Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met Oct. 1

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.

Roll Call:

Members Present: Cole, Trautman, Wakefield, Sanchez, Kemna, Elmore, Barkstall, Kroencke

Staff Present: Marino, Horwick, Trotter, Knight, Teplensky, VanBuskirk, Vonderheide

Motion to approve the minutes of the September 17, 2025 meeting Cole: So Moved.

Trautman: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

(Public Hearing continued from the September 17, 2025 meeting is reopened)

PL-25-36 University Place Christian Church Landmark Designation

VanBuskirk: The applicant in this case, Leslie Baker, is unable to attend today but has designated a speaker on her behalf. The property is owned by University Place Christian Church and Fairlawn Real Estate has a contract to purchase the property. It is explained where the church is located. A brief history of the church is given; photos are shown as well as the historic aerials.

Review and consideration of Local Landmark nominations are a three-step process. It goes first to the Historic Preservation Commission which looks only at the historic and architectural integrity of the building, and they send it forward to Plan Commission who considers other criteria such as economic hardship and owner objection. The Commission will make a recommendation regarding the case, and it is sent to City Council for final approval or denial.

Plan Commission looks at four criteria and Eric explains that his presentation will be centered around the four criteria. Eric explains that the Commission’s criteria are not Findings of Fact they are criteria, and they do not all have to be met but it is a balancing test. Staff is recommending denial of the Landmark application based on a balance of all four of the criteria.

The criteria are reviewed in detail and Eric explains each as well as reviewing the code sections. He explains that this is an unusual case because the property owner and the contract purchaser were moving forward with redevelopment plans with the property prior to the application of the Landmark status. What this did was create a vested right to move forward with those plans. In a sense that vested right was created by both the property owner initiating a demolition permit application on July 3, 2025, and moving forward with a initial site plan review with our Zoning Administrator. This included basically fifty percent ready plans for zoning review. This was a project coming into the planning department as a by right project. This means that they did not need any special approval from Plan Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals. They were working within the existing zoning regulations. Both actions create that vested right and the ability to move forward with demolition regardless of Landmark designation.

The property owners also entered into a couple of other actions that we feel help not support these criteria. They initiated an Illinois State EPA Land Disturbance Permit which is required for demolitions or land disturbances for properties larger than one acre. This process initiated the Section 106 review. Eric explains the Section 106 review that was done by the State Historic Preservation Agency which requires the property owner, if the property is historically significant and it was determined this property was, the property owners needed to go through a mitigation process to limit the negative impacts on historic resources. The Section 106 review does not prevent the demolition of the building. It is not a historic designation protection.

However, it is a process in which the property owner is encouraged to do salvage work to repurpose elements of the building in some way and to limit the impact on the loss of historic resources. The property owners have done that. They worked with a salvage company to begin removing significant architectural features such as the windows, and the church even contributed $50,000 to the deconstruction, removal, relocation and reassembly of the organ. An organ is like a tiny little building and machine all wrapped into one. They are very complex, so it is not uncommon that even though an organ is being repurposed it requires a significant financial investment to do so.

The property owner has also asserted at both the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and at the continued public hearing that the maintenance and building improvements required are not financially feasible for the small congregation that is still in practice at the facility. They assert that the designation of the property would jeopardize their ability to earn a reasonable economic return and threaten the continuation of the church’s mission from a new location. They are moving to the University YMCA. There are two property owners who have ownership interest in this property. The University Place Christian Church and the contact purchaser. Both owners oppose the designation. Owner opposition does not automatically mean that the designation should not happen however, given the realities of the vested rights case here, staff feel that it is a compelling reason to not move forward with the Landmark designation as presented.

Staff’s recommended action is to forward to nomination to City Council with a recommendation to deny after finding that the criteria in Section 37-502 have not been satisfied.

Any questions?

Kroencke: Any questions for Eric or staff?

Wakefield: To make sure it is clear, do all of the criteria need to be met for us to approve or deny this? VanBuskirk: Your role is making a determination and balancing all of those together. You could landmark this over owner objection. It is up to the Commission to weight those criteria in a way that they feel is most important. These are not a Findings of Fact like where if one is not met it is automatically not passed. Wakefield: If it is approved, are the historical regulations to be maintained on the exterior or interior or both? VanBuskirk: In normal circumstance where there was not an existing demolition permit, the historic Landmark Designation applies to the exterior of the building. Wakefield: Is this for the sanctuary itself or for the entire complex? VanBuskirk: The Historic Preservation Ordinance applies as a zoning overlay. It would apply to the entirety of the property. There are two addresses assigned to the property. We are only referencing one address, but this would apply to all buildings on the property.

Wakefield: Who determines who inspires an Era as referenced in the criteria? VanBuskirk: That is a great question. Both Berger and Kelly and George Ramey are not internationally known but preservation at both at the Federal, State and Local level has three tiers. They may not be significant at the State or Federal level, but they are known for their contributions at a Local level. These are not plans out of Sears catalog. They are borrowing elements from other things, and they are original plans. Wakefield: If this is landmarked will the applicant be compensating the owner and the property developer for the significant amount of money, they have already put into this? VanBuskirk: No.

Trautman: Who determines which designers are designers of the Era? Is that like the Historic Preservation Commission or who determines this? VanBuskirk: We evaluate the application and the information that we have. Obviously, we have several landmarks that are landmarked by George Ramey that are also landmarked with that Criteria C. It is a subjective review. We provide the information and the analysis to the Commission just like we do for this Commission but yes, they make that determination.

Kemna: I have already asked this question before but, even if we pass this it has no impact on the demolition, correct? It could be historically preserved in a legal sense, but the building will still be knocked down. VanBuskirk: Yes, because of the vested rights determination the property owner can continue with demolishing the building under the permit that they applied for, all sewer cap inspections have been done, and the permits have been issued. There are three addresses in the complex. Kemna: If the building is demolished and it is landmarked what happens? VanBuskirk: We will have to work with the landowner to remove the Landmark Designation.

Kroencke: Would the applicant like to speak?

Nancy Hays, 6804 W Hurlbut Street, Chicago: I will be reading Leslie Colbert Baker’s comments (See Attachment A) and then going on to my own comments for the reminder of the 15 minutes.

Nancy Hays comments begin. I am here today to honor Leslie Colbert Baker for making this nomination and for the sacrifices of her grandfather and the other men and women during the Great Depression who built this historic gothic masterpiece we all know as Uniplace. To honor the Robeson Family who contributed the stunning curtained baptismal and the Willet Stained Glass Company with its priceless windows. The same style and design as in the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. To preserve the vaulted ceilings, the antique lighting fixtures, the carved benches, the perfect wooden doors, to honor the men whose names are engraved in bronze and affixed into the stone that lost their lives in World War II. I come to honor my own parents who raised a family who worshipped there and the outstanding musicians who played here. She shares other family memories.

Details of the interior of the building are shared and how the building inspired Ms. Hays in her youth.

She explains that she is here today because she feels that the trustees of the University Place Christian and the current minister have failed to protect the building and gives her opinion how she feels about the process of how the decision was made.

She expresses her opinion on how she feels about how the issues of the church were communicated to the congregation at large and how the salvage of the building is happening.

The lack of applying for grants, the age of the current congregation, and the sale price of the building are stated.

Ms. Hays explains that she was supposed to give a development plan presentation in the sanctuary of the church on September 8, 2025, while all elements of the sanctuary were still intact. The location was changed the night before and her time was limited.

She indicates that she believes that a city Planning Commission can require a developer to save some historical parts of the previous building if that building has significant features. The developer that is acquiring this property has a wealth of resources and could save the most important parts of the sanctuary. Hopefully the Plan Commission can make the developer understand this and hold them accountable.

She explains her development plan which includes saving the sanctuary and the other rooms immediately around it but making way for building of apartments and also a very badly needed parking structure. At the very least the sanctuary could be repurposed into a Harry Potter style dining hall for students and other activities. It should be noted that the dining room in the Harry Potter films is made in the image of Christ Church on Oxford Campus. She explains examples of other adaptive reuses and talks about her company. Possible fund-raising types of events are listed. She gives ideas for adaptive reuses.

Eric Freyfogle, Trustee of University Christian Church. 403 E. Sherwin Drive, Urbana.

Additional comments below:

There are a lot of things that Ms. Hays said that I would take issue with. The decision to sell was unanimous. It was by our Board not by the members of the trustees alone. Everyone involved in the congregation had ample opportunity to participate in the decision. If her sister did not take advantage of it there is not much we can say.

Kroencke: Is there anyone else who has not spoken for or against this issue that would like to come forward and speak?

Nancy Yagle, 404 West Healy, Champaign. I have lived in this home and neighborhood for 35 years and in this community for much longer. I have a very vested interest in the character and livability of our community. I drove past the church today and was sad to see the demolition had begun. I have the greatest sympathy with my friend Eric and the congregation of UniPlace and the financial position that they find themselves in. It is a complex case. If the building is retained, then there is going to be some expense to the congregation if Fairlawn pulls out. Fairlawn is a very wealthy developer, and they will not do anything that will decrease the profitability of this building. They will not repurpose this building. I agree firmly with what Eric Freyfogle said, “why couldn’t the City immediately contact the HPC when the demolition permit came in”. The Historic Preservation Commission is appointed by the Mayor so it part of the City bureaucracy. Does the City care about the appearance of the city or just that they have to newly develop everything to maximize the property tax value. This is a tragedy for our community, and it will continue.

Phyllis Williams, 810 W. Main, Urbana, PACA Volunteer. Reading statement from Willet Stained Glass Studio

Susan Appel, 307 N. Garfield, Champaign, IL PACA Advocacy Committee.

Kroencke: Is there anyone else in the audience that has not spoken that would like to come forward? Seeing none? Any questions for staff. Seeing none.

Kroencke: I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Cole: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Kroencke: Any comments in regard to this case from the Commission?

Sanchez: I served on a foundation board of an old building and one of the things we had to do is constantly address maintenance needs and also try to address the mission. The changes in costs are very common and can change from week to week. It is very painful to serve on a board that has to make these decisions.

Barkstall: I sympathize with people who love older buildings, I love them too. But I don’t understand how someone feels they can put a designation on a property that they do not have any ownership interest in. The property owner doesn’t want the designation. This is wrong to me. I am a hard no. I would never vote to put a designation on a property that the property owner does not want.

Elmore: I would like to address what Commission Barkstall said. You have given a good example of one of the unfortunate problems that we face. If you have a building that you would like to keep it is very important that those who make this application need to have a vested interest and some ability to deal with the results. Discusses the Burnham Mansion case and the extraordinary attempts that were taken to do everything they could to save it. I am always open to look at options and changes to the Ordinance. I would like us to be open to considering options.

Wakefield: I can appreciate this church and the historical nature of it. There needs to be something done before the demolition process. We need to come up with something to prevent this from happening. I agree that the staff does not have the resources to take this on. Can someone work with the owners of the historical building? Can we make recommendations to Council that there be funding to hire someone to come and do this? Then work with the owners to prompt them to agree that they have a historic building. We don’t want to put something against the owner that is their right to do or not do with something. There has to be an incentive to push the owner to have them recognize this. Same way with the former congregation with this church. They are very passionate about what they had and what they did. But as far as I know none of those individuals stepped forward to suggest their congregation do this. Maybe the thought process is yes, this is historical, and we are never going to have to worry about it and that is why I am saying that somehow, they need to be aware of the historic nature of their buildings to push those individuals to go in the directions to save historical Landmarks. For this particular case and where we are at, I don’t think that can be done.

Sanchez: I do see an exciting opportunity; zoning is being looked at and there will be expanded opportunities and maybe there will be opportunities in the future.

Kemna: I will be a no. This issue does raise a lot of valuable points about the flaws as they exist in the historic presentation system. But on the merits of this specific case alone and the fact that regardless of how we vote the building is going to go away. I do not think this is a vote to save history I think this is a vote to add an additional zoning qualification that we are going to have to come back to remove. I think on the merits of that alone alongside of the owner objection and the financial difficulties that will come with that, and it will cost taxpayers money for us to come back here and remove the designation, I can’t in good conscience pass this.

I do appreciate what is going to go in this church’s place in the future. We do have a housing problem in this community. Rents are too high; we do not have stock and the only way rents are going down is by increasing stock and the only way the issue with stock is going to go away is by increasing stock and that is what you all are doing here with this. I do want to say that though it is unfortunate for this church to go away I personally spent some time in the church in high school but what it is being replaced with is not something that is without value and in fact is addressing a very vital present need in the community.

Trautman: Asks about the faith-based housing proposal. Knight: Explains it is still a proposal at this time but will definitely be doing public engagement on this concept soon and that will be an opportunity to get the word out.

Kroencke: Any more comments from the Commission. Seeing none I will ask for a motion.

Cole: I move that we make Findings that the Section 37-502 Ordinance requirements have not been met and that case PL25-36 be forwarded to City Council with our recommendation of denial. Trautman: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote for denial.

Knight: This will go to City Council on October 14, 2025.

Adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FblCiVjkzAqQbtivsj1mLZCSnbh0YcB6/view