Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street September 17, 2013 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Time: A. 124 S. Second Street CASE 2013-042 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Nancy Luyten Application for: Site Pavement Modifications Commissioners: B. 328 N. Second Street CASE 2013-096 Applicant: Chris and Brannon Anderson Scott Roy, Chairman Application for: New Porch Decking and Step Tread Nanette Andersson Al Hiller C. 128 Peyton Street CASE 2013-097 Applicant: Steve Kent Zachary Ploppert Don Domanus / Mega Home Improvement Geri Schock-Soderberg Application for: Window Replacement Carolyn Zinke D. 402 Franklin Street CASE 2013-061 Staff Liaison: Applicant: David and Angel Warner Application for: Additions and Exterior Improvements Michael A. Lambert Preservation Planner E. 102 S. Fifth Street CASE 2013-084 630/938.4541 Applicant: Don Flynn preservation@geneva.il.us Rick Otto / Coach House Garages Application for: New Garage F. 200 S. Third Street CASE 2013-092 Applicant: Dave McFadden / Past Basket Application for: Exterior Rehabilitation The Historic Preservation Commission meeting is audio-recorded and summary minutes are taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting who require accommodations in order to allow them to observe and or participate in this meeting are required to contact the Planning Division at 630/232.0818 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013 MEETING Location: Geneva City Hall 5. Secretary’s Report Council Chambers 1. Window Policy Discussion 109 James Street 6. New Business Geneva, IL 60134 A. From the Commission B. From the Public Time: 7. Adjournment 7:00 p.m. Commissioners: Next meeting November 19, 2013 Scott Roy, Chairman Nanette Andersson Al Hiller Zachary Ploppert Geri Schock-Soderberg Carolyn Zinke Staff Liaison: Michael A. Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us The Historic Preservation Commission meeting is audio-recorded and summary minutes are taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting who require accommodations in order to allow them to observe and or participate in this meeting are required to contact the Planning Division at 630/232.0818 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.  HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street - Council Chambers Geneva, Illinois 60134 September 17, 2013, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called the September 17, 2013 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed: 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock- Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Zinke Staff Present: Preservation Planner Michael Lambert Others Present: Keith Enad, 5776 N. Ridge; David Patzelt, 17 N. First Street, Geneva; Brian Grisher, 17 N. First St., Geneva; Paul Nelson, 112 S. River, Geneva; Zack Tentinger, 21 W. State St., Geneva; Sean Gallagher, 427 Anderson Blvd., Geneva; Erin Gibbs, 2200 W. Cortez; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the August 20, 2013 Minutes Changes to minutes: Per Andersson, Page 3, last paragraph, second line, delete the words “it was a good opportunity to place the city’s stamp on this property” and insert the following words: “that the historic district should not be a museum piece stuck in time and it should grow and change within the context of the district’s sense of place. The property is an excellent opportunity to reflect this and allow our time stamp to contribute to Geneva’s history.” Per Hiller, Page 4, second full paragraph, delete the last sentence “Hiller reiterated that the Secretary of Interior Standards addressed the preservation of trees” and insert the following, “Hiller stated, ‘In addition to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Secretary of Interior offers guidelines for implementing the standards. We are not bound by the guidelines, as we are the standards, but, like the standards, help provide a consistency to what we are doing.’” Excepts from the guidelines as they refer to the site and setting followed by Hiller, noting both referred to trees and were within the purview of the commission. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the minutes, as corrected. Seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-1. (Commissioner Wehrmeister abstains.) 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 112 S. River Lane (Case 2013-068); Applicant: Paul Nelson; Application for New Masonry Stoop to Replace Wood Stoop - Preservation Planner Lambert reviewed the plans for a new stoop. He noted there was no porch indicated on the earliest Sandborn Map and could only assume a set of stairs existed as Sandborn did not record stoops but only covered porches. Three photos were presented. A masonry stoop is planned on a concrete block foundation with a wrought iron railing but there was the question of whether or not the stoop would be anchored directly to the sheathing and the siding cut around the masonry piers or whether they were stood off slightly to preserve the historic siding and trim work. This was a permitted stoop as far as construction techniques.  Historic Preservation Commission September 17, 2013 Mr. Paul Nelson, 112 S. River Lane, Geneva, confirmed the proposal was as staff presented. Prior to the current stoop, Mr. Nelson stated that from the maps he had, it was a wooden stoop and the 1897 map did not reflect anything but he assumed it was wood prior. Per questions, Mr. Nelson stated the entire existing stoop was wood and he was replacing it because he did not want the stoop to rot again which was why he was replacing it with brick burgundy masonry which matched the brick fireplace. In order to have an 8-inch surround of the wood, Mr. Nelson explained he had to make the foundation larger. He also confirmed that the stoop’s concrete foundation would be going up against the clapboard. Mr. Nelson explained the stone would only go up two feet and would be exposed. Concern was raised by Commissioner Andersson that a masonry stoop was going up on the front of the house and a false sense of historicity would exist because it was never a masonry structure but it would look that way. However, Mr. Nelson disagreed, as he had not removed any of the wood yet. He explained how he would anchor the brick away from the house (preferred Option B). Preservation Planner Lambert provided details of Option B but his preference was to have a short section of railing. Chairman Roy felt otherwise regarding the false sense of historic authenticity and believed there would be a more contemporary look to the stoop. Per questions, Mr. Nelson explained that the riser will be brick and Indiana limestone while the landing will be a burgundy paving brick. Commissioner Zinke voiced concern that the style was not in keeping with the property or character of the neighborhood. However, Mr. Nelson pointed out other concrete stoops that existed in his neighborhood. Per additional questions, Mr. Nelson explained the piers would be 8” x 8” inch. Mr. Lambert clarified to Mr. Nelson that if the stoop was anchored to the sheathing, the corner board would have to be altered to 11 inches. Other comments included that the stoop would be a significant upgrade but water going into the house was a concern for the building department to handle. Mr. Nelson offered to pitch the stone away from the house in order to direct the water away and he would add flashing. Commissioner Wehrmeister moved to recommend approval of the request, as presented, but giving the petitioner the discretion to revise the pitch angle of the piers. Seconded by Commissioner Schock-Soderberg. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Roy Nay: Zinke MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-1 B. 217 N. Third Street (Case No. 2013-081); Applicant: Zack Tentinger/Tentinger Landscapes; Application for Brick Paver Driveway to Replace Gravel - Preservation Planner Lambert explained that the petitioner would like to replace a crushed gravel driveway with a very traditional brick runner driveway using Chicago-style brick to match (two foot wide runners with a three foot grass section in the middle). Mr. Zack Tentinger, President of Tentinger Landscapes, confirmed a recycled brick runner driveway would be created, with a middle turf-grass section, using a full standard gravel base underneath. Commissioner Zinke moved to recommend approval of the request, as presented. Commissioner Ploppert seconded the motion. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 2  Historic Preservation Commission September 17, 2013 C. 21 W. State Street (Case No. 2013-080); Applicant: Zack Tentinger/Tentinger Landscapes; Application for New Patio and Pergola - Mr. Zack Tentinger, with Tentinger Landscapes, explained that he was creating a small rear patio area for the employees at the location, which was immediately west of the Fox Fire restaurant dining patio. An untreated pergola (to be treated and/or painted next year) would cover half of the new patio area with the remaining area to be covered by standard concrete brick pavers. Design details followed, including a low seating wall for patrons to sit. All areas around the patio would include plantings and shrubs with the existing grass to be removed. Commissioner Andersson moved to recommend approval of the petition, as presented. Seconded by Hiller. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 D. 321 N. Second Street (Case No. 2013-079); Applicant Terry Richards, Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Associates; Application for New Residence on Vacant Lot - Preservation Planner Lambert stated the project was an in-fill home on an empty lot. Two elevation alternatives were presented -- Alternates A and B -- which were not included in the commissioners’ packets. Mr. Sean Gallagher, with Gallagher & Associates, Geneva, discussed the history of the site, explaining that the original structure on the site was slid over to the north and now faced Stevens Street and the lot was split into two sites leaving the available lot (R-4 zoning) open. As a result, and with the assistance of city staff on the design, proposed was a new two-story home, bungalow/cape cod design, that included a detached two-car wooden garage with a rear stairway to the second floor. The garage door would be carriage-style and front and rear entry doors would be provided. Materials included Hardiplank siding (smooth side out); the fascias and soffits to be aluminum clad. The dormers would be Hardi-shingle (smooth). Regarding the columns, he asked for input from the commissioners. Per Mr. Gallagher, the petitioner did like the Tuscan-tapered column. Regarding the roof lines and the protrusions on the wings, Mr. Gallagher indicated the petitioner preferred the shed configuration. Colors for the structures would be gray/jade with white trim. Windows to be aluminum clad with grills between the glass in a 3 over 1 configuration. Some of the commissioners liked the design because it echoed the duplex that existed previously on the lot; others preferred the shed roof. Per Mr. Gallagher, the petitioner had no preference and was open to suggestions. Regarding the driveway, Commissioner Wehrmeister suggested staying away from the runner strips. As to the columns, Lambert indicated that he did convey to Mr. Gallagher and the owner that whatever column was chosen it should be somewhat massive in order to define and support the massive roof. Commissioner comments followed that the house was well suited to the neighborhood, had nice massing, and it maintained the sense of place and walkability. Commissioner Zinke suggested using a column with pleasing proportions. Mr. Gallagher described the porch and stated that the proposed house (28 ft. tall) would be slightly taller than the house to the north. He would work with city staff regarding the column design and proportions. Commissioners preferred Elevation B. Commissioner Hiller moved to accept the proposal, as presented, using the Option B elevation, Seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 3  Historic Preservation Commission September 17, 2013 E. 220 Campbell Street/207 S. Third Street (Case No. 2013-047); Applicant: Chianti Restaurant; Application for Entry Door Relocation and New Stoop - Lambert reviewed some photos of the Chianti Restaurant, recalling that the commissioners approved a paving/patio concept earlier for this site but this specific proposal was for the front entryway, noting that the owners wanted to replace an existing patio door with a regular swinging door with sidelights and take the existing single door and replace it with the sliding glass door. Mr. Dave Patzelt, with Shodeen, 17 N. First Street, Geneva, presented photographs of the current swing entry door and the sliding doors that were being changed. His plan was to flip-flop the doors so that the front door would be facing Third Street with the stoop in front of that door while the slider (south elevation) would replace the current entry door. The doors would be reused, if possible, versus replacing them with new doors. The door knob on the entry door would be replaced with a handicap lever and the current exterior hinges would remain in the same location. Andersson voiced concern about seeing the exterior pin hinges and security. Continuing, the stoop would be poured cement. Currently there existed a concrete foundation next to the existing stoop with a wood wrap on top of it but Mr. Patzelt stated it would be removed and the new concrete would be poured up to the sill plate of where the current slider door existed. Overall, commissioners had positive comments about the proposal. A short discussion followed regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Wehrmeister moved to accept the proposal with the condition that the door hardware be ADA-compliant. Seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Wehrmeister, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) - Preservation Planner Lambert recognized two students from the School of the Art institute, Historic Preservation program. Regarding the brick ribbon driveways, Lambert explained that the commissioners would probably be seeing a new driveway plan for Nancy Luyten’s house located on Second Street as well as a new paving plan. The window policy would be discussed next month because not all of the information was ready. He explained that the dialog would encompass whether the commission wanted to keep the city’s window policy the same or make it consistent with the National Park Service and Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Commissioner Andersson stated that if any academic papers existed which discussed the changes to the window policy to direct her to them. As to a question on landmarking, Lambert confirmed there would be a scheduled public hearing on October 15th and that ordinance information would be included in the commissioners’ packet prior to the meeting. An explanation of the hearing process followed. An update followed on the property at 124 S. Second Street (Nancy Luyten’s property) which now included a change to the concrete driveway (to runner strips) and to the sidewalks on the site. Commissioners now felt that Ms. Luyten’s plans should return for commission review. 6. New Business A. From the Commission - Per the chairman’s question, Lambert explained staff’s rationale for bringing forward the two-ribbon driveway and pergola cases, i.e., there was a change of material on a contributing property and it was based on the matrix that was recently created. Mr. Sean Gallagher, Gallagher & Associates, Geneva, Illinois, came to the podium to state that he believed Planner Lambert was knowledgeable and astute enough to bring certain projects 4  Historic Preservation Commission September 17, 2013 forward to the commissioners. He reminded the commissioners that he only worked three times per week. Conversation was raised by some commissioners that the driveway and pergola cases would have been fine if approved administratively, while others preferred seeing the cases come forward. Chairman Roy felt that changing the materials of a driveway did not follow the intent of the matrix and so he put the topic out there to continue the discussion. Lambert agreed this was a good discussion since he said he was still learning and would want to hear the commissioners’ input on Nancy Luyten’s recent changes to her project, as it related to the driveway and sidewalks. Dialog then moved to the topic of having Planner Lambert’s position returned to a full-time position or that he be appointed more hours. However, Planner Lambert reminded the commission that when he took the job he took it because it was a part-time position and he had other commitments. He also expressed the challenges he ran into while trying to get projects to move along, i.e., getting the information from the applicants to the commissioners in a timely matter and their slow willingness to address historic preservation, etc. Further dialog followed that certain projects, such as Preservation Month, took staff time away from commission work and that it was coming down to a matter of whether a project was essential to staff’s position or whether staff, or another organization, should take over such projects. On that note, Preservation Planner Lambert indicated he would like the commissioners to reassess what their expectations were of him come this November/December in order to plan for the next six or so months. Asked if a special meeting could take place in two weeks for Nancy Luyten’s driveway plans, so her project was not further delayed, Lambert reminded the commissioners he only had 24 hours a week in which to hold the meeting, which took away time from his office time. Suggestions followed to hold a two- member administrative review, which the chairman concurred. Lambert would review the ordinance on this matter. Commissioner Zinke asked Mr. Gallagher about the status of 202 N. Third Street; Commissioner Wehrmeister announced he was resigning from the commission effective as of this date; and commissioners thanked him for his service and input on this commission. B. From the Public: See Sean Gallagher’s comments above. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Ploppert, seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 5 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 124 South Second Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: Pavement Modification Applicant: BACKGROUND Nancy Luyten, The property at 124 South Second Street is undergoing renovation for The Patten House adaptive use as a restaurant. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking authorization to modify the previously approved pavement for the driveway, walkways and patio areas. Specifically, the Applicant requests to change the primary walkways at the east and north yards from 100% brick pavers to broom-finished concrete with brick paver edging; the north patio area from all brick Request: pavement to broom-finished concrete with brick edging and accent Permit Review strips (pattern to be determined); and the north driveway from full Modification of approved width concrete to two (2), separated drive ribbons of brick pavers. Pavement The purpose for the request is threefold: the cost of brick pavers is cost prohibitive; pavers can create an unsafe walking surface for women in high heels; and the dining patio can be better maintained in a healthy HPC Case Number: and clean condition if it consists of pavement with fewer joints that 2013-042 could trap food and drink. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 328 North Second Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: Porch Decking Replacement Applicant: BACKGROUND Chris and Brannon Anderson The property at 328 North Second Street is undergoing renovation that includes the construction of an addition and rehabilitation of the historic wood siding, approved by the HPC in July and August 2011. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking authorization to replace the historic porch decking and stair treads with a composite decking material. The historic porch decking is wood, tongue-and-groove decking that had Request: rotted many years ago. The rotted floor deck was covered in some areas Permit Review with plywood that has begun to deteriorate. At some point, Porch Decking Replacement indoor/outdoor carpeting was direct-glued to the plywood and deteriorated porch decking. As renovation work has progressed, the carpet has become impregnated with construction debris that poses a HPC Case Number: health threat to the young children in the household. The carpet cannot 2013-096 be removed without destroying the deteriorated porch decking. The porch is not ventilated which will result in the rapid deterioration of any wood decking that could be installed. Therefore, the Applicants Staff Liaison: seek HPC approval of a composite decking to create a safe walking Michael Lambert surface for visitors to the home as well as a safe play environment for Preservation Planner the children of the household. 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Left: Front Façade – 328 N. Second Right: Porch Detail Left: Carpeted Stair Treads / Deck Right: Deteriorated Plywood Left: Glued-down Carpet Right: Deteriorated Original Deck October 15, 2013 328 North Second Street, Agenda Item 4B HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant (S) Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural L-form Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Overall form, street gable, siding and porch Features : 4. Date of Construction: Circa 1885 5. Date(s) of Significant 2011 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1885-1963 7. Historic Names Associated None identified with Property: 8. Historic Images: 1999 Survey 9. Historic Map Representation: 1930, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (prior maps did not depict this area of Geneva) 10. Why is it Important? Well-preserved example of an L-form house (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Composite porch decking is similar in character to original wood decking; Features Consistent with composite decking has been approved by the HPC within the Historic District. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural none Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG The proposed improvement meets all of the design goals except for retention of HPC Design Guidelines: historic materials / replacement in kind. However, composite decking has been approved in the Historic District. 15. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: N/A (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) October 15, 2013 328 North Second Street, Agenda item 4B FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or Property continues to be used residentially. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The overall character of the house is well-preserved; removal of retained and preserved. The removal of historic deteriorated porch decking and replacement with composite material materials or alteration of features and spaces that does not adversely affect the character of the porch. In fact, the characterize a property shall be avoided. framing is not proposed to be altered and the new decking will help preserve the porch feature. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The proposed work is consistent with the architectural character of the record of its time, place, and use. Changes that original residence. create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The porch flooring is deteriorated and not uniquely significant. that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The porch is being preserved overall; the porch decking will be techniques or examples of craftsmanship that reminiscent of the original material and purpose. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The porch decking is deteriorated and needs to be replaced. The rather than replaced. Where the severity of flooring itself is not particularly distinctive; however, the composite deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive material is similar in design, color, texture and other visual qualities feature, the new feature shall match the old in although the material is different. design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as No surface cleaning is proposed. sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a No archaeological resources should be encountered with this project. project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new N/A construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new N/A construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 128 Peyton Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: Window Replacement Applicant: BACKGROUND Steve Kent, The property at 128 North Second Street is a 1935 Cape Cod residence Owner with wood, double-hung windows with true divided lite sash. Don Domanus, A window and door were approved for replacement by the HPC in 2007; Mega Home Improvement the window and door were approved as clad windows with removable interior grilles. The window and door are devoid of any exterior trim that is found at all historic, exterior windows and doors. However, the windows and doors (approved in 2007) are located in an altered wing of the home that was, presumably, a screened porch or sunroom with full banks of windows when constructed. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking authorization to replace eight (8) windows at Request: the second floor; the replacement windows have wood exteriors and Permit Review interiors as well as simulated divided lites. Window Replacement The request does not specify the width of the simulated muntins, but muntins should match the existing muntin dimension. The request does not specify the use of a spacer bar between the glass at each muntins; HPC Case Number: spacer bars are preferred (especially at upper windows) to more 2013-097 accurately simulate a true divided lite window. Alternatively, the Applicant is requesting approval to install wood windows with aluminum-clad exteriors and removable interior grilles; Staff Liaison: dimensions of the grilles have not been specified. Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us October 15, 2013 128 Peyton Street, Agenda Item 4C HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant (S) Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Cape Cod Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Massing, siding, windows, dormers Features : 4. Date of Construction: 1935 5. Date(s) of Significant Former Sun room / Screened Porch enclosed circa 1965 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1935-1963 7. Historic Names Associated None with Property: 8. Historic Images: None submitted 9. Historic Map Representation: No historic map depicted this area after construction of the residence 10. Why is it Important? Excellent example of Cape Cod residence in Geneva (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Historic windows should be retained where possible; replicated where windows Features Consistent with are too deteriorated for repair. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Yes, a reasonable replication of the original windows if simulated divided lite Features Inconsistent with option approved; removable interior grilles is not historically compatible. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG Significant features should be retained wherever possible HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG Wood windows should be rehabilitated if possible. Wood windows should be HPC Window Policy: replaced with wood windows. 16. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: IHPA allows aluminum-clad windows with simulated divided lites (with spacer (Projects utilizing or bar) on non-primary elevations; requires wood windows on primary elevations potentially utilizing Rehab where wood windows exist. Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) October 15, 2013 128 Peyton Street, Agenda Item 4C FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or Continued use as a residence. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be Overall character of house is well-preserved. retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The residence is representative of its original character with the record of its time, place, and use. Changes that exception of the closed-in Sun Room / Screened Porch at the east side create a false sense of historical development, of the structure. such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The enclosed Sun Room and/or Screened Porch may have acquired that have acquired historic significance in their significance as a conditioned space; additional research required to own right shall be retained and preserved. determine period of enclosure. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction Windows and associated details are significant character-defining techniques or examples of craftsmanship that elements of the architecture. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Historic wood windows with true divided lights, including sills and rather than replaced. Where the severity of jambs have begun to deteriorate. Epoxy repairs have not been deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive investigated for applicability or cost-effectiveness. Proposed windows feature, the new feature shall match the old in will match character of the original windows; the alternate windows design, color, texture, and other visual qualities will not match in design or exterior materials. and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new Existing windows will be destroyed by the proposed work; new construction shall not destroy historic materials windows will be differentiated from the existing windows by design that characterize the property. The new work shall and operation. be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new N/A construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4D 402 Franklin Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: Addition and Exterior Rehabilitation Applicant: BACKGROUND David and Angel Warner, The conceptual rehabilitation plans for the property at 402 Franklin Owner Street were presented to the HPC on August 20, 2013. The Owner / Applicants have purchased the property and are, now, submitting Permit Mark D. VanKerkhoff, drawings for final approval by the HPC. The residence is a Dutch Architect Colonial home constructed circa 1920. REQUEST The Applicants propose to construct a two story addition to the west side of the home where a circa 1973 one-story addition now stands; a new driveway will be constructed to Franklin Street. An existing variance allows this construction without further zoning approvals. Furthermore, the Applicants propose to construct a one-story addition Request: to the south and remove the existing one-car, detached garage and Permit Review paved driveway. The one story addition will be capped with a Addition and balustrade that is reminiscent of other roofline balustrades found typically on Dutch Colonial homes in Geneva and across the country. Exterior Rehabilitation The Applicants propose to install a balustrade at the roofline of the former Sun Porch that has been enclosed at the east end of the home. HPC Case Number: Submitted Drawings call for a wood shake shingle roof; wood siding to 2013-061 match the existing historic siding; shutters as installed early in the building’s history; and period-appropriate overhead garage doors. Submitted Drawings depict a 24” high balustrade where a 36 inch high balustrade would be required. Submitted Drawings also indicate the Staff Liaison: half-round, attic window will be replaced with a louvered vent. Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us October 15, 2013 402 Franklin Street, Agenda Item 4D HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Potentially Significant (PS) Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Dutch Colonial Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Massing, Front Portico, Attic fanlight / eyebrow window, east gable chimney. Features : 4. Date of Construction: Circa 1925 5. Date(s) of Significant Circa 1975 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1925-1963 7. Historic Names Associated None with Property: 8. Historic Images: None Submitted 9. Historic Map Representation: 1930, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (does not appear on 1923 SFI map) 10. Why is it Important? Good example of Dutch Colonial residence (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Exterior rehabilitation of siding; sensitive additions that incorporate respectful Features Consistent with massing; reconstruction of missing roof balustrade; and installation of Architectural Style and POS: compatible windows (future?). (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Shake shingle roof (re-swan wood shingle is historically accurate); removal of Features Inconsistent with attic fanlight/eyebrow (proposed to be replaced with a louvered vent) Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape None Elements: 14. Application of COG Design is consistent with COG Guidelines HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG Windows have been replaced; new windows have not been identified as part of HPC Window Policy: the proposed work but discussed as a desired goal of the owners. New windows should be consistent with the Geneva Window Policy. 16. Compliance with COG Exterior siding is schedule dto be repaired at the historic house; new siding will HPC Siding Policy: match existing material, profile and exposure at the proposed additions. 17. Summary IHPA Comments: N./A (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) October 15, 2013 402 Franklin Street, Agenda Item 4D FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or Property will continue to be used residentially. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The property will be rehabilitated respectfully of the historic retained and preserved. The removal of historic architectural character. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical N/A record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The circa 1975 addition has little architectural character and is not that have acquired historic significance in their compatible with the original architecture of the residence. The own right shall be retained and preserved. detached garage is obsolete and the roofline appears to have been altered; original vehicle doors have been replaced. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction Distinctive features have been preserved with one notable exception techniques or examples of craftsmanship that being the attic eyebrow window that is schedule d to be replaced with characterize a property shall be preserved. a louvered vent. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Balustrades which have been removed over time but are present on rather than replaced. Where the severity of similar homes in Geneva will be replaced. If historic photographic deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive evidence can be found, the balustrade should match the historic feature, the new feature shall match the old in balustrade of the original house. design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed additions are designed to minimally impact the original construction shall not destroy historic materials architecture; additions are proposed at the interior lot line elevation that characterize the property. The new work shall and the rear yard elevation. The additions are appropriately scaled and be differentiated from the old and shall be massed so that the additions do not overwhelm the original compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architecture of the residence. architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new Additions have been designed such that future removal would not construction shall be undertaken in such a manner negatively impact the original architecture. that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4E 102 South Fifth Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: New Garage Applicant: BACKGROUND Don Flynn, The Applicant wishes to replace a circa 1975, existing two-car, detached Owner garage with a three-car garage and workshop. Rick Otto, REQUEST Coach House Garages The Applicant proposes to construct a new three-car, detached garage in the side yard south of the principal residence along the Fifth Street frontage. Staff has worked with the Applicant to develop plans that are more compatible with the existing residence than the existing, basic garage. The Fifth Street elevation will incorporate architectural trim and details; broad gables and eave; and period-appropriate, overhead garage doors that are sympathetic to the late nineteenth century Shingle Style of the Request: residence. The upper gable will be finished with asphalt shingles to Permit Review match the treatment in place at the historic residence; siding will be New Garage field-finished medium density fiberboard (LP SmartSide brand). HPC Case Number: 2013-084 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us October 15, 2013 102 South Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4E HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Potentially Significant (PS) Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Shingle Style Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Broad gables with shingle siding and ship’s bow protruding gable; variety of Features : window sizes, shapes and patterns; large and varying overhangs; narrow exposure clapboard siding at lower floors; limestone foundation. 4. Date of Construction: Between 1891 and 1897 5. Date(s) of Significant Circa 1975 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): Circa 1892 - 1963 7. Historic Names Associated Wilson Brothers (contractors) with Property: 8. Historic Images: None Submitted 9. Historic Map Representation: 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (not represented on 1891 SFI map) 10. Why is it Important? Rare example of Shingle Style residence in Geneva (cf: 427 South Fourth Street) (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Carriage houses were often complementary of the primary residence during this Features Consistent with period. The proposed garage incorporates architectural elements from the Architectural Style and POS: primary residence including broad attic gable, varied eaves; varied (Exterior Rehab / Additions) windows/louvers, and clapboard siding. 12. Proposed Architectural Roof pitch is more shallow than typically associated with this period of Features Inconsistent with architecture. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG Garage is complementary of the residence but is differentiated with massing, HPC Design Guidelines: scale and materials. 15. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG N/A except that the garage as an “addition” is distinguishable from the historic HPC Siding Policy: residence. 17. Summary IHPA Comments: N/A (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) October 15, 2013 102 South Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4E FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or Property will continue to be used residentially. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The proposed garage will not negatively impact the historic character retained and preserved. The removal of historic of the property. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The garage is complementary but not duplicative. record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The existing garage has attained no historic significance. that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The proposed garage will not negatively impact any historic features techniques or examples of craftsmanship that of the property. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired N/A rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed garage will not negatively impact the historic character construction shall not destroy historic materials of the property and will be differentiated from the historic residence that characterize the property. The new work shall through use of materials, scale, massing and setting. be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new The construction of the proposed garage will not affect the historic construction shall be undertaken in such a manner integrity of the property in the future; the proposed garage is that if removed in the future, the essential form reversible. and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4F 200 South Third Street October 15, 2013 Permit Review: Exterior Rehabilitation / Landscape Improvements Applicant: BACKGROUND Dave & Linda McFadden, The Applicant wishes to remove a portion od an existing deck for Owner additional landscape beds; replace an existing, wooden, emergency egress staircase (exterior) with an iron spiral staircase; and install a new pergola. REQUEST The Applicant proposes to make numerous enhancements of an under- utilized side yard deck in an effort to draw customers to an inconspicuous entrance to a business space set back from Third Street. The Applicant proposes to remove a deteriorated staircase and relocate Request: existing air conditioner condenser units to allow the installation of a pre- Permit Review fabricated iron, spiral staircase for emergency egress from the second Exterior Rehabilitation and floor. The existing second floor balcony will remain, but the support Landscape Improvements columns will be improved with decorative capitals; the deck apron and planking will be replaced; and the railing will be replaced to match other elements of the new deck and landscape. The first floor bay window will provide visibility into the interior once the renovations are completed. A HPC Case Number: significant portion of the existing deck will be removed and replaced 2013-092 with a landscape bed to provide visual interest along the walkway. The existing south guardrail will be re-set and strengthened to meet code and a new pergola and fence element will be installed to attract Staff Liaison: customers to the setback entrance. Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us October 15, 2013 200 South Third Street, Agenda Item 4F HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Potentially Significant (PS) Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Italianate Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Massing, form, siding, bay windows, elongated windows at first floor, porches Features : 4. Date of Construction: Circa 1860 5. Date(s) of Significant 1890, circa 1975, Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): Circa 1860-1963 7. Historic Names Associated None with Property: 8. Historic Images: None Submitted 9. Historic Map Representation: 1869 Birdseye Map of Geneva 1891, 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance map 10. Why is it Important? Good example of Italianate L-form residence (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Proposed construction does not negatively impact historic features. Features Consistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural None Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape None Elements: 14. Application of COG No adverse affects HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG Any affected siding will be replaced in-kind. HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: N/A (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) October 15, 2013 200 South Third Street, Agenda Item 4F FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The property has been converted from residential use to commercial be placed in a new use that requires minimal use. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The overall character of the property is discernible despite numerous retained and preserved. The removal of historic alterations and additions. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The proposed alterations do not present a false sense of historicism. record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The property has developed its own architectural character as it has that have acquired historic significance in their been adapted for commercial use over many decades. Many original own right shall be retained and preserved. architectural elements remain. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The existing bay window and second floor door hood will be retained techniques or examples of craftsmanship that and enhanced by the proposed construction. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Historic siding, trim and other elements that may be impacted by the rather than replaced. Where the severity of proposed work will be repaired. deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed work will be respectful of existing architecture and construction shall not destroy historic materials enhance / expose significant features, including the visual opening of that characterize the property. The new work shall the south-facing bay window. be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new Proposed construction can be removed in the future with little to no construction shall be undertaken in such a manner impact on historic fabric. that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.