Here's the bureaucracy in action:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 20, 2003
**REVISED**
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairperson Vega called the
meeting to order at approximately 8:40 a.m. Roll call confirmed a quorum was
present.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cazzato,
Masick, Neumiller, Schmidt, Smith and Vega
ABSENT: Commissioner McDonald
STAFF
PRESENT: Kim Smith, Randy Ray and
Trina Bonds
MINUTES
Ms. Smith introduced Dan Schmidt and
Geoff Smith, the two new Historic Preservation Commissioners.
CASE NO. HPC 03-25
Ms. Smith introduced the public
hearing on the request of the Historic Preservation Commission, to determine if
the property located at 908 Hamilton Blvd should be designated as a local
historic landmark, as per the submitted application information.
Randall Ray, Corporation Counsel,
City of Peoria Legal Department, thanked the commission for the opportunity to
speak. He explained that he wanted to clarify that there is new case law in the
State of Illinois that obligates the commission to provide the people with an
interest in this matter to have a limited right of cross examination and a
reasonable opportunity to speak. He reported that this is fairly new and that
he wanted to make it clear on the record that the commission will be following
those procedures that are set forth by the Illinois Supreme Court. He explained
that with regard to this particular application, the commission should be aware
of certain differences with dealing with this application because it is for a
church. He stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the
right of freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion.
Attorney Ray gave a clear
explanation that the State and Federal Statutes both mandate a type of
balancing test that must be performed by the commission. He stated that this
test involves weighing whether or not the imposition of landmark status would
pose a "substantial burden" on the exercise of free religion, and if
so, whether such a burden is in furtherance "compelling state
interest." He further explained that in some cases courts have generally
held that aesthetics alone is not a "compelling government interest."
He stated that his opinion is that when you deal with a church it is a very
sensitive and difficult thing. He further stated that the commission should
approach this in the manner that it normally does, which is to consider the
Ordinance criteria for designation in Section 16-38. He reported that if those
criteria are met, then the commission needs to take a couple of addition steps,
because it is a church. He explained that the first step is to determine
whether designation of this particular building would constitute a substantial
burden on anyone's free exercise of religion. He further explained that if the
commission determines that it does constitute a substantial burden, then the
commission should move on to determine if there is a "compelling
governmental interest" in landmarking this property. He strongly suggested
that if the commission feels that there is a "compelling governmental interest"
in this, they should articulate what that interest is. He stated that the
"compelling interest" has to be balanced against the
"substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. He explained
that the final test is whether or not the burden is imposed utilizing the
"least restrictive means."
Vice-Chairperson Vega reiterated
that the purpose of this meeting is a public hearing to determine whether or
not the property at 908 Hamilton should be designated a landmark. She asked
that everyone who wanted to speak to this matter to stand to be sworn in.
Vice-Chairperson Vega gave a summary
of this case and explained that a couple months ago the commission voted to go
ahead and file a petition. At the previous Historic Preservation Commission
meeting, she explained that the commission voted to bring the case to a public
hearing. She asked Commission Cazzato to introduce the case.
Commissioner Cazzato thanked Mr. Ray
for his guidance and stated that it would be very helpful. He stated that the
proposal before the commission was to recommend landmark status to the property
at 908 Hamilton. He explained that the basis would be on its architectural and
historical significance to the City of Peoria. He stated that the commission's
role is to make a recommendation to the City Council and stated that the City
Council would adopt or deny their application for designation. He explained
that he would attempt to communicate the contents of the application for
designation that was submitted by the commission. He reported that he would point
to the unique architecture and historical significance of this building.
Commissioner Cazzato referred to a
packet of information that was presented to the commission. He referenced to
the color pictures in the packet and gave brief comments about each of them. He
explained that the building remains prominently visible from Main Street as one
travels northwest up the hill from downtown. He reported that the architectural
elements present in this building that are noteworthy include the dome,
triangular pediments, dentil molding on those pediments, the arched windows and
doorways, and the ionic columns. He explained that all of these items were
present as they were in the original construction. He explained that the
structure as a whole has the look of a Greek or Roman temple. He stated that in
the application they have called the style Classical or Greek. He explained
that this is the style that Les Kenyon named it and stated that Mr. Kenyon has
interviewed with the Journal Star in an article titled "Lost
Landmarks". He reported that Frank Corso, an architecture professor and
the former Historic Preservation Chairman, agreed that this was a valid
description of the style, though he also pointed out that many of the worlds
greatest and most interesting buildings contain elements of multiple styles. He
referenced photocopies from an architectural style book.
Commissioner Cazzato reported that
the history of the church is also noteworthy and unique.
He added that the building's history
is intertwined with the history of Peoria including a long line of prominent
citizens, noteworthy speakers, and historic occasions.
Commissioner Cazzato reported that
of the nine criteria of historic significance named in the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, this building appears to meet four. He commented that
it would only need to meet one to qualify as a city landmark. He reported that
Criteria 1 are met because of the church's role in religious, social and
cultural development of Peoria. He stated that the church has stood on the
prominent site for 92 years downtown and has been continuously used by the
Universalists and the Universalist Unitarian church. He reported that the
church has hosted significant national gatherings of the church, as well as,
during the 20's & 30's it hosted a highly successful Sunday Forums Speaker
Series. He stated that the speakers were among the most significant political
and social figures of the time.
Commissioner Cazzato explained that
Criteria 3 is met because of the prominent members of the church which
included: the Underhills, the Bourlands, the Callenders, the Detweillers, and
the Bradleys.
Commissioner Cazzato explained that
Criterion 4 and 6 are met because of its architectural style and significance.
He stated that he described those in the color pictures and noted that the
stained-glass windows are particularly beautiful and notable.
Commissioner Cazzato commented that
he is very sympathetic to the position of the Universalist Unitarian Church. He
explained that they are caught between a great hospital with noble intentions
of expanding their operations and a concerned organization called the Historic
Preservation Commission.
In summary, Commissioner Cazzato
stated the commission has the responsibility to take a stand when buildings
that contribute to Peoria's unique character are threatened. He stated that he
understands that the church wants to be free to pursue their new direction
without interference. He further explained that many of the arguments that were
heard last month were valid and very compelling concerns. He stated that he
would listen closely and encouraged everyone else to do so as well. He stated,
however, many of these arguments may be a distraction. He went on to say that
the commission's responsibility is to follow the guidelines that the Ordinance
has set.
Commissioner Cazzato stated that Ms.
Smith informed him that per the ordinance, as part of the presentation it was
expected that proposals for preservation and enhancement of the property for
designation be discussed. He stated that he thinks that somewhere in this mess
there is an opportunity for preservation of this building that has not been
fully explored. He stated that he knows that the church considered it well in
their deliberations, but stated that was with the premise of the Methodist
offer. He stated as far as the commission knows Methodist has not considered
preservation. He stated that given the limited information that the commission
has on Methodist's specific needs and plans for the property it is a little
hard to brainstorm proposals that would meet all of their requirements. He
stated nonetheless, he would attempt a few:
Proposal 1
Methodist could purchase the
property and renovate the church building as a chapel and meeting hall or
auditorium for use by the hospital.
Proposal 2
Methodist could create a unique
training facility or medical museum that would raise awareness of Methodist's
prominent roles in the medical and Peoria community.
Proposal 3
The church building could be made
into a entryway for the new project that Methodist is planning for the site.
Proposal 4
Since parking, remodeling and more
space is what the church needs, an agreement could be developed to sale the
land on either side of the building to Methodist with a contract stating that
the church could continue to use some of the many parking spaces that surround
the property. He explained that the agreement could include office space in the
Methodist new building to house the church office and library.
Finally, Commissioner Cazzato stated
that the sale of the adjacent land could provide funding to perform the needed
repairs on the church building. He stated probably the cost of this would be
less to Methodist and would give everyone involved at least most of what they
want and need.
Commission Cazzato stated that these
ideas are meant to be catalysts for discussion, rather than well researched
proposals. He commented that he wished that half the effort that went in to the
preparation of the 500-page proposal were put to some ideas for ways that would
preserve the unique part of Peoria's character. He went on to say that the
easiest and most convenient option for the hospital right now is demolition,
but stated it is not the only option. He said it seems that perhaps the only
thing that would drive the parties at this point to consider options that
include preservation is a designation by the City Council of landmark status.
He stated with that designation, Methodist might have an incentive about
getting more creative about how to make productive use of this historic
building.
Diana Jagiella, Attorney, Howard
& Howard, Peoria, cross-examined Dr. Cazzato by asking questions in
relation to the landmark designation application that he submitted. She
commented that in presenting the case he identified the architectural significance
of certain items and asked him why they were worthy of study?
Dr. Cazzato stated that elements are
part of defining a style. He went to say that he was really not sure of how to
answer that question for any building of any particular architectural style. He
explained that the elements are the physical attributes that you study and take
note of. He further stated that this differentiates buildings from other less
significant buildings. He commented that he was not sure if study needs to be a
student standing there taking a class, but said studies would be taking note of
those elements that make a building unique.
Ms. Jagiella asked Dr. Cazzato,
"How are you are defining study then?"
Dr. Cazzato replied that he had not
attempted to define study and asked Corporation Counsel, Randy Ray for help to
answer this question.
Attorney Randy Ray stated that he
did not think that study meant anything different here than it does anywhere
else. He explained that if the witness states that they can't answer, he thinks
Ms. Jagiella should move on.
Ms. Jagiella commented about the
names of the prominent persons identified in the application including
Underhills, Bourlands, Callenders, Detweillers, and the Bradleys. She asked Dr.
Cazzato if he had any disagreement with the death dates of these people, which
were reported in the brief that she submitted?
Dr. Cazzato replied, "No."
Chris Ryan, 11125 N. Trigger Road,
Dunlap, asked Dr. Cazzato with respect to the comments that he quoted from
former Chairperson Frank Corso if those statements occurred at sometime prior
when he was still a member of the commission?
Dr. Cazzato replied that he asked
Frank Corso those comments after the last commission meeting. He explained that
at that point, Frank Corso was no longer on the commission or the chairperson.
He further explained that Frank Corso has provided a statement that Ms. Smith
will have read into the record.
Ms. Smith reported that she has
several letters that need to be submitted for the record. It was decided that
these letters would be submitted at the end of the hearing.
Mr. Ryan explained that he is an
attorney for the church and also a member of the congregation. He thanked Mr.
Ray for laying out the state and federal statutes that deals specifically with
churches. He commented that they came prepared to discuss these because they
had read some comments in the Journal Star that the commission might feel that
they were irrelevant. He went on to say that the fact of the matter is that
churches have to be treated quite differently in these cases.
Mr. Ryan reported that he generally
agrees with what Mr. Ray has said regarding the law, but stated that he and the
attorneys for Methodist disagree with the comments on a balancing test. He
explained that he is not aware of any cases which hold that once you have found
a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion, that any aesthetic type
of interest such as historic preservation can ever triumph a burden on First
Amendment Religious Rights. He stated as far as they are concerned, once you
find a substantial burden on the church by the imposition of landmark status,
they believe the compelling interest has failed and that should end the
inquiry. He explained that they would be laying out what the hardships are that
the church has faced before Methodist came in with an offer. He stated that far
from being a distraction, everything that they are going to present would go
directly to the issue of whether this is going to be a substantial burden on
the church.
Mr. Ryan wanted to address the
proposals for preservation that were laid out by Dr. Cazzato. He commented that
notably none of the proposals talk about the church being able to fix its own
problems. He explained that he thinks this is significant, because they are the
owners. He stated that if designation is made they have made it clear that the
sale to Methodist is off. He commented about an affidavit in their position
statement from Michael O'Bryan. He submitted the original signed document for
the record. He explained that this affidavit specifically gives an opinion that
imposition of landmark status would reduce the market value of the church
property by over 50%.
Dorothy Sinclair, 1019 W. Teton
Drive, Peoria, commented that she is a veteran of the City Council and that she
spent 16 years as a member. She explained that she was on the City Council when
the original Historic Preservation ordinance was adopted. She stated that she
is also a 40-year member of the Universalist Unitarian Church.
Ms. Sinclair explained that the
church has known for a number of years that this building has hampered their
religious planning, goals and even the atmosphere of the religious services
that they have there. She reported that in 1991 their church had a membership
of 140 people. She stated that in 2003, they now have a membership of 290
people. She explained that their sanctuary seats about 300 people. She further
explained that they have overflows during the year on several occasions.
Ms. Sinclair reported that the
church has no air-conditioning. She commented that they discourage August
weddings in the church. She stated that the heating system in the church is
very old and that they never know on a January morning whether or not if the
are going to have heat. She explained that this is a serious handicap to a
religious program. Ms. Sinclair also addressed several other handicaps of the
church.
Ms. Sinclair reported on the
inadequate parking and stated that they probably have about half enough space
for the average attendance of their Sunday morning services. She explained if
it were not for the generosity of Methodist Hospital over the years, they would
have had serious problems if they had to rely on their own parking space only.
She talked about their handicap-accessibility. She explained that their chair
lift has been inoperable for some time. She stated that it is so old that parts
can no longer be provided for it. She also talked about the some of the
children from their religious education program appearing before the Board of
Directors and petitioning for additional playground space.
Fred Lutgens, 4518 W. Tilley Ct.,
Peoria, stated that he planned to briefly outline the process the church
followed in making its decision to sale its property to Methodist Medical
Center. He stated that he was Chair of the long-range planning committee that
has worked over the last two years on the dialogue and activity with Methodist
Medical Center.
Mr. Lutgens explained that Methodist
Medical Center contacted the church and expressed an interest in the property
two years ago. He stated that it should have not come as a surprise to the
commission that this was going on because in August of 2001, the Peoria Journal
Star had an article letting the entire community know this process had started.
Mr. Lutgens stated that at the same
time the long-range planning committee, which is a group of ten members of the
congregation, was formed. He stated the purpose was to provide the congregation
with the options available regarding the possible sale and relocation of the
church, in addition, it would present the options available should the church
remain at its present location.
Mr. Lutgens reported that in spring,
2002, the long-range planning had two town hall meetings that involved a
significant majority of the church. He explained that decisions of the their
church is made by the congregation. He reported that in April of 2003 the
long-range committee made a final report to congregation and stated this
meeting was publicized for many weeks and was very well attended. He reported
the options for remaining at 908 Hamilton and those for relocating
He stated in addition to formal town
hall meetings that were held they set a internet chat room for members of the
church and mailings. He explained that after a series of votes, the congregation
selected one of the options to relocate. He reported that the affirmative vote
to confirm this decision was 93% of their congregation.
In conclusion, Mr. Lutgens stated
that their decision to sale the church to Methodist Medical Center was the best
possible solution for their congregation. He explained that the decision was
the result of a great deal of hard work, serious deliberations, and a great
deal of effort by the entire church community. He strongly urged the commission
to let the church take the path they have chosen to build a new building on a
new site.
Vice-Chairperson Vega called for a
ten-minute break at approximately 10:25 a.m.
The public hearing was reconvened at
approximately 10:40 a.m.
Vice-Chairperson Vega commented the
commission needed to discuss the time issue. She explained that they were at a
point were they are coming close to losing a quorum. She stated that they
needed to decide on how much time they needed in order to discuss this case so
that they can look a timeframe on the testimony. She commented that they might
need to look at a continuance on a separate date. She asked for a motion to
wrap up by at least 11:30 a.m. and to have at least a half-hour for
deliberations.
Commissioner Masick motioned to end
the public hearing at 11:30 a.m. in order to allow for deliberations; seconded
by Commissioner Schmidt and was approved by viva voce vote 6-0.
Ms. Jagiella stated that they would
like to object to this motion. She explained that they have right to present
their case.
Attorney Ray suggested that when the
commission ends the testimony at 11:30 a.m. they will make a determination as
to whether the case needs to be continued.
Gene Hodel, 201 N. Third St.,
Roanoke, stated that he had been a member of the church for 23 years. He stated
that even though he lives more than 25 miles away, he regularly attended church
services and many other church activities. He explained that eight years ago he
was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which has severely limited his
abilities. He further explained that three years ago it became necessary to
curtail his participation in church activities. He reported that he dropped out
of the choir because it became impossible to climb the stairs to the choir
loft. He reported that he wanted very much to be a full participant in the
congregation again and stated that he would like to walk through the same
entrance that able bodied people use and get his own order of service without
asking for help. He explained that the new building, which is being planned,
would be fully handicapped-accessible. He stated he would be able to
participate in all church activities without assistance. He asked the
commission to not destroy the two years of work and good faith negotiations
between the church and Methodist.
Jim Roeker, a Registered Structural
Engineer Architect with Clark Engineers, stated that he looked at the building
at the request of Mr. Ryan. He stated primarily with respect to the structural
system to determine whether there would be significant cost in repairing it. He
stated he found that the basic structural system of the building is quite sound
and in really good shape for the age of the building. He explained that the
problems that they perceive that are visual are architectural finishes. He
explained that the cost of repairs would be significant.
Vice-Chairperson Vega asked Mr.
Roeker about in his capacity as a structural engineer how often does he go and
observe historic buildings?
Mr. Roeker explained that he has
done several hundred over the past 32 years. He reported that he has done a lot
of work for Les Kenyon.
Lynnda White, 2208 W. Alice, West
Peoria, stated that she is currently the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of
the Universalist Unitarian church. She wanted to talk about the psychological
impact of not moving. She prefaced her remarks by saying that one of the
tenants of their religion is " No one left behind". She explained
that they used that in their process to determine how they would approach the
Methodist offer. She reported that their reasons for moving were that they
needed to have the space, accessibility and the freedom from some of the
financial impacts that were keeping them from doing their community outreach
programs.
Vice-Chairperson Vega asked Ms.
White if the church has considered staying in the down town area?
Ms. White explained that one of the
options was the down town option and stated that they did consider that. She
said the primary reason they headed north was the lower overall cost to move
and to build. She explained that it is a very large wooded site and stated they
have people in their church who are naturalists. She further stated that this
site seemed to be the one that met all the needs for expansion, parking, and
playground space and also to be surrounded by nature.
Reverend Michael Brown, 1912 W.
Teton Drive, Peoria, stated that it has been his wonderful fortune to be the
minister of the Universalist Unitarian Church for the last 12 years. He wanted
to note one more time the irony of this situation. He explained that they are a
congregation that cares significantly about historic preservation. He stated
that they have preservationists in their congregation who has been active in
that movement. He reported that they are very proud of their history as a
congregation and positive force in this community for the last 160 years.
Rev. Brown commented about the three
criteria that Ms. Sinclair had touched on at the last meeting. He noted the
following:
- There wasn't any action well in advance
- There was no effort to involve the church in a mutually
respectful dialogue before an application was filed
- In Dr. Cazzato's creative ideas there is no mention of
any sort of financial assistance that would come to their church
Rev. Brown commented that we as a
community could do better in handling these kinds of situations. He offered
this challenge to the Historic Preservation Commission and stated that he would
volunteer his time at some point to help with the process.
Rev. Brown commented that one
criteria that hasn't been mentioned is that the street that most people take to
arrive at their church is about to disappear. He commented about Dr. Cazzato
referring to a previous district meeting of their denomination as an important
historical event. He explained that their denomination informed them that they
could not hold district denomination meetings in their church because it is not
handicap accessible. He stated that they are now not able to host these
meetings.
Rev. Brown talked about the first
point in their covenant, which talks about welcoming all those who come. He
asked how will they welcome with openness all who come if there are no parking
spaces, not enough seats or no air conditioning?
Rev. Brown stated that this proposal
takes away the religious leadership of the church from its members, Board and
professional staff. He urged the commission not to force his church to give up
its own since of its ministry and religious purpose and to force upon it the
goals of this proposal.
Diana Jagiella, 6001 N Sherwood,
Peoria, stated that she is an attorney for Howard & Howard and was
representing Methodist. She reported that she wanted to explain briefly in
summary why they believe the building does not meet the ordinance criteria. She
gave a slide presentation and explained that the application refers to four
criteria and gave explanations of why the buildings did not meet each of the
criteria. She pointed out that there are different requirements for churches
when you are considering historic designation. She explained that ordinarily,
these buildings are not eligible for designation under the national registered
guidelines.
Ms. Jagiella commented about the
application referring to the history of the Universalist Unitarian Church. She
stated that designation could not be based on the history of a church. She
explained that it could only be based on the history of a particular building.
She reported that the church has resided in five different buildings since the
time it came to Peoria.
Ms. Jagiella commented on additional
requirements for churches. She reported that the church building must be
associated with the following: (1) A theme in religious history having secular
scholarly recognition, (2) A historical theme such as exploration, settlement,
philanthropy or education or (3) Traditional cultural value.
Discussion took place regarding
events with secular historical significance. In discussion with Attorney Randy
Ray, Dr. Cazzato stated that the events Ms. Jagiella was speaking of certainly
were religious. He asked if it is not an issue of something being religious or
secular, does it not count as part of the history of the building? Attorney Ray
responded by saying he was not sure if there is any case which says that in
adopting the ordinance you can't consider something of significance to the
community because it had something to do with religion.
Ms. Jagiella discussed Criterion 3,
which relates to the identification with prominent persons. She gave the
guidelines for evaluating criterion 3 and explained that some of the persons
submitted in the application do not meet the "significance"
requirement. She gave an overview of why she felt these people were not
significant.
John Garner, Professor, University
of Illinois, Urbana, IL, reported that he is trained as an architect and also
has a Graduate Degree in Architectural History and a Doctorate in Urban
History. He stated that he has been teaching for 28 years.
In relation to his professional
opinion of whether or not the church building meets the designation
requirements of Criterion 4, Professor Garner reported that the church is
representative of the style of the Renaissance Revival or Beaux Arts
Classicism. He stated that it is not unique to Peoria in that there are other,
better preserved examples of the style. He went on to say that the structure
and its construction are not exceptional, but rather typical of buildings of
its type and period. He stated with the possible exception of the art glass
windows, whose provenance is not known, there are no indigenous material of unusual
merit exhibited in the building.
In relation to Criterion 6,
Professor Garner reported that the building has undergone substantial change
over a period of time. He stated to meet this requirement, a building should
have integrity or those qualities that give it meaning and value according to
the Secretary of the Interior's standards. He explained that additions and
renovations have comprised this church. He stated that he would be very
supportive of the nomination if it looked like one of the original pictures
that were submitted. He went on to list the changes and additions to the
subject property over the years. He stated that he thinks the changes are
unfortunate but said he understands why they were made. He reported that the
architect who was involved in some of these additions is a friend of his.
Professor Garner reported that the
scale of the building is one that would have been quite visible in a
residential community. He stated unfortunately, times have changed with the
construction of the hospital itself and the widening of the street. He
explained that this affects the angle of which one views the building.
Professor Garner reported that
churches are one of the most difficult buildings to try to adapt to a new use.
He stated even when it has happened it is usually not a happy resolution.
Ms. Jagiella submitted a written
report prepared by Professor Garner to be added to the record in lieu of
continued testimony on his behalf.
Commissioner Schmidt asked Professor
Garner what he found as the rule of historic preservation as far as for future
generations?
Professor Garner responded by saying
the he thinks the historic paths tell us our story. He went on to say that it
explains who we are, where we have been and what our accomplishments are. He
said in order to remember the past, we have to have examples of it. He
explained that he has spent most of his life in support of it.
Michael Bryant, 2919 W.Windpointe
Dr., Peoria, stated that he is the President of Methodist Medical Center.
Vice-Chairperson Vega asked Mr.
Bryant if any ideas had been discussed so far as possible ways of saving the
building?
Mr. Bryant replied, "No."
He went on to say that they have made it very clear that they are not in the
business of preserving historic buildings. He stated to be a 21st Century world
class hospital they don't see that being a 19th Century building. He explained
that it is not consistent with where they want to go.
Commissioner Cazzato asked Mr.
Bryant to describe what they would like to see in that site?
Mr. Bryant reported that the have
recruited world class cardiologists to establish a new heart facility. He
stated that would likely be the first item that would be seen in development.
He explained that everything they are doing would be complimentary to downtown
development and PeoriaNext.
Ms. Smith submitted letters and
documents that were received prior to the public hearing, but not part of the
commissioner's packets for the record. She reported that one of the letters was
submitted by Frank Corso and was dated August 19th. A copy of the documents was
also submitted to attorneys for the church and Methodist.
Ms. Jagiella asked if the letter
from Frank Corso is being accepted merely as a community comment or if it was
being accepted as a form of expert testimony? She stated if it is being
accepted as a form of expert testimony she would like to object it because he
is not present for purposes of cross-examination.
Attorney Randy Ray explained that
there is a difference between what it is for. He stated that he thinks that it
should be considered as public comment. He further stated that anyone wanting
to be considered as an expert probably does need to be present to subject
himself or herself to some cross-examination.
Tim Vega, 209 Columbia Terrace,
Peoria, stated that he is President of the Randolph-Roanoke historic district
just north of the hospital. He stated in the past, they have had a very
troubling history with Methodist Medical Center. He reported that things have
certainly changed with new CEO. He stated that they have had good relations and
support of their historic district.
There being no further public
testimony, Vice-Chairperson Vega closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairperson Vega asked Attorney
Randy Ray for clarification on the request for recusal of Dr. Cazzato that was
received.
Attorney Ray reported that he had
read it and appreciated the fact that his office was provided a copy well in
advance of the hearing. He stated it is his opinion that Commissioner Cazzato
is eligible to participate in the matter based on several things. First, as the
presenter of the application he was anything but a prosecutor, he stated he
does not think Commissioner Cazzato has indicated that his mind was made up
before then. Secondly, he stated this body can only recommend landmark status,
they cannot landmark it. He stated most importantly there is no indication
whatsoever that Commissioner Cazzato has any financial interest or anything
like that. He explained that it is more of a case where Commissioner Cazzato
just presented the application.
Commissioner Smith asked if anyone
could speak to what the condition of the building would be left in?
Vice-Chairperson Vega commented that
she thinks the church has indicated that they would try to salvage as much as
they could from the interior and also the dome. She explained that they would
be taking those things that they deemed architecturally significant and
incorporating it into their architectural plans.
Commissioner Smith commented that it
sounds like the remainder of the building would not be something that you would
designate as a landmark.
Vice-Chairperson Vega stated that
this has been a very difficult process. She stated that she thinks that the
public hearing has been productive and stated having this public hearing was
very necessary. She stated that she thinks from looking at the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, there is criteria that is met. She stated that she
feels the commission had to look at the situation beyond just the building. She
stated reading the letters from the parishioners was the most critical and
informative aspect. She stated that she thinks it is a wonderful structure and
that she does see some integrity to it, although she also agrees with the
Professor who suggested that the integrity were at least diminished at the
point in which the additions were made. She commented if the church is left in
the middle of the hospital campus around them, they would not have the ability
to grow. She reported that she is reluctantly against it and would not be
voting for landmark status, but stated she is doing so with very mixed
feelings.
Commissioner Neumiller left Council
Chambers at approximately 11:40 a.m.
Commissioner Masick commented that
he thinks that this is a very beautiful historic building. He complimented the
members of the church on their lengthy and probably tearful decision at times.
He stated he particular likes the fact that they would be taking parts of the
building with them. He explained that he could see where it would be a great
financial burden on the church if it were put into landmark status. He
commented that he would very much like to, but stated in all good conscience he
could not support the landmark decision on this.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that he
has been on the fence for this for a long time. He commented about the 500-page
position paper that he had received from the attorneys for Methodist and the
church the night before the hearing. He explained that as a current citizen of
Peoria, he looks at what they have lost and feels horrible. He said that the
congregation is a beautiful warm congregation and stated that he is deeply
moved. He stated that he is having a problem with how we are currently all
deprived of all this architecture and are not able to say, "This is my church
and I have been there this long" and "This is where we came from and
we are an outstanding church." He stated that you couldn't say this with
dust. He stated that he could not help but want to stand up for the feature.
He explained that he is not going to
take the popular vote and does not even want to make a vote. He went on to say
that he had to let his conscience vote, and stated that the beautiful church
should stand.
Commissioner Cazzato stated that he
has listened very closely and spent a lot of time studying this issue. He
stated that he is extremely disappointed that there is a deafening silence on
the part of public in terms of preservation. He reported that he is very moved
by the church's predicament. He stated that he thinks that they have presented
fairly substantial information that the burden to them is substantial to remain
in this building. He stated that he is extremely disappointed that the entity
with the resources to really make this happen is not coming to the table with
alternatives. He explained that he believes there are alternatives, but stated
if none of those alternatives could possibly be realized he did not want to
saddle the church with the burden of dealing with that. He stated that his
conscience makes this extremely difficult for him and stated that he feels that
the commission's mission is to speak for these buildings that can't speak for
themselves. He stated that he would reluctantly not support the designation of
this church as a landmark.
Commissioner Masick moved that the
landmark status not be granted to 908 Hamilton; seconded by Commissioner Smith.
Motion to deny landmark status to be
granted to 908 Hamilton was approved by roll call vote:
Yeas: Cazzato, Vega, Masick, Smith-
4;
Nays: Schmidt- 1
