05-92 Resolution No. 05-92
RESOLUTION
OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION
AND THE DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE TO DENY A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE
STRUCTURES AT 600-620 VILLA STREET, ELGIN, ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, Brownstone Development L.L.C. has applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish all of the structures at the property commonly known as 600-620 Villa
Street, Elgin,Illinois; and
WHEREAS,the Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission denied the
subject application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed such denial to the Elgin Heritage Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Elgin Heritage Commission also denied the subject application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has appealed the denial of the subject application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness to the City Council of the City of Elgin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that the City Council hereby overturns the decisions of the Elgin Heritage
Commission and the Design Review Subcommittee to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
demolition of the structures at 600-620 Villa Street, Elgin, Illinois, and the City Council hereby
issues the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structures at such property.
s/Ed Schock
Ed Schock, Mayor
Presented: March 23, 2005
Adopted: March 23, 2005
Omnibus Vote: Yeas: 6 Nays: 0
Attest:
s/Dolonna Mecum
Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk
•
v ,c.I OF b< V City of Elgin Agenda Item No
�.jp .
March 4, 2005 L
r__ :.:
G
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
N , �r A,
FROM: Olufemi Folarin, City Manager —
QUALITY HOUSING
Sarosh Saher, Urban Design & reservation Specialist
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Decision of the Elgin Heritage Commission to Deny a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA)
600-620 Villa Street—Lovelton Academy
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members of the City Council with
information to consider an appeal of a decision of the Elgin Heritage Commission to deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The Commission has denied a request to demolish all
structures on the property. The appeal is being made by Mr. Joe Calvo and Mr. Steve Swanson,
representing Brownstone Development,the applicants for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council reverse the decision of the Elgin Heritage Commission and
grant the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to demolish all structures on the
property. The Elgin Heritage Commission has denied the appeal with a vote of 4 yeas and 4 nays.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 600-620 Villa Street, and is commonly known as Lovelton
Academy.
The original structure on the property consisted of a home built around 1870, formerly occupied by
Judge E.C. Lovell, at 600 Villa Street. It was an Italianate style house that faced Liberty Street. In
1909,the Resthaven Sanitarium was established at the site as a hospital providing treatment for the
chronically ill,mentally ill, and convalescent patients.
r At the same time, a large addition was also built to the original house extending south along Villa
Street to Watres Place. The addition was built in the Prairie Style with stucco cladding on the
exterior. A 2°d story passage addition was constructed on the property in 1970. The Lovelton
rub' 600-620 Villa Street—Lovelton Academy
March 4, 2005
Page 2
Academy and Forest Day School purchased the property in 1981 to operate a private residential
treatment center for troubled adolescents.
The property was surveyed and inventoried in 1998 as part of the Elgin National Watch Historic
District. The survey rated the property as locally significant and one that would be eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places by virtue of its historic significance.
On inspection of the physical characteristics of the property, Staff of the Community Development
Department had the following comments to offer:
1. Even though the character of the neighborhood is essentially residential,the subject property
is at the intersection of Liberty and Villa Streets which are two major arterial road corridors
on the east side,with a higher level of traffic.
2. The original building on the property constructed as a home in 1870 has been considerably
altered throughout its history and significantly added onto.
3. The present configuration and layout of interior spaces of the building would limit the use of
the building to its current institutional use.
The Community Development Department therefore recommended approval of the request to
demolish the structures on the property. A copy of the staff report is attached.
On November 22,2004,an application to demolish all structures on the property was brought before
the Design Review Subcommittee by Mr. Joe Calvo and Mr. Steve Swanson, representing
Brownstone Development. The applicants are proposing to construct a new Walgreen's Drugstore
on the property. Following a presentation by the applicants and discussion of both the existing
building and the proposed drugstore, the request to demolish the structures was denied for the
following reasons:
1. The main building was determined to be architecturally significant along with its ancillary
buildings contributing to the overall character of the Elgin National Watch Historic District.
2. The applicant did not demonstrate that an emergency condition existed on the property
endangering the public safety and welfare requiring the removal of the building or structure.
3. The applicant did not demonstrate that the denial of the demolition would result in an
Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
The applicants appealed the decision to the whole Heritage Commission.As required by the historic
preservation ordinance, a public hearing was conducted by the Elgin Heritage Commission on
irk January 4, 2005 to obtain oral and written testimony on the subject decisions from the applicants,
property owners and concerned citizens. The applicants also obtained the services of an independent
•
600-620 Villa Street—Lovelton Academy
March 4, 2005
Page 3
consultant, Kurt Mitenbuler and Associates, Inc., of Evanston, Illinois, to inspect the property to
determine its viability for preservation or restoration.Additionally,staff prepared a video recording
of the exterior and interior of the property to give the Commission additional information on the
condition and configuration of the exterior and interior. Copies of the consultant's report and a
transcript of the public hearing are attached. •
The Heritage Commission re-convened within 30 days on February 1,2005 to make its final decision
on the appeal. At the meeting, at which one member was absent, the motion to approve the
demolition of the buildings on the property failed due to a tied vote. The motion to affirm or reverse
the decision of the Design Review Subcommittee failed.
The applicants have since appealed the decision to the Elgin City Council.
COMMUNITY GROUPS INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
The Elgin Heritage Commission has conducted the review of the proposal in accordance with Title
20 of the Elgin Municipal Code and the Elgin Design Guideline Manual and has provided their
comments in the attached documentation. Documentation provided by interested residents of the
neighborhoodhas also been attached.
9IMPACT
flj,kJINANCIAL
None
EGAL IMPACT
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. Affirm the Elgin Heritage Commission's decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the structures on the property as proposed.
2. Reverse the Commission's decision and grant the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness(COA)to demolish the structures on the property.
Respectfully Submitted for Council consideration.
SBS
Attachments
, OF E
-( CC
i°� ,'� —City of Elgin
7474,110,017,11,, § Mayor
Ed Schock
Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert Gilliam
Brenda Rodgers
February 22,2005 Thomas K.Sandor
John Walters
City Manager
Brownstone Development,LLC Attention: Jim Calvo David M.Dorgan
One Lincoln Centre,Suite 1500
Oak Brook Terrace,IL 60181
RE: 600-620 Villa Street–Lovelton Academy property
Proposal to demolish existing buildings on property
Dear Mr. Calvo,
At the last meeting of the Elgin Heritage Commission held on February 1,2005,your appeal
to the Elgin Heritage Commission to consider a denied decision of the Design Review
Subcommittee for a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to demolish the existing building
on the property,commonly known as Lovelton Academy, and construct a new retail drug
store,d.b.a.Walgreen's Pharmacy,was considered.
Following discussion of the proposal,a motion to approve the demolition of the buildings on
the property failed due to a tied vote.The motion to uphold or overturn the decision of the
Design Review Subcommittee failed.
Per Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code- "Historic Preservation,"you have the opportunity
to appeal the decision of the Design Review Subcommittee to the whole Elgin Heritage
Commission. Please note that a request to appeal the decision needs to be submitted within
ten days of receiving this written notice of denial. For your reference,I have attached the
procedures for appeals that are outlined in the historic preservation ordinance.
In the meantime,if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(847)931-
5943.
Sincerely,
V
S.."-- 1—.1.4
arosh Saher
Urban Design&Preservation Specialist
c: Richard Heimberg,project attorney
Jerry Deering,Community Development Director
Mike Milliken,Project coordinator
Members,Elgin Heritage Commission
rill
150 Dexter Court• Elgin, IL 60120-5555•Phone 847/931-6100•Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofetgin.org
.: Printed on recycled paper
Page 1
rk Elgin Heritage Commission—February 1,2005
(excerpts of the minutes of the Elgin Heritage Commission meeting held on February 1,
2005 regarding the subject property at 600-620 Villa Street)
A. New Business
1. Appeal Consideration- 600-620 Villa Street(Lovelton Academy). Mr.
Heimberg,attorney for Brownstone Development,was present at the meeting in
the event the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Stroud reported that
some members of the Commission including Commissioner Briska,
Commissioner Diamond,along with Pat Miller and Mr. Saber had met at the
property that afternoon with representatives of the Landmarks Preservation
Council of Illinois(LPCI),Mr. David Bahlman, Executive Director, LPCI, and
Mr. Steve Kelley, a consulting architect with the firm of Wiss,Janney&Elstner,
WJE, Inc. They had been invited by Commissioner Diamond to look at the
building to determine its historic and architectural significance.
Commissioner Stroud stated that he was generally in favor of preservation,but in
this case the buildings at the Lovelton property has lost most of its historic fabric
and integrity. He accepted that the building was structurally sound,but would
find it hard to find a use for the building in its present configuration. He also
acknowledged that many of the parts of the building were salvageable.
Regarding the historic significance of the property,he acknowledged that the
property was associated with the Lovell family,particularly Judge Lovell,who
owned the house,but his association with the property was only for a short time.
For the next 95 years,the property was owned by"Rest Haven,"the nursing home
that moved in and operated from this location.
Chairman Miller then stated that he was torn with the current decision that had to
be made. He indicated that he would like to see a more creative use for the
property,and that perhaps a Walgreen's drug store would not be the best use for
this property. He gave the example of the gas station across the street,that when
approved,began the change in the residential character of the neighborhood.
Chairman Miller would like to see a more"residential"type use on the property.
Commissioner Smith stated that this was a hard decision to make. He felt that the
building did not have much left in terms of its exterior architectural features and
the interior had been reconfigured to an extent where it would be very difficult to
find a use that could use the existing configuration.
Commissioner Diamond stated that she had arranged a meeting at the property
that afternoon with representative from the Landmarks Preservation Council of
Illinois(LPCI). David Bahlman from LPCI and Steve Kelly from WJE walked
through the building at her request to determine what the significance of the
Page 2
building was and its potential to be considered by the LPCI as part of their 10
most endangered list of buildings for 2005.
Commissioner Diamond stated that following the walk-through, Steve Kelly
observed that the building did not have much of its architectural character
preserved,but it was certainly structurally sound. He also added that the original
fabric could potentially exist under all successive layers of construction that had
taken place over the years. He stated that currently only 5 %of the original
building is visible, and suggested that more fabric could be uncovered with
selective removal of later additions. If the original structure were to be uncovered
in this way, there was a potential that it could be adaptively reused.
Commissioner Diamond also cautioned the Commission that they had recently
made a decision to deny demolition of three properties in the historic district on
Division Street and that approving the demolition in this case would not set a
good precedent, and would appear inconsistent with the Commission's decision
making process.
She also stated that if the demolition of the building were to be granted,the
Commission should consider approval contingent upon conditions requiring that
all necessary permits from all agencies be approved prior to actually commencing
demolition of the buildings on the property.
Pat Miller commented on the fact that once a permit for demolition was granted,
the property owner had the option to demolish the building at their convenience,
as long as the permits were still current. Mr. Saher clarified that a COA and
demolition permit was typically valid for the period of six months after which it
would need to be renewed. He also clarified that the permits would remain if
ownership of the land changed and a subsequent property owner agreed to
complete the work. However, all demolition permits on the property would only
be approved with consent of the property owner.
Mr. Heimberg also confirmed that it was the intention of the developer to acquire
the property and begin work after all permits and approvals were obtained.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stroud to overturn the decision of the
Design Review Subcommittee to deny demolition made on November 22,2004,
and approve the request with the following conditions:
1. All necessary permits from all pertaining agencies be obtained prior to
commencing demolition of the existing buildings on the property
2. Making available for salvage any architectural features on the exterior and
interior of the building
Following the motion, there was more discussion on the demolition.
�y OF E-40
G`
' tit City of Elgin Mayor
Ed Schock
4.,r ,; Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert Gilliam
Brenda Rodgers
January 27,2005 Thomas K. Sandor
John Walters
City Manager
To: Members, Elgin Heritage Commission David M. Dorgan
From: Sarosh Saher,Urban Design &Preservation Specialist
RE: 600-620 Villa Street, Lovelton Academy property
On January 4, 2005, a public hearing was held to obtain testimony on a request of the
property owners to appeal a denied decision to demolish the existing buildings on the
property.
Per the historic preservation ordinance,the Commission is required to make a decision on
the appeal within 30 days following the close of the public hearing. Transcripts of the
hearing were transmitted to you about a week ago. This along with any information
submitted during the public hearing is testimony that you may consider when making the
decision at the Tuesday February 1,2005 meeting.
For your reference,the following is staff's recommendation on the proposed demolition:
It is the opinion of staff that:
• the original building on the property constructed as a home in 1870 has been
considerably altered throughout its history and significantly added onto.
• The present configuration and layout of interior spaces of the building would limit the
use of the building to its current institutional use.
Staff therefore, recommends approval of the request to demolish the structures on the
property.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
tfe)M__
Sarosh aher
Urban Design &Preservation Specialist
150 Dexter Court• Elgin, IL 60120-5555• Phone 847/931-6100•Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofelgin.org
C! Printed on recycled paper
6`'yy'' ��
—City of Elgin Ma Y or
�� �HH` Ed Schock
rnr
k,jEt,tFo Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert Gilliam
Brenda Rodgers
December 9, 2004 Thomas IC Sandor
John Walters
City Manager
To: Members, Elgin Heritage Commission David M. Dorgan
From: Sarosh Saher,Urban Design &Preservation Specialist 46641),?1
RE: 600-620 Villa Street,Lovelton Academy property
Attached is a copy of a letter from the property owner appealing the decision of the
Design Review Subcommittee that was made on November 22,2004, denying their
request to demolish the existing buildings on the property to construct a new drugstore
(Walgreen's). The packet is being submitted to you ahead of the regular agenda packet to
provide sufficient time for review.
The packet contains a statement from the applicant,Brownstone Development along with
a building inspection report submitted by the firm of Kurt Mitenbuler&Associates on
the existing condition of the building.
Additionally, at the request of Steven Stroud,I am going to be preparing a video walk-
risk. through of the building to provide a better understanding of the existing features and
condition of the building.
The public hearing of the Heritage Commission to obtain testimony on the project is
scheduled for Tuesday,January 4, 2005 at 7:00pm at the City Council chambers. There is
one other item that is also scheduled for that night—the landmark designation public
hearing for 770 West Highland Avenue,McClure Mansion, submitted by Susan and Glen
Holland.
The regular meeting of the Elgin Heritage Commission will follow the close of the public
hearing. Agenda packets for the regular meeting along with complete documentation on
each of the items for the public hearing will be transmitted to you in an agenda packet a
week prior to the meeting.
In the meantime,please let me know if you have any questions.
C: Mike Millikan,Program Coordinator
r
150 Dexter Court• Elgin, IL 60120-5555• Phone 847/931-6100• Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofelgin.org
Printed on recycled paper
.4OFE(C
Gy��=��'ti City of Elgin
Mayor
Ed Schock
Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert Gilliam
Brenda Rodgers
December 8,2004 Thomas K. Sandor
John Walters
City Manager
Brownstone Development,LLC David M.Dorgan
Attention:James W.Calvo and Steven M. Swanson,Principals
One Lincoln Centre,Suite 1500
Oak Brook Terrace,IL 60181
RE: 600-620 Villa Street—Lovelton Academy property
Appeal to the Elgin Heritage Commission-Proposal to demolish existing buildings on
property
Dear Mr.Calvo and Mr. Swanson,
I have received your request dated December 7,2004 appealing the decision of the Elgin Heritage
Commission's Design Review Subcommittee made on November 22,2004,to deny your request
to demolish the existing buildings and structures on the property.
In accordance with Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code-"Historic Preservation,"a public
hearing will be conducted by the whole Elgin Heritage Commission to obtain oral and written
testimony on the subject decision,from the applicants,property owners and concerned citizens.
The hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday,January 4,2005,at 7:00 p.m.in the City
Council Chambers,Second Floor,North Tower of City Hall,150 Dexter Court,Elgin,IL
60120.
For your reference,I have attached a copy of the notice announcing the public hearing. If you
have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(847) 931-5943.
Sincerely,
Sarosh Saher
Urban Design&Preservation Specialist
c: Richard Heimberg,project attorney,Brady&Jensen,LLP
Jerry Deering,Community Development Director
Mike Millikan,Project coordinator
Members,Elgin Heritage Commission
t
150 Dexter Court•Elgin, IL 60120-5555• Phone 847/931-6100• Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofelgin.org
Printed on recycled paper
• ,� O F F'Ci
�
c'''r ,.F� City of Elgin
i Mayor
./ ', ►I � Ed Schock
41
irc o Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert GilCam
Brenda Rodgers
Thomas K.Sandor
John Walters
Notice for Public Hearing City Manager
David M. Dorgan
A decision of the Elgin Heritage Commission's Design Review Subcommittee made on Monday,
November 22,2004,to deny the following request has been appealed to the whole Elgin Heritage
Commission.
A request by Brownstone Development LLC,as Applicant and Morris B. Squire and Forest
Health Systems,Inc.,as Owners of the property at 600-620 Villa Street,to demolish the
buildings on the property.
A public hearing has been scheduled by the Elgin Heritage Commission on Tuesday,January 4,
2005,at 7:00 p.m.in the City Council Chambers, Second Floor,North Tower of City Hall, 150
Dexter Court,Elgin,IL 60120, to obtain oral and written testimony on the subject decisions from
the applicants,property owners and concerned citizens.
At the public hearing, owners of the property,residents and concerned citizens will be given the
opportunity to comment on the subject decision.The members of the Elgin Heritage Commission
will be in attendance and may also present expert testimony or evidence regarding the.issue.
A legal description of the subject property is as follows:Lots 1,2,3,4, 5,6,the southerly three
feet of lots 7 and 8, and lots 16, 17, and 18 in Block 1 in Edward C. Lovell Addition to Elgin, in
the City of Elgin,Kane County,Illinois.
r
150 Dexter Court• Elgin, IL 60120-5555• Phone 847/931-6100•Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofelgin.org
Primed on recycled paper
OFf
y L.� City of Elgin -
Mayor
`"j Ed Schuck
Council Members
Juan Figueroa
Robert Gilliam
December 2,2004 Brenda Rodgers
Thomas K Sandor
Brownstone Development,LLC Attention:Jim Calvo John Walters
One Lincoln Centre,Suite 1500 City Manager
• Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181 David M.Dorgan
RE: 600-620 Villa Street—Lovelton Academy property
Proposal to demolish existing buildings on property •
Proposal to construct a new commercial drugstore
Dear Mr.Calvo,
At the last meeting of the Elgin Heritage Commission's Design Review Subcommittee held on
November 22,2004,your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to demolish the
existing building on the property,commonly known as Lovelton Academy,and construct a new retail
drug store,d.b.a. Walgreen's Pharmacy,was reviewed.
Following discussion of the proposal,the request for demolition of the buildings on the property was
denied for the following reasons:
1. The main building was determined to be architecturally significant along with its ancillary
eiwk buildings contributing to the overall character of the Elgin National Watch Historic District.
2. The applicant did not demonstrate that an emergency condition existed on the property
endangering the public safety and welfare requiring the removal of the building or structure.
3. The applicant did not demonstrate that the denial of the demolition will result in an Economic
Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Per Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code-"Historic Preservation,"you have the opportunity to appeal
the decision of the Design Review Subcommittee to the whole Elgin Heritage Commission.Please
note that a request to appeal the decision needs to be submitted within ten days of receiving this
written notice of denial.For your reference,I have attached the procedures for appeals that are
outlined in the historic preservation ordinance.
In the meantime,if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(847)931-5943. •
Sincerely,
Sarosh Saher
Urban Design&Preservation Specialist
c: Richard Heimberg,project attorney
Jerry Deering,Community Development Director
Mike Milliken,Project coordinator
Members,Elgin Heritage Commission
150 Dexter Court•Elgin, IL 60120-5555•Phone 847/931-6100•Fax 847/931-5610•TDD 847/931-5616
www.cityofelgin.org
:? Printed on recycled paper
Design Review Subcommittee—November 22, 2004
Page 10 of 15
(excerpts of minutes of the Design Review Subcommittee held on November 22, 2004, regarding the
subject property at 600-620 Villa Street)
G. Other Business
1. 600 Villa Street—Review design for new Walgreens store
The applicant is requesting a COA to demolish the existing building on the property, commonly
known as Lovelton Academy, and construct a new retail drug store, d.b.a. Walgreen's Pharmacy,on
the property.
Existing Structures on property:
The original structure on the property consisted of a home built around 1870, formerly occupied by
Judge E.C. Lovell, at 600 Villa Street. It was an Italianate style house that faced Liberty Street. In
1909, the Resthaven Sanitarium was established at the site as a hospital providing treatment for the
chronically ill,mentally ill, and convalescent patients.
At the same time, a large addition was also built to the original house extending south along Villa
Street to Watres Place. The addition was built in the Prairie Style with stucco cladding on the
exterior. A 2"d story passage addition was constructed on the property in 1970. The Lovelton
Academy and Forest Day School purchased the property in 1981 to operate a private residential
treatment center for troubled adolescents.
The property was surveyed and inventoried in 1998 as part of the Elgin National Watch Historic
District. The survey rated the property as locally significant and one that would be eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Proposed new retail drug store:
The new retail drug store proposed to do business as Walgreen's Pharmacy will be located on the
western portion of the property along Liberty Street. Parking lots will be located to the south and
east of the building accessible from Liberty Street, Villa Street and Watres Place. A drive through
window will be constructed along the eastern façade of the building and wrap around the north
facade of the building to exit onto the Liberty Street. The entrance to the building is proposed to be
located on the southwest corner facing the parking lots to provide access to customers driving to the
store.
The building on the property will consist of a single story structure clad in brick with smooth faced
cast stone horizontal accent bands,cornices and ornamental molding. The foundation with water
table band will be constructed in rock faced cast stone. The windows and doors on the structure will
be clear anodized aluminum with insulated glass.New standing seam aluminum awnings will be
installed on each window.
The applicants are currently working with City staff to obtain a map Amendment to rezone the
property as PNB—Planned Neighborhood Business District. A hearing by the Planning and
Development Commission is scheduled for December 6,2004.
Guidelines for Demolition:
A. Demolition of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building should be avoided.
B. Demolition of a building which contributes to the historic or architectural significance of the
locally designated districts should not occur,unless:
Design Review Subcommittee—November 22, 2004
Page 11 of 15
1. an emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of
the building or structure;
.2. a building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts
and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or
3. the denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as
determined by Chapter 20.10 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
C. demolition of pre-1945 secondary buildings(garages, etc.)maybe acceptable if
substantially deteriorated (requiring 50%or more replacement of exterior siding,roof
rafters, surface materials, and structural members).
Guidelines for new commercial construction
A. should be compatible in height with adjacent buildings. In Elgin's commercial areas,two-to
four-story buildings are most acceptable.
B. should have exterior wall construction of materials consistent with those in the area.
Materials such as wood, metal or glass are less appropriate for exterior wall construction.
C. should be aligned with adjacent buildings along the street and conform to existing setbacks.
Most commercial buildings in the downtown area are flush with the sidewalk and setbacks
for open space in front of a new building are not acceptable.
D. should be of similar width and scale and have similar proportions as adjacent buildings.
E. should be oriented towards the primary street on which it is sited.
F. should have roof forms consistent with adjacent buildings.
G. should have window and storefronts of sizes and proportions consistent with adjacent
buildings.
H. should maintain the traditional separation between storefronts and upper facades. This
separation should be in alignment with adjacent buildings.
I. should have vertical divisions to maintain traditional building widths. This is especially
important for large buildings which extend across several lots.
J. should not incorporate historic styles which pre-date Elgin such as "Colonial Williamsburg"
designs.
K. may be identified by carved limestone blocks or other traditional means to indicate the year
of construction.
L. where feasible,should fill lot area to form a continuous street facade.
Staff comments and recommendations:
Demolition: As currently submitted,the proposal to demolish the existing building on the property
does not meet the requirements of the Elgin Design Guideline Manual. However, staff has the
following comments and recommendations to offer:
1. Even though the character of the neighborhood is essentially residential,the subject property
is at the intersection of Liberty and Villa Streets which are two major arterial road corridors
on the east side,with a higher level of traffic.
2. The original building on the property constructed as a home in 1870 has been considerably
altered throughout its history and significantly added onto.
3. The present configuration and layout of interior spaces of the building would limit the use of
the building to its current institutional use.
rik New Construction:
Design Review Subcommittee—November 22,2004
Page 12 of 15
The guidelines for new commercial construction pertain to new structures in the downtown area,
rather than within the neighborhood. The character of the downtown commercial district is of a
higher density with buildings required to be built to lot lines.
The proposed building on the property will serve as a neighborhood business and thus is attempting
to be compatible on issues of mass, scale,height,materials,textures colors,and ornamental details.
Staff therefore recommends approval of the proposal with conditions:
The following conditions specifically pertinent to the design of the building and site are extracted
from staff recommendations communicated to the applicant in a letter dated November 9, 2004:
1. Provide an ornamental style fence along the entire north and the northern segment of the
east property line. This fence should either be constructed of masonry materials or a
combination of masonry piers with decorative "wrought-iron" style fencing, with a heavy
landscaping buffer between the fence and the curb. This is necessary to separate dissimilar
land uses.
2. All of the landscape islands should extend the entire depth of the parking space.
5. The doors and windows should include a dark or bronze anodize finish.
6. The street-facing facades should be revised to become more transparent. This could be
achieved by adding glass display windows to these elevations.
7. Decorative lighting should be placed on the building and in the parking lot.
9. The area between the tree islands and the street curb should become a landscaped parkway,
as opposed to a curb-line sidewalk.
ribs 10. Landscaping should be planted around the perimeter of the entire parking lot, including
drive aisles at the rear of the building.
12. A pedestrian entryway should be incorporated into the landscaped area at the corner of Villa
and Liberty Streets. .
• Additionally, it is also recommended that staff be allowed to photo-document the buildings on
the property as a record of their existence on the property.
Wayne Marth(Architect) extensively communicated details of the plans and elevations of the
proposed project to the commissioners.
Existing buildings:
Main building was built around 1870 with additions noted around 1910. The stone foundation
of the main building is questionable. Both water seepage and substantial mold has been found
in the basement. The small bungalow home and additions have many building issues too. They
include roofing damage which has caused interior damage,many narrow hallways, and
numerous"connections"from one building to another.
1) A preservation company would be used to salvage any historical items; including but not
limited to the large main doorways, the main staircase, chandeliers, etc.
2) Demolition of all structures on the property.
Exterior of site:
1) Retain stone archway on the southwest corner, reflecting Lovellton with a historical marker
within the historic district.
2) A new masonry wall would be constructed at the north of the property, instead of wood
fencing. This would help to reduce noise in the residential area,reduce debris from landing
in the adjoining property.
Design Review Subcommittee—November 22,2004
Page 13 of 15
3) Green space to be given on both the west and south exposures.
4) Landscaping would enhance the property with a variety of shrubs,plants and trees.
Lighting:
I) Ornamental lampposts (not box style)would be short (appx. 20 feet in height),and down
lights would be used contain the light within the site.
2) On the building,up/down lighting fixtures would be used on the east and south exposures.
New Construction of Building:
Development team had worked to implement several features that would compliment the
historic district.
1) Second row of windows had been added since the inception of the project. Suggestion of
using the lower windows to display historic information about the district(not just the
current site).
2) Tower with windows added to the structure.
3) Windows would have dark bronze painted finish(not the shiny brushed steel).
4) Awing would be constructed of green standing seam metal panels.
Signage:
1) Sizing would be changed to meet current zoning requirements.
Traffic:
1) Trucks would be arriving in late morning to early afternoon. Normal delivery time would
not cause additional safety to students traveling to the nearby middle school.
2) Entrance/Exits from site plan indicate the south opening would allow both incoming and
outgoing traffic to both the east and west traffic onto Villa Street.
3) On Liberty Street, traffic heading north could enter into the parking lot,however, south
bound traffic would not be allowed from the parking lot onto Liberty Street.
4) On Liberty Street, traffic heading south would not be allowed to enter into the parking lot,
however,north bound traffic would be allowed to exit the parking lot onto Liberty Street.
5) Pharmacy drive-thru users would be allowed to exit onto Liberty Street in either direction.
Discussion was opened for public comments:
Julie Schmitt: Stated she had walked thru Lovellton, and did not see where financially the existing
building could be utilized.
Dan Miller: Stated he felt the building has too much significance. Also explained that both a
Burger King and a Day Care Center,had submitted plans to adapt better in the historic district.
Pat Miller: Stated she still thinks the new building looks too much like a box. Neighborhood has
lots of variation. Drive-thru canopy does not have enough mass. Stone gateway would stick out
with adapting some of the original stonework to the new building. Roof line is too flat.
Chairman requested the building could use additional features to enhance it's,historical appearance.
Motion made by Commissioner Walkup to demolish the existing structures on property.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Diamond.
The motion failed 3-2.
Yeas: Briska and Stroud.
Nays: Diamond,Roxworthy&Walkup.
The appeal process was explained to the applicants by Mr. Saher.
LAW OFFICES
BRADY & JENSEN, LLP
WAYNE M.)ENSEN 2425 ROYAL BOULEVARD WILLIAM W.BRADY(1914.1989)
RICHARD L.HEIMBERG
ROGER K.FRANDSEN ELGIN. ILLINOIS 60123
"ATTORNEY-AT-LAW AND
RONALD E.RASMUSSEN TELEPHONE 847-695-2000 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
ALFRED Y.KIRKLAND.1R.
GLEN T.DOBOSZ• FAX 847-695-3243
MICHAEL C.DEUTSCH'
KEITH A.SPONG
MARIOS N.KARAYANNIS
FRED I.BEER' Writer's Direct Line
BRIAN L.HEIMBERG (847)289-3370
PATRICK I.CRIMMINS
Email Address
rheimberg(4bradylaw.com
December 7, 2004
Mr. Sarosh Saher
Planning&Development Dept.
City of Elgin
150 Dexter Court
Elgin, Illinois 60120-5555
Re: Brownstone Development Appeal to Elgin Heritage Commission
Dear Sarosh:
Enclosed is our official appeal of the Design Review Sub-Committee's denial of the request to
demolish the property at 600 Villa Street.
Attached are duplicate copies of the inspection report of Kurt Mitenbuler&Associates Inc. along
with a copy of Mr. Mitenbular's website for background and credentials.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions in this regard. It is my understanding
that this appeal will be heard by the Heritage Commission on January 4, 2005.. If there are any
changes in that schedule,please let me know.
Ve truly yours,
RECEIVED
DEC 0 8 2004
Richard L.Heimb for Planning Department
BRADY &JENSE ,LLP CITY OF ELGIN
RLH/jmg 150 DEXTER COURT
Enclosures ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60120
cc: Brownstone Development LLC
Dec7ElginBrownstone.ltr.ltr
t December 7, 2004
To: MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION
From: BROWNSTONE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
One Lincoln Centre, Suite 1500
Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
Re: Appeal the decision of the Design Review Sub-Committee made on November 22,
2004 to deny the demolition of the improvements at 600 Villa Street for the
construction of a Walgreens Drug Store
We wish to appeal the decision of the Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Sub-
Committee that was made with respect to our request to demolish the existing structures on
the above property for the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store facility in accordance with
the drawings and other documentation submitted to the Committee.
Based upon a report by Kurt Mitenbuler & Assoc., Inc., a qualified and experienced historic
building inspector, a copy of which report is attached to this letter, it is our belief that the
buildings currently located at the subject property do not contribute to the historical or
architectural character of any of the historical districts in the City of Elgin and their removal
will improve the appearance of such districts.
Very truly,
Brownstone Development, LLC
By., ��. �
7 /.
�: � •s W. Calvo, Prin pal
%,
By: � �• �, /-014p0---
Steven M. Swanson, Principal
Attorney:
Richard L. Heimberg, Esq.
Brady & Jensen, LLP
2425 Royal Boulevard
Elgin, Illinois 60123
Dec1 ElginHeritageBrownstone.lir RECEIVED
DEC 0 8 2004
.. Kurt Mitenbuler & Associates, Inc.
1021 Wesley Ave. Evanston, Illinois 60202
847.332.1400 fax 847.332.1430
kurt@chicagohomeprimer.com
Steve Swanson www.chicagohomeprimer.com
do Brownstone Development
1 Lincoln Center Suite 1500
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Property Inspection location:
600 Villa St.
Elgin, IL
Inspection Date Tuesday,November 30, 2004
Dear Mr. Swanson:
At your request,I have inspected the subject property and my inspection report follows. The report
reviews the conditons @ the subject property to determine if it is viable for historic preservation or
restoration.
So that you may know who I am,I will provide a brief description of my work history and how it relates
to historic preservation efforts.
I didn't come to the field, it was brought to me. I grew up in an historic home built in 1857. From an
early age,my mother drilled me w/the fundamentals of the maintenance&repair of older homes
w/nistoric attributes. My involvement in the construction industry has primarily been in the field of
remodeling,w/the emphasis on older homes. I have been involved in multiple projects in Chicago and
it's suburbs related to repair or rebuilding of historic homes,both as an inspector/consultant,and as a
carpenter/builder. I am one of the Charter members in the Historic Building Inspectors Association, a
small group of individuals nationwide w/an interest in maintaining historic structures, &educating folks
interested in pursuing historic preservation&restoration.
My personal ethic is that monetary challenges should not decide the fate of fine old buildings. In other
words,I don't like the argument that because a project is going to be expensive, it is not worth pursuing.
Historic preservation is about saving something larger than the immediate amount in one's checkbook.
Preserving historic buildings should be driven by the understanding that these structures open a window
to the past so that we can better understand where we came from.
Incumbent on the idea of historic preservation or restoration, is the idea that the structures being
considered are worth preserving or restoring, and if there are elements in the structure that can be
preserved or restored. In my opinion, the buildings @ 600 Villa do not possess any characteristics or
components that can be preserved or restored in any worthwhile manner,with the exception of the
possibility of salvaging some interior finish components in the front entry area and the stone gate @ the •
RECEIVED
DEC 0 8 2004
SW corner. Specifically, there are 2,possibly 3, high arched doors w/related woodwork&hardware,
the stone mantle @ the LR of the original house,&the stairwell in the entry area. Quite literally,every
other interior component of historical significance was removed years ago when the property was
converted to an institution.
The original house @ the SW corner of the assembled buildings must have been a fine home @ one time,
but it is now a husk of it's former self. There are no less than 3 institutional buildings constructed along
the eastern portion of the property,all tied together w/"connecting"structures. The institutional
buildings do not possess any architectural element,porportion, or design that could tie them to the
original house. The construction methods of the insitutional buildings suggest that they were built
somewhere in the mid-20th century, evidenced by the cast concrete structural assemblies&foundation
components in the bsmt. The asbestos cement siding used on large portions of the east buildings was
common from approx. the late 1930's to the 60's. (I could nail it down further,but it is not relevant to
this discussion.)
The arrangement of the east buildings is such that even if they were separated into individual structures,
they would be so tightly packed together as to look ridiculous. If the"connecting"buildings were
removed, the spatial arrangement of the remaining(large)buildings would make no sense whatsoever,&
probably be unsightly. And, they are completely incompatible w/any element of the original house.
The interior floor plan of these east buildings is strictly institutional, w/large numbers of small BR's
accessed off of narrow low ceilinged hallways. There could be no use for them other than an institution.
Even if there was an individual or group that wanted to convert it back to an insitution,the arrangement
would never comply w/modern life safety code requirements,and it would take a wholesale demolition&
reconstruction of the interior&exterior to accomodate the reqirements for safe habitation by large
groups of individuals. I can only recommend demolition of these structures;they are an eyesore.
After realizing that the assembled buildings were not salvageable into any worthwhile use, I began to
look for ways to restore the original house @ the SW portion of the property. This building has also had
ill conceived&poorly executed additions&alterations that have obscured,or obliterated,whatever
valuable historical components once existed.
The NW quadrant of the building has had bays installed for windows and a north egress door. The bays
do not have historical compatible proportions to the rest of the house, the windows are not compatible
w/the original design, &the northern egress bay doesn't look like it was original to the house. The
entire NW bays would have to be removed&the elevations reconstructed. Since there are no original
plans,nor pictures,I am not sure how to proceed. One cannot restore something without some sense of
the original structure.
The front/south 2nd fl. "porch"does not look original, as it is completely out of proportion,the
architectural elements are not compatible,and it is amateurishly cut into the eaves of the original
structure,damaging whatever historical value remained on the south elevation. The roofing on this
south 2nd fl. porch is an absolute mess of hacked together roof repairs; it is leaking, there are profuse
amounts of mold&decay on the interior under the porch, &it is very likely that there has been major
structural damage to the south elevation structure from years of slow roof leaks. The entire south 2nd
floor porch would have to be demolished, and it is very likely that the damage would extend down into
r
the original 1st fl. porch,necessitating major repair or rebuilding. In short, the north elevation would
require substantial demolition&rebuilding,without any guide or plan to direct you in what to replace it
with.
The connecting building @ the NE portion that connects the original house to the institution is a loading
dock, fire escape,&interior gymnasium on the 2nd fl.; it has no historical value whatsoever, and is an
eyesore. This connecting building would have to be removed entirely,leaving a huge gaping hole on 2
floors in the entire NE quadrant of the original structure. Lacking any plans or pictures of the original
house, there is no way to determine where to take the design of any repairs or rebuilding @ this NE
corner.
To summarize the previous 3 paragraphs, the entire Northwest,North,Northeast,nearly all of the east,
&huge portions of the south upper sections of the house would have to be completely removed,leaving
gaping holes over approx. 1/2-2/3 of the property w/no idea of what historically accurate design or
components should replace it. The structural engineering implications of this aspect of the work alone
are staggering. Trying to perform this vast demolition while attempting to preserve a few windows and
a wall sections of negligible historic worth would be pointless.
The interior of the original house is a disaster. The entire north half of the original house first floor has
been blown out into a large cafeteria straight out of the 60's or 70's;there are no remaining historical
elements whatsoever;it is not even apparent what the original floor plan might have been. The kitchen is
not well designed for modern applications, and the equipment is outdated and essentially worthless.
The entry way has been cut up into small office(s), and there are no apparent remains of historical value.
The entire 2nd fl. has been hacked into narrow hallways w/large amounts of small BR's, all serviced by
central bathrooms lacking any modern design element that could make them clean and sanitary. There is
no safe fire egress,the ceilings are low, fixtures are beat up, &finishes are badly damaged from neglect,
roof leaks,mold, and there is likely structural damage from leaks in several areas throughout the house.
The overriding feeling that I got when walking through the property was that it was a worn out rabbit
warren,unfit for animal, let alone human,habitation. There is only the original LR and the previously
mentioned doors&stairwell that could be salvaged(more on this later).
The mechanical systems are a patchwork tangle of ancient equipment,all in bad to non-functional
condition. Heating ducts on the roof are an incredible tangle of outdated design&installation, &I
couldn't recommend salvaging any of the current heating system as it is inefficient&likely not effective
@ heating&cooling the property. Plumbing throughout the building had several leaks,which have
probably damaged the structure,in addition to creating mold growth throughout the buildings. The
electrical service to the property is(more than)adequate,but in any historical restoration, it would all
have to be removed and replaced w/new equipment anyway,making it a liability instead of an asset.
Since the floor plans would require complete&total rebuilding to even begin to retrieve historical value,
I can't find any use for the existing mechanical systems;they are essentially worthless.
General observsations throughout the bsmt. show that the original house is extremely damp,w/several
large areas of decay,mold or other environmentally unacceptable conditions. Mold remediation on the
property would require very substantial resources,&may not even be possible given the visible
conditions.
The site is approx. 1/3-1/2 paved w/asphalt,certainly nothing desirable or of historical significance.
There is an old bungalow @ the SE portion of the property that looks habitable,but there is nothing in
it's exterior elevations that suggests it is of historical value. Many of the surrounding houses have
significantly more historical value,&I would recommend diverting focus toward them instead of
attempting to make something out of the bungalow that it was never intended to be.
The site has a single worthwhile element,the stone gate @ the SW portion of the property. I strongly
urge you to save this,as it would be a nice suggestion of what once was, &I believe it could be
integrated into a site plan for the property in a manner that would enhance any future development.
The salvageable components(previously noted)are only a very few single components out of a whole
that no longer exists. The doors&hardware are fine examples of 19th century woodwork&design and
the LR w/it's stone mantle&hearth must have been stunning. Taken out of the context of the original
structure,it is pointless to award them any value outside of salvage. A new life in a museum or in the
possession of someone who could appreciate&utilize them in an appropriate manner is the only suitable
use for them. The stairway,which at one time must have been stunning, is now in disrepair. It is hard,
or impossible, to move this type of stairwell to another Iocation, as it was designed and constructed for
the specific height,size,&proportion of the entry. I can only recommend offering it to local historical
societies or museums that might be interested, or possibly architectural salvage companies who could
dismantle it&peddle it to an interested party. As sad as it makes me, these few salvageable elements
are not the stuff of historic preservation; at this point, they are only single tiny elements,completely out
of context to the current structure,and to try to spin a house out of them would be an exercise in
foolishness.
Even the history of the property is something that might be better buried in time. While the original
house was undoubtedly grand,the use of the site for the last 50+years was not. From my(admittedly
minimal) research, it seems the property was the repository for those last few remaining individuals from
the old Dunning Mental Institution originally on the NW side of Chicago. This institution was known
nationwide @ the time as being a horror of outdated practices related to the care of the mentally
disabled; to be housed in Dunning was to be cast into hell. After the mental institution,it was an
educational"academy"by name,but apparently a juvenile home for troubled youth in practice. Given
the visible living conditions, it must have been a hellish existence for unfortunate children. These are
memories that would be better left behind.
I could go on w/additional discussions of the conditions,but I will think I have made my point. Lacking
original drawings,plans, or pictures,we could only guess @ what the building might have looked like,
so developing a comprehensive&desirable preservation plan is impossible. We might guess @ what the
original house was,but that is somewhat contrary to the idea of preservation or restoration. Some might
disagree,but upon thorough review, my opinion is that the existing structures do not contain enough
original&historical elements to provide a satisfactory historical restoration, let alone preservation.
To go forward, I would recommend these things:
Save the stone gate @ the SW corner&integrate it into a comprehensive site plan; it could be a
delightful design element in some future development.
Salvage the doors&stone hearth out of the LR&entryway;either integrate them into some future
development as a design feature,or display them in a local museum or historical society as fine examples
of period architecture.
Develop a research plan to find old pictures or other historically significant information related to the
original house that could be collected and displayed for the education of the community;while it might
be better to demolish the existing structures,it is not a good idea to forget what has gone before. If you
would like any help in organizing this effort, I would be glad to help you, or you could employ the
services of the local Historical Society.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide inspection services for this project. If you have any questions
regarding my inspections, the report, or my conclusions,please feel free to contact @ my office.
Sincerely,
Kurt Mitenbuler Illinois State Lic.#050000220
a
a king area. " lr' j. ~
tion �ent�ra{ R r ti +� ,-. •
DestriStelooktn9NEthe ki '. `�; ,. t Y
7.� _ ,•,t..
•
w .
r
REcEly ED
DEc 0 8100
r
Epp Vitta St.
Elg►n IL
Description
ew of front hallway; note the sagging &water
.amaged ceiling.There may be structural
amage in the ceiling.
-
his is the sum total of historical elements in the
building.
1
p.
Description
9 •
View of the south site; the bungalow is in the
right upper corner. There is no element of the r •
Site that suggests landscaping from the 19th
•� z
century.
F s
w 'A ..,� • v
_f
t;
— - ,
Y i
.. ? _ _ - • n '
Description
fThe rear loading dock, showing the connecting r••
structure, electrical service, etc. This jumble of
bldg's. has no historical significance, and should
all be removed. Q - ,
- a:i..6S
ttk
•
•
- __-
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description , ; .; `:., ; ; ,"';'
Bsmt. of east insitutional building; the structural '` r" x, r' r 2
•ssembly is cast concrete, which makes me think Y'`'.
was constructed in the mid 20th century.
wk.,.
l-,
Description -.
j ,'t' _ _ .,nil
More mold &damp conditions. r
k
•
Description s ,
More mold&damp conditions. — ,., .
n�r4 4 y4
•
,i %-..„:4
.
lilt. rr: �"u✓,a-
•_ _
r
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description . - "'.` ` -
Still more mold and deteriorated masonry. /_ .,.. „, , , ....., .'
--.
,. . . • - . . i
..4, .
... ,
„ ,
st i
T.'j /
„,„,_ . . . , . . ..,, ,
,'"111 .'''. • •4' : :- 07
i '1k . • -'_•`.„,:;--, :....,7, :14, ._ ,, I
„A . .
�
' Pry
Description
Even more mold and damp conditions.
ril
1=. 1.i --J t
•VF+ 40
4a 4
i._ .',7Y1- 4
A.
y ....:5.. 'r ak .r✓
Description v -II
More mold &damp.
s ,fir 44 7'
+moi , $
r �
w
e
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description •
Mold in the bsmt.; this is extensive, caused by f
-aking pipes down through several floors. The
old remediation for this property may not even
oe possible, given the extent of damage. ': fi,� '�: 4�Y
2 1,
,, fid.'`
Description
Another portion of the lower level showing mold, ',,
rot, &decay. ,_
fzs;;
Description 1;•.. ` .,•+ , , j
Still more mold &damp conditions. ; 6 �p a
1
• a
4
r
eillik
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
•
Description ;
• other view of the gymnasium, giving one the
-nse of how big the "hole" in the original house
,ould be if the connecting structure werez
r
removed. Ilk
' '-
i;. si bpd•:'.ti"n,
*s
i9 /
,c� 1 _.
Description ",�w�'�';�s�, -
typical BR; note the total lack of any historical L,,; ; { p z
element, let alone any sense of warmth or ;:4;,-:;
desirable living ace. ;` l...
Description
One of many roof leaks w/ mold, rot, &very likely
structural damage to the underlying framing.
h
' a,.4e7;,,
n
'-,,-!1.,,,;-.
t.r
+...l.
afiC• a;S`v"t x ., t
Cyt."..�Z,t.y:,, ,,::.44t 5"�•
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description mfmAtova
'typical BR; note the drywall, the acoustical tile
eilings, &the total lack of any historical
ements.
4:4. Ar}^:•r•J• �•3
Description ^•`h ,' A,, s ::..
Another view of a hallway w/ BR doors.
'f
•
Description
The"gymnasium" @ the central connecting
structure. If the connecting structure were
removed, there would be this large gaping hole in
the entire east/NE portion of the original house.
(Pk
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description
W corner cafeteria. The entire north & NW ,
ons of the interior have been "scooped out"
�
provide this current space. I have no idea
rraortiwhat the original floor plan must have been; all i 1 lio
i . 1
historical details have been removed. '
1.
Description ;,, 1 m ,:;s ;
2nd fl. hallway are all similar to this one; narrow, ;,N:``:M1``
lark, damp, moldy, low ceilings, & in my opinion,
not safe. a
0, t_•..
f ..rte,.::..
Description r;. ma:'F +''
Another example of poor design &construction; ., ;£''" `,
the jog in the wall reduces the width of the ,,. ,,
hallway <36", making it unsafe for egress, in 1-5%'-:, Y`j ,. ; ,
addition to makingit veryuncomfortable& ugly. ` '
� 9Y� a
Ora.i4
rte-_
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
•
Description
Front"LR" mantle. The east bay on this room has fif =, :. x;r ::
•een covered over, so this room is not restorable F :: ' {_�:>=
�ithout major rebuilding of the east wall. G. f �: •
1, i ii f.,.r..,:, 7-,•;-. ' I
_ ., ..: —
dI$
:n NM an:II II ,
' Jail LS= ? ,
.�`1
Description '�� a1"'VC
Front doors&arches; they should be salvaged. '' '.‘,"Ivr i -
`1 -.,,,I.--
, hF
i 1-11)!I ,
ull 1i
}
Description
y:I:4,,
View of front hallway looking back @ the =y -
cafeteria. Note that all historical elements past :
the stairwell have been completely eradicated. -
r ' , 1,
=..,. iii
1 ill
t4'` i i
n
ZN. '� 1 1 NNN''la
i
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description ,
ar•3 t;ci; -
Mold &water damaged material under the front `A3-
•orch roof.
'
it
iL
Description
Arched doors @ entryway; they should be
salvaged.
4,
4
Description
Water damaged plaster&tin ceiling @ the front ;.
entry hall ceiling. This damage is extensive, &
may indicate structural damage in the underlying • : .: - ;,
framing. h ?�: • f�-
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description
Original turret @ the original house.
' •
11' -
- t
„la
t
40.
Mill••••••••
Description
iew of the mechanicals/ductwork on top of the
• . itt34:0 '
central "bridging" addition. The mechanicals are - -
•ngled mess of bad design, &would need total
removal and replacement to even begin to
provide historical accuracy to the renovation -
work. ;, •
L _5111616
Description
The original turret; note that it is completely
different in design, proportion, &finish to the one
on the SSE building.
_
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description 4—' �.�,c :t 1� . ..
Another view of the SE Institution" building. Y � ��" :,
ote that the turret @ this building does not r '' .���
latch the turrent on the original SW house in ,;'. -. 'E' .�..
proportion or design; it is a poor attempt @ tying t`. �' ' �.c.. ''k
the properties together. `; '
Descriptionf .{ I i. s
e connecting assembly between the original SW :I
house&the SE institutional building. The i .g., , ,, 4
"bridging"addition has taken a huge chunk out of f • ` ,
the NNE portion of the original house, &would F " Ell require removal to provide any semblance of
:1�1/frits■ ,
historical accuracy to the original structure. Once +nri
it is removed, there would be a large gaping hole
in the NW quadrant of the building, requiring a ;. '
complete rebuilding of this portion of the original 7
•
house. Since we don't know what that was, there .., s 4
s nowhere to proceed. :, ,
i •
l i . / 1
was I
i'lk
Description ' • k ` . % - ''' te; ,-i
144 Roofline of the adjoining "institiutional" building ;�, l r;-`.k' --/..:_,_
to the SE. syr: ,,,j,-.,"."
,-' : w—
, 44 p,r t o. -_t
�5 '�Nr • .ter--:-_
Note that the turret @ this building does not .1\14i
� ' Noy.
match the turrent on the original SW house in ` ir? o'` %-
proportion or design; it is a poor attempt @ tying
,Zig 4
the properties together. �';�. -
i
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description . .
View of the SE building relative to the original ', a, - •- -- kW
Ouse. Note the dissimilar proportions, window ;sl-.at. k.
/pes size, &layout. This buildingwas �c. '
-pparently built for an institutional purpose, as 1%, P, to tsi
the entire facade looks to be commercially or
instititutionally oriented. ; ,'' 'R
} . Lae41.i, 1 Arwv„ 11.
V''. • SAI
V -
Description b { ,.a ii,'}�
,;' (v' ';,
lew of the east elevation of the 3 separate, but ft. 'f -
interconnected, buildings that comprise the
eastern portion of the development. "" - ,, , ���
. .-iikv t ii,k,,, ' ., --
7 1' 7,
J 4
,`4
c•—r
Description ' •A.
View of the mismatched exteriors; there are ;2' ..f. r
different eave details, different windows, and —
different proportions. ,...._ - t ``, '0
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description • -, I-`
now viewed from
other view of the SW entry, ,=A • y
ri.:
e SW, standing between the stone gate @ the t �s �
W corner. �' \
.a..r
._.- ktg
..
yy,, h �:' ` �.
Description ,z •
iew of the south elevation from the south side of -�- ,� f�-- , t�. ---
/ii
e property. Notice the distinctly different
porportions, windows types&styles, and the .r. 1, 01
c • onnecting building between the two structures. - '•. . � .
w • :. ' £ j
Ei
,; q F4111111
�� m"t9
i
Description
This is an exceptionally crude detail @ the _,4.
junction of the original house eave&the • • -
(apparently) added on front 2nd fl. "porch". This ,� ' - _
is not a detail I would expect to find on the }
(otherwise nicely proportioned) facade of the ., v: - '°
original structure. - ,.l' .1
N .,,,•-
‘-'"*-:,,.--1.,,:,'''' 1-44:17'—' -4:7-4 . s'-:--------
r
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Description
e NE addition; this building is not(apparently)
riginal to the property as evidenced by the _, .
fferent windows, proportions, &structural
assemblies.
Description
e SW entry viewed from the NW corner of the
parking area.
CJS' /•.(
Description • :. ;..
Another view of the SW entry, now viewed from
the SW. iv
y t
Ir.,
4 rf. !•
.I• '
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Kurt Mitenbuler&Assoc.,Inc./Pre-Purchase Building&Home Inspections 1021 Wesley Ave. Evanston,IL 60202
Photo File for the property located @ 600 Villa St. Elgin IL
Client: Steve Swanson
Description
View of main house from NW looking SW. The
north entrance pictured is not original, evidenced
by the roofline it's inconsistent proportion to the
rest of the"bumpout" @ the NW corner. • k, q
' f `.. ..+.4.
Description •
e north eave detail(s) are not consistent; the ,:• •t *°
central connecting structure is not original to
the property. The eave is crudely cut into the ,y �_.r
main house. To reveal the original structure, it V. — -
would be necessary to completely remove this
oorly designed) addition, which would require _
aajor demolition of the NE corner of the original
structure. A r —
y r i� _ s
AN
st y'
Description
view of the NNE intersection of buildings. There
are no fewer than 4 separate buildings all
conjoined together in a tangle of design styles, ^o
proportions,eave&window details, siding 4.."10 \s' '',i•
materials, &use. • p, •
7-740
en
600 Villa St. Elgin IL
In Page 1 of 4
r
RECEIVED
•
tr urtmitenbuler
DEC 0 8 1004
If you are visiting this site, you likely already know the value of a good inspection
determining the condition of your potential new home.So,Iet me tell you what we d
[.or
We inspect buildings. I started performing building inspections in 1979 and t
inspection business has been my only business since 1986. To date, I have inspect
About us over 8000 buildings in the Chicago Metro area.
• Credentials
I start
Inspections/Services this
Sample reports& business
Document �a> , w/
downloads i -. ` "' *-: ., naive id
"" -5-"/= r that if Id
Fee schedule r { excellent
Schedule an f t' building
appointment -►% y_ inspectioi
_ � satisfied
Home >s customer:
(1�7 would
spread t
word. TI
naive idea has resulted in over 20 years of satisfied clients. I view every cliE
relationship as if it was family, & provide advice as if I was the one considering t
building for purchase. This business requires personal involvement, which is wha
provide on every inspection.
Kurt Mitenbuler& Associates., Inc. is owned and operated by Kurt Mitenbuler. It if.
home & building inspection services company providing home inspections, lar
building & commercial inspections, & condominium building & associad
consulting.Kurt Mitenbuler&Assoc.,Inc.is an independent firm in one business mil
- inspecting buildings and providing appropriate research and reportage to provi
the client w/ the information they require. We do not perform any repair services,n
do we perform any construction related work on buildings that we inspect.
How to Choose a Home Inspector
There are huge differences between home inspectors.Like all professions or trades,t
majority are rather mediocre. A small percentage are spectacularly bad. An ev
smaller percentage are very, very good. You want one of the the good ones. Yo
home is often the largest investment of your life.Take some time to make sure you a
hiring someone you can trust to do an excellent job and to look out for your intere:
above all others.
A referral from a friend or coworker is good place to start. But you should still dc
little more homework before choosing an inspector.
The majority of homebuyer's rely on their real estate agent for a referral to
inspector, but there's an inherent conflict of interest present. Here's a dirty little secr
Many home inspectors are dependent upon agent referrals to stay in business. As
result, they tend to minimize defects to keep the referring agents happy. Obvious
Printed for Richard Heimberg<rheimberg@bradylaw.com> 12/2/2004
In Page 3 of 4
' r
Make sure you know who will be doing your inspection. You want the boss,
not a trainee.
What Associations do you belong to?
If your home inspector doesn't belong to a couple of home inspection
associations,he's operating in his own little world of limited knowledge and
experience. I am a member of ASHI, the American Society of Home
Inspectors. ASHI is the oldest,largest, &most respected of the professional
home inspection organizations.
Don't be confused by "certifications" sold by trade organizations. Many
require nothing more than a check.I know of two dogs that became certified
home inspectors in one of the"professional"organizations.
What Standard of Practice do you use for inspecting?
Many uneducated inspectors don't use any recognized standard of practice.
The ASHI Standard of Practice are the most widely recognized. Your state
may have it's own standard. You'll find it's based upon the ASHI Standards
or it is the ASHI Standards. Other home inspection organizations have
standards of practice. Most of these parallel the ASHI Standards.There is
also the SOP from the State of Illinois OBRE(Office of Banks&Real Estate).
If you are working in Illinois,you must write a report conforming w/ these
Standards. The standards are available on the "Documents & Downloads"
page.
How long will the inspection take?
There's no one right answer to this question. Each inspection is different.
Older or larger homes take longer. Homes on slabs are easier than homes
with crawl spaces. At minimum, any home will take 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours of
time to perform the inspection and write the report. We sometimes spend 5
or 6 hours on a larger or older home.
Can I attend the inspection with you?
Make sure your inspector allows you to attend the inspection. If not, be
wary. Being at the inspection and seeing the problems will greatly increase
your understanding of the problems.
Do you carry insurance?
Most real estate contracts make the buyer liable for any damage done by the
inspector.Make sure he carries liability insurance.
Can I see a sample report?
Looking at a sample report is the single best method of comparing home
inspectors. Much of what we do involves written communication.The report
is the work product of the inspector. Make sure it's in a well organized
format you can understand. Be sure it all makes sense. If the inspector is
Printed for Richard Heimberg <rheimberg(a bradylaw.com> 12/2/2004
In Page4of4
•
• reluctant to show you a sample of his work,run.
Do you take photographs?
The most advanced inspectors take digital photos if there are significant or
complex components that require documentation. Photos make it easier for
everyone to understand the problem. Especially when the problem is where
you can't get to it.Like the roof or the crawl space.
What percentage of your business comes from Real Estate Agents?
Be wary of anyone who receives more than half of their referrals from
agents. They may be worrying about the next referral more than they are
worrying about your new home.
How much do you charge?
Fees vary widely. You'll find that inspectors who have been around a Iong
time and do a good job tend to charge more. It's like anything else. You get
what you pay for. In fact, you can probably judge the skill level of the
inspector by the price he charges. And in this case, you want the best,not
the cheapest. Most real estate contracts require the seller to repair defects
found during the inspection. Missing even one of these defects will end up
costing you money.Need more convincing?
We recommend you print and save this page to assist you in selecting a competent
home inspector.
847.332.1400 1021 Wesley Avenue,Evanston,IL 60202 kurt@chicagohomeprimer.com
Printed for Richard Heimberg <rheimberg@bradylaw.com> 12/2/2004
If
BEFORE THE ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION
IN RE : 600-620 Villa Street )
)
I ,
Elgin, Illinois
k
Ir Elgin Illinois
January 4 , 2005
( 7 : 15 p.m.
t
REPORT
L OF
PROCEEDINGS
r
FlReported by Patricia Jean Drogos
l
Err
rr
L
I.
f ►
2
emk
1 BEFORE :
2 THE ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION
3 MR. DAN MILLER,
Chair;
4
MR. GEORGE ALBEE,
5 MR . WILLIAM BRISKA,
MS . EVELYN CHAPMAN,
6 MR. DENNIS ROXWORTHY,
( MS . KATHY SKAGGS,
7 MR. GREG SMITH,
tr MR. STEVEN STROUD,
8 Members .
9 PRESENT :
10 MR. SAROSH SAHER,
11 City of Elgin
Urban Design & Preservation Specialist .
12
13 ALSO PRESENT :
14 BRADY & JENSEN, by:
MR. RICHARD L. HEIMBERG;
15
and
16
BROWNSTONE DEVELOPMENT, LLC . , by:
li 17 MR. STEVEN M. SWANSON, II , and
MR. JIM CALVO.
18
19
t
20 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had before the Elgin
F 21 Heritage Commission at the hearing of the
22 above-entitled cause on Tuesday, the 4th day of
23 January, A . D . 2005, commencing at 7 : 15 p . m. at 150
elk* 24 Dexter Court, Elgin, Illinois .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
•
lj (847) 741-1410
C
3
1 CHAIRMAN MILLER: At this point I would like to
1 : 2 open the public hearing for -- regarding the Lovelton
3 Academy at 600 to 620 Villa Street .
I . 4 Do you have a motion or anything?
( 5 MR. SANER: You can just open it .
6 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Okay.
7 MR. SAHER: I can9 o ahead and read the
8 description of the property?
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yeah.
10 I don ' t feel that we need to read the
11 technicalities again . You folks heard the
ff 12 technicalities before . I don ' t feel it ' s necessary
13 that we go through those again .
14 Sarosh, would you tell us about the
15 property?
16 MR . SANER: Certainly .
17 The subject property is located at 600 to
18 620 Villa Street and is commonly known as Lovelton
19 Academy.
[k
20 On the 22nd of November 2004 an application
21 to demolish all structures on the property was
22 brought before the Design Review Subcommittee by Mr.
23 Jim Calvo and Mr . Steve Swanson, representing
P g
24 Brownstone Development, LLC. The applicants are
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
lj (847) 741-1410
1 !
4
1 proposing to construct a new Walgreen ' s drugstore on
2 the property.
3 Following a presentation by the applicants,
4 the request to demolish the structures was denied for
5 the following reasons :
6 Number one, the main building was
7 determined to be architecturally significant, along
8 with its ancillary buildings, contributing to the
9 overall character of the Elgin National Watch
10 Historic District .
11 Number two, the applicant did not •
12 demonstrate that an emergency condition existed on
[r
{ 13 the property, endangering the public safety and
14 welfare, requiring the removal of the building or
15 structure .
16 Number three, the applicant did not
T
17 demonstrate that the denial of the demolition would
18 result in an economic hardship on the applicant, as
19 determined by Chapter 20 . 10 of the Historic
20 Preservation Ordinance .
1: 21 The applicants have since appealed the
L:
22 decision, following which a public hearing is being
23 conducted today . And in the process have also
24 submitted additional information; one document ,
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
11
5
1 including a report written by Kurt Mitenbuler of Kurt
2 Mitenbuler and Associates, Inc . , of Evanston,
3 Illinois, to inspect the property to determine its
4 viability for preservation and restoration. A copy
5 of the report was provided to the Commission for
rr
6 review earlier last month.
1 7 Additionally, staff has prepared a video
8 recording of the exterior and the interior -- it ' s
9 around 20 minutes long -- to give the Commission
10 additional information on the condition and
11 configuration of the exterior and interior.
12 It ' s the opinion of staff that the original
13 building on the property, constructed as a home in
[ , 14 1870, has been considerably altered throughout its
15 history and significantly added on to . The present
16 configuration and layout of the interior spaces of
[► 17 the building would limit the use of the building to
18 its current institutional use . Staff therefore
19 recommended approval of the request to demolish the
20 structures on the property.
� 21 And finally on a procedural note, based on
22 the additional evidence submitted to the whole
23 Commission and additional testimony provided by the
24 applicants and citizens , the Commission will need to
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
ti
(847) 741-1410
6
tow 1 make a decision to either uphold or overturn the
1 ' 2 decision of the Design Review Subcommittee .
3 If the decision of the Design Review
4 Subcommittee is overturned, based on current evidence
( 5 and testimony obtained, a Certificate of
6 Appropriateness will be issued to demolish the
1i 7 structures on the property. The plans and
17
l 8 specifications on the proposed new Walgreen ' s
1 ' 9 drugstore will then need to be reviewed for a COA by
l :
10 the Design Review Subcommittee .
11 However, if the decision of the Design
12 Review Subcommittee is upheld, the applicants may
13 appeal the decision to the Elgin City Council .
E. 14 Tonight we have representatives, the
15 applicants themselves and their attorney, present to
16 offer additional testimony.
t
17 And if the Commission wishes, I have the
18 video cassette loaded, and we can watch an
U
19 abbreviated or the entire 15 to 20 minutes of footage
y 20 that I ' ve been able to take on the property; or if
21 you wish just the interior, since there were
22 considerable photographs .
23 I also want to ask that the report
24 submitted by Kurt Mitenbuler and Associates gives
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
[i (847) 741-1410
•
.11
7
1 quite -- in fact, quite a good representation of the
2 condition of the exterior and the interior of the
3 building . In fact, the photographs are taken in
4 better light conditions than the video was today. So
5 whatever you wish, we can do .
6 CHAIRMAN MILLER: At this time I ' d like to offer
7 the property owner and citizens to testify.
8 MR. SABER: Would you like to come forward?
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Come up and talk to us .
10 MR. HEIMBERG: Good evening . My name is Bud
[ 11 Heimberg. I 'm an attorney for Jim Calvo and Steve
12 Swanson, who are here . They' re Brownstone
Er
13 Development .
T 14 Basically we ' ve submitted Mr . Mitenbuler ' s
15 report and don ' t have too much to add to it . He was
16 not available to attend tonight to meet with you.
Er
ti 17 I 'm sure he ' s available, if any of you have any
18 questions, by telephone . He ' d be glad to talk to
l►
19 you .
r
20 One thing we ' d like to emphasize is that
1' 21 his opinion that the property should be not preserved
22 is not based on its condition, but the fact that,
23 over the 60 or 70 years, that it was converted from
24 residential to institutional, that there isn ' t very
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
ti (847) 741-1410
[[ 8
ITemb.
1 much left of the original structure . What ' s there is
2 all adaptive and not of any architectural or historic
3 significance . So that ' s basically our position.
4 And we ' re glad to answer any questions you
5 have, although we ' re not particularly expert at his
II 6 area of -- of the field.
7 MR. SAHER: I also had the opportunity today to
ir
8 walk through the entire property; and, if you would
9 like, I can give. you a little more in depth of some
10 of the observations that I made .
f11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I ' ve walked the entire
II 12 property, also, but tell us . Give us your
13 observations .
14 MR. SAHER: One of the things I noticed is the
15 original Italianate house -- and I can also do that
[.
16 while showing some of the footage, but I can talk to
li 17 you about it as well -- was the fact that the
18 original house itself has been compromised in its
19 design and configuration . For instance, an example,
i 20 many of the windows have been removed and replaced by
21 the prairie-style porches that were introduced in the
jj22 nineteen-teens and 1920s .
l'
23 On the interior, the only significant, and
I24 very significant portions that I could see, are the
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
1, (847) 741-1410
9
1 main doorways, the three doorways that remain . But
1 . 2 that is such a small fraction of the total fabric of
3 the entire house that, at this point, seems
4 insignificant to preserve for the entire house .
f5 In most cases there were portions of the
6 house that had been added on to, but kind of opened
7 up in terms of creating a lunchroom, the kitchens
8 with all their appliances . In most cases ceilings
9 have been lowered, with drop ceilings or acoustic
10 paneling . A lot of interior window trim, including
11 that of the original Italianate part of the house,
12 was replaced to allow for new, standard-size windows
13 in many cases . And from the exterior pictures you
14 may be able to see some of those changed .
( 15 In some cases the original Italianate
tc
16 portion of the building itself was modified in terms
17 of its roof, which cuts right across a window. So
18 this sort of compromise has happened a lot in the
19 original part of the building.
' 20 And then, with the additions, I think it
21 was kind of built in pieces over time . So you ' d have
22 a corridor leading to a few rooms for patients or
23 students to sleep in, and then another corridor added
[ 24 to that corridor at a right angle .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
fE
10
1 And in some cases floor levels don ' t kind
2 of meet up with each other, so you have ramps leading
3 to different parts of the building .
4 There aren ' t any windows in some parts of
5 the building, so it ' s dark and dingy. Everything is
6 long, narrow, with low ceilings . Everything is
7 either drywall or wood paneling from the ' 50s or the
8 ' 60s .
( 9 There was very little historic fabric left
1 ,
10 in the original building and little to no historic
1 . 11 fabric in any of the additions added on from the
t .
•
12 nineteen-teens and ' 20s when the prairie-style
13 additions were done .
14 And then in the late ' 50s and ' 60s an
15 addition to the north was added with industrial-sash,
It
16 steel windows, low ceilings, basic two-inch trim on
17 the inside, drop ceilings with acoustic paneling --
V! 18 acoustic tiling on the interior . In some cases those
19 windows are also replaced with newer, vinyl windows,
20 too . So there has been a lot of change.
lT 21 There is an ancillary structure on the
22 property, too, that could date back to the 1920s .
23 That had fewer changes made to it, and I did not have
VieN'
24 an opportunity to walk through that building . But
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
[j (847) 741-1410
f
11
Lew1 that wasn ' t part of the original construction on the
( 2 property. It was done, I would say, later in the
3 1920s .
4 And if you want to add anything from
5 what --
{{ 6 MR. HEIMBERG : As Mr . Mitenbuler suggests, the
7 main exterior aspect of the building, which is the
8 archway at the corner, it is planned that that would
9 be preserved and converted to a introductory sign to
10 the --
l11 MR. SAHER: You mean the gateway?
12 MR. HEIMBERG : The gateway.
Er13 MR. SAHER: Right .
[, 14 MR . HEIMBERG: The stone arch, as it ' s called.
15 MR. SAHER: Right .
16 MR. HEIMBERG: Everything else that he suggested
17 be retained are all -- you know, the woodwork and the
18 hearth in the main living room.
19 MR. SAHER: Right .
t
20 MR. HEIMBERG: The rest of it ' s all apparently
21 been removed from the days when it was probably a
22 magnificent structure.
le 23 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Would you gentlemen like to
24 add anything?
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
�; (847) 741-1410
it
12
1 MR. SWANSON : No.
2 MR. CALVO: No .
i . 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr . Stroud, comments .
4 COMMISSIONER STROUD: I have got a lot of them.
5 First of all , we ' re talking preservation
6 and I am a preservationist . What percentage of the
7 total building is the old building?
i , 8 Could you say ten percent, five percent? I
9 don ' t think very much.
10 MR. SAHER: It ' s hard to say because, if you
11 look at it in configuration, it probably rates -- I
12 mean, measures up to 20 percent .
13 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Up to 20 percent .
14 MR. SAHER: But of that, so much has been
15 compromised that, if you look at it piece by piece,
16 it reduces in significance .
17 COMMISSIONER STROUD: You don ' t need to repeat
18 that . I just wanted to know what portion of this
1
19 we ' re talking about as being an old building,
20 possibly, whether it ' s preservable or not .
21 The remainder: My own feelings are all the
22 dormitory style, all the other stuff, I don' t think
23 merits preservation, simply because it isn ' t anything
24 that is of architectural or historical merit .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
f `
13
1 So that if we talked about demolition, that
( ' 2 portion of it , I would have no qualms about saying it
i .
( 3 should be demolished.
4 COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN: The out buildings?
( ' 5 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Well, the ancillary,
l :
( 6 auxiliary additions . Everything that has been tagged
7 on to that original building .
8 Now, as far as preservation, I have heard
9 statements that we can ' t give up a formerly-wonderful
10 structure without demanding something equal e ual in
1 . 11 return . And I think we have to separate demolition
12 and what is being -- what is going to be built there
13 later . What is going to be built there later is
f1 14 something that has to be taken up with the Design
► 15 Review Subcommittee . Our purpose here tonight is
16 only to decide whether the building is something to
17 be preserved.
18 And I think, based on that, I find very
19 little that needs to be preserved, that merits
ti 20 preservation .
� 21 And those portions of the building that do
22 merit preservation I think should be preserved, but
23 they do not have to remain instituted there . They
l(W14' 24 could be preserved in a comparable house that has had
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
11
•
14
1 those designs removed. They could be preserved until
2 they ' re needed. But they should be preserved, those
3 items that date back to the origin of the house .
4 At one time it was a remarkable house .
5 However, anyone attempting to restore this building
6 would not be restoring a building but rebuilding a
7 building . There isn ' t enough to restore that ' s left .
8 It would have to be a new construction of an old
ir
9 building .
10 My feelings are that there isn ' t enough to
11 preserve and that the ancillary, auxiliary buildings,
12 the add-ons, they' re no problem for me to have
13 demolished at all .
14 But what will be, or could be, or might be
15 built there is a question to be taken up at another
lc
16 time .
17 Those are my comments .
U 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr . Smith .
ti
19 COMMISSIONER SMITH : I 'm opposed to demolishing
20 any houses in Elgin, older homes, historic homes .
{ 21 But to me this is what ' s left of a historic
tj
22 home because it ' s been added on to and modified, so
23 it ' s really not, in a traditional sense, demolishing
rik 24 a house, in my mind .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
I !
15
1 I know what the guidelines say, but it ' s
2 been so modified . And then I try to think of some
3 type of adaptive use for this .
4 I 'm glad to hear that the stone arches or
5 gates will be part of this, will be part of the
ir 6 new -- if it is approved, part of the new structure
7 that will be there, if it comes to that .
[ ` 8 I will tell you that even when it comes to
9 the design review, we ' re going to hold you -- you
10 know, in my mind we ' ll hold you to the standards, you
11 know, when I go to vote or ask the questions
r • 12 concerning the Design Review Subcommittee, because we
13 are giving up something of Elgin ' s history there
1 . 14 by -- if we approve to have it demolished. They' re
15 important structures and part of that, you know, the
16 doorways, things like that, I hope can be preserved,
r
17 the fireplace mantel , things like that . Not at that
18 property, maybe put somewhere else .
19 But to me it ' s not a -- you know, I 'm glad
r
20 Steve- asked the question. In my mind it was like
21 20 percent , 25 percent , maybe even less , because of
22 the modifications . So to me it ' s not a traditional
23 house that we demolish, it ' s something different .
elk 24 MR . SAHER : To further qualify that answer, it
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
lj (847) 741-1410
16
1 is just the entrance lobby with the three doorways
2 and one room to the east and one room to the west
3 that still maintain character in their plaster work
4 and the fireplace .
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: What about the stairs and the
Itr , 6 foyer?
7 MR. SAHER: And the foyer, correct .
ft 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The foyer and two parlors .
9 MR. SAHER: The foyer and two parlors .
10 You added which?
it CHAIRMAN MILLER: The staircase .
12 MR. SANER: The staircase is in the foyer .
lep-
13
COMMISSIONER SMITH : Those would be the items I
t • 14 want preserved.
15 MR. SAHER: Or at least made available for
16 salvage?
17 COMMISSIONER SMITH : Yes .
18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr . Briska, comments .
r 19 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: Well, are we going to look
20 at the video or not?
21 I mean, I don ' t -- I would like to make
ir 22 some comments, but I would reserve comments until I
23 have a --
tr' 24 CHAIRMAN MILLER : What are your thoughts?
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
L, (847) 741-1410
17
( '
1 Do you want to view the video?
2 COMMISSIONER STROUD: I don ' t have a problem
3 with that .
1 4 MR . SAHER: If you want, we can fast forward
5 through certain stretches . It ' s 15 -- I say
6 17 minutes .
l ► 7 COMMISSIONER SMITH : You went through the
8 efforts of doing it .
rT 9 MR. SAHER: Okay.
10 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: So that would be the first
ii question I have .
( 12 And the second is to ask these gentlemen :
l •
13 Are you not making any economic arguments on this,
14 economic hardship on this?
15 MR. HEIMBERG: We haven ' t submitted any evidence
16 of economic hardship .
ti 17 I think it stands to reason that, as the
18 gentleman here said, to have to rebuild the whole
Ij
19 structure, it stands to reason that that would be an
20 economic hardship .
21 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: But you are not --
22 MR . HEIMBERG : We have not gotten any appraisals
23 or cost estimates . We ' re strictly relying rel in on the
[ IPhhi 24 opinion of the preservation inspector that it has no
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
[y (847) 741-1410
f }
18
1:01 1 significant historic or architectural significance .
t
2 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: So you are only going to
3 proceed on one of three prongs?
t ` 4 MR. HEIMBERG : That ' s right .
r5 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: Okay .
i
6 MR. SAHER: Do you want to see the video?
7 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Should we listen to all
t '
j 8 comments and then come back, after, to the video?
9 MR. SAHER: I think William Briska wants to see
10 the video .
� 11 COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN : I do, too .
((, 12 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: Well, I think we should
13 see it before we make any comments on it .
14 MR. SAHER: Also at this time the court reporter
15 will pause taking testimony because it ' s going to be
16 very hard to relate what ' s on screen to the actual
17 report .
18 (WHEREUPON, a video was shown. )
1
19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Briska, did that inspire
IT
20 you to come up with some words, or do you wish to
( 21 come up with some words?
Lr
22 COMMISSIONER BRISKA: No .
23 But I was familiar with the inside,
but the
24 Commissioners should see all the evidence that is
r JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
�� (847) 741-1410
JI
19
emik 1 there .
( 2 Confining my comments only to the
3 demolition, though, citizens and neighbors were
4 concerned about the overall development of the
5 property .
6 The jurisdiction of the Committee is only
1
1 7 over the issue of demolition at the moment .
8 And whether it turns out to be a mansion or
9 McDonald ' s is for the planning committee . It is not
10 within our jurisdiction .
11 As to the demolition, demolition, turning
12 to guidelines, is permitted under three prongs, three
13 circumstances; a condition exists, which is not being
ir
, 14 argued and apparently doesn ' t exist, at least, that
15 requires immediate removal of the structure;
16 That the building -- that the demolition --
17 denial of the demolition will result in economic
18 hardship on the applicant, which I think -- I don ' t
19 mean to argue, and they are not arguing it, so I 'm
20 not going to put it forth too strongly, but being
21 familiar with institutional structures, institutional
22 standards , and being involved in -- in rehabbing of
23 institutional buildings , to some degree, could put
41..14 24 forth an economic hardship, but that ' s not being
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
fl
20
1 done, so I won ' t address that .
2 So finally we come down to the denial, that
f .
3 the building does not contribute historical or
1 , 4 architectural character to the district . And on that
5 point, of course, the original house is all but gone,
6 save for the foyer and some areas slightly beyond
11 7 that .
(T
lil 8 And the institutional use of the building
fr 9 does have some historic merit but not very much . And
10 in weighing the historic merit of institutional
f11 buildings, we look at things such as any significant
`` 12 research or activities that occurred on those
13 premises, none of which did, to my knowledge . Was it
� * 14 a place of treatment or employment of any significant
(' 15 individuals in the medical field, or various other
1
16 uses, and it was not, to my knowledge . Is the
T
17 institutional uses in any way unique or unusual, and
18 they were not . Not only not unique for the City, but
19 not even unique for the larger regional area .
Fr
20 In its earlier phases there were a number
21 of other similar-type facilities around in the City
11
fT 22 and in the wider region. And in its later use as a
23 so-called academy it is also not particularly unique,
24 or not in that sense .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
lj (847) 741-1410
If
21
1 So we look at it in terms of architectural
2 and historical character . Architecturally, it ' s
1 .
3 already been beaten into the ground that the
L 4 architectural character of the building is largely
11 5 gone, particularly the facade, which is really the
6 concern of this Committee rather than the interior .
7 And the historical character of the
8 district, which is that particular district is
9 overwhelmingly residential, obviously this building
10 isn ' t residential now. It ' s inconceivable that it
11 would ever be returned to residential use .
12 So I would have to say that it does not
13 meet the standards that are in the guidelines for
14 either a historical or architectural character that
lT 15 would merit not demolishing .
16 That ' s the extent of my comments at this
17 point .
L 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Commissioner Albee, do you
la
19 have anything to add?
20 COMMISSIONER ALBEE: Yes, I ' d like to .
21 First of all, I have to agree that the
22 structure isn ' t worth saving .
23 However, you have to consider, for the
24 neighborhood, what ' s intended to replace it . My
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
II
22
Lem. 1 personal opinion is the last thing Elgin needs,
2 especially on the east side, is another Walgreen ' s .
3 There ' s one about, probably, a mile down in the Watch
4 Tower Plaza , and there is one on Summit Street . That
f5 can ' t be more than a mile-and-a-half away . There ' s
6 also a big Osco, CVS, and Medicine Shop. You know,
7 it ' s a whole dearth of drugstores at this point .
� r 8 That probably is not in our particular jurisdiction,
{ • 9 anyway, which is -- but it ' s the comment I ' d like to
10 make .
[ . 11 Again, I agree that the building probably
12 should be torn down, but I don ' t like the idea of
13 another commercial establishment intruding into that
�. 14 side of the street where there is so much
15 residential .
16 That ' s the only objection I would have, or
17 comment, is strictly my own.
18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thanks .
19 Mr . Roxworthy, anything to add?
If
20 COMMISSIONER ROXWORTHY: Yeah.
21 Actually, I was told by a young man who 'had
22 helped me save a garage, If it still stands , it can
23 be fixed.
[iiPb* 24 So I have real mixed emotions, believe me .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
11
23
1 I want to see Walgreen ' s do real well because I have
2 stock in Walgreens . So I ' d like to see Walgreen ' s
3 drugstores all over and making money because then I ' d
4 make money.
1 . 5 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Conflict of interest?
6 MR. SAHER: Yeah .
7 You can ' t vote now.
[ . 8 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Because we are not voting
9 on accepting Walgreens, we all vote . We ' re talking
10 about demolition .
f . 11 COMMISSIONER ROXWORTHY: The point I 'm trying to
12 get across is : If it ' s standing, it can be saved.
''
(( 13 And there is the -- this was a big, grand,
l• 14 old house at one time . I have to admit that a lot of
15 these additions should be ripped off, but it could be
f1
16 saved, in my mind .
I �
11 17 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Well, you ' re a -- you ' re
18 in construction. What would it cost to restore?
19 COMMISSIONER ROXWORTHY: Well, there ' s a lady
fr
lj 20 sitting back there in the audience that I saved a
Lb 21 house up the road several years ago, and people told
22 me I was nuts . The house is still standing . She
�' 23 takes great care of it .
24 COMMISSIONER STROUD: We are not talking
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
Ii
24
row. 1 about --
f . 2 COMMISSIONER ROXWORTHY: To answer your
3 question, Steve --
4 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Big bucks .
f . 5 COMMISSIONER ROXWORTHY: -- it would take big
t 6 bucks .
11 7 But then, when I was told not to save the
• 8 house down the road, I spent a lot of money on it,
11
9 but yet I sold it for more money than -- probably
10 than it would have marketed at the time . So
f . 11 nothing ' s set in stone . I mean, I 'm in real estate,
(( 12 so nothing ' s set in stone .
13 It would take a lot of money .
1 : 14 You know, you got a big, old Victorian, and
15 I 'm doing a Victorian now . I know what I 'm spending
16 on it . I 'm taking a chance, you know. Everything' s
f�
1� 17 a chance . So that ' s just my opinion.
F18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I don ' t have anything to add.
ti
19 Commissioner Skaggs .
fT
•j 20 COMMISSIONER SKAGGS : No, I don ' t think so .
le 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Commissioner Chapman .
y
22 COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN : Well, just some of the
23 things that were said. It ' s a residential area . I ' d
24 like to see it somehow stay residential .
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
Ji
25
1 I ' d like to see everything ripped off of
2 it, the original structure worked on.
3 When you show someone that ' s an old-house
4 enthusiast, those beautiful doors, those ceilings are
5 nothing. You just pop off those suspended ceilings
} 6 and go back to the original and add a little plaster.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You did it .
T 8 COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN : Dennis and I could fix
( . 9 that house up and it would look like a grand old
10 mansion again .
[ 11 But all those out -- additions and out
12 buildings, it is ridiculous to try to save those.
13 And you couldn' t bring them up to the standards that
14 are required for institutions to try to make it into
15 that type of facility again. The kitchen and
16 everything, you know, that would all have -- you ' d
17 have to have someone that would be an old-house
18 enthusiast trying to do an old-house thing.
ti
19 But, yes, we are all concerned with what
20 goes there afterwards because it ' s a prime piece of
21 property, with a beautiful landscape, and you want
22 something nice to be there .
23 And I have stock in Walgreen ' s, but
24 Walgreen ' s isn ' t it for me on that corner . But that
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
�� (847) 741-1410
26
rT
LW" 1 won' t be our decision to make .
1 . 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: At this point I would like to
3 open it to other citizens that might like to testify
4 on this .
5 Anyone in the audience, come forward.
lT 6 (WHEREUPON, there was a short
7 interruption . )
8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Just give your name and
9 address for the record.
10 MS . DIAMOND: My name and address? You know my
11 name .
12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: She doesn ' t (indicating) .
13 MS . DIAMOND: Lynne Diamond, 429 Raymond Street .
14 And I am on the Design Review Subcommittee.
(' 15 I ' ve got a list, so be prepared. Okay .
16 COMMISSIONER STROUD: What time is it?
17 You only have five minutes, you realize?
18 MS . DIAMOND: First off, the decision of the
19 Design Review Subcommittee was based on the
Ei 20 guidelines, and the guidelines are specific that a
21 pre-1945 building should not be demolished.
22 I 'm not talking about the additions . The
23 additions are an eyesore . Agreed .
Ifflow 24 But it is a 19 -- pre-1945 building . And
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
Li (847) 741-1410
( '
27
I ;00N
1 as the District Representative, we don ' t have many
2 mansions in that district .
3 How many of you bought a piece of crap and
4 turned it into a beauty?
1 ' 5 How many have you done? How many have you
6 done, Steve? Evelyn?
7 Please .
8 Dan?
► 9 All of you .
10 It ' s doable. It may not be an exact
11 duplicate, but it is doable . Anything can be done
r ► 12 with enough money. And again -- it ' s true .
13 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Oh, yeah .
1 ' 14 MS . DIAMOND: My little money pit doesn ' t even
Ix 15 compare, and I know what I ' ve spent . It is doable .
16 That is the point I want to make on that .
Er
; 17 Next point : If this proposal were on
18 Kimball and Douglas, or on Chicago Street, would you
19 be so quick to tear down a house to put up a
tr
20 drugstore?
11 21 There are a number of houses in both
r
22 districts that have many remodeling, crappy
23 additions, look terrible . Would you be so quick to
24 tear them down if it was in those districts?
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
L (847) 741-1410
� 1
28
rirsb'
1 And on the top of that thought, what are
2 you going to tell St . Mary' s?
3 This particular location, in a survey done,
4 I believe, in ' 97 , was rated as a significant
5 historical structure . Nothing else has been done to
ff 6 it . What makes it less significant today than when
Ir
7 the survey was done originally? What has changed?
8 Nothing . There have been no improvements
9 to the building . So what makes it less significant
10 now than it was before?
11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Did you mean St . Joe ' s?
Fr"'
12 MS . DIAMOND: I did mean St . Joe ' s . I 'm sorry.
13 You know, they want to tear three houses down to put
( , 74 up a parking lot, also rated significant .
1 .
fr 15 If you approve this, you ' re setting that
1Y
16 precedent, it ' s okay, go ahead and do it, guidelines
17 be darn .
18 Last but not least -- I have two more
19 items .
1
20 I took the liberty of contacting the LPCI .
21 Here ' s a copy of the letter from their President .
22 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Landmarks Preservation Council
r
23 of Illinois?
[fe* 24
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
i
(847) 741-1410
[ !
29
rr
1 (WHEREUPON, said document was
2 tendered to the Commission. )
3 MS . DIAMOND: That ' s correct .
4 They state they are willing, pro bono, to
J : 5 send in an architect, structural engineer, to do a
T 6 survey of this building to determine its worth . They
` 7 are also willing -- and he didn ' t put it in the
8 letter . They are also willing if, at the time this
rt 9 survey was taken, it was determined that this
10 building was eligible to be put on the National
11 Historic Register, they are willing to do the legwork
12 to have the preliminary survey done to gain that
13 designation .
14 That ' s not a building that should be torn
15 down if it ' s eligible for the National Register.
16 Think about it .
► 17 And again, eight blocks away there is
18 another Walgreen ' s . They' re not losing anything by
19 not going in this location . There are plenty of
20 locations further east on Villa that would not
IT 21 necessitate tearing down a historic building .
A
22 And last comment I ' m going to make here :
23 If this Commission feels that demolition should take
24 place, I strongly urge you to make demolition
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
1i (847) 741-1410
f1
li
30
it 1 contingent upon IDOT approvals, State approvals for
2 the roads and the curb cuts .
3 Because if they tear this building down in
4 advance and then do not get State approval, and
5 they ' re on two State roads, then you ' ve lost a
6 building for nothing .
I r
7 That ' s it . I 'm done . That was short and
8 sweet .
► 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you .
10 COMMISSIONER STROUD: When you say that they' re
11 willing to work on the Lovelton Academy, you ' re
12 talking about the total property?
13 MS . DIAMOND: No.
1 : 14 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Well, that ' s the Lovelton
1 : 15 Academy .
16 MS . DIAMOND: They' re willing to send a
1 ‘ 17 structural engineer in, architect in, and whatever
FA 18 else they need, pro bono, to do a complete survey of
`` 19 the property. But obviously they will focus on the
T
!
20 original building.
. 21 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Okay.
1
22 MS . DIAMOND : And they ' re willing to do it very
23 quickly, too, if the Commission requests it .
l 24 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Since we are expected to
l JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
j (847) 741-1410
31
1 vote within 30 days, it would have to be brought to
2 our attention within that period of time .
3 MS DIAMOND: Well, David was going to come
4 tonight, but he got hung up, so I ' m sure it can be
5 accomplished within the next two weeks, if you so
6 desire .
1
7 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Okay . Thanks .
8 MS . DIAMOND: Um-hum.
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Are there other citizens that
10 wish to testify?
( 11 (No audible response . )
jj 12 MR. SAHER: If you could give the applicants an
13 opportunity to rebut some of the comments?
[, 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Would you like to rebut
15 anything that ' s been said this evening?
16 MR. HEIMBERG : No, not really.
ly 17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Okay. Let me outline for you
18 the steps that -- you heard it before . Technicality.
19 I ' ll say it again .
►1 20 The Elgin Heritage Commission will convene,
21 at a scheduled meeting following the public hearing,
22 and within 30 days, to make a determination on the
Er
23 final evidence and whether to uphold or overturn the
24 decision of the Design Review Subcommittee . This
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
i (847) 741-1410
1
U
32
1 determination will be passed by resolution of the
2 Commission, and will be accompanied by a report
3 stating the findings of the Elgin Heritage Commission
4 concerning this issue .
5 A notice of the determination of the
iT 6 Commission, including a copy of the report, will be
7 sent, within seven days of adopting the resolution,
r
8 by regular mail, to the common address of the
9 property owner .
10 A denial of this particular Certificate of
11 Appropriateness by the whole Elgin Heritage
12 Commission may be appealed to the City Council as
few'
13 provided by Section 20 . 10 . 04 of Title 20 of the Elgin
14 . Municipal Code .
15 At this point I would entertain a motion to
16 close the hearing for the appeal regarding the
17 Lovelton Academy at 600-620 Villa Street .
18 COMMISSIONER STROUD: So moved.
141
19 COMMISSIONER SMITH : Second .
20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Moved and seconded to close
21 this meeting .
l►
22 Thanks for coming this evening, gentlemen .
23 COMMISSIONER STROUD: Don ' t we have to vote on
24 it?
JANSON REPORTING & RECORD COPY, LTD.
(847) 741-1410
au
6£