked if anyone had any questions or comments.

Mr. Schumacher asked if they make individual panels for the scalloped siding.

The homeowner said they do, and that he believes the scalloped siding on the house are all single pieces.

Ms. Burgess asked if he would be using one of the existing panels as a template. The homeowner said yes.

With no further questions, Ms. Burgess called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher

Nayes: None

The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved.

b. BG-24-04-03: Paint preparation of house and fascia, 511 N School Mr. Porter made a motion to approve the Bone Grant; Mr. Niebur seconded.

Ms. Burgess asked if Ms. Ferraro had removed the cost of painting from the quote, as it would not be covered by the Bone Grant.

Ms. Ferraro said yes. There were two estimates that were submitted. For DJ’s Painting, she had highlighted the portions that would be included in the total. This included preparation for paint, wood replacement, and a lead-based paint test. For Bellis & Bolek Painting, the line items were separated for the painting and preparation, and she was instructed to take 15% off of the total because the quote also included the rear of the house. Since this area was smaller and less involved than the other portions of the house, Bellis & Bolek said it would only account for 15% of the total cost.

Ms. Burgess asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Niebur asked if the Commission had approved any similar projects in the past.

Ms. Ferraro said yes. Previously the Commission had approved a similar restoration in Cedar Crest about a year and a half ago. It included stucco restoration, as well as fascia, the scraping of the paint, and priming.

Ms. Burgess commented that it could be hard to determine what falls under restoration and routine maintenance. She added that moving forward with Bone Grants, she feels the Commission should work on being more specific about what type of material is being used. For example, modern wood doesn’t last as long as hardwood. If the Commission is going to be giving out grant money, it’s something that should be considered.

Mr. Murphy commented that for their project they would be using cedarwood.

At this time Ms. Burgess called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher

Nayes: None

The Bone Grant is approved.

c. CA-24-04-12: Window replacement, 309 W Virginia

Mr. Schumacher moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness; Mr. Nieber seconded.

The homeowner was not in attendance, so Ms. Ferraro reviewed the proposal on their behalf. The resident is requesting to replace seven exterior wood windows. The windows are located on both sides of the house. There are currently aluminum storm windows that would be removed. The existing windows are wood framed. They currently don’t have any muttons. The homeowner is requesting to replace the windows with either wood composite or wood windows clad in aluminum. The homeowner provided two estimates for the Commission to review.

Ms. Burgess brought up that which material they go with would depend on the next agenda item, which would request a Bone Grant for the 309 W Virginia window replacement.

Ms. Ferraro pointed out that historically both types of material has been approved. At this time Ms. Burgess called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher

Nayes: None

The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved.

d. BG-24-04-04: Window replacement, 309 W Virginia

Mr. Portor moved to approve the Bone Grant; Mr. Schumacher seconded.

Ms. Ferraro pointed out that the quote provided by Anderson did not include an aluminum clad option. Based on her discussions with the homeowners, they would prefer the aluminum clad option because they believe it would do a better job of protecting the exterior of the window. Ms. Ferraro asked the Commission to advise on if that was correct.

Mr. Nieber said that both materials were meant to withstand weather.

Mr. Schumacher added that aluminum would not fade, rust or shrink.

Ms. Burgess said that regardless of which material the homeowners go with, the Bone Grant sounds reasonable. At this time Ms. Burgess called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Burgess, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Schumacher

Nayes: None

The Bone Grant is approved.

Other Business:

Ms. Burgess asked if the Commission could clarify what was discussed at the previous meeting in regard to the demolition permit process.

She also said it would be worth discussing building materials versus design elements. Is it the most important to be a pure preservationist and use the exact same material, or is it more important for the material to be more durable but is able to reflect the original work? How would this affect Bone Grants?

As an example, she mentioned a porch that had come before the Commission previously. At the time it was specified that it needed to be a harder wood than what the homeowner had originally planned to qualify for the Bone Grant.

Mr. Niebur agreed and said that it applies to the issue the Commission has with vinyl window replacements. A vinyl window could look acceptable from a distance, but they do deteriorate faster, which isn’t a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Burgess reiterated that moving forward the Commission needs to put more consideration into materials, and look to Mr. Niebur and Mr. Schumacher

Mr. Schumacher asked what the national guidelines were for this issue.

Ms. Ferraro said that the National Park District has historic resources where they outline a few specific projects, such as windows, porches, and stucco. The Planning Department has been having an intern research what other municipalities have been doing. There are modern materials that look historic and are more durable. There was an early 2010 report written from another municipality that offers some guidance for modern materials.

Mr. Schumacher added that the ultimate goal should be to maintain originality when possible.

Ms. Ferraro asked if the Commission would be open to having a specialist come in and discuss modern material options. The Commission was overall agreeable to this. Mr. Niebur suggested

University of Illinois. In the past, they have had historic preservation specialist in their architecture department.

Ms. Burgess said when she was first on the Commission, there used to be conferences available but that they can be costly. Mr. Neiber said that there were likely resources online as well.

At this point the discussion moved on to the procedure for the demolition permits. At the previous meeting, it was agreed that both the Chair and Vice Chair would sign off on them. However, staff had since run into a situation where one of the chairs was not available. In this circumstance, what would be the best way to proceed?

Mr. Nieber said that he thinks that in that situation, perhaps simply emailing the demolition permit in question to another commission member would be sufficient. If there is any disagreement on how to move forward, then it would need to go in front of the entire Commission.

Ms. Ferraro asked if amending it to Chair, Vice Chair, or designee would work, and everyone seemed agreeable to this adjustment.

At this time, the meeting was adjourned.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 1:18 PM

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4953