Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, June 17, 2014 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street May 20, 2014 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Time: A. 515 Hamilton Street CASE 2014-045 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Joe Stanton Application for: Sidewalk Replacement Commissioners: B. 310 S. Fourth Street CASE 2014-043 Applicant: William & M. K. Mackin Scott Roy, Chairman McFarlane Enterprises, Inc. Nanette Andersson Application for: New Garage and Driveway Al Hiller C. 17 North Fourth Street CASE 2014-042 Zachary Ploppert Applicant: Michael Huneke / Firehouse Pizza and Grill Geri Schock-Soderberg Application for: New Dining Deck / Parking Lot Re-striping Carolyn Zinke 5. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects Staff Liaison: A. 528 Campbell Street CASE 2014-044 Applicant: Ken Overstreet / Avondale Homes Michael A. Lambert Application for: New Residence Preservation Planner 6. Secretary’s Report 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us 7. New Business A. From the Commission B. From the Public 8. Adjournment Next meeting July 15, 2014 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 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 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 515 Hamilton Street June 17, 2014 Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk with Unit Pavers Applicant: BACKGROUND Joe Stanton The structure at 515 Hamilton Street was constructed circa 1900 as a single family residence. The 1999 Architectural Survey identifies this house as having been constructed ca. 1900 and rated the building as “contributing” to the Request: Geneva Historic District character. Permit Review: Sidewalk Replacement Although dated to 1900, the house appears to have been built as an Upright and Wing, circa 1855. Based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps as well as an 1892 map for the City of Geneva, this lot was vacant until sometime between 1905 and 1912. Presumably, the house was HPC Case Number: moved to this site from another location during that period. Between 2014-045 1905 and 1912, the present front porch was added to the structure and it was remodeled to its present appearance. In 2012, the house was sensitively rehabilitated for adaptive use as Staff Liaison: commercial / office space based on approvals granted by the HPC. Michael Lambert REQUEST Preservation Planner During the recent removal of a tree, the existing concrete sidewalk was 630/938.4541 damaged. The Applicant is seeking to remove the damaged concrete and mlambert@geneva.il.us replace it with the unit pavers as indicated in the attached materials. June 17, 2014 515 Hamilton Street Agenda Item 4A FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The adaptive use from residential to commercial space is unchanged be placed in a new use that requires minimal by this request. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be While the sidewalk concrete is old, it has not attained any particular retained and preserved. The removal of historic historical significance in relationship to the property and its materials or alteration of features and spaces that development over time. characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical N/A record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes N/A that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The sidewalk material cannot be defined as a particularly significant techniques or examples of craftsmanship that architectural or character-defining feature of the property. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Replacement of the damaged concrete is the only reasonable remedy. rather than replaced. Where the severity of It is not a distinctive feature however. deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new N/A construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new N/A construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 310 South Fourth Street June 17, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND William & M. K. Mackin, The new garage has been necessitated due to the rehabilitation of the Owner neighboring property (402 Franklin Street) which is resulting in the Mike McFarlane, McFarlane elimination of a shared driveway. Consequently, to accommodate two Enterprises, Inc. vehicles and access to the garage, the existing garage is proposed to be razed and a new, detached garage is proposed to be constructed at the rear of the property. Ease of access is a primary concern for the Applicants because Dr. Mackin is a cardiology surgeon who must be able to exist his property quickly when called to the hospital. Request: Permit Review REQUEST Demolition of Existing Garage Though slightly larger than the existing garage, the proposed, two-car Construction of New Detached garage is similar in scale, use of materials and architectural detail. The Garage Applicants have been careful to replicate and complement details from the existing garage and residence in an effort to retain the overall architectural character of the property. HPC Case Number: Materials are a combination of manufactured siding that replicates wood 2014-043 and cellular PVC trim and moldings (Azek brand) that also replicates the appearance of wood. The materials were selected for ease of maintenance and durability since surrounding properties have developed Staff Liaison: such that nearby homes and garages are in close proximity to one another Michael Lambert and natural daylight will not filter to all sides of the building. The lack of Preservation Planner sunshine minimizes the typical effect of keeping siding materials dry and delaying deterioration of traditional wood materials). 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us STAFF ANALYSIS The property at 310 S. Fourth Street consists of a two-story, side-gabled, Colonial Revival residence with Craftsman characteristics and a detached, one car garage with street-facing, broken pediment gable. The property is not documented within the Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. maps prior to 1923. Although the 1999 Architectural Survey identifies the residence on the property as having been constructed “circa 1925,” the house appears in the 1923 Sanborn maps for the City of Geneva. Consequently, the house more likely was constructed between circa 1918 and 1923.  Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 3 Permit Review The garage does not appear until after the 1945 revisions were completed for the last Sanborn maps of the City. Consequently, it may be assumed that the existing garage on the property was constructed after 1945. 1923 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map 1930-45 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map  Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of 3 Permit Review The existing garage will be rendered inaccessible with the imminent elimination of the shared driveway (shared with the property at 402 Franklin Street that is undergoing a renovation approved by the HPC). The architectural character of the proposed two car garage is sympathetic and complementary to the architecture of the historic residence. The proposed garage is well-situated on a very small lot that has undergone significant development in recent years. The garage placement attempts to preserve mature trees on the property. Adjacent residences and garages are located in close proximity to lot lines. The slope of the surrounding grade and the location of neighboring structures may necessitate that the foundation wall and siding be stepped at the non-visible, northwest corner of the garage so that the foundation wall becomes a retaining wall for the high grade at the rear of the lot. Lot grading and foundation details will be verified by and coordinated between the General Contractor and the Building Department. The proposed lot coverage (48.98%) does not exceed 49% of the lot, as granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in late 2013. June 17, 2014 310 South 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 Property continues to be used for single-family residential purposes. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The existing garage will not accommodate a second vehicle and is not retained and preserved. The removal of historic situated where an addition can be accomplished once the shared materials or alteration of features and spaces that driveway is eliminated. characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical A garage has been present on the site since the residence was record of its time, place, and use. Changes that constructed; the overall character of the property is not adversely create a false sense of historical development, affected and the new garage does not introduce conjectural or false such as adding conjectural features or architectural historicism on the site. elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The garage is not particularly unique or architecturally significant in its that have acquired historic significance in their own right; the proposed garage design replicates most of the historic own right shall be retained and preserved. details. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The details of the existing, obsolete garage will be replicated in the techniques or examples of craftsmanship that proposed garage. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The details of the existing, obsolete garage will be replicated in the rather than replaced. Where the severity of proposed garage. deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The existing garage and driveway approach are obsolete and non- construction shall not destroy historic materials functional with the elimination of the shared driveway. The proposed that characterize the property. The new work shall garage utilizes contemporary materials and historic details that are be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible to the size, scale and architectural features of the existing compatible with the massing, size, scale, and property. architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new The proposed garage does not adversely impact the historic residence construction shall be undertaken in such a manner and, if removed in the future, would not have a detrimental impact on that if removed in the future, the essential form the historic residence or property. 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 4C 17 North Fourth Street June 17, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Michael Huneke, Tenant The proposed deck is at an existing paved parking lot on the west side of Firehouse Pizza & Grill the historic Fargo Theatre Building. REQUEST The outdoor deck is proposed to allow customer dining adjacent to the eating establishment, Firehouse Pizza and Grill. The deck construction Request: must satisfy all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Permit Review Official. New Outdoor Dining Deck and STAFF ANALYSIS Parking Lot Re-striping The proposed deck does not negatively affect the historic Fargo Theatre Building and, in fact, is located at an altered elevation that was built as a utilitarian side of the structure that was obscured by a previous structure HPC Case Number: to the west (now a City-owned, public parking lot). 2014-042 Area of Proposed Work Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner Fargo 630/938.4541 Demolished Theatre preservation@geneva.il.us church, now City Parking Lot Building  NORTH WEST EAST SOUTH June 17, 2014 17 North Fourth Street Agenda Item 4C FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The property (Fargo Theatre Building) has been converted from a be placed in a new use that requires minimal theatre to a multiple tenant retail and office building. The proposed change to the defining characteristics of the project is located at an altered utilitarian elevation of the building building and its site and environment. (west elevation) that—historically—was never intended to be viewed. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The architectural storefront has been preserved and is not affected by retained and preserved. The removal of historic the proposed project. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical N/A record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes N/A that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction N/A techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired N/A rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed work does not alter any of the significant architectural construction shall not destroy historic materials features of the property. The proposed work is clearly distinguishable that characterize the property. The new work shall from the historic building. be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new The proposed work could be removed in the future without a negative construction shall be undertaken in such a manner impact on the historic character of the property. 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 528 Campbell Street – Lot 5 June 17, 2014 Concept Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Avondale Custom Homes The infill residence proposed for the vacant lot at the southeast corner of Maurice McNally Campbell Street and Sixth Street. The property is a vacant lot that had Ken Overstreet, Architect been adjacent to a circa 1958 ranch home that was razed in 2013. REQUEST The proposed residence is the third of four (4) new residences that will be Request: built on the vacant land surrounding the former Merritt King home and Concept Review property. The entire development site is bounded by Fifth Street, Campbell Street and Sixth Street. The property abuts the former Sixth New Infill Residence Street School and historic residences of clapboard and stucco. The proposal is for a two-story home with a detached, side-load garage HPC Case Number: facing Sixth street. The architecture of the proposed home incorporates 2014-044 traditional forms, massing, materials and details but is not replicative of any house in the Historic District. The general scale, massing and details appear to complement the existing historic context of the Historic District. Staff Liaison: STAFF ANALYSIS Michael Lambert Preservation Planner In order to provide informal feedback to the applicant, the conceptual plans are provided for HPC review and comment. 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Staff has not received a Zoning Compatibility Worksheet to confirm compliance with the bulk regulations identified in the Zoning Ordinance. The lot coverage (building footprint plus all paved areas) appears to be within the allowable development limits for the lot; however, the Applicant has not provided calculations to verify that supposition. As part of its preliminary review, Staff noted that the traditional front porch is shallow. Although Staff has advised the Applicant that the HPC has required usable porches of a minimum dimension of 8’-0” in depth when reviewing the most recent infill residence proposals, the proposed design suggests that the front porch is more ceremonial because other covered areas are provided adjacent to the rear yard and proposed pool and patio. Finally, Staff has identified that the primary street-facing window at the Second Level (upper left) opens onto a large closet that, likely, will be covered to prevent viewing of clothes storage. Other architectural treatments may be more appropriate rather than a large window. Masonry is utilized as a complementary accent material.