Galena preservation commission approves lower deck, denies aluminum railings for upper porch at Timmerman property

The Galena Historic Preservation Commission voted to approve replacement of a failing concrete stoop with a wooden deck and composite decking on the south side of a property owned by Nick Timmerman, and to deny a separate request to replace the upper porch’s historic wood railings with aluminum.

The decision matters for how the property’s visible historic fabric will be preserved while addressing a deteriorated entry feature that the applicant described as structurally compromised. Commissioners said the lower deck could be replaced in kind but that the upper porch’s spindles and railings should remain or be replaced with matching wood to retain the building’s historic character.

Nick Timmerman, the applicant and contractor, told the commission the existing suspended concrete stoop is crumbling. “It’s gonna fall back. It’s gonna fall in too. So it’s... gotta be torn off,” Timmerman said, describing the proposal to remove the concrete landing and build a wooden-framed deck with composite decking and an aluminum railing matching the materials used on a new rear deck. He also described the existing upper-porch railing as older, with some elements that appear original and other parts that had been replaced over time.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether the upper-porch railings are original Victorian-era elements or later replacement work, with members noting differences in wear and finish between upper and lower sections. Several commissioners said the upper railings are historic in appearance and should be treated as original fabric under the commission’s preservation standards. The panel also discussed how a 36-inch guard height in the building code interacts with historic proportions; staff members told the commission that the building department or its designee (referred to as Jonathan in the meeting) can make determinations about code compliance and whether a preservation-sensitive solution (for example, raising the rail using a concealed lift or a framed infill) would be acceptable.

Commissioner Chuck moved to bifurcate the application: approve construction of the lower deck and its handrail as proposed, and deny the portion of the application that sought to replace the upper-porch railings with aluminum. Commissioner Larry seconded the motion. The commission called the roll and recorded affirmative votes from Morton, Mom Hen, White, Weidt, Kara and Brett; the motion carried.

During discussion, commissioners emphasized that the commission’s role is preservation review, not enforcement of safety or nuisance code—those matters can involve the building department or elected bodies. Commissioners encouraged Timmerman to consult with the building department staff (Jonathan) about approaches that could retain historic spindles while meeting modern guard height requirements; staff advised that if a proposed method is compatible with the ordinance it could be approved administratively, otherwise the applicant can return to the commission.

The commission’s action splits the application: the applicant may proceed with removing the failing concrete stoop and installing the approved lower deck and railing as described, but the commission denied replacement of the upper-porch wood spindles and rails with aluminum. Timmerman was advised to work with building department staff to explore options that preserve the historic look while addressing code concerns; commissioners indicated such revisions could be resolved administratively if they do not compromise the historic character.

The meeting also recorded a separate, earlier procedural vote to approve minutes of a previous meeting in which a commissioner (Monaghan) noted an abstention because he had not been present.