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