Muyni
← Back to Geneva

Historic Preservation Commission

Regular Meeting

Geneva, IL · May 20, 2014

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street - Council Chambers Geneva, Illinois 60134 May 20, 2014, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called the May 20, 2014 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call followed: 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Andersson, Hiller, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke Absent: Commissioner Ploppert Staff Present: Community Development Dir. Untch; Preservation Planner Lambert Others Present: Dave Patzelt with Shodeen, Inc., Geneva; Donna and Kevin Greschuk, 25 Hunt Club, St. Charles; Glorianne Campbell, 18 S. Sixth St.; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan; Alex Teipel, 427 W. State St.; Jim Bishop, 228 S. 5th St.; Ken Overstreet, 1120 E. Main St., St. Charles; Adam Gibbons, 33W777 Hill Rd.; Clyde and Sharon Jones, 521 Franklin St.; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the April 15, 2014 Minutes The April 15, 2014 minutes were approved, as presented, on motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0. 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 127 N. First Street (Case No. 2014-027); New Attached Garage; Applicant: W. Alex Teipel/Architect; Shodeen Management - Mr. Lambert reviewed a historical background of the property, noting few changes were made to the structure. The outbuilding (carriage house) had been moved/altered over time. Proposed site plans were presented by Mr. Alex Teipel, architect for the project. Mr. Teipel explained that the site was very steep with the rear of the site being three stories. The Shodeens had asked him to design a garage to make the property more attractive to potential buyers. Materials for the garage will include stained cedar siding (reddish stain) with white trim and roof to match. The overhead garage door will be wood. Commissioners agreed that staff would approve the garage door details later. Mr. Lambert reviewed each of the findings of fact for the petition, some of which included the home being potentially significant as it was one of the first five brick residences built in Geneva around 1845. Further finding details followed. In general, staff supported the petition but was concerned how the attached garage would be connected to the main structure. Mr. Teipel explained the garage would be attached to the structure using angles and foam insulation. Questions followed on what would happen to the door that was being blocked wherein Mr. Teipel explained it would be removed and bricked in (compatible) with a wood window, which was his preference. A balcony over the garage was suggested but Mr. Teipel stated that after consideration, he and his client did not want it. A concern regarding the pitch of the roof on the south side of the garage going into the north wall of the structure was voiced, wherein Mr. Teipel said he would install a cricket. The last concern was how the garage would be attached and how the flashing would work, wherein Mr. Teipel explained he would soft cut it into the brick or use Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2014 another method of attachment. Andersson asked that to be staff-reviewed. She also suggested using a Hardi-board siding on the new addition since it was being attached to an existing structure and would be differentiated enough to reflect a different time period. Commissioner Andersson moved to accept the proposal, as presented, with the following conditions: 1) the garage door be staff-approved at a later date; 2) the addition of a window on the door in-fill be staff- reviewed at a later date; 3) there will be a cricket at the juncture of the north wall of the main building and the south face of the garage roof; 4) the homeowner may choose to use cement fiberboard versus cedar siding; and 5) the flashing detail will be as unobtrusive, practical, and to be staff-reviewed. Seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 5-0 B. 212 S. Fifth Street (Case No. 2014-032): Carriage Barn Relocation - Lot 1, Exterior Improvements to Residence - Lot 1; Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes, Ken Overstreet/Dave Myszka - Mr. Lambert recalled this petition was before the commissioners about two months ago, and, at that time, the carriage barn relocation was discussed and some other elements were pending, due to the petitioner having dialog with the neighbors to the south. To date, the site plan was submitted and drawings were to be reviewed. Petitioner, Mr. Ken Overstreet, stated he did meet with neighbor Jim Bishop with regard to the placement of the carriage barn and they decided to move it forward north another 10 feet so that Mr. Bishop could have a better backyard view and a nice buffer. The location was noted on the site plan with Mr. Overstreet adding that a new driveway will be proposed since the brick drive on Campbell Street would be removed. Additional changes to the plans included: removing the screened porch, since it was not historic, and deciding, financially, whether to restore the original windows since some currently had significant rotting and were painted shut. Mr. Overstreet pointed out those windows that were a concern, noting he still had to evaluate them to see what could be salvaged. Mr. Lambert interjected that the information about the windows was new to him and that prior only a couple of windows had been discussed. Continuing, Mr. Overstreet stated the current vinyl shutters would be replaced with new wooden shutters. Staff and others emphasized that they be sized to the original historic shutters. Lastly, the petitioner stated the original stone patios would be lifted and re-laid to be more level. Some of the stone pavers being lifted out would also be used as a driveway border. Commissioner Andersson noted that the site plan did not reflect this. Mr. Overstreet confirmed that the existing wooden steps on the front porch would be replaced with stone. However, Andersson voiced concern about connecting the stone with the wood fascia behind it and the overall water issues wherein Mr. Overstreet further explained how that portion would be addressed. Per another question, he stated the porch would be repaired and refinished and that he would add some decorative lattice at the base of the porch since the existing was rotted out. It was pointed out that the standard lattice was not appropriate to the house and could be more customized, however. Mr. Lambert then raised the fact that the porch discussion was contrary to the prior concept discussion that took place, where previously, at the concept meeting, there was discussion that the wooden steps would be retained and not replaced with stone and that the historic character of the porch would be retained with wooden steps and the porch apron would be treated as in the historic photograph that was previously shown. Due to concerns, Lambert suggested excluding some of the items being discussed tonight and having them return to the HPC for review. Commissioner Hiller moved to accept the proposal to move the garage at 212 S. Fifth Street and lay the driveway, as presented, with staff review of any new brick. Commissioner Zinke seconded the motion. Roll call: 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2014 Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 5-0 C. 204 S. Fifth Street (Case No. 2014-033); New Infill Residence - Lot 2; Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes, Ken Overstreet/Dave Myszka - Mr. Lambert indicated this was a concept review brought before the commissioners about two months ago. The new elevations basically remain unchanged. The lot sits north of the Merritt King house. Mr. Overstreet indicated there were no changes from the concept, except for the decorative headers and some shutters. A question was raised if staff had a site plan for all of the proposed houses, wherein Mr. Overstreet stated the commission did not have them but he did, as well as building footprints. Some commissioners asked to see a streetscape plan and a site plan of the entire project. Lambert explained there was a concept site plan that was previously submitted but it did not get into their packets at the last meeting; however, Mr. Lambert recalled that in the last site plan there was no room to move the house on the site based on the proposal that was submitted. Mr. Lambert, however, was more concerned about not having the zoning compatibility worksheet for the site. Dir. Untch agreed and confirmed that the worksheet had to be submitted and reviewed by staff. If the commission wanted to move forward, it could require the worksheet as a condition in a motion and, if there were issues, it would return for review. Mr. Overstreet did confirm that the zoning compatibility worksheet still had to be completed. Other questions/comments followed regarding confirmation of the location of the front porch on the new home matching to the front of the porch of the Merritt King house; the overhead garage door being of composite material; and the reasoning for the wrought iron railing on the front porch. Minor dialog followed regarding refinements to the second garage; exploring ribbon driveways with staff; and whether the developer could leave some room for lot coverage so that an owner could install a patio. Commissioner Zinke moved to accept the proposal, as presented, with the condition that the petitioner prepare the zoning compliance worksheet, to be approved by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 5-0 D. 522 Campbell Street (Case No. 2014-002); New Infill Residence - Lot 4; Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes, Ken Overstreet/Dave Myszka - Mr. Lambert stated this proposal was before the HPC in February 2014 as a concept and was a new design by the developer with a street-facing garage (previously a snout-nose garage). Proposed was a shingle-type home (with Hardi-shingle and stone veneer), attached garage with wooden garage doors and covered porch, similar to a shingle-style four-square home. The roof ridge height was 28 feet because the roof had to be carried to the rear of the house while keeping nice slopes in front of the house and to stay within the floor area requirements. Again, no zoning compliance worksheet was provided by the petitioner. A brief review of the elevations and setbacks followed. In reviewing the guidelines for historic preservation/new construction, Commissioner Andersson interpreted the architectural plans with the garage area being tucked under the house as a more modern massing and appropriate for the historic district. However, she strongly preferred the garage either placed further back or located in the rear entirely. In his argument, Mr. Overstreet stated there were lot width constraints, yet Andersson pointed out that he “chose” the lot widths and had to work within those constraints. Clarification followed by Dir. Untch that the developer was using the existing lots of record and the proposal was not a subdivision. Pros and cons of the garage location followed by commissioners, with Dir Untch reminding the commissioners that the intent of the design guidelines was to encourage designs where garages 3 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2014 were not dominate in the front facade either visually or by mass. The other argument was that garages were a reality. Mr. Overstreet offered to step back the garage a couple of feet. Future owner of the home, Mr. Kevin Greschuk, 25 Hunt Club, St. Charles, explained that the home he was trying to design was to be livable for him and his wife. He was told that if the porch was aligned with the garage, the design should be fine. He also took into consideration the rear of the home and what the neighbors were looking at and did not have the ability to add an alley. Mr. Greschuk believed the home, as designed now, would fit into the neighborhood. He explained the materials that were being considered, the fact that the HPC was considered, and he was asking the commission to approve what was being presented. Mr. Lambert clarified that when the garage’s design was being discussed with Dave Myszke, he (Lambert) thought it could be a reasonable compromise but that the details would be key. He also shared concerns about a heavy shadow on the porch but a light shadow on the garage doors, which he and Mr. Myszka did discuss. Commissioners provided further input/concerns regarding the front porch, the garage and roof massing (Zinke steps away). Mr. Overstreet offered to bring staff some detailed sketches (Zinke returns) and redraw the front roof lines to address the garage issues and to address roof massing on the east/west elevation. After hearing the comments, Mr. Greschuk asked if the garage could be moved back two feet, would the HPC be satisfied. He confirmed that he did speak with Dave Myszke to break up the roof line but also added that when he and his wife drove around town, there were many front- loaded garages existing in the area. Dir. Untch summarized the issues being raised, which included not only breaking up the east elevation and how the two roofs merged on the west elevation, but also addressing the treatment of the front facade as it related to modifying the shadow lines, which were to be unified. The garage needed to be pushed back two feet back, the shingle siding against the shingled roof had to be considered or consider other roof forms, and the columns were thin. Dir. Untch also explained to the owner that it was not the role of the HPC to design the owner’s home. Chairman Roy reiterated to the owners that he wanted the commission to be able to approve the project next month. Commissioner Andersson suggested that the owners review the design guidelines. However, Mr. Greschuk noted that the guidelines were suggestions, which is how he and his wife approached the project. Ms. Greschuk also pointed out that the guidelines state to not create a historic looking house because it is not historic. Due to the concerns raised, Commissioner Zinke moved to continue the case, seconded by Schock- Soderberg. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0. 5. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects A. 627 James Street, et al. (Case No. 2014-034); Proposed Redevelopment of Existing Commercial and Residential Sites at Seventh & James Streets; Applicant: Dave Patzelt/Shodeen Group - Mr. Lambert summarized the proposal for redevelopment at the corner of James and Seventh Streets. Mr. Dave Patzelt 77 N. First Street, Geneva, reviewed three proposals for the redevelopment, supporting Option 1 as the preferred proposal (6 townhomes). He confirmed that the Plan Commission did review the proposal and staff included those minutes in commissioners’ packets. Proposed is six townhomes to face Seventh Street, with parking in the rear of the townhomes, and the removal of the mustard-colored house at the northwest corner of Seventh and James Streets, as well as the single-story brick commercial building to the north. Per Patzelt, the ideal access will be off of James Street, with the white house remaining as one looks north. Mr. Patzelt reviewed Option 2 and 3 in detail also. He asked for the commissioners’ preference noting he would return to the commission with architectural elevations, etc. Commissioner input included that the townhomes already set a precedent in the area but there was a concern that the demolition was an automatic assumption. Commissioner Hiller 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2014 wanted to know more about the mustard-colored house. Mr. Lambert clarified that the proposal was conceptual and demolition would not be automatic. A cost analysis would have to be provided by the applicant. In general, however, the commissioners preferred the six townhomes proposal because of the transition but also keeping the white house. Dir. Untch proceeded to share some of the staff discussions that took place regarding keeping the mustard-colored house. Mr. Lambert described the next steps for the project -- a history of the house. Dir. Untch reported this site will be considered a PUD with multiple steps to follow before any approval can take place. Mr. Patzelt believed he could probably not meet the HPC criteria for the demolition of the white house, while he probably could with the mustard-colored house. Resident, Mr. Colin Campbell, recalled that Shodeen petitioned to tear down both houses years ago with the white house being denied. He said the mustard-colored house had been allowed to deteriorate and had a number of different renters. However, Mr. Campbell asked that if the townhomes went up, he would be losing privacy in his backyard and asked that if any landscape was installed that it be evenly divided. Overall, he supported the townhomes. Chairman Roy was pleased to see that Shodeen was keeping the white house because it was a nice transition to the single-family homes. He asked for consideration to the rear neighbors. 6. Secretary’s Report Preservation Month Recap - Mr. Lambert encouraged members to visit the web site to see the monthly activity that was taking place. At last night’s City Council meeting the 2014 Historic Presentation awards were presented by the mayor. Preservation Month activities were also underway with reference to the walking tour. Dir. Untch commended Mr. Lambert’s efforts in preparing the month’s activities. All commissioners agreed that last night’s council meeting was a very enthusiastic not only with owners showing up but also the various contractors who worked on their projects. 7. New Business A. From the Commission - Commissioner Zinke mentioned only five individuals showed up for the May 18th walking tour. Therefore, Preservations Partners has asked that the HPC commissioners attend the next two waling tours. Andersson announced that IIT is hosting a town hall meeting for the Farnsworth House on May 29th for a proposal to have the house placed on hydraulic lifts in order to avoid flooding. The project will be paid by the National Trust. B. From the Public - None. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote 5-0. 5

Agenda

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street April 15, 2014 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications NOTE: Staff Analysis will be provided at the meeting for the Time: following cases: 7:00 p.m. A. 127 N. First Street CASE 2014-027 Applicant: W. Alex Teipel – Architect Commissioners: Shodeen Management Scott Roy, Chairman Application for: New Attached Garage Nanette Andersson B. 212 S. Fifth Street CASE 2014-032 Al Hiller Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes Zachary Ploppert Ken Overstreet / Dave Myszka Application for: Carriage barn Relocation – Lot 1 Geri Schock-Soderberg Exter’r. Improvements to Residence – Lot 1 Carolyn Zinke C. 204 S. Fifth Street CASE 2014-033 Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes Staff Liaison: Ken Overstreet / Dave Myszka Michael A. Lambert Application for: New Infill Residence – Lot 2 Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 D. 522 Campbell Street CASE 2014-002 Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes preservation@geneva.il.us Ken Overstreet / Dave Myszka Application for: New Infill Residence – Lot 4 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, MAY 20, 2014 MEETING Location: 5. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects Geneva City Hall NOTE: Staff Analysis will be provided at the meeting for the Council Chambers following case: 109 James Street A. 627 James Street Street, et.al. CASE 2014-034 Geneva, IL 60134 Applicant: Dave Patzelt Shodeen Group Application for: Proposed Redevelopment of existing Time: commercial and residential sites at Seventh 7:00 p.m. and James streets 6. Secretary’s Report Commissioners: Preservation Month Recap Scott Roy, Chairman Nanette Andersson 7. New Business Al Hiller A. From the Commission Zachary Ploppert B. From the Public Geri Schock-Soderberg 8. Adjournment Carolyn Zinke Next meeting June 17, 2014 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 April 15, 2014, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called the April 15, 2014 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: Pietro Verone, 416 Hamilton St.; Paul Zellmer, 418 S. Sixth St., Linsey De Los Santos, 30 W. State St.; Joe Stanton, 524 W. State St.; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the March 18, 2014 Minutes The March 18, 2014 minutes were approved, as presented, on motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Schock-Soderberg. Motion carried by voice vote of 4-2 (Abstain: Ploppert, Andersson) 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 515 Hamilton Street (Case No. 2014-007); New Free-standing Front Yard Sign; Applicant: Joe Stanton - Applicant, Mr. Joe Stanton, 524 W. State Street, Geneva confirmed that the sign’s wood backing would remain the same with composite aluminum bolted on and removed as tenants changed. The sign would be white with a black vinyl border around it. Mr. Stanton stated he would confirm the location of the sign and note it on the permit. Positive comments followed regarding Mr. Stanton’s renovation of the building. Motion by Ploppert, seconded by Andersson to accept the proposal for a new free-standing front yard sign. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0 B. 107 S. Second Street (Case No. 2014-009): New Front Yard Fence; Applicant: Villa Verone Ristorante Italiano, Mr. Pietro Verone - Mr. Lambert noted the application was part of a liquor permit request and because the building was a contributing building in the historic district, the fence had to come before this commission. Mr. Pietro Verone, owner of the restaurant, confirmed the 4-foot fence will be a black wrought iron fence with footings. The fence will be permanently located since it will be located on uneven dirt, with landscaping to be planted by the driveway side. The existing hedge will remain on the outside of the fence. For clarification, Mr. Verone stated no gate will be provided even though his drawings reflected a gate; just an opening. Mr. Lambert believed a gate was required by code but stated that zoning staff would have to confirm the need for a gate. Mr. Verone stated Historic Preservation Commission April 15, 2014 that if a gate were required, that it have no latch. The current arch would remain. Commissioner Andersson moved to accept the application for a new front yard fence with either a gate, if required, or not, if the owner preferred. Seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0 C. 30 W. State Street (Case No. 2014-010); New Awnings/Fabric Structures at Existing Patio; PF Zellmer Architects; Lindsey De Los Santos - Historic Planner Lambert clarified that he reviewed this request as a fabric structure and not as an awning. He explained the deck will be covered with a three-piece fabric structure. Architect, Mr. Paul Zellmer, explained the removable (with bolts) one-steel frame structure will be painted black with a stretched awning over the top of the frame, similar to the structure that was approved prior for the lower deck He clarified that the working drawings were correct but the color renderings were inaccurate, noting the awning would be one sail and one color (cappuccino). Current posts and lights would be removed. Concern was raised that water would drain off the shade towards the brick building; however, Mr. Zellmer indicated that, per fire code, the structure had to be located 4-feet away from the building and it should not be an issue. Commissioner Zinke made a motion to approve the proposal with the canopy, as depicted in the working drawings (one long rectangle), and that the sail color be cappuccino, as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Ploppert. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Ploppert, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0 5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) Mr. Lambert referenced his permit review report on the dais. He discussed he was finalizing items for Preservation Month and has decided that a jury will be awarding projects on one day only (Friday, April 26th) versus two days, as he cannot get individuals to commit to a Saturday. As a general comment, Lambert said he has been spending much staff time with applicants who want to live in the historic district, fielding their questions, discussing permits, etc. 6. New Business A. From the Commission - Updates followed on Mr. Lambert’s efforts in contacting Mary Kaiser from Geneva High School regarding the video project; the fact that no appointees have been chosen for the HPC; and an status update regarding the Mill Race Inn. Commissioner Andersson mentioned her recent continuing education class for architects, presented by Wood Works, on the preservation and the assessment of wood structures and asked if the class counted towards her commissioner training. Staff asked that she provide her training certificate. Commissioner Hiller updated the commissioners about the Then and Now poster walking tour, noting that the posters have been located at various locations and each poster will have a QR code on it which the public can access from their digital/wireless device to get additional information about the historic building they are standing in front of. Benefits of the QR technology followed. Additional comments followed that this event needed to be publicized in the press, on the city’s web site, and on the Preservation Partners web site. B. From the Public - Ms. Liz Safanda, member of Preservation Partners, shared some of the projects she has planned for Preservation Month and the importance of awareness. Planned is a walking tour on May 29th, 7:00 p.m. following the Then and Now posters, starting at 2 Historic Preservation Commission April 15, 2014 Dodson Place and walking up Third Street. Newsletters of the planned activities will be mailed to the commissioners on May 1st. Ms. Safanda pointed out that Adams Gibbons will also be holding a walking tour on the east side of Geneva (south side of State Street), followed by a mid-June tour of the north side of State Street. Lastly, in May-June, Preservation Partners has planned a “This Place Matters” campaign” (similar to the National Trust campaign whereby individuals submit photos of buildings that matter to them), where Preservation Partners will select two dozen buildings in the Tri-Cities and in the Village of Wayne that are located “off the beaten path” and lesser known. The public can vote for their three favorites out of the 24 structures. Details followed with Ms. Safanda sharing some historic building photographs with the commissioners. Returning to the “Then and Now” walking tour, Commissioner Hiller presented 6 of 15 posters that will be placed around town for the tour. Closing the dialog, Commissioner Zinke commented about a meeting she attended recently discussing social media and historic preservation, mentioning there is a Facebook site called “You know you live in Geneva, Illinois when …” and encouraged commissioners to join. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Ploppert, seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote 6-0. 3 April 28, 2014 David DeGroot City of Geneva 22 S. First Street Geneva, IL 60134 Re: Northeast corner of James and 7th Street, Geneva IL Concept Plan Review Dear David: After several presentations of various plans for redeveloping the northeast corner of James and 7th Street, as well as several staff reviews of the various proposed plans, we respectfully request the Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission review and provide concept feedback on three of the suggested plans. For background information and recent history of the subject properties following are a series of photographs of the subject property and surrounding area. a) Looking east on James from 7th b) Existing homes on the north side of James east of 7th c) A two car garage and warehouse with an overhead door exist in the rear of the subject property d) East side of 7th Street with James Street on the right and the parking lot on the left of the existing Cocoa Bean pastry shop e) Looking north on 7th from James Street Existing zoning: The Geneva Zoning map indicates the property is zoned B2-J. B2-J is a Transitional Business District which allows for dwelling units above the ground floor only. The buildings on the property are currently permitted as they are legal non-conforming. Comprehensive Plan: The property is designated as “Residentially Scaled Commercial” in the City’s adopted land use plan. As shown above, it is also called out in the Opportunity Site 3 in the Downtown Station Area Master Plan as “possible residentially scaled commercial (transition business) redevelopment respectful of the building design and intensity of nearby James Street residences and former residences that have been converted to business uses.” Occupancy: The commercial buildings were last occupied with a commercial user who vacated in December of 2009. Since that time the commercial property has been marketed for lease during different periods of time by Shodeen Management, Summers Commercial Realty and Murray Commercial Realty. In February of 2013, an interior demolition was completed to strip the interior of the building space back to just load bearing walls to try and make it more marketable. As of the date of this letter, no viable commercial user has been obtained. The white residential unit has been occupied and continues to be occupied. The yellow corner house was vacated by the last market rate tenant in 2004. The white house has been occupied with market rate tenants. Proposed Plan: We prepared and presented at least 6 different plans for the proposed development of the subject property. The plans were reviewed by City Staff and a variety of comments were offered on each of the plans. These plans can be basically described as follows: 1. Remove the entire commercial building and both residential units, build a mixed-use development with first floor commercial, 3 floors of residential apartments/condominiums and underground parking. 2. Remove the entire commercial building and both residential units, build 3 levels of residential on top of a first floor enclosed parking level with false windows 3. Remove a portion of the commercial building keeping approximately 3000 square feet and remove the yellow corner house, build two new row houses facing James Street. 4. Remove the entire commercial building, remove the yellow corner house, retain the white house on James Street, build 6 Townhome units fronting 7th Street, parking access in the rear. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #4 – preferred option. 5. Remove a portion of the commercial building, keeping approximately 3000 square feet of the existing, remove the yellow house, retain the white house and build 3 new townhomes fronting on 7th Street. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #5. 6. Remove a portion of the commercial building, keeping approximately 3000 square feet of the existing, remove the yellow house, retain the white house and build 3 new townhomes fronting on James Street. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #6. Alternative plans 1 – 3 noted above were generally found not to be acceptable to City Staff for a variety reasons and thus copies are not being provided. We mention them so that the various commissions are aware that they were investigated. Alternate plans 4 -6 were well received and generated less questions of staff. Thus we are requesting the Historic Preservation and Plan Commission to consider Alternate Plans 4 -6. The Shodeen preferred plan is plan #4 for a variety of reasons which include: a. The existing commercial property has been marketed for many years and we have not obtained any interest in the commercial use. Thus the property needs to have a different use. b. Townhomes are a good transitional use between residential and commercial. c. The townhome use is already incorporated in this area with townhomes directly across the street on the west side of 7th, townhomes on the south side of James west of 7th, and townhomes on the east side of 7th between Fulton and South Streets. d. The City of Geneva has expressed an interest in increasing the population in and around the downtown business districts. e. Townhomes fronting on to 7th Street would provide a non-driveway, building face along 7th Street and would provide residential building and architecture that would face the residential along James Street much like the Dodson Townhomes on 2nd Street as shown below: Regardless of which Alternate Plan is approved and redevelopment of the subject property will require: i. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ii. Zoning Map Amendment iii. And most likely a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development I look forward to having a discussion with as well as obtaining definitive direction from the Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission relative to the proposed redevelopment of this property. Sincerely David A. Patzelt Concept Reviews Amendment to the Downtown Station-Area Master Plan (Opportunity Site 3), Zoning Map Amendment from the B2-J Business District to the R7 Multiple-Family Residential District, Preliminary & Final Planned Unit Development - Request for conceptual review of a proposed redevelopment of properties located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and James Street. The concept would include demolition of 15 S. 7th Street, the two garages in the rear of 15 S. 7th Street, and the home at 627 James Street. The concept would provide six new townhomes facing 7th Street, six guest parking spaces for the townhomes, and a new garage for the remaining single-family home at 621 James Street. Location: 13 S. 7th Street, 15 S. 7th Street, 621 James Street and 627 James Street/Applicant: Dave Patzelt on behalf of the Shodeen Group Mr. Dave Patzelt, Shodeen Group, 77 N. First Street, Geneva, Illinois, stated he was before the commission seeking its direction on a preferred option for a development. He reviewed the location and surrounding character of the site from of number of photographs on the overhead. A review of the city’s zoning map also followed with Mr. Patzelt explaining that the city’s Downtown Master Plan recognized the site as No. 9 and was referred to Opportunity Site No. 3 with “possible residentially-scaled commercial, transition/business redevelopment, respectful of building design and intensity of nearby James Street residences and former residences that have been converted to businesses or business uses.” Mr. Patzelt explained that he did meet with staff in a few meetings discussing six different concept plans with Plans 4 (the preferred plan), 5 and 6 being considered for townhomes. Details of each concept plan followed. Mr. Patzelt handed out a hard copy of Alternative Plan No. 4, which removed the commercial building in its entirety and then lined up six town units facing 7 Street with garage access from the east side of the building, similar to the Dodson townhomes located on Second Street. The mustard home would be razed but the white home would remain and its current two-car garage would either remain or be reconstructed (along with the stairs) closer to the white home. Mr. Patzelt believed Plan No. 4 was ideal because the townhomes were a transitional use to the commercial use along State Street and townhomes existed on the west side of 7th Street as well as further south on 7th Street. Setbacks were discussed on this plan in more detail. He preferred the residential use facing 7th Street to give it more prominence to the building and to provide vehicular access onto James Street. A review of the setbacks also followed. Next, Alternative Plan No. 5 would include keeping the 3000 sq. feet of the commercial building and removing a portion of it. A three-unit townhome building would be planned, removing the mustard house, and its front façade would face James Street, respecting the residential use of James Street. However, vehicles would be exiting onto 7th Street and parking behind the commercial building would be questionable. Lastly, Alternative Plan No. 6 was the same as Plan No. 5 but the vehicular access to the commercial building would be off of James Street. Mr. Patzelt pointed out the current challenges of the commercial building on 7th Street and whether it was the right area for a commercial building, noting it had been vacant for many years with no interest in a commercial use. The question was whether to remove all of the commercial or a portion of it. Asked if there was thought about expanding the townhome concept onto the white house since Shodeen owned it, Mr. Patzelt indicated there was some thought but in trying to be respectful of historic preservation, he felt the condition of the corner house was so poor that the Historic Preservation Commission could be fine with removing that house; however, the white house was not in poor condition, was occupied, and he surmised the HPC would have a difficult time allowing the white house to be razed. Chairman Rogers personally supported removing the white house since he also supported increasing density in the downtown area. If the market was right, he supported homes on both James and 7th Streets, since renting the current commercial building on 7th Street had no interested parties; Mr. Shodeen and the other commissioners concurred. Dialog then followed on whether stacked flats should be considered and, if so, the building would be either three or four levels in height, with parking or commercial located on the first floor, but the fourth floor would have to be stepped back to minimize the massing. Asked if accessing the parking lot to the north was considered from this site, Mr. Patzelt indicated that Mr. Anderson owned that property and had no interest in cross access. After each commissioner provided their input, the commissioners appeared to be in support for the six townhomes facing 7th Street (option 4), and, in addition to removing the mustard-colored house, to remove the white house. There was the concern about the four-story height, however. Regarding landscaping, Mr. DeGroot indicated that by moving the current garage and the six guest parking stalls along the east property line and pushing them further to the west, it better aligned with the drive aisle and created a landscaped buffer. Commissioner Erickson closed by sharing some of the challenges of leasing out the current commercial building and the fact that if commercial were to go on the first floor, it would probably struggle like the existing commercial use. He preferred Alternative No. 4. Dir. Untch provided staff comments which included that the HPC will want to see from Mr. Patzelt a demolition proposal/permit which includes a condition analysis of the mustard-colored historic building, what will it take to make the building code-compliant or viable in the market place, and can the developer recoup that investment. Dir. Untch emphasized that both, the mustard-colored and white buildings were contributing structures and the area was experiencing substantial reinvestment. However, since his staff-level meetings with Mr. Patzelt, he felt more comfortable with Alternative No. 4, with some flexibility for the north setback off of Cocoa Bean. The 10-ft. setback off of James Street, while it may have more mass, he did not believe it was much of a departure from what currently existed and could be “nudged up a little bit to the north.” He felt the townhomes facing James Street made more sense, pointing out that when reviewing Alternative Plan Nos. 5 and 6, the parking becomes “co-mingled.” Planner DeGroot also recommended that the relationship of the end unit to James Street include architectural detail to that elevation; Mr. Patzelt concurred with adding the details. In response to staff comments, Mr. Patzelt believed that the justification (financial analysis) for razing the white house will be tough but he reminded the commissioners he went through the appeal process for Dodson House and believed the HPC would agree that the development turned out very well. To the mixed-parking comment with commercial/residential, he did not see it as an issue and cited Dodson Building 8 had it as well as other communities. Chairman Rogers also shared that he hoped the HPC would look beyond the saving of one house and consider the “greater good” of the area by having a new townhome development, thereby adding to the density. Dir. Untch closed by explaining some of the buildings the HPC has reviewed, since requesting financial analyses from developers, citing the HPC has preserved buildings that have been retrofitted, and sometimes expanded, into viable uses, thereby returning the investment, whereas in other communities, he stated some historic buildings cannot even be considered in such a way. Mr. Patzelt appreciated the commissioners’ input and briefly shared some of the things that have been occurring at the Mill Race Inn.