McLean County Times

Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met May 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Historic Preservation Commission 1 May 14, 2024

Members Present:

Kathy Burgess, Chris Niebur, Robert Porter, Larry Schumacher, Anne Matter

Members Absent:

Nancy Armstrong, Justin Vickers

Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 12:25 PM by Ms. Matter.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Niebur moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting on April 9, 2024. Mr. Schumacher seconded.

Public Hearing:

a. Other Business, 823 Normal Ave, Garage Design Consultation

Liam Nance-Carol, the homeowner, is planning to demolish the existing garage, which is in poor condition, and build a new garage on a similar footprint. It is technically a two-car garage, but the current doors don’t allow a modern vehicle to fit through. The new space would be used as a workshop. He would plan on having Coach House Garages complete the work. He would like to use a fiber-cement product that has a similar reveal as the existing garage. The doors would be done to resemble a wood-toned panel style. He would like to keep it consistent with the neighborhood but make it more functional.

Ms. Ferraro added that currently it has wood siding, an asphalt roof, and a few single paned windows with no muttons.

The homeowner said the rear of the garage has settled badly over the years, which is typical wear and tear for a wood framed garage with no interior support.

Mr. Schumacher asked if there was an offset in the back and the homeowner said yes.

Ms. Matter asked to see a picture of the house on the property.

The house is a ranch style built in 1942-43 and has wood exterior siding.

Mr. Schumacher asked if he would add a soffit to the garage, as the house on the property currently has no soffit.

The homeowner said he would add a soffit to improve the drainage and allow the gutters more space to keep the water away from the sidewalls.

Ms. Matter asked for him to confirm his plans for the siding.

The homeowner confirmed that he would use fiber cement lapboard, so it has a similar look to the existing structure. He added that his goal would be to use that material on the exterior of the house when the time comes.

Ms. Burgess asked if he would be keeping the same style of windows and doors on the new structure.

The homeowner said that his plan would be to place the windows a bit higher up on the wall and have them be a bit wider than they are tall, giving it somewhat of a mid-century modern look. He would also add a side door roughly to the same spot.

Ms. Burgess asked if he could go into more detail on how he would update the garage doors.

He said he would be using a sectional door from CHI that has a panel look similar to the existing doors with two windows each. They would not be identical, but they would be in keeping with the neighborhood.

Ms. Ferraro asked if the garage door he’s proposing would be made of steel, and if it would be two doors with the dividing column.

The homeowner confirmed that they would be steel with insulation in the center to offer the interior of the garage some climate control. He also confirmed that it would be two doors with the dividing column.

Ms. Ferraro asked if that meant he would have to widen the new structure and he said yes. It would be slightly wider, and slightly shallower. He is hoping to keep the new structure around 720 square feet. It might be closer to 736 square feet depending on even dimensions for construction.

Ms. Ferraro confirmed that a detached accessory structure can be up to 720 feet.

He acknowledged that the new structure would need several zoning variances as it wouldn’t meet the set back requirements.

Mr. Niebur asked if the roof would be keeping the same pitch of the roof and the current overhang.

The homeowner said that he would be changing the pitch of the roof slightly because the standard garage trusses are attic truss styles. It would be closer to the pitch of the house. He added that he was not planning on keeping the overhang over the doors, due to standard construction procedures and minimizing cost.

Mr. Niebur asked what the height of the garage walls would be. The ones on the current structure look too short.

The homeowner said that currently it is about 7 feet tall. He would be consulting with Coach House on their standard for workshop space. Ideally, he would like the new structure to be roughly 10-12 feet of clearance.

Mr. Schumacher asked him to clarify if a taller structure would mean making the doors taller as well and he said yes. He would like to keep everything in proportion and modernize as much as he can while keeping the structure as historical as possible.

Ms. Burgess asked Mr., Niebur and Mr. Schumacher, if in their opinion, the garage ended up being 3 feet taller, would that look appropriate for the age of the house? Or would it make the garage look too modern compared to the house?

Mr. Schumacher said he believes they would end up looking different.

Mr. Niebur said that if it doesn’t end up being taller than the house, it should be ok.

The homeowner did hire Farnsworth to do a survey of the property a few years ago, and they found that the street is higher than the floor of the garage. This causes any water to run under the garage and causes damage to the walls. The way to remedy this would be to raise the floor of the garage slightly above the grade of the driveway, as well as utilize concrete footings.

Mr. Schumacher said that it’s hard to determine without seeing a design, but thinks that adding the overhang element would help maintain the style

The homeowner said that he could look into that option with his contractor. Ms. Burgess said that if he mimics the height of the house then it should be ok.

Mr. Niebur estimates that the height from the porch to the top of the house is roughly 8 to 8 ½ feet.

Ms. Burgess also wanted the Commission’s opinion on the wider, mid-century style windows.

Mr. Nieber said that the updated garage should not lean too far into the mid-century style since the house on the property isn’t mid-century.

Ms. Burgess added that if the windows end up needing redesigned, that would be a minor issue and wouldn’t have anything to do with the homeowner’s variances. She also asked if it would have matching shingles to the roof of his house.

The homeowner said that the exact color of the shingles of his house aren’t available. The shingles on the home are a very basic 3-tab shingle. For the new garage he would use a more architectural shingle. He hasn’t decided on color yet.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the windows would be operable.

The homeowner said he was not planning on making them operable, although he believes they were operable at one time on the original structure.

Ms. Matter asked how long he’d owned the property.

The homeowner said he purchased the house in 2012.

Mr. Niebur asked what siding would be used and the homeowner said he would like to use lap board siding, which would be a cement product with a wood grain.

Ms. Matter asked if there were any other questions.

The homeowner said no, and that he feels like all of his questions had been answered. Once he has his designs solidified, he will start the formal process.

b. Other Business, Selection of 2024 Heritage Preservation Award Recipients

Ms. Ferraro explained that the Heritage Preservation Awards is something the Town of Normal has done in the past with the Old House Society and the City of Bloomington. It hasn’t been done since 2019, and we would like to reinstate it. The ceremony is meant to honor different residents throughout the area that have put in a lot of working restoring and rehabbing their structures. In order to qualify, the property must be at least 50 years old and be in the Town of Normal. It also should be recent restoration. The ceremony will be held at the Normal Theater on May 29th at 5:30. Up to 3 awards will be presented.

The first nomination was 123-125 E Beaufort. The date of construction on the application was 1883 but the assessor’s website said 1920. The Commission had a few suggestions as to why there was a difference in the dates. It is possible that the property was remodeled in 1920, or that the PIN was changed at some point in time. It was agreed that it appeared to look more like an 1883 structure. It was also speculated that part of the property was built in 1883 and the other was built in 1920 since it is a double structure.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the brick was behind the wall or if it had been redone to look like it was from the original era.

Ms. Ferraro said that it does appear to be behind it. The property was restored in 2010.

Mr. Schumacher wanted to clarify, since the work was done in 2010 and this award was last given out in 2019, that properties weren’t given awards twice.

Ms. Ferraro said no, they wouldn’t have given out the award twice.

Ms. Matter commented that this property should definitely receive an award. The renovation was done very well.

Ms. Matter asked who the owner was

Ms. Ferraro said the Fiala brothers.

Ms. Matter noticed that another nomination was given for a different property in Uptown Normal but felt that only one Uptown Normal award should be given.

The other property in Uptown Normal was for a back deck restoration at 205-207 W North. The back deck was originally built over 100 years ago. The owner rehabbed the brick columns and did all wood restoration for the railing. He is letting the wood age before he paints it, which should be completed by the fall.

Ms. Matter said that she would like to see this property renominated next year, once the work has been completed.

The third property nominated was 711 N School. It is a noncontributing property in the old North Normal Historic District. The current owners purchased it last year, and since then they have updated the landscaping, painted the building and put on a new deck.

Ms. Ferraro pulled up an image of what the home previously looked like, and it was acknowledged that it’s been greatly improved.

Mr. Schumacher said that the update was great, but questioned if it was historic.

Mr. Niebur asked if the siding was original.

Looking closer at the siding, it seemed to be original and that it had been painted.

Ms. Matter noted that this property may be more appropriate for the Town of Normal Beautification award.

The Commission asked to see the next property before making a decision on 711 N School. The last property that was nominated was 1304 Broadway. It was built in 1923 and is in the Cedar Crest Historic District. They have restored the side parapet walls, the gate, the front brick columns and in the past year they restored the retaining wall and the porch.

Ms. Matter said that this property definitely would qualify for the award and the Commission agreed.

Looking back at the property at 711 N School Street, it was confirmed that it would be more appropriate for the Beautification Award.

Mr. Schumacher agreed and pointed out that the renovated front porch was not historic.

Ms. Ferraro added that if this were a contributing property, the Historic Preservation Commission would not have approved the railing.

Mr. Schumacher asked if the people who didn’t receive the award would be notified, and Ms. Ferraro said no that she would only notify the properties receiving the award.

Ms. Matter called for a motion.

Ms. Burgess moved to select 1304 Broadway and 123-125 E Beaufort to receive the Heritage Preservation Award. Mr. Porter seconded.

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

The motion passed.

c. Other Business: Discussion of regulating noncontributing properties in Sec.15.16- Historic Preservation Code

Ms. Ferraro stated that this discussion falls into the Town’s zoning code update that has been brought up in the past. Regulating noncontributing properties in the code is currently a grey area.

The only mention of them currently is that they are eligible for an expedited review. It does not specify whether they would need to follow the same standards. Ms. Ferraro would like to look closer at other communities' regulations for noncontributing properties. From what she can tell,

there seem to be a variety of policies. For example, if a non-contributing property wanted to put up a vinyl fence, would we permit them to do so, or should there be something separate in our code preventing any property in a historic district from putting up a vinyl fence?

Ms. Burgess asked if properties every qualify for being reclassified as contributing as they age.

Ms. Matter said that she doesn’t think we can go back and make changes to something that was written in when we made the district, but she did think that Ms. Burgess brought up a good point.

Ms. Ferraro said that the only way this could be done is if a resident wants to go through the process and rewrite the ordinance.

Ms. Ferraro said that some communities state that noncontributing properties can restore modern features to historic features that they could qualify for grant funding, which may be a good addition to our community.

Ms. Burgess asked for clarification on historic features to non historic features.

Ms. Ferraro gave the example of if a noncontributing property with wood windows wanted to replace them with a modern material, would that be allowed?

Ms. Matter said that if we were able to prevent them from making an update like that, then they should qualify for grant funding.

Mr. Schumacher said that he thinks there should be some process to allow noncontributing properties to become contributing. Some of the properties in question missed the age qualification by a year or two and allowing them to contribute would help us preserve historical features. He also asked if new construction would have to follow the design guidelines.

Ms. Ferraro referenced the design guidelines in the code. It currently states that “design guidelines for applying the criteria for review for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall at minimum consider the following for existing structures and new construction.” Meaning that moving forward they would need to be in compliance with the design guidelines.

Ms. Ferraro said that the discussion had given her an idea of what to work off of moving forward.

d. Other Business: 502 Normal, Garage Consultation

A resident had reached out to Ms. Ferraro asking about what options would be available for their garage because it is in disrepair. The options available would be to demolish it completely or demolish partially. Currently, the right side of the garage is very close to, if not over, the property line. There is evidence that the right side of the garage is older and that the left side was added on later. The roof is currently asphalt and the structure also includes a couple nonfunctional windows. On the inside, the construction on the siding on the right seems to be an older style, where the left side is more modern and framed. If he tears down the right side and restores it, would he have to maintain the wood siding? And what kind of garage door should he have?

Ms. Matter said that it does look like it used to be a shared garage.

Ms. Ferraro commented that the neighboring property had gotten their property surveyed and found that the garage was partially on their property. If they were to demolish the garage, it would not be allowed to be rebuilt in the same area.

Ms. Burgess asked if the slab were to stay the homeowner would be allowed to rebuild it where it previously was.

Ms. Ferraro said that they would need to get a variance to rebuild, and that they could not do so on the neighboring property.

In regards to style, Mr. Niebur said that the expectation would be to rebuild the garage with a similar aesthetic.

Ms. Ferraro said the homeowner is open to options, and may even accept rebuilding a single car garage.

Ms. Matter said that she thinks demolishing the garage and then trying to restore it would be an expensive project.

Mr. Porter said that unless the homeowner and the neighboring property come to some sort of agreement, he doesn’t see how a new structure could be rebuilt on the same footprint.

Mr. Niebur said that the best option would be to rebuild a smaller garage in a similar style. Ms. Matter and Ms. Burgess agreed, saying it would need to have a similar profile.

Ms. Burgess asked if he were to keep the concrete slab if he would still need to get a variance and could keep it where it was

Ms. Ferraro said that for older properties, it is common for the homeowners to have the structures within the side yard set back, meaning they do typically have to get a zoning variance.

Historic Preservation Commission 9 May 14, 2024

On this property they do have room to move the garage over, so she thinks it wouldn’t necessarily need to get a variance.

Ms. Ferraro said that she felt that she had gotten the input she needed from the Commission on this matter.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4983