City of Aurora Historic Preservation Commission met April 8.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and stated the following:
On June 26, 2020, the Governor of Illinois issued a statewide disaster declaration related to public health concerns. As head of this body, I have determined that an in-person meeting or a meeting otherwise conducted in accordance with the Open Meetings Act is neither practical nor prudent because of the disaster. This meeting will be conducted by Internet teleconference without the physical presence of a quorum. Prior to the commencement of this meeting, all members of this body were verified and can see and hear one another.
I further find that the physical presence of members of the public is not feasible at this meeting due to the disaster, and more specifically, the practical difficulties associated with accommodating the public in an accessible hygienic location that allows for appropriate social distancing. Alternative arrangements have been made to allow the public to contemporaneously hear all discussion and roll call votes live on the City’s official website, on Facebook, and via Zoom teleconference. Notice of these arrangements have been given in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. The public may address this body consistent with the rules previously adopted and recorded and as adapted by Mayoral order.
Jill Morgan, Planner, is physically present at our regular meeting location as those terms are defined by Resolution R20-124.
All votes shall be conducted by roll call and a verbatim record of this meeting shall be made and maintained in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.
ROLL CALL
The following Preservation Commission members were present: Justyn Arnold, Fernando Castrejon, Amber Foster, Matt Hanson, Seth Hoffman, Kristin Ludwig, Dan Miller, Simon Munoz, Al Signorelli and Mike Walker. Jen Del Debbio was absent.
OTHERS PRESENT
The following staff members were present: Mrs. Morgan and Sue Jackson.
Others Present:
Yarelli Hernandez (Iglesia Apostolica – Santidad A Jehova, Inc.) and David Vander Muelen (533 Oak Avenue).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
21-0236
Approval of the Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on March 11, 2021.
A motion was made by Mr. Signorelli, seconded by Mr. Castrejon, that the Minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.
COA REPORT
21-0212
March Historic Certificate of Appropriateness Report
There were no other questions on the COA report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
AGENDA
21-0247
Certificate of Appropriateness to work with the city to allow an extended time frame and leniency to correct the violation of vinyl siding at 221 N Locust Street (Iglesia Apostolica- Santidad A Jehova, Inc. - 21-0247 / AU21/2-21.092-COA/HP - JM - Ward 6)
Mrs. Morgan said I will briefly introduce the project and hand it over to the applicant for any further comments or questions. I just wanted to confirm, she had emailed me, Yarelli you are able to hear us?
Ms. Hernandez said yes.
Mrs. Morgan said okay. I’ll do a brief introduction and then I can hand it over to you. Let me do a screen share and show you the building that we are discussing. So this is 221 N. Locust Street. It is historically a church and is currently still being used as a church. The property is zoned R-3. It is located in the Tanner Historic District. It was originally built in 1894 as the Swedish ME Zion Church of Aurora. In 2019, staff was informed of vinyl siding being installed at the church over the weekend. Staff subsequently issued a stop work order and a violation for the siding. A HCOA was submitted in January 2020 by the contractors to request to retain the vinyl siding. Staff denied that request and informed the contractors that vinyl siding is not permitted in the district and that the wood siding underneath of what was originally aluminum siding, and now vinyl siding, would have to be repaired. If the wood siding doesn’t exist or is more than 50% deteriorated, then new siding may be considered in the form of wood siding or potentially cement board. Staff sent the contractor and the owners a letter stating that and hopefully they would be able to use that to give to their insurance company. According to the owners, the contractors informed them that they were approved by the city to do historic work without permits and upon receiving the violation, the owners contacted the company so they could work with the city to address the violation. The owners tried reaching out to the contractor. They have gotten no feedback. They did reach out to an attorney, but the company apparently is not responding and has outstanding issues with the state, so they don’t have the hope that the contractors will address this issue. They are coming before the city to try to work with the city on the violation. Here is a picture of the siding going up. Then here is a picture of the current church. If you recall, the historic district guidelines do not allow vinyl siding to be put up and the original wood siding underneath the synthetic siding would need to be restored. Typically it is in good condition and can be restored. The 2000 survey noted that the building had been covered in aluminum siding. If there are any questions for staff, I can answer them, or we can also hand it over to the Petitioner. Yarelli, if you have anything to add to what it is that you are requesting and the issues you have had.
Ms. Hernandez said as Jill explained, unfortunately, when the contractor did approach us, they basically gave us the false impression that they were able to make any updates previously having worked with the city under historic districts and once the work was, I guess you could say, finished, but even now like some of the things that they had agreed to finish for the church just weren’t finished and the notice came and said you violated codes. I immediately reached out to them and was like something here is not adding up. You told us that you had permits to do this and you don’t. They were like oh, so sorry. We will definitely get down to this issue and let you know what’s going on. I then started working with Jill trying to figure out how to fix this and I want to say right around February or March when the pandemic hit, the contractor just completely became unresponsive. We were doing phone calls every few days, every 2 weeks, and emails here and there and eventually they just stopped answering. We reached out to an attorney recently and I said like we just need to know like what can we do here. They did do investigating and it looks like the contractor does have a bunch of outstanding issues with the state and he said I really don’t recommend legal action right now. It is better for you to go in front of the city and see what you can do to correct the issue there. So, we are here now asking what we can do to help correct this. Unfortunately, our church has been impacted pretty heavily with the pandemic and not being able to meet for almost a year and even now we have very limited members, so our finances are poor. They are barely making it there, so anything that we can do to basically correct this, but also be able to work financially with the city, we would really appreciate.
Chairman Miller said thanks for coming Yarelli. Does anyone have any questions for staff or for the Petitioner?
Mr. Castrejon said not a question, but a commentary. Didn’t this come up in front of us some time ago? What was the decision that we made at the time as far as an extended time to finish?
Mrs. Morgan said this has never come before the Commission.
Mr. Castrejon said really? So this is the second church that we’ve had a similar situation?
Mrs. Morgan said I don’t recall a church. I don’t think I’ve dealt with a church. Maybe there was one before me.
Mr. Castrejon said there was.
Chairman Miller said yes Fernando, I think there was a church.
Mr. Castrejon said there was a church.
Chairman Miller said on the east side, I think.
Mr. Castrejon said and Sue is also nodding yes.
Mrs. Morgan said I have to say I don’t recall that. I’m not for sure what the decision was then. I’m assuming Sue you probably don’t recall that detail.
Mrs. Jackson said I’m not sure. I can see the person, but I’m not sure what his name was.
Chairman Miller said the decision then is they would have to remove the vinyl siding. I’m sure that an extended time period was given.
Mr. Hoffman said what was the reason for removing the aluminum siding that was on it?
Ms. Hernandez said it was pretty damaged, so we actually had the insurance come out and they were actually one of the first ones to say that they would recommend it being updated.
Mr. Hoffman said okay. You solicited bids then to find this contractor or were they connected to the insurance company?
Ms. Hernandez said no, we started looking around for bids and that’s when they came up and said we are a Christian company too. In hindsight, I don’t really see that. They were like we’ve definitely done historic churches before, especially in this city. We can totally help you and you won’t need a permit because we have done this before and we have connections within the city. It was also our fault. We should have definitely looked into it more, but we trusted them and now we are here.
Mr. Hoffman said one more question. Maybe this is more for Jill. I gather that there were no permits of any kind taken or this wouldn’t have happened. If this was outside of the district, would the building permit be required for this extent of work?
Mrs. Morgan said no, not for siding.
Chairman Miller said I have no problems with the recommendations that are presented here by staff with a 5 year timeframe.
Mrs. Morgan said so I did recommend the 5 year timeframe to give them time to try to address the situation.
Mr. Hoffman said does this contractor have a current city license? Is there action that can be taken on the contractor because they were clearly doing work without a required permit?
Mrs. Morgan said if they do other work that does require permitting, there are steps we can do from the city to kind of hold that license and not allow them to renew it. I did not check if they, I mean if most of the work that they do is like siding material, they probably don’t require a license, but I can check into that.
Mr. Hanson said I have a question for the Petitioner. What has your respective insurance company or companies allowed or permitted you do to so far? Where do they intersect with the work that’s been done so far and their aiding in what was beat up? Was the genesis of this storm damage or it needed to be done and they weren’t involved at all or how can your insurance company help in this whole process?
Ms. Hernandez said well we did reach out to the insurance company and basically explained the situation because they had originally came out, like I said, and inspected and said this is how much we anticipate will be needed to cover it. We used the funds to do that update and then I think some updates with the gutters were to be completed as well. Gutters were never finished. Now when we reached back out to the insurance, they are saying well unfortunately we wrote you the check to repair the deteriorating or aluminum siding. There’s nothing much we can do.
Mr. Hanson and I empathize with that and sympathize at the same time. I have folks that live on my block that have insurance checks in the hand that can’t put those checks to use based on looking to make repairs versus enhancements. I was just trying to get a full understanding of what your insurance company understood and what the standards are and how realistic repairs can be made. We pay for insurance. It’s not always about enhancements or restoring things to what they were hundreds of years ago.
Ms. Hernandez said I’m sorry, you cut out on that last part.
Mr. Hanson said I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to mumble. I don’t always know how my audio works here. In any historical district, that’s going to be an ongoing concern. Repairs versus enhancements, repairs versus restoring things to what they were a long time ago and I didn’t know if the work you are looking to proceed with right now is based on repairs or looking to actually improve the facilities or the aesthetic looks of the church.
Ms. Hernandez said no. The reason why we changed the siding, I believe it was after a storm, and the aluminum siding was pretty beat up there and that’s why the insurance approved the change. As of right now, we are not looking to make any more changes or enhancements. It is basically just correcting what was violated through the city code for historic buildings.
Mr. Hanson said thank you.
Chairman Miller said are there any further questions or any further comments on the Petition?
Mr. Signorelli said so just to recap then Dan, what we’re going to decide on is whether or not to give them a 5 year time period to complete the proper siding, correct?
Chairman Miller said yes.
Mr. Signorelli said well if there is no further discussion, I move that we approve the 5 year timeline for 221 N. Locust.
Mrs. Morgan said so let me explain to the Petitioner. So this would be 5 years to give you the time to remove the vinyl siding, restore it, save the funds for it, so we push everything off until 5 years. We usually will try to touch base a little bit before then to kind see where you are with the process to make sure you haven’t like kind of forgotten it and to see how things are going.
Ms. Hernandez said that would definitely help out. Hopefully, the whole pandemic situation is resolved by then. Thank you. We definitely really appreciate it and that helps us a lot.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Al Signorelli
MOTION SECONED BY: Amber Foster
AYES: Fernando Castrejon, Amber Foster, Matt Hanson, Seth Hoffman, Kristin Ludwig, Dan Miller, Simon Munoz, Al Signorelli, Mike Walker
NAYS: None
A motion was made by Mr. Signorelli, seconded by Mr. Foster, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried.
21-0249
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace original wood windows with new pocket replacement windows at 533 Oak Avenue (David Van Der Meulen - 21-0249 - AU15/3-21.093-COA/HP - Ward 6)
Mrs. Morgan said the Petitioner is on. I will introduce the project and answer any questions for staff and I can hand it over to the Petitioner to add anything or to answer any questions. Let me bring up a screen shot of the house and a couple of the windows that the Petitioner provided. So this is the house. This is 533 Oak Avenue. It is zoned R-1 One Family Dwelling District. The property is within the Tanner Historic District and it is identified as primary significance. The home was built circa 1914 in the American Foursquare style. The 2000 survey of the building noted 1 over 1 double hung windows and in general the applicant wants to replace the 2 windows on the front façade and 8 windows on the side with Marvin Elevate double hung pocket windows. The frame and sash are made of Ultrex, a pultruded fiberglass material, with a non-finger jointed pine interior frame liner. There is the proposal with the Marvin windows and well as sections that staff found online of the window. Staff cannot approve the replacement wood windows with anything other than wood windows that replace the original windows, hence the Petitioner coming forward to the Preservation Commission. Staff also believes the original windows are not beyond repair. The owner appeals on the grounds that he wants the lead paint completely removed and that the cost of restoration exceeds the replacement. The owner noted that the windows are badly rotted and not repairable. They were screwed shut and caulked to stop draft years ago by the previous owner. Are there any questions for staff before I hand it over to the Petitioner?
Mr. Hoffman said have you or someone from staff been to the property to assess the condition?
Mrs. Morgan said no, I did not make a visit with them. We try not to with the COVID currently. If the Commission feels that there needs to be additional site visits by staff, I could do that if the applicant would be willing to do that.
Mr. Signorelli said I was just questioning the fact that the cost for restoration, which would include paint removal, or scraping, priming and painting could be more costly than complete replacements. It seems although that that kind of maintenance on windows is time consuming, it just doesn’t seem like it would cost more than a full replacement of all these windows.
Mrs. Morgan said I believe the Petitioner reached out to several of the names that have done work previously. I think he maybe only had one response from Caliendo Painting. That wasn’t a full stripping of the window. Some contractors come in and just kind of fix on site, some will take them completely out, remove them and take them off site and complete stripping. I believe like Frank Rojas does complete stripping of them. I don’t believe the Petitioner was able to get a hold of Frank on a cost estimate.
Mr. Hoffman said my impressing too at $500 to $600 per double hung window should cover a good quality full restoration with sash removal, stripping, and EPA compliant lead abatement in the frames.
Mrs. Morgan said maybe I can see what one of our previous projects paid. The Petitioner can answer about reaching out to some of the contractors he was able to get a hold of.
Mr. Vander Meulen said the only bid that I got, which was Caliendo Painting, all he’s going to do is re-glaze the windows, he would repair the ropes, the weights, the pulleys and all of that in place. He’s not going to remove anything. He might take the sashes out, I think, to re-glaze the windows, but he’s not going to remove the frames or anything like to that extent. However, his estimate worked out to be just a little less per window then the complete replacement with new windows, new pocket windows. I sent the quote in that I got.
Mrs. Morgan said but that was just for the windows themselves, correct, not for installation?
Mr. Vander Muelen said that’s correct. Yes, that’s correct. The price was just the windows themselves. We did get a bid, but I didn’t include it because the guy who gave use the bid is not qualified to do lead, so it seemed to me that you were not going to okay him anyway. But his estimate was about $1,800, but he is not lead certified. The guy at Caliendo told me he knows Frank, and I forget the company, but he’s the guy who literally removes the entire window and he’ll take it away to wherever his business is and he will strip every bit of paint off and restore any wood that’s bad and really do a first rate restoration. That was between $1,000 and $1,500 a window, times 10, between $10,000 and $15,000 and, of course, that’s about 3 times what I would pay, a little less than 3 times what I would, pay for new windows that meet code and don’t have any lead on them.
Mr. Hoffman said the name escapes me right now. I think I know who that might be. I think he might be the guy who is doing all of the Copley windows now. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just too busy.
Mr. Vander Meulen said that’s what I heard actually. He is very, very busy.
Mr. Hoffman said I forget his name, but for $1,000 he might stay up and do them on his nights and weekends. Sometimes when you are contracting, you price things either just because you don’t want to say no or you can’t hire somebody else and make money at that rate.
Mrs. Morgan said I believe John Karm, and I think he does a full stripping as well. He charges around $600 or $700 a window, I believe.
Mr. Hoffman said I think there are a couple from Elgin as well that have bid for some of our grant applicants. It is a specialized skill. The few who really do well, they’re in demand.
Chairman Miller said I have to agree with staff on this. I don’t see anything here that can’t be repaired.
Mr. Vander Muelen said okay and I still end up with an inferior window that leaks and it doesn’t actually meet code. I’m just a little puzzled why. I’m not installing cheap windows. I’m actually buying pretty good windows and they meet code.
Chairman Miller said I’m not sure what code you are referring to.
Mr. Vander Muelen said what was that?
Mrs. Morgan said I’m sorry, what do you mean by meeting code?
Mr. Vander Muelen said the windows that are in this house would never meet code for a modern house.
Mrs. Morgan said due to size, the egress?
Mr. Vander Muelen said no, no, no. The gentleman from the painting place, Caliendo, told me that these don’t meet code. They are old original windows. They don’t meet code. They leak air like a sieve. They loose fit anyway because they have to open and close correctly. They are going to be a problem anyway.
Mrs. Morgan said he is probably referring to the energy code, but there are regulations within the code allowing for historic districts, historic buildings. If you build a new building, there are different regulations than if you are restoring building, allowing you to retain wood windows and they compensate by doing other things in order to meet that energy efficiency. So there is a different code for if it was like a new construction as opposed to like a restoration.
Chairman Miller said I would have to say I agree with staff. I don’t see anything here that can’t be repaired. Obviously, it is unfortunate that somebody caulked them.
Mr. Hoffman said overall, the pictures I see here don’t look as bad as the windows in our last house that I restored. I weather stripped them and there have been some studies that will show weather strip with storm windows are comparable energy efficiency to just a pocket replacement. In terms of the quality, and I do agree the Marvin’s you are proposing, those are higher end of replacement quality. They are generally still 25 year kind of life expectancy, especially before the insulated glass leaks and starts condensing in between the layers. These windows have lasted 100 years and will last another 100 if they are restored.
Chairman Miller said and one option, just what I’ve done on my own house, is these are double hung windows and because I have more modern storms on the outside, it doesn’t really do me any good to have the top pane being mobile. Those were painted shut before I even bought my house, so I left them that way because I can’t really open that and get ventilation through the top pane with a storm window mounted on the outside. I’ve not attempted to restore those. The bottom pane in all of mine are functional and they all have weather stripping, so I don’t have leaks and drafts.
Mr. Signorelli said and there can’t be the expectation in any old house that you’re going to be able to seal it up completely. It is just the nature of an old home. It’s been shown that original windows when they are restored property can be fairly efficient.
Mrs. Morgan said any other comments by any of the Commission members? Is there anything else the Petitioner would like to add?
Mr. Signorelli said I think I’d like to add to the importance of having an efficient furnace because using my own home as an example and if you count each one of my windows, and there are 61 and I have to say even though we’ve done some restoration, we still have a lot of the great outdoors coming in, but we have an efficient furnace and so our heating bills are not tremendous even though we have many leaky windows.
Chairman Miller said the only other comment I have is I walked by the house the other day. I thought this house looks great. Has it just been painted or something?
Mr. Vander Muelen said it was painted right before COVID hit. I think it was in November of 2019.
Chairman Miller said it looks wonderful.
Mr. Hoffman said it is a really attractive Foursquare with the little flared belt between the stories. I’ve always liked that little feature.
Mr. Vander Muelen said I had right before, in the spring actually of 2019, I had all the soffit and fascia replaced. That was all rotting and some of it was actually falling off of the house.
Mrs. Ludwig said are there any windows just in terms of looking at the total cost of replacement versus repair, are there any windows on the house that you simply don’t see particularly as much? Would there be certain windows we would allow him to replace versus the ones that are most important for him to restore, or is there any kind of concession that we would ever grant there? Or is it all pretty viewable from the street?
Mrs. Foster said it seemed pretty viewable from when I saw it, when I went by it, all the windows.
Mrs. Ludwig said I didn’t get a chance to go by this one. It looks like it is pretty spaced out on the lot from its neighbor, so that’s why I was trying to think of something that would help.
Mr. Hoffman said anything on the rear would be out of view. That would not fall under this.
Mr. Munoz said on the side it looks almost like an empty lot, so you would see it from both sides, really in the front and both of the sides.
Mrs. Ludwig said that’s what I was suspecting.
Mr. Hanson said I live exactly one block away. If I were on his block, I would be his house. He’s done a great job, that family has done a great job of making it look better. I’ll be the first one in line to say there’s a bunch of us who would liked to have had the option to have more energy efficient windows and it’s a great looking house and a great looking spot that faces west and has a good exposure to the south as well. It gets cooked by the sun and I respect the discussion for concessions, but when it comes to someone that walks by that home or possibly is a purchaser of that home down the line, the historical wood restoration versus energy efficiency is going to be a big deal in their minds as a new owner. I realize we have standards here, but it’s a tight little neighborhood where most of the lots are very tight and the pictures may depict it as being very open from one side, but it’s kind of not. I don’t think that the passerby or the perspective next owner or occupant of that place is going to say that it’s not restored to historical standards versus that energy efficient windows that most of us would prefer to have. I respect the occupants right now for the work they’ve done and I don’t have a problem with the windows they’re proposing.
Mr. Signorelli said I think we need to keep in mind that first off, we have to follow the guidelines and secondly, if we make exceptions, we’re creating a precedent. The next person would say well this person installed. How come they were allowed to install vinyl windows and you’re telling me I can’t?
Mrs. Ludwig said that is a good point. We’re just here to apply the rules.
Mr. Hanson said but not all rules are great when it comes to the city wants to be green and energy efficient and we also want to maintain historical standards too.
Mrs. Morgan said well being green and throwing out a bunch of windows to put in your landfill is also not green either.
Mrs. Ludwig said I think Al you make a good point. We are here just to make sure we are properly executing the rules fairly and equitably. I could see if they just absolutely weren’t visible at all, but it does seem here it does look like it is pretty open. I can see that. I think it is good that each case we fully discuss it and then consider all options first, so that’s good discussion.
Chairman Miller said I’m in agreement with staff’s recommendation for denial on the new windows due to the fact the original windows are intact and they are most likely repairable.
Mrs. Ludwig said can we maybe research and offer to the homeowner the name of the person that we know has done some of this other work for a lower price than what it sounded like he was quoted? Jill said she mentioned somebody that’s doing like $600 to $700 a window.
Chairman Miller said the other contractors that have submitted like for grants and things?
Mrs. Ludwig said right, if there’s one that we know has a better price off the top of our heads, maybe that would help a little.
Chairman Miller said that might be helpful.
Mr. Hoffman said there are also some growing groups across the country for window restoration as Window Preservation Alliance. I believe there’s another one that are gathering more local affiliates. As we’re seeing is often the problem is just finding the right people. I can share some of that information I have with Jill and she can pass that along.
Mr. Signorelli said well can we table this then until both the city and the owner do some more research, possibly coming up with someone that could do the kind of work that the Petitioner wants done at a lesser price, just give them some more time for research?
Mrs. Morgan said I think we can do that. I provided him, the applicant, already with the ones I know that’s gotten HCOA’s, but if there are additional ones that Seth has that I can forward along, that would be good. I think some of the names I gave him still haven’t responded to him. They tend to be small, a single person company. Some of them are semi-retired, so I do know it is sometimes a little hard to get ahold of them.
Mr. Signorelli said and from my own personal experience, I understand when the homeowner was saying that it’s hard to get people to come and hard to get them to respond because we are looking for a great deal of work to be done on our house and those are issues.
Mr. Hoffman said I think it’s been particularly difficult over the last year. The demand for remodeling and restoration work has gone up a lot. People have been home and had a series of stimulus checks. I think that that’s impacted the restoration trades as well.
Mrs. Morgan said so we can table it if the Commission wants that and I’ll try to pass on some additional information to the applicant that Seth can provide.
MOTION TO TABLE THE COA WAS MADE BY: Al Signorelli
MOTION SECONED BY: Matt Hanson
AYES: Fernando Castrejon, Amber Foster, Matt Hanson, Seth Hoffman, Kristin Ludwig, Dan Miller, Simon Munoz, Al Signorelli, Mike Walker
NAYS: None
A motion was made by Mr. Signorelli, seconded by Mr. Hanson, that this agenda item be continued. The motion carried.
21-0250 2021
Historic Preservation Grant Applications, Second Review
Mrs. Morgan said so one of our grantees decided not to take the grant, so that does give us another $9,000 to distribute. I know we did discuss having a couple more in the pipeline in case something would happen and with how long the meeting ran, we didn’t get to that. I thought I could quickly kind of go through the few that were discussed at the end and were kind of next in line and then I would suggest maybe ranking the top 3 just in case anything happens or another one does not want to take the grant. I’ll share a screen. Hopefully, this can kind of remind everybody where we are. The first one and next in line was 243 Sunset. This one is for tuckpointing, painting and new storm windows. They wanted to finish tuckpointing a portion of the home and they would match the mortar. They would paint and replace some of the cedar shingles and paint the windows. They have 9 storm windows that, they’ve installed some, but 9 still need new storm windows. Some of the discussion prior was it didn’t rank as high on streetscape impact as some of the others and a little more maintenance related. This one is in Riddle Highlands. 305 W. Downer – this one is a single family local landmark. It is in the Westside Historic District. This is for porch door and cornice restoration. One of the concerns here was it is partially used as a business. It is zoned business. Then we did have lengthy discussion on wanting to limit it if we did approve it on what’s visible from the front, particularly like the front façade.
Mrs. Ludwig said I have a comment to make on that one. That’s just a couple of blocks from my house. Actually I noticed that it actually doesn’t have, if it has a sign at all in the yard anymore, it’s not a big obnoxious sign. I think it is quite a bit smaller than I thought it was. It is actually the neighbor next to that that has a larger, much more commercial looking sign, so I kind of changed my mind when I walked back to remind myself on that again. So an update that it’s not as blatantly screaming commercial building as I had recalled.
Mrs. Morgan said another one is 430 Palace Street. This is in the Tanner Historic District. We noted that the project was for repair and painting the siding. We noted that the home does appear that it could use some work. One of the things that ranked it less was that the Commission felt that it was also a little more maintenance related.
The next one, 20 S. Chestnut, this is in the Westside Historic District. It would have to become a local landmark. The scope is for new shingles, breeze board and window trim. I think one of the concerns that didn’t rank it as high as the others here was, again, the street impact. The next one is 741 Wilder. This one is in Riddle Highlands. This is for a cedar shingled roof and new gutters. This one had a high cost estimate of almost $40,000 on the low end. One of the comments was possibly prefer to give just what that difference between the asphalt roof and this new cedar shingled roof was. The last one was 452 Pennsylvania. This was to correct a violation of removing the vinyl siding and restoring the siding underneath or new, more appropriate siding. The concern here was the home is altered and not certain what would be underneath that porch, which is an enclosed porch which wasn’t original.
Mrs. Morgan said that’s kind of an overview. Does anyone want to propose one that they would like to start with that they think…
Mr. Signorelli said no, because I’d like to propose 3.
Mr. Munoz said 417 on the east side. There’s always 112.
Mr. Signorelli said on the chance that I’m going to be talking too much, I know how rare that is, 741 Wilder was built by the builder who built a lot of homes in Aurora. There’s that prominence and the fact that I’m not sure that there’s another house anywhere in Aurora that looks like it architecturally and the fact that it’s not only a big home, but it is big home with a huge leaky roof. Not simply because it is in my neighborhood, it is just architecturally very important.
Mrs. Ludwig said which one Al?
Mr. Signorelli said 741 Wilder.
Mrs. Ludwig said yes, that’s (inaudible0.
Mr. Signorelli said now the other thing is, and again, I’m conflicted as to which one I would really want to throw my considerable weight into, is 20 S. Chestnut, although I think that some of you decided previously that you didn’t think there was enough smack to what they were proposing. 20 S. Chestnut is a wonderful example architecturally, again, and the interior is magnificent and the outside is mostly original.
The exterior is mostly the original fabric and it is an anchor in that little square there.
Those are my thoughts on those 2. You already heard my thoughts on the Downer property, but since we only have $9,000 that’s where my thinking is. I don’t know if I made that clear as to which property I would like more, but anyway, I’ll let you all toss that around for whatever it’s worth.
Mrs. Morgan said I’m sorry Al, I heard you say 2.
Mr. Signorelli said both 20 S. Chestnut, the arts and craft, and 741 Wilder in the Highlands.
Mrs. Morgan said does anyone else have any thoughts on those 2 or like to provide a different one?
Mrs. Ludwig said the one on Wilder, that was the last picture we saw right, with the...
Mr. Signorelli said huge peaks, gable, yes. The cedar shingle roof.
Mrs. Ludwig said there’s a couple sort of like that in the kind of Westside Historic District closer down by like Aurora University, but I would agree, I think that it’s a more unique one than some of the others.
Mr. Signorelli said and now that I’m looking at the picture again, since we’re looking for impact as opposed to 20 S. Chestnut, I mean, obviously, that roof is such a, well it is prominent too, but I think the other one the roof is a much more prominent feature. I think you’d all agree it’s more on Wilder then on Chestnut.
Mrs. Morgan said does the Commission feel like they would agree that those 2 would be kind of the next highest?
Mr. Hanson said I’m new to this group and I asked the question the last time to kind of feel people out and the group’s philosophy on how the money that’s allocated in aggregate and individually is intended to work. That helped me with understanding the rankings of things and do things get funded in full or do you have more impact as a group in the grant program by providing partial grants to people that are looking to make repairs? I think all 4 of these lower scored projects, or grant applications, have merit and I personally don’t have a problem with dividing whatever $9,000ish, whatever the number is, between the 4. I have numbers scribbled down, but all 4 of them have merits for different reasons and I think the one that I was most against the last time around and now I realize that the one on Downer, which is partially commercial or kind of in a commercial stretch, I’d personally like to see some money go that direction to encourage a possible commercial or retail establishment that’s in that district to maintain their property to historical standards and know that they’re possible applicants to this process too as being a possible recipient of the so called leftover money. I think all 4 should get something and the one that I was least in support of last time around was the Downer property, but not I realize in driving through there too that if someone needs to make an improvement and it’s not going to fund their grant in full, maybe this program chips into some of it.
Mr. Signorelli said well my concern though is that with such a small amount of money to parcel it out to all of these, even though I do agree with you, they are all certainly worthy, but we are getting down to (unaidable).
Mrs. Ludwig said I think it would depend on if they can get the work done for that. I guess it depends on how much they needed per project. Say they needed $4,500 and we only gave them $1,000, can they afford to do the rest or would they just then have to reject the grant. So I guess it depends on how much of each of the 4 needed. I like the idea of being able to help more than 1, but I guess if the numbers are getting too small, then the impact on them being able to do the project might come into jeopardy.
Mr. Walker said and along that same line, for you Jill, how much of an administrative burden is there for each additional property? I’m sure there’s some reason we don’t give out like $500 grants, even though it would be potentially a great spark to get projects going, but then the amount of administrative work to insure that, you know, and the Davis Bacon wages and all of those things, like is it going to be worthwhile on the city end?
Mrs. Morgan said I wouldn’t mind administering them if we could get some great projects. Technically the guidelines when we passed it, did have a minimum of $5,000. I think the thought was to try to get a little bit of a larger project. I’m not for sure if that’s something we would want to consider altering. I’m not certain.
Mr. Walker said it just seems like , potentially, with these sort of leftover amounts maybe then, you know, because you could end up with a strange dollar amount and only 2 projects you want to split it between and maybe you end up with one where you would only be giving a project $4,000 or something and then technically we can’t.
Mrs. Morgan said yes. I think we did not think about that when we set a minimum.
Chairman Miller said I think in a previous round there was a grant application for a chimney that was actually a really good architectural designed chimney and the repairs were not quite $5,000.
Mrs. Morgan said that one, when we did the contingency that we gave everyone, it ended up being slightly over $5,000, but it did end up coming under $5,000.
Mr. Hoffman said was it the one over on 400 something Oak?
Chairman Miller said I believe it is Oak, yes.
Mr. Hoffman said since we have 4 and all of them are for more than the amount, if any of them were to turn it down, I guess Jill could answer this, but we’d have a pool of the other remaining ones that could be distributed if that wasn’t to much of a hassle.
Mrs. Morgan said that’s why I would recommend ranking at least 3 in case that happens, specifically like some of the large projects. Like the roof, the shingle cedar roof, depending on how pressing the need is, depending on how much we can offer them, they might still not be able to do it and maybe the roof still has a year or so left, it is not dire, so they might try to wait to do another grant round.
Mr. Hoffman said my opinion in that one is that we, the purpose of our grants, we shouldn’t cover more than the premium of the cedar roof versus otherwise compliant asphalt roof. That’s my feeling on that one anyway. That’s still thousands of dollars.
Mr. Signorelli said well if you’re asking us Jill to rank 3 out of the 4, then in my mind I would eliminate 452 Pennsylvania and keep Downer, Chestnut and Wilder. Then, I guess, we need to discuss out of those 3 which one is going to get the $9,000, correct?
Mrs. Morgan said we need to rank them, or if you want to distribute the $9,000 as Matt has suggested. The guidelines do specifically say $5,000. I think we could probably change the text and agreement to make an allowance for under and if City Council approves that agreement, or approves the Resolution that alters that, we probability have the ability to do that if people want to do what Matt has suggested and award a little bit less then the $9,000 and divvy it up.
Mr. Signorelli said I think $3,000 is too small of an amount.
Chairman Miller said Jill, did you say the amount of money we were looking at was $9,000?
Mrs. Morgan said $9,000.
Chairman Miller said so if $3,000 is too small, would the Commission go for maybe 2 and divide it into $4,500? Would that seem appropriate?
Mr. Hanson said what is the normal timeframe, the timeline for the second round or second round of reviews for applicants, for the money to go out? I think it is tough to change rules midstream and then award money to grants if the goal is to get money out.
Mrs. Morgan said no, changing it wouldn’t take any longer than having to go through the whole process. Once it is approved here, it has to go to BZE, COW and the City Council. It’s going to be the same amount of time. What I would do is make a change within the Resolution allowing us to go under the $5,000 of the guidelines, so it doesn’t take any extra time to make that change because it would be part of the Resolution approving that specific grant.
Mr. Hoffman said okay, thank you. I didn’t want to hold up any previously approved grant money or anything we do tonight as we try to change rules midstream.
Mrs. Morgan said right. I do not feel like we would have to go back and change the grant guidelines at this point. We can do it within the agreement and maybe look at changing the guidelines if that is something we want to do down the road. Does anyone have an idea of what a new asphalt roof would be? I look at 741 Wilder and the lowest bid was $40,000, the next one was $62,000. I feel like asphalt roofs usually come in around $20,000 to $30,000. Is that right?
Mr. Hoffman said I would say that sounds about right. This one might be a little on the higher side because it is steep and so it is going to be more labor and costly access.
Mr. Signorelli said it would be a little bit more and then, of course, the cost depends on whether or not they are going to have to strip it down completely. I imagine they do since it is a shingle right, that they’d have to strip everything off. When we replaced our roof, we had 2 layers of asphalt shingles and then a layer of cedar shingles and then everything was stripped off.
Mrs. Ludwig said it is so steep though. Don’t you think Seth, they would do a complete tear off of that?
Mr. Hanson said the pitch will be an incredible cost. Just knowing friends in the trades and having my roof redone through permitting, getting the layer of asphalt shingles that were at the end of their life span was only part of it. The surprising thing is what’s underneath there. I had mine done in the year 2020. The materials were kind of expensive. I knew there would be some plywood replacements, but I realized that the entire underlay of my roof was basically particle board and not plywood. That was an incredibly bad surprise to get for the cost, but that pitch alone is going to be a doozy and when you see all that green stuff growing on those shingles right now, you can probably anticipate everything underneath that is damp. Asphalt versus cedar is going to be a big cost and you don’t know what’s underneath there until you get under there.
Mr. Signorelli said so Jill, maybe your estimate of $20,000 to $30,000 isn’t too far off. I don’t know, I can’t even imagine. What is the homeowners, without having to go through my paperwork, what was the homeowner anticipating the cost of new cedar shingles? Was it $40,000 Jill?
Mrs. Morgan said one was $40,000 and then there was a $62,000. The lowest was A & E Roofing, which is a pretty, I think, reputable firm. I would think that they would give a reasonable quote. It’s quite a bit different and I’m not sure why. Actually, I do know, I remember this, sorry. They are using different quality of shingles. That was the difference between the two.
Mr. Hoffman said that one even included copper gutters.
Mr. Hanson said does that include the garage or not?
Mrs. Morgan said I don’t believe so. I think it was just the house.
Mr. Hanson said because the garage is even more heavily shaded than the house, or within a heavily shaded area than the house. I printed up everything on all the applications, so I apologize for not scrambling to look at the packet.
Mrs. Morgan said I can pull it up real quick, but I’m pretty sure it was just the house.
Mr. Hoffman said the one from Affordable Roofing here, they have just the house.
Chairman Miller said how are we thinking now? What number of properties do we think we want to try to spread the money across?
Mr. Signorelli said well I’m thinking one.
Chairman Miller said Al says one.
Mrs. Ludwig said I think it is hard to get much of a spread across them. I’d rather see one well-funded and assured that it’s going to happen versus go across too many not have them happen.
Mr. Signorelli said I agree Kristin.
Mrs. Morgan said if we’re thinking one, which one ranks the highest, 740 Wilder, 20 S. Chestnut, 243 Sunset, or 305 W. Downer?
Mrs. Ludwig said personally, I would say Wilder over W. Downer in that they are already in a historic district. Or if you were going to split between the two, maybe the two, but I think like of all that we’ve seen, those are the two that stand out the most to me as far as having architectural historical significance.
Mrs. Foster said I would agree with Kristin.
Chairman Miller said I would agree with that too.
Mrs. Morgan said so Wilder seems to be, people are saying, one. Again, particularly with this, depending on how in need of a roof they have, I don’t know how much money of a grant they are looking for. What would be the next one? Would it be 305 W. Downer or the 20 S. Chestnut? I know Al has mentioned 20 S. Chestnut.
Chairman Miller said I’m kind of leaning toward the 305 W. Downer simply because it is so extremely visible.
Mrs. Ludwig said so visible and Italianate.
Chairman Miller said and if our list is correct here, is this one already a local landmark?
Mrs. Morgan said yes. Oh, I’m sorry, let me, not to throw a wrench in this, I told the owner I would do this. If you recall the one home that they wanted to replace the shutters and we said they weren’t original. We did some additional research and I found even a historic photo and the shutters are original to the home, so just in case that changes peoples thinking on the ranking.
Mr. Signorelli said is that house on Grand?
Mrs. Morgan said yes. It is in the Highlands. Since our survey wasn’t accurate for the shutters being an alteration, I wanted to make sure we realized that.
Mr. Hoffman said looking close up at the pictures, they are mounted on hinges off the frames, actually similar to ones on our house, except these are louvered.
Mrs. Morgan said so that’s another one to consider.
Chairman Miller said it reminds be again that many of these that we are not giving any funding to, I think are very worthy of doing.
Mr. Signorelli said yes, absolutely.
Mr. Walker said a very strong application round for sure.
Mr. Signorelli said do we want to place the Grand Avenue property in this list?
Chairman Miller said I wouldn’t place it over the Wilder.
Mrs. Morgan said or the Downer or the Chestnut?
Mrs. Ludwig said I agree. I wouldn’t rank it over, at least, Downer or Wilder.
Mr. Signorelli said yes, I agree.
Mrs. Morgan said for this second one, are we leaning towards Downer?
Mrs. Ludwig said after Wilder you mean?
Mrs. Morgan said after Wilder.
Mr. Signorelli said I would say yes.
Mr. Castrejon said I would agree, just on the visibility.
Mr. Signorelli said and 20 S. Chestnut would be three then.
Mrs. Morgan said okay. Is there a fourth, in case we have to go down that far? 430 Palace, 243 Sunset, the Grand one. I think most people are saying no to 452 Pennsylvania, so 342 Sunset, 430 Palace or the Grand.
Mrs. Ludwig said can we decide when we have to? Are these like the fallbacks of people that say no?
Mrs. Morgan said these are all fallbacks. I don’t know that we would go past three. I think one of those would take us up on the $9,000.
Mr. Castrejon said could you share screen on the last three you mentioned?
Mrs. Morgan said this is the 730 Grand with the shutters. This one is 243 Sunset. Just to remind people of the work, this one is for tuckpointing, painting and new storm windows. Then 430 Palace is for the repair and repaint siding. Now 430 Palace was $12,500 minimum. The 243 Sunset was, the tuckpointing was $4,000, the windows and painting was $6,000.
Mr. Signorelli said I didn’t think that house looked like it was in, I mean it needs some work, but I didn’t think it was in that bad of condition. I didn’t think the siding or the tuckpointing looked that bad.
Mrs. Morgan said okay, so maybe we are leaning towards the 430 Palace?
Mrs. Ludwig said that one looks more obvious. I agree with Al. It looks in more obvious need of repair.
Mr. Signorelli said yes, I agree with that.
Chairman Miller said I think so.
Mr. Signorelli said that siding looks like it really needs help.
Mrs. Morgan said I think then that we have it. We will go with 741 Wilder Street as number 1, 305 W. Downer Place as number 2, 20 S. Chestnut as number 3, 430 Palace Street as number 4, and 243 Sunset Avenue as number 5.
Mr. Signorelli said okay, I’m sorry Jill, 430 Palace was 4 and 5?
Mrs. Morgan said 430 Palace was 4 and 5 was 243 Sunset. We do need a motion to approve that ranking.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Al Signorelli
MOTION SECONED BY: Fernando Castrejon
AYES: Fernando Castrejon, Amber Foster, Matt Hanson, Seth Hoffman, Kristin
Ludwig, Dan Miller, Simon Munoz, Al Signorelli, Mike Walker
NAYS: None
A motion was made by Mr. Signorelli, seconded by Mr. Castrejon, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried.
PENDING
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A) Grants
No Report.
B) Near Eastside Historic District
No Report.
C) Riddle Highlands Historic District
No Report.
D) Public Awareness
No Report.
E) Landmarks
Mrs. Ludwig said I have a follow up on the 557 Galena Avenue home if we need that.
That was one for getting it as a national…
Chairman Miller said do you mean Garfield?
Mrs. Ludwig said didn’t I say Garfield? I’m sorry.
Chairman Miller said you said Galena.
Mrs. Ludwig said no, I’m sorry, on Garfield. I do have an update on that whenever that’s appropriate, but I do have an update on that one.
Chairman Miller said that would be interesting to hear in my opinion. I think that’s the one property that he withdrew.
Mrs. Morgan said that was the one that was withdrawn, yes.
Mrs. Ludwig said he withdrew it?
Mrs. Morgan said he withdrew it, but he did say that he might consider coming before the Commission at another time for a porch restoration in the future. So if you want to give an update, we can go ahead and have that.
Mrs. Ludwig said if you just want to follow with him, you could let him know that if he wants to see about registering it on the National Register of Historic Places, I do think I found enough for him to make a case for it, which I can share if people are interested in it because I do think it has some interesting stuff. If he is withdrawing it for the grant, then I can still write it up and send it to you Jill if you want me to.
Mrs. Morgan said if you would write it up and send it out and then I can share it with the owner too. I’m sure he would be interested.
Mr. Signorelli said that’s not locally landmarked, right?
Mrs. Morgan said it is not locally landmarked, no.
Mr. Signorelli said it is just part of the district.
Mrs. Morgan said yes.
Chairman Miller said right. So just to clarify, you said you thought you had plenty to justify it. You said like a national register landmark. Did you mean local landmark?
Mrs. Ludwig said I thought he was trying to get it listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Is that correct, Jill?
Mrs. Morgan said no, a local landmark.
Mrs. Ludwig said a local landmark?
Chairman Miller said yes.
Mr. Signorelli said he wanted it individually landmarked.
Mrs. Morgan said individually landmarked.
Mrs. Ludwig said okay. Well I can wait if there are other committees that want to go ahead and do their report and I can tell you at the end what I found and you guys can tell me if it would be appropriate or not.
Mrs. Morgan said I don’t think we have any other committee reports.
Mrs. Ludwig said do you want me to share this real quick then?
Chairman Miller said I would be interested.
Mrs. Ludwig said I’ll share my screen. So what I found out basically is there’s not too much of interest of the people who lived in the house, but there were some kind of interesting facts, like the style of it, I think, is what’s interesting historically, so I’ll share with you what I dug up. So what’s kind of interesting about this particular house, I did find who the original owners were. A man named Aramis Ward Hall. I think they might be off a little bit on the year that it was built. They said they thought it was built about 1882. I think it was closer to 1892 and one of the reasons I that I think that is, see this home on the right? This is actually called the Christian Geister House. This is in Algonquin and it is right on the Fox River as well, so it is coming right off of 31, so still kind of on that main drag, so very close in proximity to where this house is in comparison to the Fox River. This was actually the first house in Algonquin, and it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and it is the first house that they put on that registry. And the reason Algonquin seems to have put in on there, is they use it as being, and the same thing, they really didn’t have a really remarkable person that lived there, but they used it as just an excellent example of Queen Anne architecture. When I looked at it at first, I’m like is it that excellent of an example? I guess so, but then when I look at what’s left of the home today, but anyway, the point being these two are very similar in a lot of ways, so I started digging a little bit further. I have the name of the carpenter who built this house and so I kind of want to dig further and see, well was he building more like it along the way, but this one was built in 1892. I would love to see what document he saw 1882. I’m wondering if he’s just kind trying to read fuzzy writing and it could be that they are the same age. But then I started looking a little more into, because I think like one of the most notable features you see on here is this square tower that’s on the 45 degree angle. When I investigated that, I really can’t find a lot of Queen Anne’s with the square tower on the 45 degree angle. They are normally either an octagon or if they’re square they’re even protruding further and they are straight and not angled like that, or they’re round. So I’m just wondering, using the write up of this other home, which looks a whole lot like the original here, I’m wondering if that square tower on the 45 degree angle could be helpful, if you guys agree. Then also, I did a little bit of research around, he made a note in his application that the interior woodwork he found was done by Bloomer and Kuhn, and so I started researching into who those guys were and they were basically woodworking, Victorian era woodworking and I found a couple of their, actually I bought this one on the right because they did a reprint of their 1893 catalogue and it was like $17.00 on Amazon so I bought it, and this was on eBay for a lot more than that. But these old catalogues, when I looked up the description of what they did, they did both interior and exterior. They did porches, turned porches and veranda work, gables, window hoods, there’s all kinds of things that they did and so when I look in on this picture, and I know none of it is left, I’m going to be curious when he digs into this a little more and whatever, I’m wondering if some of this stuff actually was from the same company because clearly they did it on the inside and the guy is making new molds that you saw and when he does go to restore this stuff, it could be an example, they would be reproduction, but it would be very specific to the builder, the architect, the time period, and I think that unusual square 45 degree angle example of a Victorian tower.
Mr. Signorelli said you don’t have an architect though Kristin, correct?
Mrs. Ludwig said I do not have the architect. They didn’t appear to know that on the home in Algonquin either. They know the guy, the way they describe it is that a local, okay it says, a local carpenter by the name of Amos Wilburn began to build the Victorian house on that property. I’m not sure if he was, I’m assuming he was just a guy using someone else’s plans.
Mr. Signorelli said but you never know.
Mrs. Ludwig said but you never know. I tried to do some searching on his name. Oh, I see why he thinks it’s there. Oh no, no, no. I think he’s got the wrong date. The 1882 map does not show that house being in existence. The house that is shown on that map is the one that’s currently 867 Garfield. I think they got the year wrong. I think it is 1892 and not 1882. It doesn’t show on the map and it makes more sense compared to this other house that’s better researched.
Mr. Signorelli said I have an issue with this National Register eligibility because we don’t have a history of famous people living in the house.
Mrs. Ludwig said there really isn’t.
Mr. Signorelli said (inaudible) live there, Ernest Hemingway didn’t live there. The other thing is so much of the original fabric has been removed. I’m not sure it would be eligible for the National Register.
Mrs. Ludwig said I think you might be right. The people that lived there, that’s basically it. I know when he was born. He died in a train accident. They came from Wisconsin. There’s not a whole lot of super exciting stuff.
Mrs. Morgan said you don’t have to have significance of person to be eligible for the National Register. There are several categories. There are four of them. One is connected to a person, but there is also architectural significance.
Mr. Signorelli said but we don’t have that either.
Mrs. Ludwig said I was trying to reach. I was hoping that maybe, because this tower is still there. It is just missing its top, so I was trying to see like would that, I could pull up the current picture if you’d like to. I was hoping that maybe it would be enough.
Chairman Miller said I also want to clarify just for a second, I don’t’ really think it really has to be eligible for a National Register as an individual property.
Mrs. Morgan said to be a local landmark.
Chairman Miller said it can be a local landmark if we decide it meets our criteria.
Mrs. Ludwig said this is what it looks like today. The only thing that I thought might help it is this, what’s left of this tower being on an angle like that, a 45 degree angle. Seth, do you know like how unusual is that?
Mr. Hoffman said there are a few others in Aurora. I’m not sure if there are any that still have the top left, but there are a few, even some more modest ones, so they don’t stand out. I haven’t done the research on this particular flavor of Victorian style, but it seems like it was a little fad for a while. If you look for them, there are some others over on the westside.
Mrs. Ludwig said so that would kind of kill my last hope.
Chairman Miller said I still find the house as it is very interesting and apart from that, the current owner’s herculean effort to return it.
Mr. Signorelli said I wholeheartedly agree and I can certainly see us being very glad to locally nominate the house once he puts some of the fabric back again. It isn’t eligible for any designation currently.
Chairman Miller said just out of curiosity, is there a house maybe on Palace that has a corner tower at a 45 degree angel and it does not have this type of roof on it anymore? Is there on the block that Matt lives in?
Mr. Hoffman said yes, they are restoring it. Now when I think of it, I believe it is. I was thinking of a different one, but yes.
Mr. Hanson said it is on the northwest corner of Plum and Palace. It has traditionally been a multi-renter residency, but that’s the one you are talking about.
Chairman Miller said I think it is in the mid-block actually.
Mr. Hoffman said it might be on Grand.
Mr. Hanson said there’s another one we were talking about too that’s, I know what you are talking about. You are thinking about 602 Palace, but don’t forget about the one on the corner of Plum and Palace.
Mr. Signorelli said is there also an angled turret on 4th Street? I believe so. I think there’s one with that kind of an angled turret on 4th Street.
Chairman Miller said well it is an interesting architecture feature.
Mrs. Ludwig said I have some pictures. I have some newspaper reports. He was in a horrible accident, by the way. A very bloody, gory death, I’ll say that. There’s a whole detail in his obituary. They were very graphic in those times and it was. He was only 50 years old. I will send along to them.
Mr. Hoffman said it wasn’t in the house, was it?
Mrs. Ludwig said no. He got hit by a train and they wrote like a page and a half on it. It was a very detailed train accident, like literally limb by limb it describes the whole thing. I will forward that along to the current owners and see if they want to stay after they read this stuff.
Mr. Hanson said as an operator on trains, the train always wins.
Mrs. Ludwig said and his sister didn’t even show up to the funeral. I love the old obituaries with who showed up and who didn’t. His brother showed up, but his sister didn’t. I’ll send that along, along with the Sanborn maps and maybe the stuff on the other house.
Chairman Miller said thank you for looking that information up. That’s interesting.
Mrs. Ludwig said I have to say thanks to the historians on the Aurora Then and Now page because you give them a case and they are on it.
F) FoxWalk Design Review
No Report.
G) Tanner/Palace Historic District Committee
No Report.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Miller said the only new business I’d bring up is we had some good discussion on the purpose of the grants and whether a difference of just a couple of really big projects or are we attempting to spread the money across multiple projects. Hopefully there is a next round. If the situation remains as it is now, we have relatively little funding for a really big city with historic districts and local landmarks. Would we consider recommending that we reduce the size of grants that are available in order to make them spread across more properties? I think now we can go up to $20,000. I guess our legislation says we’re not supposed to go below $5,000 and should we look at maybe removing that low end, take the lower limit out and should the upper limit be reduced?
Mrs. Morgan said we can discuss that and maybe some other changes. If we are going to bring it through, maybe we could make any other changes we would like. Maybe even specifying like not previous work was something else we kind of specified that wasn’t maybe considered. So there’s maybe some other things we might want to look at.
Mr. Signorelli said I could certainly live with a $15,000 cap rather than a $20,000 cap. But I think more importantly what we need to do is lobby for a good deal larger budget. We need more money.
Mr. Munoz said I agree with you.
Chairman Miller said is anyone opposed to spending more money?
Mr. Signorelli said please. I can’t keep the economy going single-handed anymore. Everybody’s got to help me.
Mr. Hanson said I want to jump in real quick for Jill and everyone else that maybe is looking to see what we are talking about. I apologize, it wasn’t 602 Palace. The mid-block architecturally (inaudible) is 606 Palace.
Chairman Miller said it looks like on that house they are doing some very careful restoration work.
Mr. Hoffman said yes. They’re slow, but they’ve been very good. This is what our last house in Omaha looked like over the course of about 5 years. It brings back memories.
Mr. Signorelli said so you could enter your house by door, window or scaffolding? Is that what you are saying Seth?
Mr. Hoffman said I sanded every single square inch of the exterior with my bare hands.
Chairman Miller said I just wanted to raise that issue just to get minds started if we want to consider changing the guidelines of the grant to allow us to spread the money maybe over more properties if that’s something you think we should do.
Mrs. Ludwig said Jill, is there a staff downtime that it’s a better, like I’m sure like right now you guys are preparing for a lot of stuff to be able to execute these grants or offer the grants out. Is there a certain time of the year that’s better or worse to review the guidelines?
Mrs. Morgan said I would think maybe even late spring or summer just because we want to make sure we have enough time to get it through and completed before we want to start looking at next year’s grants. I would say definitely before fall. Even if fall is a downtime, I would say we would want to do it before that.
Mr. Hanson said and fall could be potentially a downtime for this group or other advisory groups. It is never a downtime for budgeting. The budget folks are working very fiercefully and continuously around the clock in the fall. If people are thinking about can I get a little bit more or the same amount to more people or big blocks to a smaller amount, they may look at things differently, but fall is a busy time for budgeting.
Mrs. Ludwig said well is the City of Aurora fiscal the same as the calendar year or do they run on a different fiscal year?
Mrs. Morgan said we are a calendar year.
Mrs. Ludwig said I would think if we were going to ask for different monies, you probably would want to have that to them before August 1st I would think.
Mrs. Morgan said yes. We start budgeting and calling for stuff in the fall.
Mrs. Ludwig said that’s a good point Matt. We would want to have our ducks in a row.
Chairman Miller said thank you for all your discussion. Is there any other new business, old business or unfinished business?
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Signorelli, seconded by Mr. Munoz, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried.
Chairman Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04082021-2593
Alerts Sign-up