City of Champaign Plan Commission met November 15.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Members Present: Cole, Bryan, Elmore, Carlson, Trautman, Reynolds, Dudley, Wakefield, Kroencke
Staff Present: Knight, Kowalski, Marino, Phillips, VanBuskirk, Yu, Vandeventer
Staff is sworn
Minutes of November 1, 2017 approved.
PL17-0051 Special Use Permit to Operate a Retail Store Selling Groceries and Package Liquor in the MHP, Manufacture Housing Park Zoning District (1600 N. Market Street)
This case will be continued to December 6, 2017.
PL 17-0052 Text Amendment to the Champaign Zoning Ordinance to Increase the Floor Area Ratio for Lots Less than 60 Feet wide
Marino: This case is a text amendment to Chapter 37 of the Zoning Ordinance to adjust the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for lots that are less than 60 feet wide. Jeff explains what floor area ratio is and the adjustments that have been made to this in recent past.
The issue that has come up is for the small lots. When the lot size is extremely small, smaller than 6000 square feet, that also proportionally reduces the size of the building that can be built on the lot and what we have heard from developers and architects is that in order to have a reasonable use of the lot and to encourage some modern amenities for houses on these lots they would like to see the FAR increased to.5 so that modern homes could be built on these smaller lots. There has been a trend in development recently to have larger homes on smaller lots and it is really an efficient land use pattern. It increases the density but also is a way for the City to administer City services at a more efficient rate. This was changed this in SF2 two years ago for lots less than 6,000 square feet. The FAR was increased to.5. This text amendment would be in line with that change. Since 2015 I reviewed the number of home permits that have been issued for homes over the.35 FAR and there have only been a handful. Photo’s of examples are shown.
The proposed provision is explained.
Staff is recommending that this case be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval.
Commission discusses how this will be translated to neighborhoods and the limitations of the change.
Dudley: Any more questions? Any public comment?
Cole: I move that the public hearing be closed. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Cole: I move that we forward case PL17-0052 to the City Council with our recommendation of approval. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Knight: This will go to City Council on December 5, 2017.
Dudley: We have three items on the agenda. At the request of both the applicant and the owners we are going to open all three of them at one time. Many of the points within are similar and we will allow comment from that point.
Knight: I would like to note that to the extent that you are making general comments about all three properties then you might note that. If you are making a comment that is specific to one of the properties please note that as well. Just for the case of the public record of the public hearings.
Dudley: We will open cases PL17-0048 Landmark Nomination for 603 West Church Street Albert C and Julia F Burnham Residence; PL 17-0049 Landmark Nomination for 500 West Church Street David A and Rachel Phillippe Residence/McKinley Memorial YMCA; PL 17- 0050 Landmark Nomination for 606 West Church Captain Edward Bailey Residence.
VanBuskirk: I am going to give an overview of the process and the Plan Commissions role in the process. I will also condense my presentation on each of the three individual applications into one. I will provide some background on each of the three properties, review the criteria that Plan Commission is the review and then provide the staff recommendations for all three at one times.
Eric reviews the landmark application process including who can submit an applications, the review process for the application, the criteria that is reviewed by the Plan Commission, economic return and owner objection considerations. He explains that the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council and the Council will make the final nomination to landmark the property or denying the application.
The criteria that HPC reviewed are explained. The first property that will be presented is the Albert C. and Julia F. Burnham Residence. This is the large white home on the south side of Church Street at 603. This property is a high style Queen Anne so it will have irregular roof forms, very complex floor plans, an avoidance of flat wall surfaces through textured wall patterns in wood and very intricate woodwork. This particular example because of the half timbering patterns in the pediment, which is the triangular roof form on the front, is extremely rare and even more rare in the Midwest. They were more common on the east coast and in the early period when the Queen Anne style was most popular. This particular home was designed and built by Daniel Burnham and John Wellborn Root who are two of Americas most significant architects. They built the home in 1883 and 1884 and then would go on to do a number of prominent architectural works both as team and then later after John Root’s death Daniel Burnham would continue to practice to international acclaim.
They were primarily active from 1870 to 1893. They are most know for their commercial work but they also did some residential work. About 130 homes mostly in the Chicago land area with a few outside of that region. Of those homes about 6 to 8 remain nationwide. The fact that one of them is in our community is pretty significant. In addition to Burnham and Root the property was also touched by Rapp and Rapp who also designed the Orpheum Theater. They were most known for designing theaters. They actually enclosed the porch and did some interior work. In addition to that local architect George Ramey did a small alteration to the exterior early on in his career. We have a number of his buildings that have been listed as local landmarks.
Albert C. and Julia F. Burnham were a prominent local banking family who founded the Burnham Trevett-Mattis Bank. They along with many of the other families in this neighborhood established a very prominent banking neighborhood with a number of local homes including the Mattis House on Elm and Park, Trevett House on University, as well as the Phillippe Residence and the Bailey Residence.
Julia Burnham herself was a pioneering women who was active in local and state politics prior to women being able to vote. She also set up Champaign’s first library at the Burnham Athenaeum at 306 Church and the Julia F. Burnham Hospital.
The David and Rachel Phillippe Residence and the McKinley Family YMCA is at 500 West Church. This is the second home on this property. There was originally an Italianate style home owned by John White who actually subdivided the entire neighborhood back in the 1850’s. This home was built in 1910 by David and Rachel Phillippe after tearing down the original home. This home is in the Jacobean style which is an architectural hybrid of Jacobean and Elizabethan Revival style. You can see the masonry work and the slate shingle roof. Usually in the gabled form and then contrasted with smooth stone either in the foundation or in this case the large prominent bay windows. Also significant is the orientation on the site. It is on the center of the block. This was a pretty rare form. This was usually reserved for very wealthy homes or institutional uses like schools or court houses.
The property is connected with two significant individuals. David and Rachel Phillippe and then senator William McKinley. Particularly in the addition of the YMCA. Rachel Phillippe was the daughter of Newton Harris who lived on the property before. It is most likely that this land was deeded to Rachel. David Phillippe was an original settler of Champaign County. He managed large farm holdings in Hensley Township. They moved to this neighborhood and built this home continuing the banking neighborhood tradition.
Senator William McKinley was a local utilities tycoon who served on the Illinois Board of Trustees and the U.S. House of Representative and then as a Senator. He died in 1926 and left some money for the establishment of a YMCA. Ultimately, the Phillippe residence was picked for the site and the addition was put on. The YMCA addition in itself was built by a local firm Berger and Kelly. They are UIUC graduates and had a pretty extensive local practice. The built several prominent buildings in Champaign and Urbana. A Sanborn map is shown and Eric explains the additions.
The last property is the Captain Edward Bailey Residence at 606 W. Church. This is just across from the Burnham Residence. This is actually the oldest home on the site. This originally shows up on the 1869 Ruger Map which is a birds eye view of Champaign and Urbana at the time. The map is shown and Eric explains the form of the home. A later map is shown and the style of the home at this time is explained. The third iteration shows a subsequent remodel of the pyramidal roof which incorporated many of the elements of the Queen Anne style likely referencing back to the Burnham House which has been one of first of its kind in the area.
This is a free classic Queen Anne. This style is described in detail. The two individuals that this property is connected with is Baxter Harbison. He was an early developer in Champaign County dating back to the 1860’s. He likely built the first home on this property. He ultimately traded this house with Captain Edward Bailey who was a civil war veteran who came to Champaign and worked as a store clerk for a number of years. He ultimately got into the banking business. He has originally lived on White Street in the Italianate across from Holy Cross. He traded houses with Mr. Harbison and moved into this home. He did the Queen Anne renovation to the property. This was also probably originally a Seeley Brown project because of the architects connections with Mr. Harbison. He is listed a reference. Seeley Brown also did a number of homes in this neighborhood including the original house on the Phillippe residence site, the original City Hall, and the William Kohler residence which is currently the vacant site on the South side of Church and Elm. This is the historic background of these properties.
Plan Commission looks at four criteria. These are different than what is looked at by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The Commission is charged with reviewing whether the nominations meet the applicable criteria from HPC. You are also looking at is it consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and HPC Code as well as economic return and owner opposition.
For the Burnham House the HPC criteria met all six rising to the National level of significance and that is reflected in the number of criteria that it meets. The Phillippe Residence met five of the criteria and the Bailey Residence met four. The specific criteria and the justification for them are in the packets. The individual code provisions and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the HPC code are also in the packets.
With regard to reasonable economic return it is important to note that landmark designation does not increase or decrease your property value. It is not factored into your assessment or what you would pay in taxes. We don’t provide financial incentives on the front end to landmark or not landmark your property.
The Burnham Residence in particular was used as a multi-family building for a number of years. It was converted in the 1950’s. It was well maintained, very well leased and quite popular. It was a collection of multi-family conversions called the Lyndhurst Apartments. Going back in the City records we were unable to find any property maintenance issues that were structural in nature that would suggest issues with being able to use the property for residential use. It has a new roof put on in 1989 and some additional fire safety code work. However, with all three of these properties the school district, who opposes the nomination, argues that they can’t earn a reasonable return on these because of these competing community interests. On one hand there is the preservation of properties and the preservation of the neighborhood fabric but also providing high quality educational facilities and education programing for students.
Moving forward with our recommendation the staff position for the Burnham House in particular we are recommending the Plan Commission forward this with a recommendation for approval. But, we are not recommending approval of the Bailey Residence or the YMCA nominations. The reason is specifically factoring in these two competing community interests. With regards to the Phillippe Residence and the Bailey Residence these are slated for demolition and subsequently used for athletic fields. Staff recognizes that these are central to the types of educational needs that a school would typically have including neighborhood schools. Additionally, the YMCA property in particular provides a unique opportunity to utilize an entire block. One of the challenges on this site is that the home is in the center of the block. So, accommodating some sort of infill or redevelopment in some capacity is difficult because without blocking the view of the home from the street, which would be not appropriate from an historic preservation stand point or tearing something down. It is a opportunity to provide a compromise. With the Burnham House staff felt that how the current plan of the high school expansion is shown it afforded the most opportunity to find a flexible solution to providing the parking needs required by the high school in a way that doesn’t require the demolition of the home. Obviously, I look forward to hearing more in the property owners’ presentation which will give you more information on the details of these plans. In terms of how staff was evaluating our recommendations going forward this was a primary consideration. The public input that has been received over the course of this, in particular, from the HPC meeting from local residents living around this property is an understanding not only that the neighbors wants to keep the high school in the neighborhood and valuing the role that Central has played in creating a vibrant neighborhood. But, finding a solution to the parking and someway to preserve, in particular, the Burnham Residence. Although everyone has been cognizant of the loss of the YMCA and the Bailey House and those impacts as well. The Burnham House has been a particular point of interest in terms of what we are hearing as a staff and what people are most concerned about.
You have our three recommendations and I am going to briefly talk about the next stages of the meeting. Eric reviews the structure of the meeting and indicated that the applicant and property owner will also be condensing their presentation into one. There will also be time at the end of the presentations for the general public to make comments. I am also available for any questions.
Knight: I would like to clarify. Eric summarized the determinations that lead to the HPC nominating these properties and one of your findings is do you agree with their determination. The second is it consistent with the objectives of the historic preservation article of the Zoning Ordinance as a whole. Third is whether the owner has demonstrated a reasonable return cannot be obtained on the property. This will be part of the property owners presentation to speak to that. Fourth, just to be clear does the property owner oppose the designation and in this case they do oppose the designation.
Dudley: Questions of staff?
Reynolds: Where in the criteria does the real issue that you just mentioned come up? Which is the competing missions, educational mission of the school district versus historic preservation. At the end of your presentation you said a big part of the staff recommendation comes from the fact that this a recognition of the school districts educational mission. Where does that fit into these criteria? VanBuskirk: Most comfortably with three. In that achieving a balance. Recognizing that the school district purchased these properties with a plan to tear them down and for what purpose. In our evaluation of the plans and how we view them, how are each individual property going to be utilized in the ultimate redevelopment of the site. The two north of Church for open space and athletic facilities and then the surface parking lot on the corner and along the backside of the property. Knight: You could also weight that in the importance of the property owners opposition. How much weight do you give to the property owners opposition as compared to the historic character of the property. That is part of that consideration for the Commission as well. Reynolds: The other question is what if any involvement has the City had with any of this process. Not the historic process. The school district’s redevelopment planning process. Knight: I think the City has been working closely with the school district on their plans from the very beginning of the process to look at how to address Central High School and more recently we haver had meetings discussing street vacations and other actions that Council will be asked to take to support the expansion of Central High School. A high level of intergovernmental cooperation in the planning for any consideration of how to carry out the expansion project. Reynolds: The City has been involved in weighing in on the parking lot? Knight: I don’t know that we were ever asked to weight in on the site plan for the development. It was more a question of what are the areas where the City would need to take action to support the proposal. Reynolds: I don’t understand what the means? Knight: Like street vacations. Park Avenue will need to be vacated in that block to allow the school to be expanded as proposed. That is an example of where our discussions have taken place.
Dudley: Other questions? Cole: What does the intent of the Zoning Ordinance mean in the context of this case? What are we looking for? VanBuskirk: These are specific provisions within the purpose statement of the Zoning Ordinance. I believe it is 37-2. These are the general provisions that Zoning as a philosophy and as a governing principal dictate. Creating high quality neighborhoods, supporting neighborhood stabilization, encouraging intergovernmental cooperation and providing of complete public facilities. These types of things. These are the overarching goals of the Zoning Ordinance. Yu: There are thirty some additional criteria in the Chapter 37-2 which state the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance so you are allowed to consider whether or not this designation is a landmark promotes any of those purposes. Cole: As I recall from some of the materials we have received that among those purposes would be preservation of the character of an area or a neighborhood. VanBuskirk: Certainly. Cole: That would call into question whether or not the neighborhood area has a particular character.
Kroencke: If Burnham was to be approved for designation has the school district said how they would go about getting additional parking? Would there be other properties purchased that might run across the safe issue? VanBuskirk: My understanding is they wouldn’t purchase additional property. I am confident that the City would find a solution to providing parking in a creative option. Knight: As this meeting progresses that would be perhaps a better questions for Unit 4.
Wakefield: This is partially a statement and partially a questions. If the owner was someone other than a public entity would the recommendation and/or the public’s opinion be different about not nominating this as a historic place. VanBuskirk: I can’t necessarily speak to the public opinion component and again it would all be depended on what was proposed. The proposals for athletic fields weighed pretty heavily on the recommendations. It is a case by case basis and staff would evaluate each case individually. Certainly, if a non-public entity came to propose tearing down the Burnham Residence for parking our recommendation would be the same. Knight: I think the fact that Unit 4 is the owner of these properties and why they bought them and the purpose that they intend to put them to becomes a factor in how you weight criteria three and four. VanBuskirk: The level of significance with the Burnham House is so substantial that it is difficult to justify anything besides a designation in this case from staff’s perspective.
Reynolds: Does the City approach these applications differently depending on whether the owner proposes historic designation or whether a third party does? The standards are exactly the same? VanBuskirk: The standards are the same. Reynolds: The owner opposition comes in later in the process? VanBuskirk: At this stage and at Council.
Knight: As a point in history with regard to the Ordinance there was a case early on after the Historic Preservation Code had been adopted where a property owner objected and Council after that case wanted to make sure that was a consideration and asked staff to process an amendment to the code that added four maybe three also and to date I think the only property that has been approved over owner objection was the Solon House. Again, as a weighing of the quality of the historic character of the property as compared to the owner’s objection.
Dudley: Any further questions? Seeing none we will now have a presentation from the applicant.
Susan Appel, 307 North Garfield is sworn in. There have been a few changes to smooth the running of this meeting by combining things. I regret that another obligation requires that I may have to leave this meeting before it is over. I apologize to the Commission for that and I do appreciate the accommodation you have afforded me to make the majority of my comments here and in a longer introduction to the landmark applications before you. I am speaking as the preparer of the nomination for the Burnham House. I also prepared the nomination for the Captain Edward Bailey House which is the third of the three. In case I have to leave before we have completed consideration of the Bailey House I would beg your indulgence if a mention that nomination occasionally in this first presentation and I would be happy to take questions concerning both the Burnham and Bailey houses. I also want to say something at the beginning that regardless of what you have heard PACA is not against the expansion of Central High School in its central location. We do take issue however with some of the manner in which the project has proceeded and we hope to encourage a more creative approach to this historic school’s also very historic surrounding neighborhood.
I will begin with the Albert C. and Julia F. Burnham house and its historical significance. That historical significance as well as that of the Bailey house and Phillippe house was established in the Historic Preservation Commissions review as demonstrated by that bodies approval of all three nominations. All three houses are historically significant. They meet multiple criteria laid out in the preservation ordinance. That fact is established by the extensive research that underlies and documents the nomination applications. The Burnham house is the most significant of the three nominations, its architecture ties this grand house to the storied firm of Burnham and Root of Chicago who as you have read and heard were among the most prominent of American architects in the late 19th century. Yet another nationally known firm the great theater designers Rapp and Rapp added elements to the Burnham house about 1915. As did famed local architect George Ramey in 1917. That is triple bang for your buck and it is a rare combination of talents. All of them contributed to the creation of a house that represents an important style of the time and has personalized variations on it as well as the changing tastes over several decades. In addition, this house today is extremely rare unfortunately because the short sidedness of those how have torn down such a large proportion of Burnham and Roots house architecture. They were stellar figures on the local scene. They contributed to the local building up of this city and region and beyond it. They share the wealth that they made here with their community. Can you imagine living in Champaign without a hospital or a permanent public library? We have the Burnham’s care and generosity to thank for establishing those traditions that our city still values highly. Their children carried on their public spirited service to the city. After the family dispersed the house was purchased by a far less well-known craftsman Alvin Hurst who modified it greatly yet treated it with care and preserved many of its original features. Hurst maintained the house well over decades so that it as has continued to be a much loved feature of this special part of town. For nearly 135 years the Burnham house represents strongly all six criteria for landmark status. There is nothing weak about the criteria. They are standards throughout the State of Illinois and in many other parts of the Country as well. The Baily house, the Burnham house, nearby neighborhood fulfills four of those six criteria and the nearby Phillippe house fulfills five. These are impressive buildings. They are a collection of impressive buildings and we should be proud to have them in our midst rather than letting ourselves be easily convinced that they have to little worth to survive. As I understand the Plan Commissions responsibility you have four things to take into account today regarding these nominations being forwarded from the HPC.
First, the Plan Commission must take into account whether the nomination show these houses meet one or more criteria for landmarking. The nominations are detailed and in-depth studies. They back up their claims that the houses all meet at least one of those six criteria. Please note that to be landmarked a nominee only has to meet one of these criteria. There are multiple layers of significance that intensify the case for designating these buildings as landmarks. Second, and beyond what HPC considers the Plan Commission must determine if the nominations are consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The current 2016 official Zoning Map shows the properties under consideration to be part of the In-Town Neighborhood Conservation area. That very title underscores a city concerned to conserve neighborhoods. The City’s Future Land Use Map shows these properties as part of an extensive “established” neighborhood. One would hope that preserving significant properties would inherently be seen as basis to neighborhood conservation. Third, the Plan Commission must consider whether the property owner can demonstrate that a reasonable return can be obtained on the property is if it designated a landmark. This consideration seems difficult to assess given that that school district intends to demolish these three properties. Following through with that intention would seem to be undercutting the likely return on the properties and properties for which they are paid quite a lot of money. If these properties were landmarked however the demolition would be delayed at least until the questions of taking down a landmark was settled with the Certificate of Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. Since the plan appears to work first on the physical expansion of Central High School the actual question of demolition of these houses is not immediately crucial. One the other hand the school district could chose not to retain the landmarked property or properties. We would point out that there are numbers of agencies and organizations available to help market such historic structures and/or assist in redeveloping them in exciting ways that could benefit the entire community. PACA would be happy to help put the district in touch with such organizations. Which could begin creating a whole network of worthwhile additional sources of guidance and help. To protect its investment right away the school board should mothball the houses properly.
A brief from National Park Services is shown and the contents of this brief explained.
The fourth consideration for this Commission to take into account today is whether the property owner opposes the designation. This is obviously the biggest hurdle to preserving these houses and you will hear a lot from the school district on this issue. Be assured that we of course recognize from the start the owner objection clause in the preservation ordinance nearly guarantees that these nomination are likely to be rejected. Anyone who reads the nominations will realize that they are written with clear acknowledgement that it is unlikely that these buildings will escape demolition. One of the purposes of these nominations was to record and document these buildings as structures of great worth in spite of Unit 4’s apparent disregard for that worth. It was for that reason the copies of the nominations were submitted to the Champaign County archives at the Urbana Free Library on the same day that they were submitted for HPC consideration.
Many have asked if we expect rejection than why bother? PACA supports these nominations because it is the right thing to do. Our mission is to support preservation wherever it is appropriate. We have submitted these nominations because doing so is about the only official means by which we can bring the actual facts of the these buildings directly to the public eye. Our purpose is to try to make the public aware that these buildings are valuable and that they are part of the heritage that we all share. There is reason for all of us not just PACA, not just the Plan Commission to think more fully about whether we are willing to give them up without considering if there are creative ways to keep them and let them continue to enrich our environment.
The Burnham House especially is an extraordinary building. It may well be the most important historical built element in the whole of Champaign County. We as members of this community still have time to consider whether we want to lose this gem for the sake of a few parking spaces. We believe that landmarking the Burnham House in particular will not really impinge on the expansion of Central High School and its educational offerings. The site of this house as far as we can tell, given the limited information provided in the latest drawings stills appears to not be intended as part of the expanded Central High but instead will be used for parking. We are therefore looking at a nationally significant architectural master piece being destroyed for the sake of parking spaces. How utterly wasteful is that. In a time that strives for sustainability.
There has been much public outrage at the prospect that the Burnham Houses landmarking is the cause of expensive redesigning of the school expansion. In fact the house does not really stand in the way of anything regarding construction except paving its location with asphalt. All the human cry is in part at least uninformed and without real merit. So how did we get here? We believe we have arrived at this point of impasse largely because the school district has chosen not really to be open to a creative solution to a basis conflict between historic resources. It does have its handful working with major renovation or construction projects at 6 different schools. We appreciate the complications of all that. It is trying to preserve elements of the historic school. That is a goal that we support without question. But from the start the planning for Central has shown no real comprehension of or investigation into the remarkable historic and cultural value of this important neighborhood and the beautiful buildings that it contains. There appears to be little effective coordination between the School District and the City especially in terms of facilitating long established zoning goals for protecting established neighborhoods. This in spite of the fact that the City claims to be concerned with preserving historic, aesthetic and architectural character wherever possible. Instead since apparently the properties were easily acquired the district proceeded working under the assumption from the beginning that these houses would, should and could simply be removed. We did not think that was true so we are here. It is not a matter of the school district being entirely unaware of what they were acquiring. After some very preliminary research I myself alerted the tier two group and the School Board directly that the Burnham House in particular was worthy of their attention and concern. I did that as quickly as possible after the optioning of the properties was publicized in January of 2016. Others joined me to speak at several meetings of those groups over the months they worked to layout these projects. But public comment is limited to a few minutes at a time. Hardly a frame work conducive to making a strong case but we spoke, we wrote, we were thanked for our input and we were ignored. That dismissal did not seem just for buildings that have graced this neighborhood for far longer than any of us have benefited from them being here.
Thus we move to the publicly established process of nominating the three most important of the optioned properties. That took a great deal of time for which we have been soundly chastised. In my own defense, since I wrote two of them, I would point out a few things. I am a professional architectural historian. But while I have lived here for many years I did not grow up in Champaign or know much of its back story. I had to school myself in a lot of local history to try to do justice to these houses. To learn about several generations of the people connected with them, their lives and interactions and their influences on this community. I spent a great deal of time in libraries, archives, and online including studying drawing and related materials in person at the Art Institute of Chicago. Putting all those materials together in a manner that made sense was not an easy task. Some of you may have been able to do that faster than I could. But, no one else did so and that fact brings up another complaint that I have heard frequently lately. If these buildings are so important why didn’t somebody landmark them a long time ago. A better question would be why hasn’t the City made sure that potential landmarks were identified long before this. Since 1999 there have been an Historic Preservation Ordinance and an Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) that carries out its requirements. Except that the HPC is charged with identifying not just hearing applications about potential landmarks. It has never undertaken the comprehensive survey that is necessary for the City to fulfill its concern for preservation. I know about this. Having served nine years on the HPC from its very beginning. The City has never provided funding or other assistance to do that basic task. Further,
Champaign is recognized by the State as a certified local government for historic preservation purposes. As such the City participates in state and federal programs that require certain things of it. Prominent among those is the requirement to undertake a survey of historic resources. A comprehensive survey should be a basic planning tool that alerts City official but also the rest of us about how properties in the district that should not disturbed but protected from inappropriate encroachment. The lack of attention to identifying our historic resources is part of what leads us to the kind of situation that we have at hand today. Many of us enjoy beautiful buildings. If they are useful and well cared for we take for granted that they will keep on being there. Then when a project like this one arises we are put in the position of having to react to unwanted change that impinges on historically significant places that we value. It appears that the School Board took for granted that its acquisition of the optioned properties would raise no issues and began its Tier 2 planning process with that as an underlying assumption. When citizens brought to them the fact there plans would destroy valued historic structures they brushed that aside. Even when Landmarks Illinois publicized the entire group of optioned properties statewide on its 2016 list of most endangered historic places no heed was paid. So what is a desirable outcome for this public discussion? One very desirable outcome is this very public discussion. As long as these houses still stand we have an opportunity for collective creativity. Engaging the public at large to find creative uses for them. Do we have the courage to open up to creative thinking here. What better model could there be for our students who will have to be creative to solve the growing problems of this world. Historic buildings have been successfully adapted in an incredible variety of ways both public and private. What if the Burnham House could be looked at with creative eyes? Finding ways to let it serve the public, interpreting Champaign’s past to educate the present. Providing activities and events that would allow us all to enjoy and appreciate the beauty of a great house. For that to happen the community has to be awakened to the possibility. What better organization than our education system to inspire us all to make something great of this creative opportunity. To benefit the whole community. Just as the updating of Central High School will benefit the whole community. PACA would love to work with and not against Unit 4 to find creative ways to work with not against historic resources. Conversely, if these houses are not landmarked despite having met the requirements of having a landmark designation they will serve as examples that very little really protects any of the important buildings in the City of Champaign. What is there really to protect them. If this preservation effort fails there still could be a positive outcome of a sort. Realizing what we have not when we no longer have these buildings and this neighborhood could move us at last to fix how historic preservation is really handled in Champaign. We must put our procedures where our written goals are. We must integrate preservation fully into the planning for development in the city. If we don’t we will continually find ourselves in battles like this one which could in fact be avoided. But creative solutions require open mindedness and dedication. That includes that Boards, Commissions, and Councils who regulate our community. I urge you as Plan Commissioners to consider the possibilities here, to recognize the historic value of the nominated properties, and to support all three of these nominations for the good of us all.
Dudley: Do we have any questions?
Brian Adams, 907 W. Daniel is sworn in. He is the preparer of the Phillippe House application. A lot of what I wanted to talk about has been covered very well by Susan. First, I have one correction from the presentation about the Phillippe House. Rachel Harris the wife of David Phillippe was actually the daughter of Benjamin Franklin Harris who made a fortune in the Champaign County as a keeper of livestock.
I supported the retention of the high school in downtown Champaign. I supported preservation and renovation of that building as Susan alluded to. One thing that I was not in support of as she and some other people was the cost of keeping the school involving the demolition of several historic buildings. That inspired me to nominate the Phillippe Mansion which occupies a very prominent place in the city. Regarding the certificated local government status that is a status that is not just bestowed on you. The City had to work with the state historic preservation officer to get that status. The state historic preservation office has a list of requirements that you have to meet to for them to certify you as a local government. One of the things that they stress is creating an inventory of historic structures is very important and they encourage that. That is one thing where I think when the City applied to receive that status it was agreed that they would create an inventory of historic buildings. If that had happened how come none of these buildings were on the radar as historic buildings. So, I think that in a way the City has failed to meet its responsibilities as a certified local government in regard to historic preservation.
Going to the City website and looking through the ordinance it is repeated over and over that one thing the City wants to encourage is the creation of an inventory of historic structures. Doing surveys. That hasn’t happened in this case. Again, if that had happened this neighborhood would have been tagged as a very historic location and could have encouraged more advocacy in terms of nominations and landmarking and creating historic districts. One interesting thing I noticed on the City website is that there is a section that talks about local historic districts and in that discussion it even says that while there are no national register historic neighborhoods in Champaign, several neighborhoods likely qualify for the national register of historic places. It specifically mentions that neighborhood to a sesquicentennial neighborhood. The City has in a sense stated that this is a very historic neighborhood but have not taken it any further than that. Again, if that had happened we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Finally, I was born in Brooklyn, New York and attended inner-city public schools in New York as a child. I think that I got a very good education there. We didn’t have large playing fields in the areas where I grew up. We didn’t have expansive parking lots but I think I got a pretty good education. I went on the get a bachelors, masters and a PhD degree. I think some of these things which are being claimed are critical for good education are not that necessary in terms of providing a good education for our children.
Dudley: Any questions?
Wakefield: In your experience how often or what percentage of properties requested to be on the registry is done just prior to its demolition? A lot of times there are specific ones that you know up front but you also hear a lot of times about ones that it doesn’t even become recognized before. How often do you think that happens? Adams: I don’t know. Appel: To answer that would require knowledge of a vast array of buildings and nominations.
Pat Fitzgerald, 306 W. Church Street & Chris Kloeppel, 406 Bradford Avenue, Savoy are sworn in.
Fitzgerald: Chairman Dudley and members of the Plan Commission my name is Pat Fitzgerald. I appear before you today on behalf of the Unit 4 schools. Unit 4 schools own 500 West Church, 603 West Church Street, and 606 West Church Street. I appear before you today to share with you the school districts adamant opposition to any landmark nomination of the referenced properties. Before I go any further with my comments Chairman Dudley I would like to offer the evidence submitted by the Champaign Community Unit District #4 in the various matters for landmark nomination as a piece of the public record as evidence (all Commissioners ere provided with a copy).
Today’s discussion by the applicant, the owner, and those assembled in the room may very well have fact and have emotion. I plan to stick to facts today. The first fact is that Susan Appel, Bryan Adams, Tom Garza and PACA are not bad people. They are passionate people, passionate about old things, passionate about preserving things but they are passionate people not bad people. Unit 4 however is passionate too. Unit 4 is passionate about the future. Unit 4 is passionate about educating kids. With us today is our Board Chairman Chris Kloeppel, multiple school board members, all of whom care. Today’s issue in the simplest terms is about which is the greater good for our community. Are we focused on preserving the past or building for the future? To fully analyze the greater good for the City of Champaign and for your constituents you need to understand how we got here.
Several years ago Unit 4 identified a need to upgrade our community schools. Two prior referendums focused in part on a new high school on the north side of town near Interstate Drive. Both referendums failed. A new school board was elected and began efforts in late 2015 to organize a third referendum. This time Unit 4 also wanted to consider the possibility of keeping Central at its central location. They began acquiring options on properties in and around the current Central High School campus. A map of the properties is shown.
In preparation of the third referendum Unit 4 entered a two-stage review process. Tier 1 was a discussion amongst the teacher and staff of the district and focused on building capacity and programming issues. Tier 2 was a discussion amongst community leaders and focused on facilities. The make up of the tier two committee was a blue ribbon panel. It was chaired by former Champaign City Manager, Steve Carter. Representation included members of the Board of Education, the City of Champaign City Council, the president of the Champaign Park District, Commissioners of the Champaign Park District, the Village of Savoy, the MTD, the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council, the Black Chamber of Commerce, and the five at-large community members. The Tier 2 committee met twelve times during the first half of 2016. Susan Appel appeared twice before the Tier 2 committee and offered testimony on the need to protect the nominated properties. She appeared at the February 29, 2016 meeting and again at the May 19, 2016 meeting. In addition to Ms. Appel, Tom Garza also appeared on behalf of PACA at the May 19, 2016 meeting and discussed the importance of preserving the properties in the Central High School neighborhood. Additionally, Susan Appel provided written comment on February 7, 2016 regarding preservation of the properties and Tom Garza authored a PACA 2015/2016 winter news letter about the various properties at risk if the expansion of Central High School were to proceed. Unit 4 discussed the historical status of all of the optioned properties with the City of Champaign staff in late spring 2016. Unit 4 even filed applications for landmark status for the properties with the City in April 2016 in an effort to clearly resolve the issue whether any of the properties we were contemplating acquiring rose to the level of historical status. The City staff requested the applications as “technically insufficient” because the City staff felt Unit 4 did not really want landmark status but was rather seeking an advisory option and did not feel that the Historic Preservation Ordinance was designed to give advisory opinions.
The Tier 2 committee after considering the preservation issue among many other issues approved two development options for Central High School in June 2016. Those options are before you. The only difference in these options is the size of the gymnasium south of the parking lot which is the location of 603 W. Church Street. Both approved options expressly include the use of 603 W. Church as a parking lot and the use of 500 West Church and 606 W. Church as athletic fields. Unit 4 held a study session on July 19, 2016 with the Champaign City Council and discussed the expansion of the Central High School at its current site. The site plan again in front of you developed by the Tier 2 committee was shared with the City Council and discussed. Demolition of the Unit 4 properties was discussed by the City Council with the consensus being that there was a balancing of interests in play. With the greater good being in the expansion of Central High School. In a straw pole the City Council approved Unit 4’s plans for the Central High School 8-0. Unit 4’s plans for Central High School including the demolition of the structures at 500 W. Church, 603 W. Church and 606 W. Church received extensive media coverage. Particularly, in the News Gazette. Coverage expressly discussing the demolition of these structures can be found in the evidence before you (Exhibit B). As early as March 22, 2016 Nichole LaFond writes an article dealing with close to home and she goes through and discussed the different options. She summarizes the details, she provides some pro by way of example and she also raises concerns. She quotes a Central parent. What is important for this Commission to realize is this issue in particular, the demolition of the Burnham Mansion was in play in the community as early as March 22, 2016. So in addition to the Blue Ribbon panel of the Tier 2 Committee reviewing and discussing this it is now squarely in play in the community. We then have on April 11, 2016 another News Gazette article that describes plans for Central High School properties face criticism. In this article Landmark Illinois enters the fray. They talk about how endangered these properties are and how they need to be preserved. On April 14, 2016 the article is Preservation Group could slow Central High area plans. Again, it discusses the preservation of these properties expressly talking about the Burnham property and the historical reference of Albert and Julia Burnham. On July 18, 2016 the News Gazette has an article “Champaign School Board to Vote on 10th Property Option” but it talks in detail in this article about the pending demolition of the properties to make room for the parking lot and the athletic fields. We then hear from Nicole LaFond again on October 23, 2016. She talks about examining Unit 4 referendum “Central’s Parking Nightmare” she is running a series of articles in advance of the referendum highlighting issues. Finally, on October 13, 2016 she runs an article “Preservation Group Vents About Central Plan”. I think the headline speaks for itself as far as the content of that article.
What is important about all of those newspaper article is they appeared well in advance of the November 2016 referendum. It was very clear that these issues were being openly discussed in the community and were items that were clearly open and obvious to the voters.
On November 8, 2016 the referendum for the Central plan and the balance of the school’s plans was put to a vote. As you can see on the screen before you the referendum was approved 65% to 35%. In reliance upon the Tier 2 committee support the City Council support and the overwhelming voter support Unit 4 proceeded to exercise its options on several properties. On May 15, 2017 Unit 4 acquired 603 W. Church, 606 W. Park, 201 North Lynn, and 203 N. Lynn for $1,745,460 of taxpayer money from the Hurst Family. On August 23, 2017 Unit 4 acquired 500 West Church and 606 West Church for 1,880,000 of tax payer money from the Leon Jeske family. On multiple occasions as recently as August 22, 2017 Unit 4 has offered to PACA the ability to move any of the structures that are in discussion today. Even offering to donate any money that we would otherwise spend on demolition to help defray moving expenses. Alternatively, we have also offered PACA the opportunity to salvage any historically significant portions of any of the buildings to date PACA has not responded to any of these offers.
On October 9, 2017 Tom Garza on behalf of PACA files landmark nominations for 500 West Church, 603 West Church and 606 West Church with the City of Champaign. Mr. Garza was quoted in the paper summarizing the filing of the application as saying that the voters “didn’t vote to demolish the buildings this is a trade-off we were never told about”. This was in reference to the Unit 4 properties.
Now that you have the history and a better appreciation for what happened prior to today. How do you analyze which outcome represents the greater good for the community. The applicable ordinance, 37-502 of the City Zoning Ordinance indicates that you are to consider four criteria. No specific weight is assigned to the criteria. This is a big deal. These are our property right your being asked to take. Unit 4 has spent over 3.5 million dollars of tax payer money relying to its determent on Tier 2 support, City Council straw pole support and overwhelming voter support. The statute doesn’t speak to what the specific weight you have to give to each of the criteria is. That is left up to you. But I fully expect in your own individual analysis, your own sense of equity, and fair play will factor into what weight you assign each of the criteria. The initial criteria deal with whether the application satisfies any one or more of the Historic Preservation Ordinance criteria. This is actually a very low bar. It is not terribly difficult to satisfy. For example if a property is “associated” with an “important” person or event in local history it meets the criteria. As to the relative historical importance of the Unit 4 properties PACA will have you believe and Susan Appel and Brian Adams will have you believe that each property is vitally important to the history of our community. It is interesting to note however that none of the properties that we are discussing today were included in a 1993 list of potentially historic properties prepared by City of Champaign staff in advance of the historic preservation ordinance. Forty-eight potential properties were listed and none of the properties we are talking about today made that list. Furthermore, the City of Champaign Historic Preservation Ordinance was created in 1999. Since that time 29 properties and 2 districts have been nominated and received either historical or landmark status. It is interesting to note that not withstanding the vital importance the applicants would have you believe these properties have to our community this is the first time any of these properties have presented to this body for your consideration.
The second criterion you are asked to consider deals with the intent and objectives of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Champaign Zoning Ordinance. These broadly stated goals are open to interpretation but focus generally on themes such as protection of the neighborhood and community well being. In analyzing this criterion, you may ask yourself how does the community feel. We are fortunate we know that the community approved the plan before you on November 8, 2016 by 65% to 35% majority. In further analyzing that criterion you may ask yourself well that is interesting that the community supports this but how does the neighborhood feel? Again, we are fortunate we know. The Central High School neighborhood otherwise know as City of Champaign Precinct 11 supported the Unit 4 referendum with full knowledge of Unit 4’s proposed use of 500 West Church, 603 & 606 West Church by over a 77% majority. As a proud graduate of Urbana High School even I know that 77% is more than 65%. So, the neighborhood supported this even more that the community. At the end of the day 766 voters out of 993 City of Champaign Precinct 11 voters felt that the Unit 4 plans were a positive for their neighborhood.
The third criterion deals with whether Unit 4 has demonstrated a “reasonable return” can not be obtained on the properties that Unit 4 acquired if they are designated as landmarks. It is not clear however if the return to be achieved is a functional return i.e. can we use the properties for their intended purpose or an economic return. In either case Unit 4 cannot achieve a responsible return on its investment. Unit 4 is in the school business we are not in the commercial real estate business. Using the property long term as an investment property does not work. It was articulated at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting that we can leave it as an apartment building and run apartments out of it. That doesn’t work. It is not only against Unit 4 investment policies it is not what the voters authorized us to use the referendum funds for. Unit 4 bought the Hurst properties which include 603 West Church in an effort to create a land assemble for an urban campus. 603 West Church is in the core of that campus and is an interquel part. It provides the parking for the facility but it also provides expansion room for future growth. Additionally, Unit 4 purchased 500 West Church with the express intention of creating the athletic fields for the kids. Also, we purchased 606 West Church with the same intent. The uses are described.
If Unit 4 is forced to retain 603 West Church and use it for educational purposes, we have asked our architects to consider this. This is included in the evidence package under Affidavit J. Unit 4 will need to invest approximately $2.8 million dollars to bring the structure into compliance to use it for school purposes. In addition to this expense Unit 4 will need to replace the surface parking lot which had long been planned for 603 West Church. The two properties adjacent to the west of the surface parking lot at 609 West Church and 611 West Church can be acquired. The cost to acquire those two is $1.6 million dollars. That is based off of a recent appraisal that the land owner had done. The story gets worse for 500 West Church. To retain the structure and to use it for educational purposes that price tag is approximately $8.3 million dollars. 606 West Church again to update so we could actually use it for school purposes has been estimated to approach $2 million dollars. So, if Unit 4 is forced to use these properties as educational buildings the question becomes where does Unit 4 secure the funds. PACA has already said they were idea guys not money guys. We don’t have any money to assist. We just think it is a good idea.
In any event the initial wish list was carefully reviewed by the school board. We just lost two referendums we were trying to take before the voters the most streamlined number we could. We went through the $111 million and narrowed the ask for Central High School to $87,100,000. There are no gold toilet seats left in the budget. It has been carefully reviewed, analyzed by the school board in an effort to be fiscally conservative and responsible stewards of the tax payer funds. So these funds that are needed $4.4 million for Burnham and over $8 million for the YMCA and approximately $2 million for the Bailey House. The only place for those to come from is to cut the proposed upgrades and improvements to Central High School. What gets cut?
Does Unit 4 go to the science department and tell them the lab space, equipment is not going to happen. Do we go to the drama department and tell them theater is not that important in the grand scheme, so we are not going to fund that and put the money into these homes? Do we cut the air conditioning at Central. Do we say people 60 to 70 years ago didn’t have air conditioning so the future students don’t need it. Do we take that money and put it into the renovation of these properties before you today?
Unit 4 feels that the greater good is to provide the best educational facilities we can as a community for our kids to prepare them to compete in the 21st century and beyond.
The last criterion is owner objection. Unit 4 clearly objects to any landmarks status for any of these properties. We feel that the nearly two year long process that has been undertaken has been open and inclusive. Ask yourself what more could the School Board have done in this matter. The Tier 2 Committee heard PACA’s concerns and yet supported the plan. The City Council was aware of the pending demolition and in a straw vote supported the plan. But most importantly the voters fully aware of the issues regarding these properties, their intended use, and the resulting demolition overwhelmingly supported the plan. Please join the 27,532 voters who voted in support of Unit 4’s plan to keep Central High School central. Focus on the greater good for the community and reject the request before you to provide landmark status for any of these properties. Thanks Commission.
Dudley: Any questions from the Commission?
Carlson: At the beginning you made the comment about early in the process you were concerned about the historic nature of the properties. Can you tell me what your thoughts were at that time. What were you thinking? Not to buy them? What you might do? Kloeppel: I believe what we were seeking was a ruling. At this point in the process we had optioned the properties, we had been made aware of the potential historical significance so the attempt was to provide some clarity to the historic nature. If the Burnham Mansion was designated historical we needed to rework our plans when were in that process. Carlson: You would have been completely satisfied if you had been granted that status you would have regrouped. Kloeppel: At that stage we explored moving Central High School to Southside, Country Fair and Interstate Drive. He explains the options that were explored.
Trautman: Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned that Staff had declined the landmark status saying that there were technical issues with that. Is there any insight from the staff as to did this make it past staff and any reason for staff denying that. Knight: Most of the issue was that they were not complete application, they didn’t document the history, didn’t provide all the information required to go through the process. We had a clear understanding of what the discussion was about. The Ordinance doesn’t have a provision for an advisory vote. It was just a function of there is a set of criteria what was has to be submitted for a complete application to be processed and it didn’t meet that. Fitzgerald: It was not an adversarial process with staff at all. Staff has been wonderful to work with throughout this entire process. It was an effort to add clarity and that didn’t end up happening.
Elmore: So in your materials you have estimated costs to bring these three properties up to some viable use. Can you tell me more about what those uses would be if you had been forced to do that? Fitzgerald: We have the architect here who can speak to that, but the planning has not gone into great deal about what these properties could be used for simply because the cost is so overwhelming that the School Board cannot in good faith advocate for cutting programs that would otherwise benefit the kids. The issue is it becomes a public place when the school district begins to use it and the codes to upgrade to public accommodations are significantly greater. Elmore: Is it fair to say that upon doing an initial assessment of what it would cost to redevelop these properties for another purpose that cost in your mind made it unnecessary to really pursue in detail what some of those uses might be? Fitzgerald: That is a fair statement. Kloeppel: I want to point out that this is a recently prepared document. The cost is to great to be an option for what we can with the properties. He explains the numbers that were used to determine this.
Wakefield: As I understand the potential economic hardship of trying to utilize such properties specifically the Burnham House is there something that prevent you from selling that property and utilizing that money or to get an adjacent property to the west that you mentioned and to utilize this for parking? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wakefield that could occur but what that would then do is cut again the intention of trying to create and urban campus, a footprint of entirely school uses. That is a challenge and a tradeoff. If we had gone north and built on a farm field by Interstate Drive everything is contiguous but when you are working in an urban environment it is tough. I realize Church Street will bisect this campus. We can’t close Church Street but the thought is to try to keep all the school related properties adjacent and contiguous if possible. Wakefield: Purchasing the property to the west does this. Fitzgerald: If you are advocating for selling the Burnham Mansion to a third party it puts a third-party property owner right in the middle of the school campus. Wakefield: Was those pieces of property specifically targeted or were they well we are going to plan based on what we can purchase? For instance, could in the planning to purchase everything to the north and west. Fitzgerald: It is an excellent question and it really plans into the extent Unit 4 went to try to be aware of and sensitive to the neighborhood. In January 2016 I personally walked the neighborhood with former Mayor McCullom. If he is not the defacto historian for the City of Champaign I think certainly he is well versed in the history of the community. We walked the neighborhood and we talked about different properties. We said what about this? Is this a property that we need to stay away from? For the record former Mayor McCullom felt that the house that is currently a funeral home directly west of West Side Park was the crown jewel of historic properties in the area. That was the one that could not be touched and that did impact when we sat down to try and figure out how do we go about putting together a land assemblage in an urban area. Then when you layer on top of that the school board expressly did not want to use eminent domain. They did not want to take peoples property. We didn’t want to get near West Side Park, we know we don’t want to take peoples property so what deals can be made. The Hurst Family were very good people to work with. This was a negotiated process. With the Hurst properties what was so important about those is not only were they contiguous it gave us property on both sides of the street so if the City vacated Park Avenue. If we owned on both sides we got 100% of Park Avenue. That is where the gym is going to be built, over the street right-of-way. Kloeppel: One of the things we did was put a RFP for service out and this is how we knew the Christian Science Church was looking for a buyer. This is how we launched into that process. That property being available was the starting point. We had a property that was a good size and from there under the understanding that we did not want to do eminent domain we moved forward with who was willing and available.
Wakefield: It wasn’t to recently that anyone knew the full history of the Burnham Mansion going back to Burnham and Root. This could change people’s opinions. If you had different information would it have changed your viewpoints? Kloeppel: I feel that I have had the knowledge of the house since meeting Susan Appel. We knew the significance of it. We have never not been aware of the historical significance. Wakefield: I understand that part of it. But the question more was specifically about the architects who designed this. If it was any other particular architect in the community it wouldn’t have as much importance historically if it wasn’t for the firm who designed it. Kloeppel: From the point of meeting Susan I can assure you that I was aware and others were aware.
Carlson: When you went to the City to ask about the historical designation you did not know than all the history of the property? Kloeppel: We did. The application wasn’t complete but what we did submit was from the packet of information that Susan had provided us. The purpose of entering into that as Bruce said we were basically looking for a ruling, a determination if this was going to be a problem. To be frank so we would not be sitting here 15 months later with a much more complete application being submitted. The work Mr. Adams and Susan have put into the applications is incredible and now the history has been recorded. It was almost so we didn’t have this come up and we knew what we were presenting to the voters. It didn’t happen, we had the conversation and we were very clear that our intentions were to take these properties down and to work to get that information out.
Carlson: The thing that I am trying to get in my head. You knew the historical significance when you went to the City to talk about it. You knew all of that and you went to the City to see if you could be granted historical status to see if you needed to go another direction. Kloeppel: Yes, Landmark Illinois had made their findings. Yes, the knowledge was there and I feel it was shared widely. Carlson: You would have been okay if they had said you needed to save them at that point. Kloeppel: Yes, we were at a stage where we had to explore what the option of keeping Central High School central meant. We needed to expand. There are still people within our community who wonder why we are no building out at the Interstate Drive. The compromises that are made are described to keep Central where it is.
Dudley: Any other questions? Dudley: You talked about offering PACA the opportunity to move the house. Obviously, that would be a significant expense to do that. If it could be done at all. Do you have any numbers on that and what that possibility would be. Fitzgerald: I do not, but Chris has acknowledge that this has been offered. Amy Armstrong, 29 Greencroft is sworn in. When we met with Landmark Illinois we talked about the historical process of these buildings and they wanted to discuss the possibility of moving the home. The school has committed what they would spend on demo towards moving the home. Chris Kloeppel toured with Landmarks Illinois to discuss the possibility of moving the home. The issues involved in this are explained. We have never heard back officially from PACA or Landmarks Illinois about moving the property.
Dudley: Any other questions?
Elmore: Can you show us the plans that describe where the parking is. Can you update us on what parking? Do you have a number of how many parking spaces are required? Knight: I do not. Elmore: I presume that the number of spaces in this potential lot is far less than the parking requirement. Knight: There has not been a zoning evaluation done.
Fitzgerald: While the parking is less than ideal it is significantly more that currently provided. Dudley: Do you now what portion of that 218 spaces is the Burnham Property? Kloeppel: I think it is around 30 parking spaces on that lot. This plan is the what the voters were presented with. Since the passing of the referendum in November of 2016 the district has been working on this. We have a project management team, architects, we are in a schematic design phase now. The final plan will not look exactly like this. Fitzgerald: The plan the Commission has reviewed is substantially similar to what will be built. Armstrong: Discusses that the lot will have a turning radius for busses.
Dudley: Any other questions? Commission discusses procedure.
Dudley: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to the nomination of these properties? You will be limited to five minutes and if a topic has been covered we don’t want to see redundancy of your comments. Please limit comments to additional information that might be salient to what we are looking at.
Comments where taken from all below after they were sworn in.
Tod Sattherthwaite, 502 S. Elm
Ed Kolodzej, 711 West Springfield
Neil Strack, 2320 Briar Hill Lane
Dan McCollum, 807 West Church
Michael Murphy, 1511 S. Mattis
Newt Dodds, 19 Greencroft
Mark Middleton, 509 Hessel Boulevard
Colin Glatz, 701 W. Church
Prue Runkle, 807 W. Clark
Kip Pope, 1806 Maynard Drive
Lawrence Richards, Champaign, Illinois
Rebecca Patterson, 609 East Bradley
Walter Loasch, 1016 W. Union
Dudley: Anyone else? Seeing none. Do any Commissioners have any comments?
Cole: I am an attorney and I appreciated with professional admiration the way Mr. Fitzgerald presented his case. I do want to add something in response to the member of the audience that said early this property was a small piece of the project and I thought at the time a keystone is a small part of an arch. There are reasons why this property has to be so important. Lots of reason and I think we have covered them all. The only thing I want to add is I appreciated very much the story that Mr. Middleton shared with us. What he did not tell us was the University of Chicago Mascot has a nickname of the Maroons.
Reynolds: I really learned a lot in this hearing. I have thought a lot about this issue and read a lot of the material and watched the Historic Preservation Commission meeting. For me, as is usually the case, the big issue I have has very little to do with the issue that is before us. For me I keep coming back to a day years ago in the Illinois Terminal. There was a rollout of a big plan which took place in the Illinois Terminal. It was greeted with a lot of enthusiasm. At that time I remember thinking and we have the school district proposing to build a high school way out in the boonies. I remember talking with City Council members and staff and saying why doesn’t the City exercise its zoning authority over this issue. This is clearly allowed under Illinois Law. The voters saved the City from that problem but now I see what is happening here as a precautionary tale for what could happen with other buildings and other redevelopment projects going forward for the school district. I have been on the Plan Commission for over 30 years and I can tell you that staff and the Commission have spent thousands of hours looking at infill redevelopment projects who’s impact on the City pale in comparison to this one. Hearing how this has all gone down I think there is a lot of water under the bridge. The nagging thought that I keep coming back to is why wasn’t the City formally involved in this process from the very beginning. I was very active in the keep Central High School central and another member and I went after the referendum and spoke with several City Council member about this very issue. People have alluded to the fact several times. The School District isn’t in the commercial landlord business. But nor is the School District in the planning business nor should it be. For me the big tragedy of all this is that the City of Champaign spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on its marvelous planning staff that would have millions of things to say and to comment about and to review of a plan of this magnitude which is no different than any other infill plan in terms of it being a large institutional use. Thousands of people will be going to it every day and it has a huge impact on its surroundings. I am not faulting the school district here. I understand that their mission is an educational mission. But to think that the school districts educational mission is incompatible with City regulatory review to me has never made sense. We review everything that Carle does and there is no question. There is no one saying that you are interfering with our medical mission. Of course not they are parallel, they are complimentary. The City has vacated a street and draw a wall around this project and said go for it. It is unfortunate. This is part of that result. We have other projects coming down the pike where similar issues will come up. It is very regrettable. Anyone who thinks that adding more student parking at Central is going to solve the congestion problem is whistling in the wind. It is going to increase student drivers to Central. That is the sort of thing that the planning staff expertise could have brought to this process. I did not know about all of the informal exchange that has been taking place but I just don’t know where that leads me as is frequently the case. I am conflicted about knowing how to vote given my very deep concerns. However, I will say I think there is not a chance that this process is not going to go through. The City wants it to happen. I am left really troubled by the fact that the Planning Staff hasn’t reviewed this plan the way it reviews every other infill plan and that I think the whole issue could have been avoided. There is a real irony in losing a home of this quality for a parking lot.
Kroencke: We keep on bring up about the parking lot. What happens if that was not parking and that was going to be a science lab. Would it be okay than? I think just because it is a parking now doesn’t mean it is going to be a parking lot in the future. I feel that you can’t look at it just as parking That you are looking at stopping them from expanding.
Elmore: I really appreciate the due diligence that Unit 4 undertook. We have a lot of information that was available to us. I took the time to look at lot more research. I live in the neighborhood and two of my sons went to the high school. I am very familiar with the school issues. I don’t know if I expected to have a profound change of opinion because of all of this information that was available. But, I did learn a lot of things that I didn’t know. Some of those things came out of the due diligence. For me the issue is still the same. It is not an easy decision to make but based on some of the things that I learned tonight it is a clear decision for me. Rarely do we get something that we are one hundred percent in favor and there are no consequences. There are consequences whichever way we go. We have to decide on balance. What are we looking for in the future of this community.
Wakefield: Like with any other time information is shared from the other side that you might not be aware of. It is not necessarily where I stand but just sharing it. The school district has made a compelling argument for why they are doing what they are doing. I appreciate that and in a certain part agree with that. What I don’t think people know is really understanding the significance of Burnham and Root. Most people don’t know famous architects or their importance in history. What most people do know is the name Frank Lloyd Wright. Many would consider that Burnham and Root has the same influence as Frank Lloyd Wright. So from the architecture community in a whole it would be are you tearing down a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Many have been, many have gotten into horrible shape and tore down, and many have been preserved.
Another more local example of similar conditions that have happened. There is a well know national architect by the name of Paul Rudolf. He designed the Christian Science center which is adjacent to campus. At one point a developer purchased that property to put up an apartment building. It was brought to their attention the importance of the building and their response was if you offer me a different piece of property in exchange for it I will do it. No one did. As a result it was tore down. Which is the argument that PACA is making. It will be lost forever. Part of what we are looking at is are we looking to the future or looking to the past? Which one is more important?
Bryan: I had four kids go to Central High School, so I am aware of the parking and difficulties. I have been a member of PACA for a long time. I have not been an influential part of it. These are things that mean a lot to me. Being on the Plan Commission we are furnished by Staff with a subscription to an American Planning Association periodical. There are repeated instances in that periodical where communities around the county who have managed, in very creative ways, to seek innovation in preservation. It has been impressive to see. My regret is like Commissioner Reynolds we had some very skillful people work diligently. It is with great pain that I think about the decision that has to be made here today.
Dudley: Any other comments?
Dudley: I have had an education over the last couple of weeks. I learned a great deal about preservation and this community that I wasn’t aware of. I was not in favor of keeping Central High School central although I understand that there were a lot of people who were. I felt that the better good was to build out north and have a complete new complex. However, that aside the people have spoken significantly that this should stay Central. The information that has been presented to us has been there for a significant period of time. Given that it has changed the direction that I intend to vote.
Cole: Mr. Chairman I move the public hearings be closed. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Cole: Mr. Chairman I move that we forward case PL17-0048 (603 W. Church) to City Council with our recommendation the application for landmark status be denied. Bryan: Seconds. Vote: Bryan-yes; Carlson-yes; Cole-yes; Elmore-yes; Dudley-yes; Reynolds-no; Kroencke- yes; Trautman-yes; Wakefield-yes.
Cole: Mr. Chairman I move the we forward case PL17-0049 (500 West Church) to City Council with our recommendation that the application for landmark status be denied. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Cole: Mr. Chairman I move that we forward case PL 17-0050 (606 W. Church) to the City Council with our recommendation the application for landmark status be denied. Carlson: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Dudley: Points out that this is just a recommendation to City Council for denial. The City Council will have the ultimate decision. This is only a recommendation.
Knight: This will go to City Council on December 5, 2017.
Dudley: I would like to thank everyone who has made comment. I know you are all very passionate. I think the School Board made a good presentation. This has been a very long meeting but a very productive and well needed.
Adjourned at 7:33
http://documents.ci.champaign.il.us/v/1Fqn1P918JYtryJe6fX1crSLqvRVGew57
Alerts Sign-up