Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 26, 2024 City Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL: A Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Woodstock was called to order by Commissioner Erica Wilson at 7:03 p.m. on Monday August 26, 2024, in Council Chambers at Woodstock City Hall. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Marilyn Cuevas, Tom Ellinghausen, Jose Rey, and Erica Wilson. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman D. Day. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Darrell Moore and Commission Clerk Melissa Bauer 2. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: a. July 22, 2024 T. Ellinghausen noted that there was an extra coma that needed to be removed in the July 22, 2024, minutes in the “Commission Members Present” section after the first name of Marilyn Cuevas. There was a motion made to approve the July 22, 2024, meeting minutes with the above- mentioned correction. MOTION: T. Ellinghausen. SECOND: M. Cuevas. AYES: M. Cuevas, T. Ellinghausen, J. Rey, and E. Wilson. NAYES: None. ABSENT: Chairman D. Day. Motion carried 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. 4. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. PUBLIC HEARING - 310 Washington Street Nomination for Landmarking A roll call was taken to establish a quorum. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Marilyn Cuevas, Tom Ellinghausen, Jose Rey, and Erica Wilson. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman D. Day.  Historic Preservation Commission 8/26/24 Page 2 of 5 Planner D. Moore advised that all public notice requirements had been met. Planner D. Moore swore in applicant Rafael Castaneda. Mr. Castaneda stated that the purpose of the designation is to preserve the look and history of the building, and, without such designation, he will be required by a Dairy Queen corporate mandate to redesign the building to be consistent with modern branding styles, including a flat roof. The distinctive barn-roof style was a trademark of Dairy Queen stores throughout the country in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Castaneda provided additional historical pictures, news articles and letters from the public in support of the application. Mrs. Trudie Dreyer, McHenry County Historical Society, approached the commission and advised that the Woodstock DQ is not a common-themed DQ, as most have turned into a “Grill & Chill” DQ with metal buildings or located in store fronts as opposed to a stand-alone building. Mrs. Dreyer further advised that there was a similar DQ landmarked in Connecticut and was in support of the Woodstock DQ being designated as a landmarked building for future preservation. Deliberation by Commission: T. Ellinghausen inquired on what implications there are with landmarking a building. Planner D. Moore advised that any changes to the building would need to come before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. E. Wilson reviewed each of the criteria for landmarking and discussions ensued noting the following: 1. It has character, interest, or value which is part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristic(s) of the city, the county, the state, or the nation. • Commission discussion found this building meets this criterion. 2. Its location is a site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 3. It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, county, state, or the nation. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion.  Historic Preservation Commission 8/26/24 Page 3 of 5 4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 5. It is identified with the work of a master builder, designer, architect, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, county, state, or the nation. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 6. It embodies design elements that make it structurally or architecturally innovative. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 7. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. • Commission discussion found this building does meet this criterion. 8. It has character which is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure, including, but not limited to, commercial buildings, factories, industrial buildings or structures, including pump houses or viaducts, with a high level of integrity or architectural significance. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 9. It establishes a sense of time and place unique to the City • Commission discussion found this building does meet this criterion. 10. It is suitable for preservation or restoration. • Commission discussion found this building does meet this criterion. 11. It is included in the National Register of Historic Places and/or the Illinois Register of Historic Places. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 12. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to pre-history or other areas of archaeological significance. • Commission discussion found this building does not meet this criterion. 13. It is an exceptional example of a historic or vernacular style or one of few remaining in the city. • Commission discussion found this building does meet this criterion. The Commission noted that the petition meets five criteria for landmarking and only one is required, making this building appropriate for landmark status.  Historic Preservation Commission 8/26/24 Page 4 of 5 E. Wilson noted that a letter that was received in support of the Dairy Queen petition incorrectly stated the mission of the HPC. E. Wilson advised, per the City’s website, that the correct mission of the HPC is to maintain, protect and preserve the historic integrity of the city and to educate the public on historic preservation in order to encourage growth, pride and vitality in Woodstock. Planner D. Moore reviewed the staff report and other locations of the DQ dairy-barn building style, noting most were found out East. Planner D. Moore further reviewed exhibits of the newer-style buildings, noting that there is a loss of character in the newer-building style and that staff is in support of landmarking the current barn-style DQ. E. Wilson closed the public hearing. b. Approval of Nomination to Landmark 310 Washington Street There was a motion made to recommend approval to the City Council to designate 310 Washington Street as a Woodstock landmark, based on the specified criterion: • It has character, interest, or value which is part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristic(s) of the city, the county, the state, or the nation. • It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. • It establishes a sense of time and place unique to the City. • It is suitable for preservation or restoration. • It is an exceptional example of a historic or vernacular style or one of few remaining in the city. MOTION: T. Ellinghausen. SECOND: M. Cuevas. AYES: M. Cuevas, T. Ellinghausen, J. Rey, and E. Wilson. NAYES: None. ABSENT: Chairman D. Day. Motion carried. 6. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION: Keith Parr - 124 Hutchins Street, Woodstock, IL. 60098 D. Moore advised that Mr. Keith Parr was present and wished to discuss his property and the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) he received a few years back. Mr. Parr approached the commission and advised that he is attempting to get a final inspection approved for a Certificate of Occupancy, but the inspector advised that he would need to discuss his renovation with the Historic Preservation Commission. as he did not follow the requirements of his COA.  Historic Preservation Commission 8/26/24 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Parr advised that he had two items that he did not comply with regarding the approved COA: 1. Stained glass window in the front of the house; and 2. Windows were required to be wood or aluminum clad in the front. Mr. Parr advised that he deviated from the approved COA due to the cost to fix the stained-glass window ($2,500 to $3,500) and the aluminum clad windows were on back order for two months due to COVID-19 and he needed windows urgently. Further, the cost of the aluminum clad compared to the vinyl windows was more. Mr. Parr further noted that his building permit expired and that he had received one extension, but was denied for another extension. Mr. Parr also advised that if he didn’t receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to permit expiration, he would be required to reapply for a new building permit and pay another $1,700 in permit fees. E. Wilson inquired if the property had been inspected. Mr. Parr advised that it was inspected, and the inspector gave him a list of corrections as well as noted that the Historic Preservation Commission would need to approve the deviation from the COA. E. Wilson noted that the Mr. Parr should have come before the Commission if he was going to deviate from the COA and stated that Mr. Parr could have requested to install a Transom window or other form of window to replace the stained-glass window to try and keep the same character of the home. Planner Moore advised that he would meet with the Building Inspector to request that Mr. Parr’s building permit be extended and no enforcement activity until after the commission meets next month. It was noted that this item would be considered at the next HPC meeting on September 23, 2024. Courthouse update: Planner Moore gave an update on the Courthouse renovations and noted this project was one of nine recipients for the Landmarks Illinois Driehaus Preservation Awards, with October 18th being the award ceremony. 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Certificate of Appropriateness - 124 Hutchins Street, Woodstock, IL 60098 8. ADJOURNMENT: There was a motion made to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. MOTION: J. Rey. SECOND: M. Cuevas. AYES: M. Cuevas, T. Ellinghausen, J. Rey, and E. Wilson. NAYES: None. ABSENT: Chairman D. Day. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Bauer, Commission Clerk