Historic Preservation Commission

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Room 301 Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. A. Call to Order B. Approval of Minutes 1) Approval of the Minutes from the February 20, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting. C. Public Comment D. Old Business 1) HPC Annual Awards Nominations Update. E. New Business 1) Review of March 17, 2025, Village Board Workshop Presentation on Historic Preservation Incentive Program. F. Chairman's Report G. Trustee's Report H. GEHS Director's Report I. Staff Report J. Adjourn Village of Glen Ellyn Page 1 of 31 Village of Glen Ellyn Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Historic Preservation Regular Meeting Commission February 20, 2025 7:00PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room Board or Historic Preservation Date: February 20, 2025 Commission: Meeting: Regular Called to 7:03 p.m. Order: Quorum: Yes Adjourned: 8:42 p.m. MEMBER ATTENDANCE: Penn French Chairman Present Nathan Darga Commissioner Absent Donna Leak Commissioner Absent Barb Lemme Commissioner Present Robert Margetts Commissioner Absent Jeremy Schletz Commissioner Present Zak Wilson Commissioner Present Also Present: Jordan Frahm Associate Planner Kirk Burger GE Historical Society Kelley Kalinich Village Trustee Elisa Pollina Recording Secretary Public Present: A. CALL TO ORDER The February 20, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman French at 7:03 PM at the Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room. B. PUBLIC COMMENT – None C. ANNOUNCEMENTS – None D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM January 16, 2025 HPC MEETING MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF HPC MEETING OF 1/16/2025 RESULT: Motion Unanimously Carried MOVER: Commissioner Lemme SECONDER: Commissioner Schletz AYES: 4 Page 2 of 31  Historic Preservation 2 February 20, 2025 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of Community Input from Historic Preservation Incentive Program Roundtable Discussions - Chairman French provided an update on the recent community feedback sessions, held over the past several nights. He distributed four handouts to the HPC (see attached), including:  Discussion Group Outline  Community Input Roundtable Invitation  Standard R2 Bulk Zoning Regulations VOGE  Initial Findings & Key Issues A total of 70 invitations were sent out to a diverse group of architects, builders, homeowners, real estate agents, appraisers, and interior designers. Eighteen participants attended across three group sessions, including six architects, five builders, three real estate agents, two homeowners, one appraiser, and one interior designer. Many of the participants had longstanding leadership roles in Historic Preservation Commissions or broader preservation efforts, and their input was invaluable. Each participant received the R2 Bulk Zoning Regulations, and many were already familiar with the current zoning code. There was strong enthusiasm and excitement for the proposed incentive program, particularly around the flexibility provided by the Bulk Zoning regulations. Chairman French noted that the tax incentive had been removed from the program — a decision many participants understood — and there was broad appreciation for the permit fee waivers and the bulk zoning allowances. Staff Liaison Frahm also explained the village’s plan to implement new software to streamline the permitting process. While there wasn’t much discussion about the grant component of the program, it was acknowledged and appreciated. One of the most significant takeaways from the focus groups was the importance of clearly outlining program eligibility. Participants suggested creating a dedicated section on the village website with a detailed list of eligibility questions and a clear tutorial to guide applicants through the process. This would help ensure accessibility and ease of use for both participants and village staff. While the question of eligibility was a key point of discussion in the focus groups, Trustee Kalinich emphasized the importance of staying aligned with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan regarding historic preservation. The primary focus of this program is to preserve existing historic properties, and that mission should remain clear. Although an updated survey is needed, the village has a solid starting point for identifying historic structures. Trustee Kalinich also noted that if a homeowner believes their property has historic significance, the village would certainly consider it — but the overall intent of this program must prioritize the preservation of recognized historic properties. Page 3 of 31  Historic Preservation 3 February 20, 2025 Commissioner Lemme noted that everyone in attendance was enthusiastic and engaged, with many participants having either grown up in or currently living in century-old homes. Many attendees came prepared with thoughtful priorities and ideas. Lemme emphasized the need for clear and consistent rules, along with a streamlined process to support historic preservation efforts. A visual aid, like a flow chart, would be especially helpful in communicating this process. There were also several questions about the criteria used to designate certain homes as historic or significant. Chairman French mentioned he would follow up with Laura Ramsey for further insight. Additionally, Lemme suggested that having a dedicated point person at the village for residents to contact would greatly improve accessibility and support. Chairman French shared that some builders raised concerns about who would qualify for matching grants and whether those doing lower-quality, quick renovations would be eligible. The group discussed a first-come, first-served approach for grant distribution. There was also conversation about implementing an expedited process, aiming for a five-day permit turnaround. French acknowledged that while there are still details to finalize, it’s important to move forward without letting the pursuit of perfection delay progress. Trustee Kalinich suggested framing this initiative as a pilot program, which the HPC supported. Commissioner Lemme agreed, noting that labeling it as a pilot clearly signals that this is just the beginning and the program will evolve over time. Chairman French noted that many participants had questions about which projects would qualify, such as whether painting or roofing would be eligible. Trustee Kalinich clarified that only projects requiring permits would qualify; painting alone would not. She also mentioned that at the upcoming Village Board meeting on Monday, the board will be approving a more streamlined structure for permitting fees, categorized for clarity. French added that, whenever possible, it would be ideal to refer participants to published lists. Chairman French outlined the next steps, aiming to launch the program in the last six months of the year. He mentioned that a presentation will be prepared for the Village Board, and once the date is set, he encouraged all HPC members to attend. Chairman French expressed his gratitude to Trustee Kalinich for her support and guidance throughout the development of the incentive program. Trustee Kalinich responded by sharing her pride in the group for their dedication. French also extended his thanks to Staff Liaison Frahm for his collaboration and the valuable assistance he has provided to the HPC. F. OLD BUSINESS – Annual Preservation Awards Nominations – Staff Liaison Frahm reported that approximately four nominations have been submitted so far, following a similar trajectory to last year. An increase in submissions is expected over the next few weeks, with the deadline set for March 31. Page 4 of 31  Historic Preservation 4 February 20, 2025 G. HISTORICAL SOCIETY BUSINESS – Kirk Burger, representing the Board of Directors of the Historical Society, shared details on several upcoming events: •February 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM – What Exactly is the McKee House Project? •March 8, 2025 at 2:00 PM– World War II Women Spies: Nancy Wake and Marie- Madeleine Fourcade •March 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM – Bertha Honore’ Palmer: A Life in Three Acts He also announced the launch of the Historical Society’s new website, which features a map of plaqued homes. H. CHAIRMAN REPORT – No report I. VILLAGE BOARD TRUSTEE REPORT – Trustee Kalinich provided several updates, starting with the Full Circle project. The building design was presented to the Architectural Appearance Commission (AAC), where some adjustments were requested following public feedback that the Tudor-style design seemed out of place. Despite the comments, the AAC approved the design, which then moved on to the Plan Commission and also received their approval. This project is now scheduled for the Village Board meeting on Monday night for final approval. Any future deviations from the approved plan would require going through the entire approval process again. Additionally, Trustee Kalinich reported that a formal agreement has been reached between the Village and the Park District regarding the downtown park, with the Village committing to fund 50% of Phase 1. This agreement has already been presented to the Plan Commission, and once the Village Board gives its approval, the project can move forward. Finally, the train station design was approved by the AAC and will now proceed to the Plan Commission for further consideration and approval. J. STAFF REPORT – Frahm announced that the approval has been granted for the addition of four new outdoor pickleball courts at Ackerman. K. ADJOURNMENT & NEXT MEETING DATE – Commissioner Lemme motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Schletz seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. The next HPC meeting is March 20, 2025. Submitted by Elisa Pollina, Recording Secretary Reviewed by Jordan Frahm, Staff Liaison Page 5 of 31  Glen Ellyn Historic Meeting 3/20/2025 7:00 PM Preservation Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Discussion Item Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-237 # 2025-237) HPC Annual Awards Nominations Update. Statement of the Issue: Nominations for 2025 HPC Annual Awards projects are open until March 31st 2025. Analysis: Awards are given across four categories: Renovation of the Year, Remodel of the Year, Streetscape Compatibility and Architectural Details; in addition to other homes being granted honorable mentions in relevant categories. Staff will provide an update on nomination entries and outreach to local homeowners, contractors, etc. that may have completed an applicable project in 2024 and have an interest in nomination submission. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review Awards process and discuss 2025 Awards targets. Attachments: Page 6 of 31  Glen Ellyn Historic Meeting 3/20/2025 7:00 PM Preservation Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Report Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2025- DOC ID: 2025-238 238) Review of March 17, 2025, Village Board Workshop Presentation on Historic Preservation Incentive Program. Statement of the Issue: The HPC has had ongoing discussions about a zoning code amendment to create a suite of economic and bulk zoning incentives for owners of properties deemed historically or architecturally significant. After previous Commission meetings, and two public input focus groups in February 2025, Chairperson French and Staff Liaison Frahm presented the program to the Village Board at their Monday, March 17, 2025 Village Board Workshop. Analysis: In September 2024, the HPC formally adopted an action plan developed by Chairperson French. To date, the HPC has met several times to discuss the intricacies of the different program elements (bulk zoning allowances, permit waivers, expedited review, and matching grant program). In addition to HPC discussions during public meetings, Chairperson Penn French moderated focus group sessions with builders, homeowners, architects and real estate professionals and the concepts of the program as discussed were met positively. Using that feedback, the HPC has begun to formulate parameters of the incentive program, and have continued discussions about implementation. The March 17 Village Board meeting will be the first instance of the proposal being presented to a separate Village entity, and the Village Board is to provide guidance and initial comments. This input will be crucial as the Village Board will ultimately approve or not approve the adoption of historic preservation incentives. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Discuss next steps for pursuing program creation, review previous discussions, synthesize public input and feedback from the Village Board. Attachments: Page 7 of 31 1. Staff Memo for Village Board Workshop March 17, 2025 2. Focus Groups Key Findings 3. Glen Ellyn HPC Demo Report Page 8 of 31  Glen Ellyn Village Meeting 3/17/2025 7:00 PM Board Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Presentation Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-222 # 2025-222) Historic Preservation Incentive Program Proposal (Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Penn French) Statement of the Issue: In 2024, the Glen Ellyn Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) began in-depth discussions at public meetings regarding the creation of a new Village program to allow for economic and zoning incentives for qualified homes. The mission of the proposed program is to deter the demolition of residential homes deemed to exhibit architecture that is an asset to the history of Glen Ellyn and essential to the Village’s character. Not only does historic preservation support architecturally diverse streetscapes with a charming aesthetic, but renovation also allows for revitalization of our housing stock. By maintaining and modernizing various types of homes, the Village of Glen Ellyn can promote community vitality by redeveloping older homes with modern amenities. Analysis: Background The Village of Glen Ellyn was first settled in the 1830s, and 150 years of residential history is represented in different generations of architectural styles. Although the Main Street Historic District may showcase some of the most prominent Queen Anne Victorian and Italianate-style homes in the Village, Glen Ellyn offers tremendous examples of Dutch Colonials, Cape Cods, Craftsman bungalows, Tudors, and mid-century modern ranches throughout the community. One crucial resource in establishing whether a property has historical architectural value is to consult the series of Architectural Resource Surveys commissioned by the Village between 2007 and 2018. Consulting firms Ramsey (2018) and Granacki (2007, 2009-10, 2014) canvassed the Village extensively, building on previous research conducted by architecture students at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. After analyzing hundreds of homes throughout the Village, these experts concluded that 526 total structures had a status of Significant or Partially Significant – which would represent roughly seven-percent of Glen Ellyn’s 7,128 single-family detached homes. Staff analysis of demolition permits shows that 30 surveyed homes with architectural significance were demolished between 2008 and 2024. Out of 317 homes rated Significant, 19 homes (6 percent) have been demolished. Among 209 homes rated as Partially Significant, 8 homes (4 percent) have been demolished. Of the 29 homes rated as Contributing, 3 homes (10 percent) have been razed. Simply identifying architectural achievement and quality does not save homes, as evidenced by Significant rated homes being torn down at a 50 percent higher rate than partially significant homes. Page 9 of 31 Proposed Incentive Program A historic preservation incentive program would be designed to encourage residents and builders to renovate and restore homes that represent the finest examples of the Village’s residential architecture. Without incentivization, the homes that provide such rich character to our neighborhoods are vulnerable to market factors that result in new constructions with modern amenities. The proposed Historic Preservation Incentive Program (HiPI Program) as proposed consists of four categories: bulk zoning allowances, waived permit fees, expedited review, and cost-share grant funding up to $10,000. The HPC has engaged builders, architects, real estate brokers, and homeowners and conducted focus groups with these professionals and residents on February 18 and 19. The HPC also reached out to municipalities like the Village of Hinsdale and the City of Elgin that have incentives and grant programs that have served as a guide in developing this program proposal. In just three years, Hinsdale has vetted over 80 residences for the program and has had 17 projects completed to date. Elgin provides cost-sharing grants through the Historic Architectural Rehabilitation Grants program for up to $20,000. The achievements of these communities have inspired the HPC to pursue a program of our own. The elements of the proposed HiPI Program is detailed below, in addition to what homes would be considered eligible for this program. Bulk Zoning Allowances Glen Ellyn’s Zoning Code allows the Village to ensure that there is conformity on our streets; that light and air are unrestricted between homes; and that our single-family residential districts maintain density; however, this Code has changed many times since zoning was first adopted by the Village a century ago. Many architecturally significant homes are found on 50-foot-wide lots, the previous standard. Lot width requirements for new developments in the R2 district are now 66 feet in width. Similarly, for decades Glen Ellyn had a uniform lot coverage requirement of 25 percent. In response to homebuilding trends, the Village made a 20 percent reduction in the allowed lot coverage for multi-story homes in 2002. Shifting the allowable lot coverage from 25 percent for all homes to 20 percent for multi-story homes has created existing nonconformities and an uptick in variation requests for lot coverage variations that previously would have been comfortably allowable. Although the Zoning Code change in lot coverage ratio was softened by bonuses for detached garages and front porches, the impact on historic homes is evident as they are often already on smaller lots compared to new developments. By constricting the extent of possible home expansions, homes that have astounding architectural features but lack modern amenities may be at greater risk for demolition and new construction. Thus, in conversation with building professionals and internal staff review, a process for allowing a return to 25 percent lot coverage for a select group of exemplary homes may be considered. Just as lot width and lot coverage requirements have shifted through the years, setback requirements have also changed. Although the standard of 10 percent lot width for side-yard setbacks has long been maintained, the Zoning Board of Appeals frequently sees homes with existing nonconforming setbacks of the principal structure. This is in part a knock-on effect of changing Village requirements from 50-foot-wide lots to 66-foot-wide lots in the most common residential district. Like the lot coverage ratio, allowances for setbacks may also be considered for architecturally significant homes to serve as an incentive for restoration and renovation. Page 10 of 31 Permit Waivers The Village generates revenue from permits for additions and alterations; however, the Historic Preservation Commission is proposing an incentive to reduce the cost of permit fees. Additions average approximately $5,400 in permit fees, whereas alterations average approximately $2,363 in permit fees. By allowing economic incentives for the homes eligible for the HiPI program, the Village may further deter the demolition of exceptional historical residential architecture. Village staff has discussed the impact on Village finances and acknowledges the costs incurred by the Village with regard to permit processing. For this reason, this incentive may be most feasible if limiting the percentage of fees being waived to 50 percent of the permit fee amount and by capping the total amount of the fee waiver. Historic Preservation Matching Grant The HPC intends to use the $50,000 budgeted in 2025 for the creation of a cost-share program for historic restoration. The HPC proposes a 1:1 matching grant where recipients may receive up to $10,000 towards a project that costs a minimum of $20,000. Historic preservation matching grant- eligible projects would require a qualified home to utilize the grant for the purposes of exterior improvements that feature a combination of restored architectural details, sympathetic architectural style, heritage materials, or illustrate other critical elements in the preservation of the home. Grant funds would not be considered for projects deemed as deferred maintenance. In discussions at regular HPC meetings, the Commissioners have discussed the timeline of such a proposal. As described above, grant dollars could only be dispersed to a minimum of five recipients assuming all grant funds are exhausted annually. A rolling, first-come-first-serve, grant approval was initially discussed by the HPC. However, this format would raise questions about both the merit and fairness of such a grant program. One alternative would be to require anonymized project proposals judged by a set rubric where the highest-scoring projects are rewarded grant funds. The criteria would be clear, with preferences for homes that improve the streetscape (as opposed to projects not visible to the public) and return non-extant or encapsulated features of the home to prominence. The City of Elgin operates a grant program with this methodology, which also requires multiple bids from contractors. Staff input for architectural rating and how the proposed project could raise a particular home’s rating is provided during project review. Project submissions in Elgin are due March 28 of this year and, for 2025, the City has increased the total budget for the program to $150,000 with recipients eligible for up to $20,000 in grant funding. Expedited Review The HPC has discussed expedited review as a feature of the HiPI Program. If some bulk zoning allowances are handled at the staff level like how administrative zoning variances are applied, this could potentially shorten the timeline of a HiPI-qualified project by months. In addition to a project bypassing Zoning Board of Appeals approval, the HPC is proposing an expedited process for in- house zoning review and building permitting. Page 11 of 31 The Village will launch new permit tracking software in Spring 2025. Not only should this new software provide increased ease of use for both Village staff and residents of Glen Ellyn, but this technology would likely allow for prioritization of HiPI-qualified projects. As this software is not yet live for the Village, and this use case has yet to be explored with this specific permit tracking program, Village staff is unclear what an expedited review timeline could be at this time. Currently, the Village's plan review timelines are to have a first review completed within 10 to 15 business days of receipt. One confounding factor in this process would be any building permit reviews outsourced to external plan review consultants. Eligibility These incentives as described represent a considerable value, either providing physical advantages to the home that correlate to home value, or directly providing funding or a reduction in projects which would have distinct value to the property owner. Determining eligibility for such incentives requires establishing clear criteria and careful review to protect the goal of the Historic Preservation Incentive Program: to encourage the restoration and preservation of the Village’s finest historical architectural assets. To be considered as a landmark, a property must be at least 50 years old. For the proposed HiPI Program this too will serve as a baseline criterion. As previously noted in the Background section of this memo, the Village has already conducted a series of architectural resource surveys that may serve as a foundation for determining eligibility for the HiPI program. The surveys, conducted by Granacki and Ramsey consultancies respectively, use the most common parlance in determining architectural significance that is also used by the Department of the Interior: Significant, Potentially Significant, Contributing and Non-contributing structures. Significant structures are the most exemplary of a specific architectural style and have not been altered in a way to detract from the essential characteristics of the building. Potentially Significant structures evoke much of the same architectural importance, but changes to the exterior have lessened the historical architectural importance of the building, such as a Craftsman bungalow built in the 1920s that has maintained its original footprint and architectural features (perhaps a low-slung gable roof and a large front porch) but has notable material deviations like covering original cedar siding with aluminum siding. Potentially Significant homes are so noted because restoration efforts can easily elevate the rating of a structure the highest echelon of Significant. The remaining categories are Contributing. This could be a home built later than a relevant architectural period but with a complementary style, or a home that has maintained a level of preservation but has components less expressive of a particular architectural style worthy of the highest merit. Both would add value to the creation of a historic district. However, Significant and Potentially Significant homes would command more attention from preservation architects or architectural historians. The last category is Non-Contributing. Non- contributing homes may fit no discernible architectural category and are not unique enough in a vernacular style to be noteworthy. A Non-Contributing home could also be a structure less than 50 years old that has yet to establish architectural significance. A Non-Contributing home may also have been altered to such an extent that the structure could not be restored (e.g. original windows replaced with picture windows not appropriate for the relevant time period, or a series of additions that have severely altered the geometry of the home and appearance from the street). Per an analysis of the Village’s architectural resource surveys, 526 structures in the Village received either a Significant rating (317 structures) or Potentially Significant rating (209 structures). These represent the most outstanding examples of residential architecture in the Village. It must be noted, Page 12 of 31 however, that these surveys are dated – and just because a home has a particular rating does not mean that the current condition of the home is reflected in the survey. Although these Significant and Potentially Significant homes are precisely the types of homes this proposed program seeks to benefit, the Historic Preservation Commission would likely be required to vet or qualify these homes. It must also be noted that these resource surveys did not cover the Village in its entirety and that some aspects of determining the integrity of a building in relation to its architectural significance may be considered subjective. A review process for homes not rated Significant or Potentially Significant, or not covered by the resource surveys conducted between 2007 and 2018 must be developed. This review would make the proposed program as inclusive as possible while ensuring high standards by maintaining clear criteria to receive this valuable suite of incentives. Not all Village Landmark or Glen Ellyn Historical Society honored homes received ratings of Significant or Potentially Significant, and some homes were altered enough from their original appearance to be deemed “non-contributing” in resource surveys. This is not to say that they are not historical assets to the Village. Homes where important local figures lived or notable local events took place may also be considered for inclusion in the proposed HiPI program. This is aligned with DOI standards in determining historical value. Budget Impact: The potential budget impact includes up to $50,000 in programmatic costs (cost-share grant program) and opportunity cost of lost revenue from permit fees (permit fee waiver incentive). The potential for lost revenue could vary from year-to-year depending on the scope of eligible projects. Proper forecasting of such costs can be determined once parameters of a proposed permit fee waiver incentive are drafted. Additional nominal budget impacts could include an audit of existing architectural resource surveys or further consultant services for preservation architects or architectural historians to conduct additional surveys. These costs would not recur annually, nor are they a necessity for the creation and operation of such a program. Determining how to fund these programs in the future must be part of the discussion. Contribution to Strategic Plan There may be no straight-forward applicability to the 2020-2024 Strategic Plan. However, a historic preservation incentive program may indirectly benefit the strategic priority of development. As this priority specifically emphasizes the importance of an updated comprehensive plan, we can look to the 2023 Glen Ellyn Comprehensive Plan for guidance. Within the Residential Areas Framework (p. 13), the Village is implored to adopt a tear-down ordinance that "governs the demolition of existing homes and/or incentives for the preservation of existing properties". Furthermore, the 2023 plan encourages the HPC to continue its efforts to "ensure proper preservation and maintenance of historic structures" within the Village's historic neighborhoods (p. 15). These tenets are reemphasized under the topic of Preserve Historic Neighborhoods in the Residential Areas Strategy section (p. 70). Action Requested: Historic Preservation Commission Chair Penn French and HPC staff liaison Jordan Frahm will conduct a presentation detailing both the process of the HPC thus far and the initial formulations of the incentive program proposal. The HPC seeks guidance from the Village Board on how to advance this proposal as an amendment to the existing Village Zoning Code. The HPC is also seeking initial feedback from the Village Board on all items discussed within this memo. Page 13 of 31 Attachments: 1. Focus Groups Key Findings 2. Glen Ellyn HPC Demo Report 3. Plaque and Survey Locations Page 14 of 31  Economic Incen*ves To Encourage Historic Preserva*on In Glen Ellyn Community Input February 18 – 19, 2025 Findings & Key Take Aways Prepared by: Penn French, HPC Chair & Moderator of the Groups In January 2025, a le/er was sent from village Associate Planner Jordan Frahm on village le/erhead to approximately 70 individuals, mostly Glen Ellyn residents, inviDng them to join one of a series of feedback sessions on February 18-19 about a newly proposed village program to offer a suite of economic incenDves to owners of historically significant homes in Glen Ellyn. The HPC agreed the focus group parDcipants should be a mixed group of builders, contractors, architects, designers, real estate agents as well as homeowners who live in historic homes in Glen Ellyn. InvitaDon le/er, moderator outline for the groups, and list of a/endees are included here for reference. 18 individuals a/ended 1 of 3 focus group feedback sessions on February 18-19. 6 architects 5 builders 3 real estate agents 2 homeowners 1 appraiser 1 interior designer There was an abundance of experDse and experience in the room during these feedback sessions: • Many of the architects had long-standing leadership roles on historic preservaDon commissions in their own communiDes • Many of the builders had served in leadership roles on planning or zoning commission in Glen Ellyn or their respecDve communiDes • The homeowners of historic homes are currently in leadership roles on commissions for the Village and many of the architects, builders, real estate agents and designers also currently live in historic homes, so they understand and appreciate the idea of historic preservaDon from both a personal and a professional point of view. 1 Page 15 of 31 How Each Group Was Introduced To The Topic My name is Penn French. I’m Chair of the Historic PreservaDon Commission for Glen Ellyn and I will be moderaDng our community workshop Dme together this evening along with input from Jordan Frahm. Jordan is an Associate Planner with the Village and staff liaison to the Historic PreservaDon Commission. Thank you for taking your valuable Dme this evening to share with us your insights and thoughts on a new program the Historic PreservaDon Commission is proposing to the Village Board to encourage the preservaDon of historic homes in Glen Ellyn with a series of economic incenDves. We’ve been looking forward to hearing community feedback and input from varying perspecDves to guide the development of this voluntary program, so we reached out to a combinaDon of architects, designers, builders, contractors, real estate agents as well as homeowners who live in historic homes. How The Program Was Explained Through architectural resource surveys commissioned by the Village between 2007 – 2018, over 500 homes (7% of all SFHs) were idenDfied as being historically significant or potenDally significant. It is a big part of what gives Glen Ellyn its charm and character, resulDng in strong demand for wanDng to move and live here. Yet 10-15% of those historic homes have been torn down in the last 25 years. So we want to encourage the preservaDon of those homes for future years as they conDnue to age. Similar programs have been launched in Hinsdale and Lake Bluff, among other communiDes, with encouraging results. The idea is to give homeowners benefits by remodeling that they can’t get with new construcDon. We’d like your feedback on the overall concept of this program as well as your feedback on each of the incenDves we are considering as a package to offer to eligible homeowners of historically significant homes in Glen Ellyn. The Incen*ves: Bulk Zoning Allowances: increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks without having to go through lengthy zoning variance applicaDon and approval processes Waiver of Permit Fees Fast Track/Streamlined Permit Processes: Expedited review and approval Historic Preserva*on Fund Matching Grants: For 50% of costs up to maximum of $10,000 per home for eligible restoraDon projects. 2 Page 16 of 31 Findings From The Groups Are Organized As Follows: 1. ReacDon to the concept: Overall Likes/Dislikes 2. MoDvaDon/Ranking of the suite of incenDves 3. Feedback/SuggesDons On Each IncenDve 4. SuggesDons On Program Mechanics To Ensure Success 5. QuesDons/Concerns To Consider 1. Reac*on to the concept: Like/Dislikes Overall, there was much enthusiasm and excitement for an incenDve program that encourages preservaDon of historic homes in Glen Ellyn. It was said that anything that makes the Village of Glen Ellyn easier to work with and have more flexibility for homeowners in remodeling historic homes would be welcome. Some parDcipants in the trades remembered in 2002 when Glen Ellyn decreased lot coverage raDo (LCR) from its long-Dme standard of 25% for mulD-story homes down to 20% and how that has made it cumbersome for homeowners to go through process of requesDng variances for things like porches or extending paDos. So to have any increase in LCR, at least for eligible historic homes, was seen as very posiDve and welcome. 2. Mo*va*on/Ranking of the suite of incen*ves Bulk Zoning Allowances (in the form of increase of lot coverage and reduced sets back) and waived permit fees were the incenDves that were the most tangible, meaningful and moDvaDng. Bulking Zoning allowances were perceived as having a double benefit: 1) making addiDons and extensions possible to incorporate into a remodel and 2) saving the Dme, effort and stress of having to go through lengthy variance approvals with no certainty of a good outcome. This second point was seen as a valuable fast-track benefit all by itself. So the idea of addiDonal fast tracking through faster/expedited building permit turn-around for historic rehabilitaDon was appreciated but was viewed with skepDcism and with a somewhat jaded altude among some parDcipants given some perceived frustraDon with the Village’s current permit approval processes, which was seen as slow. So, anything that can speed it up was welcomed. The assumpDon parDcipants made about the incenDve of expedited permilng approvals for historic homes was that the building permit process would just be somewhat faster than for non-historic homes without knowing what that really means, so pulng some stated goals/parameters and definiDon around what “expedited” really means is important. It was also noted the hope was that faster turnaround Dmes for historic homes wouldn’t mean slower Dmes for non-historic home. In other words, parDcipants noted they wouldn’t want non-historic home permit approvals to inadvertently be unduly “punished” or pushed back even further. 3 Page 17 of 31 The matching grant program was seen as a posiDve incenDve but with perhaps more strings a/ached with more quesDons related to understanding what types of project work qualifies, what is the minimum amount of spend a homeowner has to make to qualify, and how is it administered. 3. Feedback/Sugges*ons On Each Of The Incen*ves Bulk Zoning Allowances Without biasing the parDcipants with a specific recommendaDon on lot coverage raDo, we asked what LCR would be a meaningful increase from the current 20% for mulD-story single family residence. Almost unanimously, there was agreement that increasing lot cover raDo from 20% to 25% would be meaningful - would make a difference for being able to accommodate extensions and addiDons to historic homes for the more modern spaces and ameniDes homeowners seek today without having to tear down and start from scratch. 25% LCR seemed like a magic number. It stemmed in part from parDcipants who recalled that LCR was decreased in 2002 from 25% to 20% to discourage new construcDon, but at the same Dme, the village provided two bonus opDons to encourage building of detached garages to reduce massing of front-load 2-car garages. Hence the LCR bonus for detached garages (500 sq o?) and allowances for front porches (300 sq o?) that remain today. SuggesDon was to keep these bonuses but increase LCR up to 25% for historic homes only. Some references were made to a study village staff apparently had done someDme in the last 5 years where staff studied all the single-family home variance requests back to 2002 and found 97% of them would have not needed a variance request if the LCR were sDll 25%. That finding is a bit of moot point for the purposes of this program – which pertains only to historically significant structures – but was interesDng to hear from those who’d want to see LCR be 25% again for all homeowners. Permit Fee Waivers This was one of the more popular incenDve ideas across all groups because it was easy to understand and was a simple, straight-forward cost savings incenDve, especially as some architects had experience with some clients who they said have paid as much as $30,000 in permit fees even though Jordan Frahm from the village shared that $5,000 + was more like the average for permit fee expense in Glen Ellyn for pulng on an addiDon. Depending on what the village budgets allow, parDcipants suggested the village could put a cap on the permit fee waivers, e.g. up to a certain amount. Fast Track/Streamlined Processes For Expedited Building Permit Approval See notes on page 3. Matching Grant IncenDve See notes top of this page. 4 Page 18 of 31 4. Sugges*ons On Program Mechanics To Ensure Success Heavily market/promote the program so people know about it Create a new secDon of the village website that explains the program and guides people through the process with easily accessible links to required forms and other helpful resources like the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines for Historic RehabilitaDon • Answer their quesDons about the program – an AI-enabled search funcDon or at least create a robust FAQ secDon on the website • Provide an easily searchable village database to determine if a home is on the List to be eligible for incenDves, e.g. if a home has already been idenDfied as an historically significant structure and if not, be able to submit a form/applicaDon to the village to apply for the home to be on the List. Have one point of contact at the Village to administer the program for consistency of communicaDon 5. Other Ques*ons/Concerns/Sugges*ons To Consider About The Program Some in the trades thought Glen Ellyn Public Works sDll has their own cost-sharing programs for homeowners to replace aging sewer & water lines in the home and on homeowner’s property. Does this program sDll exist? If so, should the historic home incenDve program De into this somehow, especially with the recent EPA push on replacing lead pipe water service for older homes? Will the program funds be distributed on a first come first serve basis regardless of the nature of the approved historic home project or should the pot of incenDve money be distributed based on some priority of need/impact, e.g. to save a home from the wrecking ball? Some kind of sliding scale? Eligibility for the program should not be based solely on age of home (e.g., structures 50 years +). Otherwise, does the village really want a Colonial built in 1961 and a subdivision ranch built in 1971 to be considered historic, and therefore eligible for economic incenDves? {It should be noted we are recommending using the same criteria that the U.S. Secretary of Interior uses for determining if a structure is historically significant, which goes well beyond just the age of the structure and is similar to criteria we use in our process of determining if a home can be designated as a Landmark.} 5 Page 19 of 31 5. Other Ques*ons/Concerns/Sugges*ons To Consider About The Program (Con*nued) Structure program so not seen as being penalizing if don’t live in an historic home What guardrails in the approval process will prevent people who do poor quality remodels from gelng incenDve money when purchasing an historic home with the intent on flipping it? In general, what quality controls and checks will be put in place to ensure quality work gets done? Does it make sense to set up a 501(C)3 non-profit organizaDon for ciDzens to contribute to a PreservaDon Fund to augment the village’s budget so we can encourage even more homeowners to preserve and restore their historic homes? Does it make sense to create a TIF overlay district to freeze taxes to help fund this program? Need to work with township to Landmark sites that are in un-incorporated areas. Separate from this program, if a home has to get torn down due to funcDonal obsolescence, how can village address/change the zoning code and provide incenDves for homeowners to encourage their architects and builders to incorporate quality features from previous eras? e.g. a contemporary take on Federal, Tudor or Greek Revival, Italianate or styled aoer later Victorian or Queen Anne styles common in 19th century towns like Glen Ellyn. 6 Page 20 of 31  RE: Seeking Your Input – Community Roundtable Dear Home Professional or Homeowner, What: The Village of Glen Ellyn’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is seeking Acting Village President community input to refine the components of an incentive program to encourage Glen Donna Jean Simon Ellyn residents, builders, developers, architects, and realtors to preserve historically significant homes through renovation. The proposed program is voluntary and would use Trustees various economic and bulk zoning incentives to encourage residents to remodel Kelli Christiansen historically significant homes versus tearing down homes for new construction. Gary Fasules Anne Gould Examples of incentives we’d like your input on: Kelley Kalinich Steve Thompson • Bulk Zoning Allowances to enable increased lot coverage and reduce setbacks. • Waived Permit Fees. Village Manager • Fast Track Processes for expedited building permits and streamlined review. Mark T. Franz • Historic Preservation Fund Matching Grant for 50% of costs up to maximum of $10,000 per home for eligible restoration projects. Village Attorney Paul Stephanides Why: Glen Ellyn has over 150 years of local architectural history, with some of the earliest examples dated to the 1870s. A wide variety of 20th century architectural styles Civic Center contribute to the Village’s unique character and charm. Between 2007 and 2018, the 535 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Village commissioned architectural resource surveys to help identify historic assets among residential buildings eligible for landmark status. In these surveys, 526 total Administration structures were deemed significant or partially significant. This would represent 7- 630-469-5000 percent of Glen Ellyn’s 7,182 single-family detached homes (per CMAP data). Finance Thirty homes that appeared on the architectural resource surveys have been razed since 630-547-5235 2007, and the HPC is proposing an incentive program to allow for alternate zoning, Community Development matching funds, and administrative benefits to curb future demolitions. By preserving 630-547-5250 the historical housing stock, the Village hopes to promote architecturally diverse streetscapes while also maintaining and adapting various housing types for improved community vitality. Police 65 South Park Boulevard When & Where: Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 630-469-1187 Tuesday, February 18 Wednesday, February 19 Focus Group I: 5:00p – 6:30p Focus Group I: 5:00p – 6:30p Public Works Focus Group II: 7:00p – 8:30p Focus Group II: 7:00p – 8:30p 30 South Lambert Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 630-469-6756 Glen Ellyn Civic Center – 535 Duane Street – Room 301 on 3rd Floor Groups will be moderated by Penn French, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Village Links 485 Winchell Way If you are receiving this letter, it is because you are active in residential building or real Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 630-469-8180 estate in Glen Ellyn, and/or you have expertise and passion for historic preservation. We highly value your input and perspective. To sign up for one of the groups, please respond via email to Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, at jfrahm@glenellyn.org, or www.glenellyn.org by phone at 630-547-5371. www.villagelinksgolf.com 7 Page 21 of 31  Discussion Group Moderator Outline (Feb 18-19, 2025) Page 1 of 3 Thank you and Introductions (10 minutes) My name is Penn French, I’m Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and I will be moderating our community workshop time together this evening along with input from Jordan Frahm. Jordan is an Associate Planner with the Village and staM liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. We also appreciate Barb Lemme joining us this evening. Thank you for taking your valuable time this evening to share with us your insights and thoughts on a new program the Historic Preservation Commission is proposing to the Village Board to encourage the preservation of historic homes in Glen Ellyn with a series of economic incentives. We’ve been looking forward to hearing community feedback and input from varying perspectives to guide the development of this voluntary program, so we reached out to a combination of architects, designers, builders, contractors, real estate agents and homeowners who live in historic homes. With that in mind, before we get started, please introduce yourself so we all know who you are. Q1. Your name and what’s your interest in this topic? Q2. What were you hoping to get out of this evening? What are you curious to know? What’s most important to you? Before we talk about the program specifics for your input, we had a few other general questions that will help give us additional perspective on how homeowners make decisions related to their home. Decision Dynamics (10 minutes) Q3. At what point in the home ownership process do you think people are thinking about the decision to remodel or tear down an historic home? When they are making an oBer to buy it? Or after they’ve lived there for a while and like the neighborhood but just want a bigger, newer house? Q4. In your experience, to what extent do homeowners turn to experts – architects, designers, builders, real estate agents - for guidance on whether they should remodel or tear-down? Or do they know which way they want to go before even assembling their team of experts? Q5. What are the factors homeowners are considering – the trade-oBs – in deciding whether to remodel or tear-down? Q6. Are there any other questions we should be asking you to better understand the decision dynamics around this topic of remodel or tear-down? 8 Page 22 of 31  Discussion Group Moderator Outline (Feb 18-19, 2025) Page 2 of 3 Program Overview (5 minutes) Through architectural surveys commission by the Village between 2007 – 2018, over 500 homes (7% of all SFHs) were identified as being historically significant or potentially significant. It’s a big part of what gives Glen Ellyn it’s charm and character, resulting in strong demand for wanting to move and live here. Yet at least 10-15% of those historic homes have been torn down in the last 25 years. So we want to encourage the preservation of those homes for future years as they continue to age. Similar programs have been launched in Hinsdale, Lake Forest, Lake BluM among other communities with encouraging results. The idea is to give homeowners benefits by remodeling that they can’t get with new construction. Bulk Zoning Allowances: increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks without have to go through lengthy zoning variance application and approval processes Waiver of Permit Fees Fast Track Processes: for expedited building remodel permits and streamlined review Historic Preservation Fund Matching Grants: for 50% of costs up to maximum of $10,000 per home for eligible restoration projects. Q7. Which of these incentives do you think would be the most motivating or interesting to a homeowner who is on the fence about remodeling or tearing down a historic home? Q8. Taken as package or suite of incentives, do you feel they are motivating enough to matter? To be meaningful to tip a homeowner towards seriously considering remodeling versus tearing down? Q9. Are there other incentives you feel we should consider that address pain points homeowners have when undertaking a remodel? Q10. A related question: We know functional obsolescence and/or years of neglect just make remodeling not feasible sometimes. So my question is what can the Village do to encourage architectural design of new construction that incorporates historic elements or features or is an homage to some of the classic historic architectural designs – like a modern take on Queen Anne style or American Foursquare or Victorian? 9 Page 23 of 31  Discussion Group Moderator Outline (Feb 18-19, 2025) Page 3 of 3 Next Steps In Our Process Of Program Development Board has encouraged us to develop this program and bring it to them for discussion/approval Anticipated Questions: Q: How do become eligible? How do you qualify/sign up for the program? If your house has been identified as being historically significant or potentially historically significant from the Resource Surveys the Village contracted to have conducted by a specialized Historic Preservation Consultancy 2004 – 2018 OR if your house meets criteria to have your home Landmarked (50 years old) Q: Are commercial buildings eligible too? Q: What is the application process? Q: How does this get paid for? Q: What have results been in Hinsdale? Other communities? 85 homeowners expressed interest in 1st year of program to get on the eligibility list resulting in 12 preservation projects Q: What does success look like? How measure? 10 Page 24 of 31  Economic Incen*ves To Encourage Historic Preserva*on In Glen Ellyn Community Input: Focus Group Par*cipants February 18 – 19, 2025 Feb. 18 5:00-6:30 Feb. 18 7:00-8:30 Feb. 19 5:00-6:30 Pam Albrecht, historic home Dan Marshall, architect Cindy Purdom, real estate agent owner Dave Schlembach, retired Heather Mees, architect Chris Shenuk, C&C Construction, Glen architect Ellyn Dave Ligman, Ray Whalen, Builder, Glen Michael Lambert, ARRIS Architectural & builder/remodeler Ellyn Preservation Consultant, Plainfield Sarah Coe, Designer, Glen Ian Dawson, historic home Frank Heitzman, Heitzman Architects, Oak Ellyn owner Park Carrie Morris, real estate agent Mark Morgan, appraiser Steve Flint, Flint Architects, Lombard Pete Ladesic, Builder, Ladesic & Scott, Glen Ellyn Jamie Simoneit, Z + O Architects, Glen Ellyn Deb Ritter, real estate agent HPC Commissioner: Barb HPC Commissioner: Robert Margetts Lemme 11 Page 25 of 31 Glen Ellyn HPC Demo Report Architectural Resource Surveyed Homes Demolished 2008-2024 Prepared for the June 20, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting by Associate Planner Jordan Frahm Page 26 of 31 Between 2007 and 2018, historians from the firms Granacki and Ramsey Consulting conducted intensive surveys across the Village of Glen Ellyn and created a series of reports identifying architecturally significant structures in four categories: Significant, Potentially Significant, Contributing and Non-contributing. In total, 563 homes were surveyed across these categories. Between 2008 and the first quarter of 2024, 30 of these surveyed homes had been demolished, 63.3-percent of which had been assigned the highest significance rating. To better analyze where demolitions have taken place, I have divided the effected area into four quadrants using Main Street and the Union Pacific West railway to create my grid. These 30 demolitions are evenly spread throughout the Village, although groupings are most evident near Lake Ellyn in the northeast quadrant (11 demolitions), and immediately southwest of downtown Glen Ellyn (9 demolitions). 17 significant homes were torn down east of Main Street, 13 to the west. The same number of homes were razed on both the north and south side of the UPW tracks (15). Page 27 of 31  By far, the most represented decade among demolished homes is the 1920s, where 11 homes built during the decade have been demolished in the last 15 years, more than double the next closest decade. The 1950s saw five architecturally notable homes demolished. Seven homes were demolished that were originally constructed between 1900 and 1920. The styles of home that have been most endangered are indicative of the decades most represented here. Pre-1890 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1 3 4 2 11 1 2 5 1 Page 28 of 31  Style Number DEMOLISHED HOMES BY ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Craftsman/Bungalow 6 Ranch/Split-Level 5 Neo-Classical Cape Cod Queen Anne 3 3% 3% Colonial Revival 3 L-Form/Gable Front 3 International Style Dutch Colonial Revival 2 Craftsman/Bungalow 7% 20% Tudor Revival 2 Prairie 2 International Style 2 Prairie Neo-Classical 1 7% Cape Cod 1 Six craftsman and craftsman bungalow style homes were demolished between 2008 and Tudor Revival 2024, with five ranch and split- 7% level homes representing the second most lost homes. Craftsman style homes were popular constructions between Ranch/Split-Level 17% 1900 and 1930, whereas split- Dutch Colonial Revival level and ranch style homes were 6% contemporary styles in the 1950s. Homes built in these timeframes were torn down most frequently in Glen Ellyn since 2008. L-Form/Gable Front 10% Queen Anne 10% Colonial Revival 10% Page 29 of 31 Since 2008, tear-downs of architecturally significant homes in Glen Ellyn have a clear modal trend in 2016. 23.3% of the homes studied here were demolished in one singular year over that 16+ year period. It should be noted that the rate of which these homes are razed do not appear directly tied to the affordability of mortgage rates. Although mortgage rates on average fell below 4-percent between 2015 and 2017 when a total of 12 surveyed homes were demolished; the same could be said for 2012-2013 and 2019- 2021 when mortgage rates were as low or lower. More homes were demolished in 2016 alone than in 2012, 2013, 2019, 2020 and 2021 combined. This could be luck or small sample size as I believe that the overall correlation between cheaper rates and tear-downs could be much stronger. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2 1 0 1 0 2 3 4 7 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 Page 30 of 31 The architectural surveys conducted by Ramsey and Granacki Consulting rated Surveyed Homes buildings across four 5% 2% categories: significant, potentially significant, contributing, and non- contributing. Of the 563 structures within this 37% 56% analysis (all Significant/Potentially Significant homes, and all Landmark and GEHS Plaque homes), 56-percent were Significant Potentially Significant Contributing Non-contributing assigned the highest rating of significant. Unfortunately, of the 30 Demolished Homes homes surveyed that have 0, 0% since been demolished, a 3, 10% higher rate of 63-percent of significant homes were torn down. 8, or 27-precent of 8, 27% demolished homes, were potentially significant and 19, 63% the remaining 10-percent of homes had contributing significant architectural features. Significant Potentially Significant Contributing Non-contributing Page 31 of 31