Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street October 15, 2013 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Time: A. 200 S. Third Street CASE 2013-103 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Dave McFadden / Past Basket Application for: Exterior Sign Commissioners: B. 526 S. Fourth Street CASE 2013-104 Applicant: City of Geneva / Mary McKittrick Scott Roy, Chairman Application for: Demolition of An Existing Residence Nanette Andersson Al Hiller 5. Concept Review A. 212 South Fifth Street CASE 2012-105 Zachary Ploppert Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes Geri Schock-Soderberg Maurice McNally / Dave Myszka Kurt Wehrmeister Concept review of: Relocation of Carriage Barn Carolyn Zinke Screened Porch Demolition Minor Exterior/ Site Paving Improvements Staff Liaison: B. 116 South Street CASE 2012-106 Michael A. Lambert Applicant: Daryl Bean / D. R. Horton Homes Christopher Russo / ALA Architects Preservation Planner Concept review of: New Residence 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us 6. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) Commissioner Training – IAHPC Roundtable 7. New Business A. From the Commission B. From the Public 8. Adjournment The Historic Preservation Next meeting Commission17, September meeting 2013is 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 October 15, 2013, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called the October 15, 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, Zinke Staff Present: Preservation Planner Michael Lambert Others Present: Don Domanus, 128 Payton Street; Rick Otto, 3100 Maultrie Ave., Mattoon, IL; Don Flynn, 502 James St.; Ken Heinz, 10 S. Fourth St.; Brannon Anderson, 328 N. 2nd St.; Nancy Luyten, 124 S. 2nd St.; Dave McFadden, 328 S. Sixth St.; David and Angel Warner, 425 S. First St. 3. Approval of the September 17, 2013 Minutes The September 17, 2013 minutes were approved on motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0. 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 124 S. Second Street (Case 2013-042); Applicant: Nancy Luyten; Site Pavement Modifications - Preservation Planner Lambert reported the proposal was before the commissioners for pavement changes made by the applicant. A colored map was presented, noting that the “pink” walkway would be a broom-finish concrete with edged brick pavers; “orange” would to be brick pavers for a naturalistic driveway; “green” would be a combination of broom-finish concrete with brick edging and brick dividers (to be determined); and the “blue” area would be concrete. Applicant, Ms. Luyten explained there were cost factors involved when doing the plan in all brick so she decided to soften the plan by using some concrete but lined with pavers. A sample of the clay brick paver to be used was provided, noting there was a variation of three colors of the paver. The driveway, she decided, would include the three feet wide pavers with the grass in between, bringing a natural look to the property. Ms. Luyten planned to use the driveway just for special needs and/or deliveries. Asked if permeable pavers were considered, Ms. Luyten said she did consider them but after speaking with her contractor he conveyed that the price he was providing her for the pavers was comparable. However, Ms. Luyten said she was open to the permeable pavers. She also clarified the blue area (concrete) was for the service area and the public would be using the walkway from Campbell to the deck. Andersson suggested to keep the wider walkway (red area) from Campbell Street to the deck since it would be used by the public. However, Ms. Luyten pointed out that there were steps involved with an existing grade and the contractors could not line up the area properly.  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 Hiller moved to approve the application, as submitted, but with permeable pavers for the driveway as being acceptable. Seconded by Ploppert. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 B. 328 N. Second Street (Case No. 2013-096); Applicant: Chris and Brannon Anderson; Application for New Porch Decking and Step Tread - Mr. Lambert explained this home came before this commission some time ago and the applicant was asking to repair the porch deck by replacing the decking and the stair treads. Photos were presented, noting the indoor-outdoor carpeting was glued to plywood and nailed over rotting porch deck. Lambert pointed out that the commissioners did approve using a composite material last year for the Little Traveler. A deck sample was passed around to the commissioners. Applicant, Ms. Anderson confirmed that the deck was tongue and groove construction while Commissioner Andersson pointed out the reason the composite material was approved prior was due to Little Traveler being a commercial building. Continuing, Mr. Lambert explained that the space underneath the deck was not vented correctly, which was why the porch deck was failing, and only one end was open. Regarding his field visit to the Little Traveler to look at the composite material, Lambert said that in viewing the material there appeared to be a connection problem but that most second generation composites have worked out the warping and expansion issues. Per a question, Ms. Anderson stated she was not going to be doing any structural work. Zinke complimented the owner on the addition and for removing the paint. Mr. Lambert said the building engineer would be reviewing the porch for the structural issues. Per the applicant, the “Weatherwood” color would be used by Aerathis. Commissioner Andersson moved to approve the proposal, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 C. 128 Peyton Street (Case No. 2013-097); Applicant: Steve Kent, Don Domanus with Mega Home Improvement; Application for Window Replacement - Mr. Lambert summarized the proposal was for eight (8) replacement windows on the second floor and the applicant was either asking to install a simulated divided light product or a window that was comparable to what was approved in 2007, which window had a removal interior grill. Recalling from prior minutes that were not very clear, Lambert stated that where the window and the door around the corner was installed, was, at one time, an open porch. Applicant/property owner Steven Kent and contractor, Don Domanus, from Mega Home Improvement, were present. Mr. Domanus explained there were eight second-floor windows with aluminum storms which were repaired several times and rotting up the stops was occurring. Many of the windows did not open correctly. The aluminum clad windows that were approved on the screen porch were preferable, if allowed, and less maintenance for the owners. While one commissioner thought the prior approved windows were not visible from the street, others commissioners and Lambert confirmed that they were on the front facade. Mr. Domanus and Mr. Kent confirmed the work went beyond repair, with the owner explaining that the work he did prior was already rotting. Commissioners recalled the window restoration project that was done on a home near the subject home and suggested the owner consider restoring his worst window first to see if he liked the restoration before replacing all of the windows. 2  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 Mr. Kent inquired as to what the restoration process entailed and who did such work. Mr. Domanus, however, emphasized that the owner was replacing the windows using a Marvin wood product and voiced concern of where the existing storm windows attached and the rotting on the stops and through the sill. He questioned whether the work was a good solution at this point. Per the Secretary of Interior Standards, Chairman Roy recommended that the owner investigate repairing the windows first and then if the windows could not be repaired, then replace. Further clarification from Lambert followed that storm windows were not the purview of this commission and did not require a permit. He offered to provide Mr. Kent with a list of names of window restorers and a manufacturer’s list of wood storm windows. Andersson provided additional information about restoring the owner’s windows and the fact that low E storm windows could be looked at. Commissioner Andersson moved to continue this matter for one month. Seconded by Zinke. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 D. 402 Franklin Street (Case No. 2013-061); Applicant David and Angel Warner; Application for Additions and Exterior Improvements - Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that they saw this petition a couple of months ago. The owners were looking to remove the items in the “pink” color and adding the items in the “green” color. As a last note, Lambert reported that upon closing of the house, the Warners did receive a variance document that was recorded with the house several years ago and a variance would not be needed. Mr. David Warner and Angel Warner were present. Mr. Warner reminded the commissioners that at a prior time, the commissioners did see a concept plan and now he was presenting the plan for permit, specifically addressing four points: 1) the elevation with the half- round attic window, shown as a louver, would be retained/repaired as a window; 2) the roof material would be the southern yellow pine, re-sawn wood shake shingle; 3) regarding the balustrade, the lower elevation of the actual hand rail would be kept to look period but meet code; and 4) all current windows on the second floor and sun room were currently vinyl and Mr. Warner said he would like to replace them with aluminum clad wood interior windows with six over one panes, based on commissioner input. However, Commissioner Hiller felt that since the existing windows were already compromised with vinyl that it was a moot issue. Other commissioners felt that the Marvin, Pella, or Anderson fiberglass composite windows would be a good compromise or that the Warners seek guidance from staff. (Lambert reminded the commissioners that the National Park Service and IHPA have not approved fiberglass windows, to date.) The shutters would be wood. Overall, commissioners expressed very positive comments about the proposal. However, Zinke voiced concern over the owner removing the River Birch tree and suggested removing a part of it, wherein Mr. Warner stated that while he did not prefer to remove any trees, his neighbor had concerns with a certain limb leaning onto their property. As to the parkway tree, Lambert explained the oak tree already had dead wood on it and the city’s arborist indicated it was confined and stressed already with a limited life span. The tree would remain for now with the understanding that when it died, the owners would have it removed, at their expense, and they would contribute to the city’s tree fund. Ploppert moved to approve the above application, seconded by Shock- Soderberg. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 3  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 E. 102 S. Fifth Street (Case No. 2013-084); Applicant: Don Flynn, Rick Otto with Coach House Garages; Application for New Garage - Mr. Lambert stated the petitioner would like to construct a new garage. The current home is a Wilson Bros. home, constructed circa 1897. Per Lambert, the current home featured the shingle-style, broad gable, and decorative treatment of the gable. A “sister” house at 427 S. Fourth had the original detailed gabled exposed, including the saw-tooth shingle details. Per Lambert, the applicant’s home had asphalt shingles applied to what was the wood shingle gables which matched the current roofing material. The applicant was proposing to construct a three-car garage and, in working with the applicant, the garage has become more sympathetic to the original architecture within the applicant’s budget. Proposed is a one-story garage with three separate bays, with carriage-style doors, to bring it in line with the home’s character. The three louvers in the attic space will be divided with vertical trim between them to be individual louvers. Mr. Lambert stated he has worked with the applicant on three or versions of the plan. Owner, Mr. Flynn and Rick Otto, garage contractor, were present. Mr. Flynn stated he would like to construct a garage that is useful yet architecturally correct. He reviewed the various changes that were made to the plans resulting in the plan that was before the commissioners. Asked if the garage could be on the front street side of the property and have a setback that was in front of the house, Lambert said it could since the code did not specify that the accessory building had to be behind the principal structure and was just a 20-foot minimum front yard. Per a question, Mr. Lambert stated the building department would have to review whether sewer and water were allowed to the garage. He confirmed the garage was not a walk-through truss. Commissioners voiced concern about placing the garage in the front yard and asked whether it could be turned sideways or moved further back in the yard, wherein Mr. Flynn explained that if he did turn the garage, it would cause his house to face the garage. Additionally, he was in the R-5 District which allowed such structures, citing the similar structures that were located along James Street. Hiller voiced concerns about the scale and having a commercial look to the garage. He preferred staff’s earlier drawing which scaled the garage down a bit. Asked if the owner considered pushing the garage to the back of the lot, Mr. Flynn responded that he would lose a lot of his yard. Dialog followed on the roof line of the garage with Mr. Otto explaining the roof line would remain the same with an eave off-set similar to the main residence. It was also brought up by the owner that the three windows in the off-set area should have trim dividing between each of the windows. Commissioner suggestions included breaking up the roof line at the in-set and set the roof back itself so that, visually, the roof line was broken up. Mr. Otto was open to the suggestion. However, Ploppert had issues with the footprint of the structure, pointing out it was almost the same size as the house. While Hiller stated that zoning allowed the structure, what was being proposed, under the Secretary of Interior Standards, was controversial. He cited SOI Standard No. 9. Other commissioners pointed out that under zoning, the commissioners still had to work with the structure. Mr. Otto provided samples of the siding and trim material and stated that he and the owner wanted to duplicate the look of the home. Andersson suggested that the owner use a smooth finish to match the house. Zinke, again, asked if Mr. Flynn could move his garage further back or make it shorter, wherein Mr. Flynn offered to move it back two feet, to which Zinke felt would not make a visual impact. Lambert cautioned the commissioners about lot coverage, at this point. Commissioners favored breaking up the roof line to make the structure look smaller. Lambert cautioned the commissioners that the main roof of the home was a very strong element already 4  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 and if they started changing roof pitches that were close to one another, it could start looking odd. Per a question, the carriage doors would be galvanized steel with hinges and bead board. Commission Andersson moved to approve the garage for 102 S. Fifth Street, as presented, with the following conditions: 1) that the roof line be broken at the offset; 2) a separate roof will be over the workshop; 3) the gable will be symmetrical within the main roof; and 4) there will be wider mullions between the louvers. (from drawings dated 10/7/2013; Sheets 1 through 5) Seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Ploppert, Roy Nay: Hiller (SOI #9), Shock-Soderberg, Zinke MOTION FAILED. VOTE: 3-3 Discussion among the commissioners followed that in order to make the project work, the structure would have to be smaller or move it. Lambert asked for very clear direction on this case due to the prior iterations of the plans. Asked if the garage could be moved back 25 feet versus 20 feet from the street, Zinke stated that five feet would not work and Hiller noted it was not compatible with the massing and, from the street, it would overpower the character of the house and neighborhood, citing SOI No. 9. Ploppert agreed it was a large structure and may appear off but the design itself was more fitting with the character of the neighborhood and house than the existing garage. Others concurred. Asked if the owner could place the workshop portion as a tandem option and reduce the garage down to 35 feet, Mr. Flynn stated that if the commission approved the garage that way, he would consider it even though it was not his preference. Mr. Otto, however, said it would cost his client more money but then suggested having 8-foot side walls versus the current 9 feet and lower the ridge over the workshop area only. Hiller was amenable to moving the workshop to the back and seeing just the three bays from the street. Mr. Flynn asked if the gable was necessary since he was going with the three-car garage, wherein commissioners stated the gable was necessary. Mr. Flynn then offered to have two gables, which commissioners did not support. Lambert also noted that the owner had a rear deck that had to be considered when locating the workshop and the costs associated with that. A couple of options were proposed for the applicant to consider: either the owner could choose where the workshop could be located in the rear or, if allowed by zoning, the garage could be moved to the furthest point south on the lot. Commissioner Zinke moved to approve drawings 10/7/2013 (Sheets 1 through 5) with the following conditions: the design be modified with placing the workshop behind the 3 bays, creating a tandem garage and reducing the massing of the front elevation, and with staff approval, the location of the workshop footprint. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 F. 200 S. Third Street (Case No. 2013-082); Applicant: Dave McFadden/Past Basket; Application for Exterior Rehabilitation - Lambert reviewed the proposal, citing the changes that would be made to reduce the deck area which would be replaced with landscaping. The existing fire escape would be enhanced to make it architecturally compatible with the addition. A spiral staircase would replace the existing straight staircase and the bay window would be reopened. A pergola would be added. Sketches were referenced for the spiral staircase and the balustrade of the upper deck, along with the pergola. 5  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 Owner, Mr. McFadden, explained he was making changes to create a separate entrance for Past Basket due to a new tenant who will now be accessing through the main Campbell/Third Street entrances. Mr. McFadden explained that his landscape designer will create a residential feel to the deck. Details followed. Signage will be located on the glass and at the stairs. Lambert stated the sign will need a variance but would be considered separately. Per Commissioner Hiller’s question, the front steps to the deck would remain the same size but the deck would be narrowed somewhat with landscaping to replace where the deck was narrowed. Overall, commissioners voiced positive comments about the proposal. Mr. Lambert also confirmed that Mr. McFadden spoke with the building department and the fire department regarding the spiral staircase. The five-foot diameter spiral staircase was allowed as long as it met the appropriate dimensions for egress. Commissioner Ploppert moved to approve the request, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hiller Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) A. Window Policy Discussion - Lambert referenced his monthly staff report and offered to answer questions. Questions followed regarding the approved sign at the State Bank of Geneva which will not have internal illumination. Lambert also suggested that commissioners walk past one of their approved projects at 127 S. Hamilton (wood repair project), which was done very nicely. Turning to the state’s position on wood windows, Lambert said he spoke with Anthony Robano who conveyed that the Village of Barrington and the City of Geneva have the most restrictive window polices of certified local governments and that the City of Geneva did not have to change its policy. However, Lambert clarified that vinyl windows were not approvable by the National Parks Service nor the IHPA because they did not have the right dimensions and details to be considered appropriate replacement windows. Fiberglass or composite windows were not approvable by either agency because no project had yet wanted to use them and no manufacturer had demonstrated the ability to replicate the proportions of historic window components out of these materials. IHPA’s position for wood windows on primary elevations was that if there were historic windows that existed in place, if the windows were repairable (in IHPA’s opinion), then they must be retained. If the windows were not repairable, IHPA stated the windows could be replaced with solid wood or aluminum clad wood windows that matched the historic windows. Further details followed. Mr. Lambert also added that in conversation with Mr. Robano, Mr. Robano conveyed that on a historic structure (national registered properties) they only required wood windows on the primary facade and not on all facades visible from the public right-of-way. To Andersson’s comment that the commission allowed non-wood windows on secondary/tertiary facades, Mr. Lambert said it varied and he provided an example where a structure was located on a wide lots, the commission only approved non-wood windows on the rear facade and the interpretation, he understood, was to how tight the lot was and how visible the windows were, which Lambert was fine with that interpretation. 6  Historic Preservation Commission October 15, 2013 A review of the requirements for non-primary elevations followed which basically allowed any material but the configuration and muntins had to match. Non-historic windows could be retained or replaced with any material windows but the configuration and muntins should match the original. Lastly, IHPA encouraged the insulation of interior and exterior storm windows rather than the replacement of windows wholesale for energy efficiency. In closing, Lambert reported that he receives three to four calls per week for window replacement and questions about the city’s window policy. Again, he reminded the commissioners that it has been brought to his attention repeatedly that the city does have a more stricter window policy in the State. Further questions followed on what would or would not be allowed. Commissioner Andersson confirmed with Lambert that the policies being presented were under the IHPA’s tax assessment freeze requirements. Lambert stated that more window replacement petitions will be coming before the commission and he was trying to educate the public regarding the options available and the tax credits available. He stated the one issue he sees is that while applicants may speak to Mr. Robano about the tax assessment freeze program from the state’s perspective, they will be receiving different information from the city’s perspective. Andersson felt that the city’s policies were working fine and did not need changing while Ploppert believed that the window policy discussion had to take place with the applicants. For next month’s agenda, Lambert asked commissioners if they were agreeable to hold a window discussion prior to the permit reviews so that everyone was in agreement on the City’s window policy and to take a vote on the policy change. Lambert reiterated that Mr. Robano suggested that the city revisit its policy since there was confusion in the preservation field. Per a question from Zinke, Lambert said the difference he saw with the city’s policy was the city’s wood for wood policy while the state allowed the option of using a clad window. Another difference was the interpretation as to what is visible from the public right-of-way, which, to him, seemed to be the size of the side yard. Lastly, the state made no difference whether the aluminum clad was extruded aluminum or rolled aluminum but was concerned about the size of the muntin. Lambert said he would email the policy differences to the commissioners. Per a question on the ease of the administrative guidelines, Lambert said they were helpful but he would still like to discuss the issue again in two months to ensure everyone is on the same page. 6. New Business A. From the Commission - None B. From the Public - None 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Ploppert, seconded by Andersson. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 7 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 200 South Third Street November 19, 2013 Permit Review: Additional Freestanding Sign Applicant: BACKGROUND David and Linda McFadden, The property at 200 South Third Street is being reconfigured to relocate Past Basket existing tenants and accommodate an additional tenant. Exterior modifications have been reviewed and approved by the HPC on October 15, 2013 under a separate request. The buildings located at 200 S. Third Street and 310 Campbell Street were combined with an enclosed throughway in 2006, resulting in a multi-tenant building with five tenant spaces located on a single zoning lot. The City’s sign regulations only allow for one freestanding sign on a zoning lot. When the buildings were combined, the property had three Request: existing freestanding signs. Permit Review Additional Yard Sign At that time, the Applicant and property owner, David and Linda McFadden, prepared a comprehensive sign package for the property that was reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Commercial Sign Committee in May of 2009. The HPC Case Number: sign package reduced the number of freestanding signs on the property 2013-103 to two signs. In October of 2011, the City adopted revised sign regulations, which Staff Liaison: included a new provision for downtown directional signs. In October of 2012, the Applicant was granted a Sign Variation by the City Council to Michael Lambert install a 20 square foot downtown directional sign at the corner of Third Preservation Planner and Campbell streets and, also, was granted a sign variation to allow two 630/938.4541 existing freestanding signs on the property. preservation@geneva.il.us On November 14, 2013, a variance request for the third sign was heard by the Plan Commission, which recommended approval of the request for an additional freestanding sign by the City Council. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking authorization to install a third yard sign on the property. The total sign area of all existing and proposed signs is within the square footage limits granted by the City Council in October 2012. Although the Applicant’s proposal would add an additional sign on the property, the total sign area is consistent with the intent of the City’s sign regulations.  Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 5 Sign Variation: 200 S. Third Street Commission and the Commercial Sign Committee in May of 2009. The sign package reduced the number of freestanding signs on the property down to two signs. In October of 2011 the City adopted revised sign regulations, which included a new provision for downtown directional signs. A downtown directional sign is a wall, freestanding, or projecting sign listing the name and location of one or more business establishments located on the same block face as the Figure 2. 310 Campbell Street, freestanding sign on property on which the sign is located. Downtown Campbell Street. directional signs are intended to serve the purpose of providing directions and are not intended to serve solely as off-premise advertisement. The City’s sign regulations limit the size of downtown directional signs to a total of 10 square feet. In October of 2012 the applicant was granted a Sign Variation by the City Council to install a 20 square foot downtown directional sign at the corner identifying Floral Wonders, RJA Design, Jobella’s, and Country Naturals (316 Campbell Street). The applicant was also granted a sign variation to allow for the two existing freestanding signs on property, one identifying the entrance for Past Basket and Middleton Dickson on Third Street and one identifying the entrance for the Floral Wonders, Jobella’s, and RJA Design on Campbell Street. The applicant is planning changes to the building in 2014 that would create a sixth tenant space. The space currently occupied by Past Basket will be divided into two tenant spaces. Past Basket will occupy one of the spaces, which will be accessed from the deck on the south side of the building. The existing freestanding Past Basket sign would be moved to the deck stairs to identify the new entrance. The new tenant space would use the existing access off of Third Street (Past Basket’s current entrance). Although a tenant has not been identified, the applicant would like to secure the right for a tenant to place a freestanding sign at the entrance, in the same location as the existing Past Basket sign. A Sign Variation is required to allow for a third freestanding sign. The Sign Variation granted by the City Council in October of 2012 limited the total number of freestanding signs for the property to two. LOCATION ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Subject Property B3 Business District Retail Residentially Scaled Commercial North B6 Business District Kane County Courthouse Public/Semi-Public Planned Unit Development South B3 Business District Retail Residentially Scaled Commercial East B3 Business District Restaurant/Retail Residentially Scaled Commercial West B3 Business District Retail Residentially Scaled Commercial Table 1. Surrounding Property Information. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, November 2013. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 526 South Fourth Street November 19, 2013 Permit Review: Demolition of Residence Applicant: BACKGROUND City of Geneva The property at 526 South Fourth Street consists of a small Dutch Colonial Residence that was constructed between 1923 and 1930 and a single car garage that was erected after 1945. The property was rated as a “Contributing” structure when surveyed as part of the 1999 Architectural Resources Survey. The property has been purchased recently by the City of Geneva. City Staff (City Administrator, Building Commissioner, Fire Chief, Director Request: of Community Development and Preservation Planner) and the Chair of Permit Review the HPC (Scott Roy) have toured the structure. A report of existing Demolition of Residence conditions—including site plans, photographs, sketch floor plan, and additional supporting documentation—will be presented to the Commission at its November 19, 2013 regular meeting. HPC Case Number: The residence appears to be reasonably sound although all electrical, 2013-104 HVAC and plumbing systems are outdated. The garage was in poor condition when the site was purchased and, since acquired by the City of Geneva, has been utilized for Police and Fire department training Staff Liaison: exercises. Michael Lambert NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 The subject parcel sits at the southwestern edge of the Historic District, immediately south of large, historic homes clustered at Fourth and preservation@geneva.il.us South streets. Other small, middle- or working-class homes (which may have been similar to the residence on the subject property) no longer exist in the area adjacent to the railroad tracks. Due to redevelopment in the area for several decades, the subject property is isolated from other historic structures by significant public parking lots to the east and southeast. REQUEST The Applicant (City of Geneva) is seeking authorization of the HPC to remove the house and garage from the site. East Elevation – November 2013 Sanborn Map – 1923 Southwest Elevation – November 2013 South Elevation – November 2013 November 19, 2013 526 S. Fourth Street, Agenda Item 4B HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Survey Designation Contributing (C) (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Style(s) or Type: Dutch Colonial (Exterior) Arts and Crafts (Interior) 3. Significant Architectural Raised cast-in-place concrete foundation; original wood double-hung windows Features : with true divided lites; bracket-supported entry porch roof; original wood siding; expressed fireplace chimney; sleeping porch; and gambrel roof 4. Date of Construction: After May 1923 but prior to June 1930 5. Date(s) of Significant Original second floor sleeping porch enclosed ca. 1940s; garage constructed (or Addition(s) and/or moved to site) after 1945; roof over sleeping and open porch altered post Alteration(s): 1965(?); Kitchen expanded westward circa 1965(?) 6. Period of Significance (POS): ca. 1925-1963 (50 year timeframe) 7. Historic Names Associated None noted. with Property: 8. Historic Images: None. 9. Historic Map Representation: 1930, 1945 - Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Co. 10. Why is it Important? Good example of a compact Dutch Colonial working class/middle class compact (Context / Significance) residence. 11. Proposed Architectural No new construction proposed. Features Consistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Demolition does not preserve historic architectural features or composition. Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape Mature trees and natural ravine Elements: 14. Application of COG Demolition does not support the guidelines which encourage preservation and HPC Design Guidelines: adaptive uses 15. Compliance with COG Demolition does not support the window policy which encourages preservation HPC Window Policy: of original windows 16. Compliance with COG Demolition does not support the siding policy which encourages preservation HPC Siding Policy: original siding 17. Summary IHPA Comments: n/a (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) November 19, 2013 526 S. Fourth 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 Demolition does not preserve the historic purpose of the building or be placed in a new use that requires minimal developed character of the site. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be Demolition does not preserve the historic purpose of the building or retained and preserved. The removal of historic developed character of the site. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical Demolition does not preserve the physical record of the developed record of its time, place, and use. Changes that property’s time, place or use. 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 Demolition does not preserve changes to the property over time. that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction Demolition does not preserve the distinctive features, finishes, techniques or examples of craftsmanship that construction techniques or craftsmanship that characterize the characterize a property shall be preserved. property. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Demolition does not preserve or repair deteriorated features. 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 Demolition is a damaging physical treatment applied to the property. 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 None identified or anticipated. 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 5A 212 South Fifth Street November 19, 2013 Concept Review: Exterior Improvements Applicant: BACKGROUND Maurice McNally, Avondale The property at 212 South Fifth Street consists of the historic property, Custom Homes known commonly as the Merritt King House. The property is identified Dave Myszka, Architect as a Significant property in the 1999 Architectural Resources Survey. The subject property is adjacent to the property at 520 Campbell Street, which was approved for demolition by the HPC on August 20, 2013. under a separate request. Demolition of the Campbell Street house is in progress. Once cleared, three buildable lots will be developed with new construction. Request: Concept Review The existing Merritt King home site—a double lot—will be divided into Carriage Barn Relocation two (2) building lots, retaining the historic home for rehabilitation and Demolition of non-historic renovation. The corner lot will be developed with an infill residence. addition The house at 212 South Fifth Street is an eclectic, wood-framed Site Paving Improvements residence consisting of the original 1853 residence towards the rear and an imposing 1890 addition to the front of the property. While the original house is vernacular in architectural details, the street-facing HPC Case Number: portion of the residence is Queen Anne Style residence with Stick 2013-105 detailing. Aside from the primary residence, the 212 South Fifth Street site has evolved over time. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert The existing Carriage Barn originally stood along Campbell Street on Preservation Planner what is today identified as the easternmost lot of the 520 Campbell 630/938.4541 Street parcel. Reportedly, the Carriage Barn was moved to the Merritt preservation@geneva.il.us King parcel early in the 20th century, when an addition was constructed at the rear of the structure. The Carriage Barn was relocated to its present site around 1955 and a second floor, screened porch link was added between the residence and the relocated Carriage Barn. After the mid-1970s, original swinging doors were replaced with overhead garage doors. At some later date, a non-functional ventilator/cupola was added at the ridgeline of the Carriage Barn. The Garage has never had a hard- surfaced floor; the floor is crushed stone / gravel. During the 1950s and 1960s numerous walkways and patios were constructed around the residence. About 1973, a brick driveway was  Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 2 Concept Review installed, utilizing a variety of manufactured brick pavers, reportedly salvaged from Elgin, Illinois brick streets that were being dismantled at that time. When the brick drive was laid and in subsequent years, concrete sidewalks were expanded with leftover paver brick. During the mid-1980s, piers were constructed at the Campbell Street driveway, utilizing new brick and salvaged stone caps set on top of cast-in-place concrete piers. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking input from the HPC regarding the appropriateness of several proposed projects on the Merritt King property. First, the Carriage Barn, including the early 20th century addition, is proposed to be relocated to the southwestern corner of the property and re-oriented to face Fifth Street. This will be the third move of the historic structure; its orientation has been changed with each move. The exterior will remain unchanged except for the following work: Removal of the non-historic ventilator/cupola; Relocation and patching of a non-historic service door from the existing east side to the proposed north side; and Installation of new vehicular doors which replicate the appearance of the historic swinging doors that were removed at some time in the past. Secondly, the Applicant proposes to remove the second floor, screened porch link between the residence and the Carriage Barn / Garage. The screened porch has not attained any notable significance during its existence and has no structural support once the Carriage Barn / Garage is relocated. Thirdly, the Applicant proposes to infill a small section of the second floor between the 1853 and 1890 wings to eliminate a maintenance condition. The proposed work is not visible from any public right-of-way, and the present condition is the result of a 20th century addition of a bathroom at this location. Fourthly, the Applicant proposes to reconstruct the non-historic, brick piers at the driveway entrance from Campbell Street because some of the brick faces have spalled and, reportedly, the piers are no longer plumb. Fifthly, the Applicant proposes to temporarily remove the existing, brick driveway. The objective is to protect and preserve the paver brick during the construction of the residence on the corner parcel and, then, re-lay the brick driveway in a configuration that respects both the existing driveway layout and the new residence. A portion of the existing driveway has no function once the Carriage Barn is relocated on the Merritt King House parcel. The Applicant proposes to utilize some of the paver brick (of which a stockpile remains on-site) as an edging of the new hard-surface driveway from Fifth Street to the relocated Carriage Barn / Garage. Currently, the existing driveway—which is not a historic element of the property—is badly sunken in large areas and needs to be re-laid to provide appropriate drainage of the brick paver surface. The Applicant’s commitment to re- laying the brick driveway in a similar configuration retains the familiar feature of the Campbell Street landscape. Lastly, the Applicant proposes to re-construct the existing front porch, north and northwest patios (including the closing of a non-functioning cellar door bulkhead), and replace all patio and walkway surfaces with Bluestone as depicted in the attachments. The patios and walkway surfaces are in poor condition and are in need of repair and / or replacement. The current paving materials are late 20th century improvements. The Applicant desires feedback from the HPC regarding the appropriateness of these requests, prior to the completion of construction documents and Permit Review. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 5B 110 South Street November 19, 2013 Concept Review: New Residence Applicant: BACKGROUND Daryl Bean, D. R. Horton The property at 110 South Street is a vacant lot on which a new Christopher Russo, ALA residence is proposed. Exterior modifications have been reviewed and Architects approved by the HPC on October 15, 2013 under a separate request. The City of Geneva’s adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Properties identify several criteria for new construction within the Historic District. Specifically, two over-arching goals are identified: Design new buildings which are compatible in existing neighborhoods; and Encourage infill development which is compatible with existing Request: neighborhood character. Concept Review To those ends, several recommendations are outlined (summary New Residence provided), including: Locate the footprint and foundation of the news structure similar to the ones surrounding the new structure; HPC Case Number: Design the mass and height of the new house to be compatible with 2013-106 the mass and height of neighborhood houses; Reduce the mass of the new house by designing the second story to be one-half or less of the first story; Design new homes to reflect current architectural trends and Staff Liaison: materials; Michael Lambert Utilize visual clues of floor heights, roof shapes and massing found Preservation Planner in neighborhood homes; 630/938.4541 Select an architectural style that enhances the neighborhood preservation@geneva.il.us architecture; Design the new house to complement any natural features of the site; Reduce mass of house with rooflines sloping towards neighboring houses or with the use of cross gables; Orient the front entry similar to entries of neighborhood houses; Incorporate a front porch that is similar in height and massing of neighborhood porches; Locate the garage or accessory structure(s) similarly to surrounding properties and at the rear of property; Minimize the massing of the accessory structure;  Agenda Item 5B Page 2 of 4 Concept Review Several questions are posed by the Guidelines to assist in the design of a compatible infill home: What are the qualities of the attractive buildings in the neighborhood? Is a consistent theme or pattern to the neighborhood’s architectural character? Where are primary and accessory structures typically located on neighborhood lots? What are the roof heights of the adjacent structures? How big are the homes in the neighborhood? What architectural cues are prevalent in the neighborhood? How does the proposed design enhance the neighborhood? What natural features can or should be preserved? Lastly, the Guidelines identify several common mistakes incorporated into the design of infill residences: Replicating historic buildings or styles literally. Locating a new building ahead or behind the average street block setback. Designing homes which are out of scale with neighboring properties. Utilizing a pattern book or standard home plan that does not reflect the neighborhood context. Attaching garages at the front or side which increases the overall building mass. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The property at 110 South Street is located in a unique, fringe area of the Geneva Historic District. Its location can be viewed either as a gateway residence at the southern boundary of the District or as a residence in a section of the District that has been significantly transformed by infill development in recent years. The subject property abuts a public parking garage to the south; a redeveloped block of infill construction surrounding the significant historic property known as East View to the north; an eclectic neighborhood of small residences to the east; and a small residence and new townhome development to the west. The neighborhood does not have a clear architectural context at this point in time. A diverse palette of building materials is present within eyesight from the subject property: stone, clapboard, brick and modern variants of those historic materials. Roof forms vary dramatically. The predominant architectural forms in the neighborhood are not historic forms but are contemporary infill forms that may or may not be an appropriate clue for continued design inspiration. The site possesses few natural features which may or may not be reasonable to incorporate into the design of the residence. The property slopes from the west property line down towards First Street on the east property line. A hedge of mature—but non-specimen—trees lines the perimeter of the property. The City of Geneva Department of Public Works has raised concerns about the appropriateness of the driveway location at the bottom of the rise near First Street. Commentary included concerns of the driveway proximity to the intersection during peak travel times when traffic stacks up westward on South Street as well as visibility of the driveway at the bottom of the hill for eastbound traffic that is approaching an intersection with multiple traffic issues (poor sightlines, curving roadway and traffic speed).  Agenda Item 5B Page 3 of 4 Concept Review ARCHITECT’S DESIGN STATEMENT The architectural/stylistic inspiration for (the proposed South Street residence) came from the American Craftsman, Bungalow & Stick styles, as evidenced by the use of hipped roofs with intersecting gable roofed bays, decorative gables, tapered wood columns, 2 over 1 divided lites in the windows, and the use of a variety of materials and textures such as stone, wood siding, & shake shingles. (T)he design of this house (is not intended) to be a direct copy of any one specific house in the adjacent neighborhood, but instead drew design inspiration from several nearby homes by using similar materials such as horizontal siding and stone, integrating both hipped, truss, and shed roof elements into the design, providing a covered porch entry & using divided lite windows. (As the architects, we believe that) several of these elements (help the proposed infill residence) fit into the historic context of the neighborhood. Using variable height roofs allowed us to bridge the gap in scale and size between the existing homes on either side of First Street. The 2-story hipped roof relates in scale to the larger homes on the west side of First Street, with the mass of the roof broken up by intersecting gable roofs and a 1 ½ story double gable roof. The 1 ½ story gable roof is a transition element to the 1-story roof at the front porch, which in turn relates to the smaller scale & size of the bungalows on the east side of First Street. Many of the nearby homes have a covered porch at the front entry with decorated columns which (have been) emulated in (the proposed) design. Using various finish materials also helps to break up the mass of the façade while adding interest through the use of textures like stone, shake shingles, and siding and color. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS Conceptually, the proposed residence appears to satisfy the Zoning Compatibility requirements for infill housing in the City of Geneva. Therefore, the HPC concept evaluation consists of a comparison of the proposed residence and its satisfaction of the Design Guidelines for new construction. The following considerations should be addressed to provide feedback to the Applicant: Does the HPC concur on the following: Site Considerations the setbacks are appropriate for the neighborhood; the driveway location is appropriate for the patterns of the street and neighborhood; and the existing treeline is a significant site feature that may be factored into the design of the property? Massing and Scale Considerations the massing is appropriate for the neighborhood; garage placement is appropriate for the neighborhood as well as the building mass; and the elevations and rooflines reflect an appropriate interpretation of surrounding homes? Architectural Details Proposed architectural elements and materials are evident in the immediate and surrounding neighborhood; proposed architectural elements (windows, porches, siding, etc.) are appropriately scaled and used in an appropriate or pleasing combination ; proposed design features enhance the architectural character of the Historic District;  Agenda Item 5B Page 4 of 4 Concept Review the proposed residence is not a historic replication but is reflective of the present trends in residential architecture. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking input from the HPC regarding the appropriateness of the proposed infill residence.