Historic Preservation Commission

MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 23, 2023 City Council Chambers The Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Woodstock was called to order by Chairman Donovan Day at 7:17 PM on Monday, January 23, 2023 in Council Chambers at Woodstock City Hall. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Ellinghausen and Chair Donovan Day. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Marti Dejon and Erica Wilson. Motion by T. Ellinghausen, second by D. Day, to accept E. Wilson’s telephonic attendance. Ayes: T. Ellinghausen and Chair D. Day. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: M. Dejon and E. Wilson. Motion carried. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Ellinghausen, Erica Wilson and Chair Donovan Day. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Marti Dejon. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Darrell Moore and Chief Deputy City Clerk Jane Howie. OTHERS PRESENT: none. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Motion made by T. Ellinghausen, second by E. Wilson, to accept the September 26, 2022 Minutes with the following changes: on page 2 of 4, in the 2nd to last paragraph, it should be 1880s; on page 3, under the motion, it should be single mullion on top, none on the bottom. Ayes: T. Ellinghausen, E. Wilson and Chair D. Day. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: M. Dejon. Motion carried with changes. PUBLIC COMMENT: none. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: a. 319 W. Calhoun Street – Certificate of Appropriateness for Rooftop Solar Installation D. Moore noted that a representative of the petitioner is not present as expected, but the Commission may be able to review the request based on the materials provided. D. Day stressed the guidelines state that solar equipment shall not be visible from the public right of way, and is not in favor of the current proposal. In response to a question by T. Ellinghausen, D. Moore said he believes the residence is owner-occupied. T. Ellinghausen noted that, if the owner chose to remove the panels, he could without affecting the historic integrity of the building, so he is not that opposed to it. E. Wilson is not against it since it’s on the side of the building, not the primary façade. It was noted there are houses on either side that may block some views of the panels, and it’s not a permanent installation so it won’t bother the historical features of the house. There was some concern about  Historic Preservation Commission 01/23/2023 Page 2 of 4 the total height, with respect to the guidelines. D. Moore said the installer had given indications that a representative from the company would be at this meeting; however, they are not. Therefore, he will need to check with the company about the height of the installation. He provided some renderings for the commission to review. Further discussion ensued. E. Wilson shared some information about the solar panel program, and how the original thought was for use on commercial buildings. The idea was that the City didn’t want a lot of panels being visible. D. Day opined that solar panels are not appropriate in the historic district; however, he will go along with the Commission’s decision. D. Moore asked how the Commission would like this recommendation worded. They discussed the importance of making the portions of the equipment the same color in order to blend in better, such as, the conduit should be the same color as the roof. Owner vs. lease is important to T. Ellinghausen, as well. Motion by, T. Ellinghausen, second by E. Wilson, to allow the installation of twenty-three (23) solar panels on both the east- and west-facing roof planes subject to the following conditions: 1) that the conduit and bracketing seen from the public ROW matches the roof and building in color, and 2) that the overall height should not exceed 6”, with a ½” variance. Ayes: T. Ellinghausen, E. Wilson and Chair D. Day. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: M. Dejon. Motion carried. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION: a. Review of MBI pavilion CoA compliance on East Judd Street D. Moore reminded Commissioners that MBI Staffing had presented their proposed pavilion drawings to City staff and this Commission on multiple occasions. The pavilion has been built; however, a final inspection has yet to be requested. D. Moore shared that E. Wilson reported that the building doesn’t match with the Commission-approved plans from several months ago. D. Moore contacted MBI about the deviations from the plans. He reported that, regarding the lattice work, MBI said they felt the structure didn’t need any more work done to it; it was an aesthetics decision. D. Moore was looking for some direction from this Commission pertaining to how the structure was built as compared with the approved Certificate of Appropriateness. He asked if the Commission would like this project to be presented to them again for further guidance. In response to a question from Chair Day, E. Wilson said there was some negotiations during the previous meetings. MBI presented the rendering, which the Commission agreed to. But then, MBI didn’t build what was approved. In response to a question about the tapered columns, D. Moore said MBI believed they’d lose functional space on the ground if the tapered columns were included. D. Moore said MBI was invited to this evening’s discussion, but preferred to hear the results of this discussion before coming back before the Commission. E. Wilson asked why can they arbitrarily change it after it was approved by this Commission. T. Ellinghausen said MBI now owns the property that was the former lumberyard, so this Commission will be working with them at some point in the future. In response to a question from T. Ellinghausen, E. Wilson said the current look isn’t horrible; however, it’s not what was agreed on. She feels its disrespectful to the commission. D. Day said that often times there is a change in the field; he doesn’t believe they need to come back before the Commission, but opined that Building and Zoning should have caught some of this during the building stage. He added that they got very close to what was presented. E. Wilson shared her  Historic Preservation Commission 01/23/2023 Page 3 of 4 frustration; she doesn’t understand why there’s no accountability from the City. In response to a question from T. Ellinghausen, D. Moore said the City did the required inspections; the building is built soundly. He suggested that perhaps he should attend inspections when historic buildings are involved. D. Moore wasn’t monitoring the construction when in process. It was noted that the drawing called for metal gutters, which are not there. D. Day agreed that the building inspector should be informed of what was approved by this Commission so that D. Moore doesn’t have to attend inspections. E. Wilson opined that there was a breakdown in the oversight with no repercussions. D. Moore proposed that, when building permits are approved, the City can provide guidelines to the applicant pertaining to building alterations in the historic district. D. Moore offered some suggestions on other changes to department procedures. D. Day added that gutters would be beneficial and would improve the appearance, as well. T. Ellinghausen asked E. Wilson for a suggestion on how to proceed. She said the applicant shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they want, after the Commission and the City approve their building plans. It was noted that since this is an open-air building, there are a lot less inspections compared to a regular house. D. Day said since there hasn’t been a final inspection, the City can still require gutters. D. Moore said the City understands the compromise; however, staff is unsure of the best way to move forward. D. Moore said the City can withhold the Certificate of Completion. But, the applicant can appeal this body’s decision, which would then go before the City Council. D. Moore shared scenarios with Commissioners. He asked the Commissioners for their advice and direction in this situation. E. Wilson wants MBI to add the gutters. She asked that the City be more vigilant in historic projects going forward. b.Chicago School of the Art Institute talk D. Moore said he will be talking to students about his experiences being a City Planner and being the Historic Preservation Commission’s staff liaison. In other reports, D. Moore said there’s a hole in the City’s façade improvement program, which only funds improvements to properties located in the TIF district. He brought this to his Department Director and is hopeful that next year’s budget request of $10,000-$15,000 for façade improvements for areas of the historic district currently left out of the program will be approved. D. Day asked if the City has guidelines outside the historic district. D. Moore said it maxes out at $5,000, first come, first served. He added that the façade improvement program is available anywhere in the TIF District, but that may be tightened up to focus on buildings in the historic district. There was a brief discussion about a CDBG-funded neighborhood revitalization program. The City of Woodstock got involved; however, the county handles the paperwork. This got started pre- pandemic; then, the program stalled. The program was meant to be a pilot project; the City is unsure of when it will get started. In response to a question about the geothermal for the Old Courthouse, D. Moore said the lines are in, they’ve been tested, but it has not been hooked up yet. The City, and contractor, are hoping to have everything done with the Old Courthouse by June. There was some discussion about the addition and location of an emergency exit for the Public House. And, D. Moore explained that the floor is getting dropped/leveled below grade, and as a result there were plans to put concrete steps inside the Public House. The design team is now looking at lowering the door to West Jackson Street and having a couple external steps below grade leading up to the sidewalk. The Commission did not express any major concerns about this.  Historic Preservation Commission 01/23/2023 Page 4 of 4 D. Moore said he drove by 124 Hutchins Street last week, checking on a former project that had been brought before this Commission. He added that the transom above the picture window is covered by house wrap or insulation; it might be cut out and the decorative window will return. He hasn’t been in touch with the owner to find out what he’s up to, but he hopes they are following the approved plan. D. Moore mentioned an upcoming webinar regarding historic brick. He’ll forward the information to Commissioners. D. Moore said the City hasn’t heard from T-Mobile; they’re unsure if they’re able to add telecommunications infrastructure in the downtown. As it pertains to the Die Cast site, in November the City selected a preferred developer, Chicago Hubs Realty/WellQuest. This developer was given six months to put plans together. The City is interested in partnering with them. Their plans include a 2-story assisted living facility and a 4-story parking garage on the southwest corner near the railroad tracks. They would start with the assisted living building and senior apartment housing on the north side, then build the parking garage and a 5-story mixed-use building, which would include commercial space on the first floor and residential above it. A bit of discussion ensued pertaining to the proposed music venue, which is a City initiative. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by T. Ellinghausen, second by E. Wilson to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ayes: T. Ellinghausen, E. Wilson and Chair D. Day. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: M. Dejon. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jane Howie Chief Deputy City Clerk