Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street September 16, 2014 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Time: A. 312 North Fifth Street CASE 2014-090 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Anais and Daniel Bowring Application for: Siding Replacement Window Installation Commissioners: Scott Roy, Chairman B. 123 West State Street CASE 2014-091 Jennifer Ablanalp Applicant: Mike Howell, Construction with Integrity Nanette Andersson Benjamin Ward, Owner Application for: Exterior Rehabilitation Al Hiller Window Replacement George Salomon Paul Zellmer 5. Secretary’s Report Carolyn Zinke 6. New Business A. From the Commission Staff Liaison: B. From the Public Michael A. Lambert 7. Adjournment Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Next meeting November 18, 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 September 16, 2014, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the September 16, 2014 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke Absent: None Staff Present: Preservation Planner Lambert; Community Development Dir. Untch Others Present: Ms. Rachel Johnson, 318 N. 4th St., Geneva; Mr. Tad Hemming with Hemming Construction; Ms. Mara Hauser with 25 N. Community Co- Working; Mr. Ken Overstreet with Avondale Custom Homes; Ms. Liz Safanda with Preservation Partners, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Mr. Marty Smircich, 909 S. Batavia Ave., Geneva; Mr. Jim Kautz, 1305 S. Batavia Ave., Geneva; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the July 15, 2014 Minutes. Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zinke to approve the July 15, 2014 minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 3-0-4 (Abstain: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke) Approval of the August 19, 2014 Minutes. Changes included to consistently use the word “Chair” to represent Chairwoman or Chairman throughout the minutes; Page 3, last paragraph, concerning the comments made by Mr. Patzelt stating that the home had neglect issues when Shodeen purchased it, Commissioner Hiller requested to add the following verbiage “When Mr. Patzelt was asked how long Shodeen owned the building, Mr. Shodeen indicated 7 years.” Motion made by Abplanalp, seconded by Hiller to approve the August 19, 2014 minutes, with changes. Motion carried. Vote: 5-0-2 (Roy and Salomon abstain) New commissioner, Mr. Salomon was introduced and shared why he joined the Historic Preservation Commission. 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Application A. 227 S. Third Street – BHBB, LLC (Coleman Land Co.) – Door Replacement - Mr. Lambert reported this matter came before the commission but another new application was put in for the replacement of two additional doors. One door does not require HPC review. The doors located at the far southeast corner of the building are being requested to be replaced with the same type of doors that have been replaced elsewhere. On behalf of the owner, Mr. Tad Hemming, with Hemming Construction, stated that nothing has changed and the proposed door would be a single door with no sidelights. Per questions, Mr. Lambert stated the spec sheet from the door company did not reflect the double door and,  Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2014 instead, lumped the doors all in one specification, with options available, which was the only specification offered by the door company. Mr. Hemming confirmed the door would fit within the doorway opening. Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zellmer to approve the request for door replacement, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Abplanalp, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 B. 228 N. Fifth Street – (Susan Cunningham, Owner) New Street Yard Fence. – The applicant was not present and Mr. Lambert explained the case was straight forward as far as material. The request was for a new street yard fence, 42 inches high. The proposal met all zoning requirements and was not located in the visibility triangle. The fence was a stock cedar picket fence and ran just for a corner portion of the street yard. Per Mr. Lambert, the fence is being installed for the safety of a young child. Mr. Lambert clarified for commissioners the exact location of the fence and its length. He further explained that there will be a transition of the fence height from six feet to the new 42” inch fence. Motion by Andersson, seconded by Hiller to approve the fence request for 228 N. Fifth Street. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Abplanalp, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 C. 21 N. Third Street – (Ashland Ventures) Mara Hauser with 21 N. Community Coworking – Façade Renovations – Petitioner, Ms. Mara Hauser introduced herself and stated she is the manager/founder of 25 Community CoWorking; however the corporate company was called Catalyst Company. Ashland Ventures was the building owner and was the primary tenant. Ms. Hauser explained that 25 CoWorking is a workplace and meeting space for freelancers and contractors and she is proposing to highlight the building and return it to the description used in a 1954 Geneva Republican (July 22, 1954) news article. Historic photos of the original building were presented on the overhead. Ms. Hauser described how the building changed over the years. Examples of other Mid-Century Modern commercial buildings were then shown. Ms. Hauser explained that the current drive-through area will have green space/sitting area, the parking lot will be enhanced, and the building’s materials will include wood looking panels (constructed by Long Board in light cherry tone) replacing the current stucco. The angular teller window and original pylons of the building will remain. A pergola will be created next to the teller window and brought into the design of the sitting space. Elevations followed. Continuing, the Third Street elevation will return more architectural linear geometry to the building by using wood-toned siding. The roof will be repaired and windows will be added to the south elevation. The brick will be repainted and the brown will be left natural. Detailed plans of the proposed paver patio (Geneva brick) and pergola were shown. Ms. Hauser discussed that she was looking to adjust the hue of the LED lighting for the building and explained that the plan was to have the pylon on both sides with the words “25N CoWorking) with some vinyl graphics on the windows. Per a question about a sign permit, Mr. Lambert confirmed that the applicant would be returning with a sign permit. Regarding the pergola area, Ms. Hauser shared that it would be used for the users of the building and not for the public. Commissioner Andersson cautioned Ms. Hauser that the public may view that as a public space. Andersson suggested using a butterfly shape to the roof to provide some angular design, wherein Ms. Hauser explained that angles that would come from the pergola and also the teller window. Per another question, the pergola would be steel with the cross beams made out of timber and the fins steel slotted into those. The goal was to open by January 5, 2015. 2  Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2014 Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that this application was for the site work, facade, and the pergola and was weather-driven. The painting did not require a permit. An explanation of the parking lot work and the installation of the proposed barrier curb followed. Ms. Hauser indicated that she was in discussions with a bank to install a future ATM machine. Per another question, Ms. Hauser said the landscaping plan was not completed but she envisioned having perennials mixed with annuals and some grasses. Motion by Zinke, seconded by Andersson to approve the proposal as presented. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Abplanalp, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 D. 527 Campbell Street (Tom Kraakevik) Facade Renovations / New Porch – Mr. Lambert explained this proposal was a permit review for exterior improvements for a new pergola at the Campbell Street façade, along with a new porch (subject to zoning approval) on the Sixth Street facade. The zoning was being pursued due to encroachment into a require side yard by a few feet. The lot coverage was met. Mr. Tom Kraakevik, on behalf of the owner, stated that the owner had received a notice from the city regarding his home’s exterior but the owner had since complied. Proposed was a hardscape garden structure off the Campbell Street elevation. Photos of existing conditions followed as well as the proposed elevation, with Mr. Kraakevik noting the cedar pergola would be a painted, free-standing structure constructed in cedar with 2” inch x 2” inch lattice. On the Sixth Street elevation, the current stoop and stairs would be redesigned to incorporate a larger covered front porch used for safety purposes because the owners were elderly. Currently there was no access/egress from the garage into the house and so Mr. Kraakevik wanted to connect the garage via the porch. Shutters and a flower box would be added to the elevation. Mr. Lambert pointed out that if the porch roof was an open structure, it would not have to go before the Zoning Board. The issue was whether the porch and roof were an allowable encroachment to the side yard. Additionally, Mr. Lambert stated the design was revised from the original submission to incorporate the small brackets on the porch that were found in the gable window of the home. Per a question, flagstone would be used under the pergola. Andersson suggested that the porch be a bit larger and functional for the owner since there were mobility issues. However, Mr. Lambert stated the one of the zoning stipulations was that the request allow for minimum encroachment. Overall, commissioner comments were positive and that the proposal was a good solution. Comments followed that Mr. Kraakevik consider creating the stairs on the side where the garage was located, wherein Mr. Kraakevik stated it would encroach into the driveway and create difficulty for the owner. The driveway was very short. Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zellmer to approve the application, with the option that the owner can enlarge the porch, subject to Zoning Board review and staff review. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Abplanalp, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 3  Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2014 E. 318 N. Fourth Street (Tyler DeLarme & Rachel Johnson) Siding Replacement – Mr. Lambert shared that this case was under a stop work order for a siding issue. The historic siding on the south elevation was removed, along with the aluminum siding and the goal (of the owner) was to paint the house but the owners determined that the siding was not salvageable and so the owners began a removal process. Mr. Lambert stated he has been meeting with the owners to discuss alternatives. The contributing house was constructed in the 1855 or 1856 and was heavily remodeled in 1908 with most of the original 4” inch siding removed at that time. The owners were in the process of replacing the siding with Hardi-plank. However, the owners would like to take the Hardi-plank down and place wood in its place with 3” exposure. Owner, Ms. Rachel Johnson, explained that the original project started out as a repainting project but on this particular side of the home, after the aluminum siding was removed, the wood deteriorated very quickly and she began receiving letters from the City. After saving some money she began working on the project again. Many of the boards were rotted and began falling apart. Also, the recent storm over Labor Day did more destruction and she tried to patch up the area. Ms. Johnson stated she knew she needed a permit but wanted to cover the holes and started putting up siding and paper. Ms. Johnson pointed out another area next to this section of the home, that also needed work. The trim around the windows had gaping holes also. She stated she had about four to five different types of siding around the entire house, with add-ons and fix-ups. Ms. Johnson said she plans to remove the Hardi siding and install cedar siding and caulk and paint this section of the home and eventually scrape, paint and caulk the rest of the home and leave the reveal as is. Mr. Lambert noted that the windows with the quarter-round stop will be painted but the lintel pieces on the Hardi-plank side have a brick mold for the bed mold underneath the drip cap and he has encouraged the owners to match the details found on the house. Commissioners were pleased to see the home return to the 1908 look. Motion by Abplanalp, seconded by Zellmer to approve the application, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Abplanalp, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 5. HPC Review of Proposed Project Concept A. 516 Campbell Street – (Avondale Custom Homes) New Infill Residence – Mr. Lambert recalled that this case was before the commissioners who had some previous refinements. Mr. Ken Overstreet, architect for the project, presented the previous design and the new design. He stated the entry was now revised and the gables were added to the front facade. The gable over the garage was removed with the focus on the front entry and the roof pitch was reduced. A color rendering was presented. Commissioners were pleased to see that the garage was minimized and the entry was straight on. It was a good solution. Per a question, Mr. Overstreet stated the entry door would include side-lites. Zinke was sad to see the large honey locust tree removed. However, Mr. Overstreet stated the owners repurposed the tree to be used as tables and a mantle in the new home. He further confirmed that the driveway was pushed over to meet lot coverage and to avoid the utility pole. Per a question from the public, Mr. Overstreet stated the garage doors were set back three to four feet from the front door. 4  Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2014 6. Secretary’s Report Mr. Lambert referenced his monthly activity report. He asked commissioners to clarify the distance they preferred for windows to be reviewed on side elevations, i.e., from 10 feet or 20 feet from the public right-of-way or from the entire facade. Currently, he was considering them from the public right-of-way. After comments and input were received, commissioner consensus was that it would depend upon the circumstances and that Mr. Lambert would have to continue to bring such cases forward to the HPC. Mr. Lambert then asked the commissioners to submit their resumes to him before the new year in order for him to submit them to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. As to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Mr. Lambert stated that staff was just beginning to start the process with the commission as a working group. The ordinance was a stated goal for two years in the City’s plan and more information will be forthcoming. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – Commissioner Zinke shared information from an informational workshop meeting she attended in Aurora on August 7, 2014 regarding the value of a proposed statewide historic tax credit. Summarizing the meeting, Zinke stated its purpose was to inform those in attendance on how a proposed statewide historic tax credit in combination with the existing federal tax credit would benefit communities such as Geneva. She explained how the pilot tax credit program would bring job creation, economic development, etc. to the economy as well as explained how a person would obtain such credits through the pilot program. Details also followed regarding legislation on this topic. Zinke closed by sharing that the Missouri and Iowa tax credit programs have been very successful for their economies and that the Illinois program may have a return of $10 to $12 of economic impact for every dollar in tax credit. Further information about the program could be found at www.Landmarksillinois.org. Closing questions/comments followed on where the legislation was sitting, eligibility requirements, and the fact that the pilot program ended in 2016. B. From the Public – Mr. Marty Smircich, 909 S. Batavia Avenue, Geneva discussed that each of the commissioners either received or will receive a letter from him (with document attached) regarding an application for landmarking that was submitted a few years ago for a residence located on Sunset Road and was eventually withdrawn by the applicant due to 200 people opposing the application. Mr. Smircich stated that his discussion was not an attack on historic preservation but was, instead, a group of people coming together to separate their thoughts from the downtown historic district with the goal to correct errors, omissions, and division that is found within the city’s code and its policies. He was looking for the commissioners to understand what the actual petition was about and how the omissions and errors impacted the Sunset application. He referenced Page 11, Sections 10.6.4 and 10.6.5 of the code and pointed out the inconsistencies of the two sections as they related to not requiring owner’s consent or “shall require” owner’s consent. Mr. Smircich stated this omission was brought to city staff three years ago and had not been corrected since. Other errors were pointed out as they related to signage notification and district owner consent (51%) for a new district. Mr. Smircich discussed his own research regarding 13 CLG cities which received grants from the state of Illinois and in which 4 of those cities had a requirement for 51% owner consent. He explained that those cities that had successful owner consent had successful outreach programs. He asked the commissioners to consider the 51% for new districts. As to owner consent for landmarks, Mr. Smircich stated he has over 200 petitions against it but rather than opposing it completely, he recommended removing the term “anyone” can 5  Historic Preservation Commission September 16, 2014 nominate because it implies a lack of respect for owner‘s rights. However, he offered that if the city insists on that requirement, he supported the requirement of a supermajority of this commission and to involve the alderman of the same precinct. Chairman Roy responded by stating that the commission was in the early stages of this issue. Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, Geneva, stated that on behalf of Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, she appreciated the city’s effort to carefully review the code for any flaws and discussed that Preservation Partners will continue to monitor any changes that are brought before this commission and before the city council and will comment then. She encouraged the commissioners to take advantage of the state’s free resources. She also was pleased to see three new commission members. Dir. Untch reported that a comprehensive review of the Historic Preservation ordinance’s provisions was stated in the city’s Strategic Plan. However, the community development department was very busy and approaching this matter was a high priority special project, along with the regular flow of daily work under the preservation planner. Dir. Untch encouraged all parties to participate in the discussion during the review process. Mr. Jim Kautz, 1305 S. Batavia Avenue, Geneva offered to speak to Mr. Smircich regarding the other side of his argument. He stated that while 200 to 300 people signed in opposition, it did not mean that the houses they live in are not worthy of protection. He noted that referring to landmarking as a negative on a person’s dwelling was not true and that the landmarked homes continue to be occupied and maintained well. He reminded the commissioners that just because a structure was lived in and landmarked outside the district today, it did not necessarily guaranty that the next owner would maintain the structure. He stated it would be negligent on this commission to think that it would leave it up to the homeowner to let the commission know if a property should or should not be landmarked in the future. Mr. Kautz agreed and believed education was a large component to address the public’s concerns. 8. Commissioner Training Mr. Lambert reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on commissioner training. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 7-0. 6 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 312 North Fifth Street September 16, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Anais Miodek Bowring The Applicant is requesting permission to install a new wood window and Daniel Bowring wood siding where a non-historic door had been added previously. Owners REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to remove a non-historic door and install, in its place, a new wood window that is complementary to the Request: existing, historic wood windows and new wood siding that will match the Exterior Rehabilitation historic siding exposure. New Window STAFF ANALYSIS Wood Siding The subject property is contributing according to the 1999 Architectural Resources Survey. The house consists of an early 4 bay, one story house (circa 1845) and a 2 bay, two story house (circa 1855) that have been HPC Case Number: joined. The house was moved to this site around 1890 and a small wing 2014-090 (since razed) was erected at the rear. The historic rear addition was razed to make way for a substantial addition in the mid-1980s. Staff Liaison: The proposed window removes an architectural intrusion and installs a Michael Lambert window that is sympathetic to the historic character of the house as well as the interior renovations that are proposed. The wood siding and Preservation Planner exposure will match the historic siding of the property. 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us October 21, 2014 312 North Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4A HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural C - Contributing Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Upright and Wing (Combined House) Style(s) or Type: Greek Revival 3. Significant Architectural Form and Massing, Characteristic Entablature, Siding and Windows (1870s) Features : 4. Date of Construction: ca. 1845/ ca. 1855 1890 5. Date(s) of Significant circa 1980 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1845-1905 7. Historic Names Associated William Adams House with Property: 8. Historic Images: No 9. Historic Map Representation: No (beyond Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map boundaries) 10. Why is it Important? William Adams was Assistant U.S. Collector (1869) (Context / Significance) Two distinct houses joined together when moved in 1890. South half was 4 bay, one-story dating to circa 1845; North half was 2 bay, two story dating to circa 1855. Rear addition razed, was supported on streetcar rails. 11. Proposed Architectural Window style and clapboard material/exposure Features Consistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural None Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape None Elements: 14. Application of COG Yes HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG Complies for design and materials HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG Complies for material and exposure (reveal) HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: n/a (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze)  October 21, 2014 312 North Fifth 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 Property will remain as a residence, its historic use. Current work is be placed in a new use that requires minimal converting the property back to single family use. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The proposed work will not impact the historic character of the retained and preserved. The removal of historic property and, furthermore, removes a doorway that had no historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that precedence. characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The proposed work is sympathetic to the historic character and does record of its time, place, and use. Changes that not add a false sense of historical development to the property. create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The door that is proposed to be removed is not historically significant that have acquired historic significance in their to the property and has not attained significance in its own right. own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The multi-phase project aims to preserve and restore many of the techniques or examples of craftsmanship that historic features of the property. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The proposed window is a new window in a new location necessitated rather than replaced. Where the severity of by changes in the floor plan over time and as dictated by current deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive interior renovation. 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 new work does not destroy any historic feature. The new work is construction shall not destroy historic materials sympathetic to the historic character of the property and is that characterize the property. The new work shall distinguishable from historic elements by a differentiation of material be differentiated from the old and shall be and design of the window unit itself. 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 123 West State Street September 16, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Benjamin Ward, The Applicant is requesting permission to complete exterior renovations Owner as part of a larger rehabilitation project. Mike Howell, REQUEST Carpentry with Integrity The Applicant is seeking approval to retain and repair the existing storefront windows (circa 1946) and remove and replace the existing, south-facing second floor windows with new, wood windows. Limestone Request: will be repaired, including structural repairs to window lintels. Period- sensitive modifications are proposed to the west elevation. Exterior Rehabilitation Window Repair / Replacement STAFF ANALYSIS Limestone Repair The subject property is significant according to the 1999 Architectural Exterior Modifications Resources Survey. The Applicant intends to provide additional information about the existing condition of the wood windows. The proposed stock units do not have the same minimalistic proportions and HPC Case Number: details of the historic windows of this period of building. Storefront 2014-091 windows were modified with the removal of the bulkhead in the 1940s; original storefront windows were 4 lite, fixed windows. The proposed exterior modifications are consistent with SOI Standards in respect to differentiation. Although the west elevation was not exposed to view, Staff Liaison: historically, the only means of external ingress/egress to the second floor Michael Lambert is at the west elevation. Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Above: Storefront of 123 W. State Street, circa 1890s Left: Detail of original second floor windows of 123 W. State Street, circa 1890s October 21, 2014 123 West State Street, Agenda Item 4B HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Two Part Commercial Style(s) or Type: Federal 3. Significant Architectural Limestone Façade Features : Windows and Storefront Entry Door 4. Date of Construction: 1848-1849 5. Date(s) of Significant 1940 (Storefront Windows) Addition(s) and/or 1968-1980 (West Elevation) Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1848-1964 7. Historic Names Associated Yates Building with Property: 8. Historic Images: Yes (attached) 9. Historic Map Representation: Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. (1885, 1891, 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945) 10. Why is it Important? Example of early Settlement Era Architecture (Context / Significance) Early Two Part Commercial Building 11. Proposed Architectural Wood Windows Features Consistent with Differentiated Architecture at West Elevation Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Wood Window Details / Proportions Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape n/a Elements: 14. Application of COG Yes HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG TBD depending on actual details of new windows upon verification that historic HPC Window Policy: windows are beyond repair. 16. Compliance with COG n/a HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: n/a (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze)  October 21, 2014 123 West State 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 The building will retain its historic use as a two-part commercial be placed in a new use that requires minimal structure with commercial space on the ground floor and residential change to the defining characteristics of the space at the second floor. building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The south-facing storefront windows were remodeled more than 50 retained and preserved. The removal of historic years ago. The south-facing, second floor windows are reported to be materials or alteration of features and spaces that replacements of the original, historic sash. The jambs and frames are characterize a property shall be avoided. reported to be deteriorated beyond repair. Lintels and other stone elements that have cracked will be repaired rather than replaced. The west elevation, historically, was obscured by a one-story, frame building that has been razed. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The windows are significant features of this early building but have record of its time, place, and use. Changes that been altered over time. The proposed west elevation changes do not create a false sense of historical development, have historical precedence; however, the west elevation, historically, such as adding conjectural features or architectural was obscured by a one-story, frame building that has been razed. elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes Storefront windows may or may not have attained historic that have acquired historic significance in their significance; west elevation changes over time do not appear to have own right shall be retained and preserved. been the result of any significant event or architectural forethought and, consequently, have not attained significance in their own right. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction Form and Massing, Windows, and Limestone Bearing Walls techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Limestone facades are proposed to be re-pointed and cracked rather than replaced. Where the severity of structural lintels and other limestone elements are proposed to be deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive repaired rather than be replaced. feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities Windows at the first floor are proposed to be repaired, as is, and and, where possible, materials. Replacement of windows at the second floor are proposed to be replaced with new, missing features shall be substantiated by standard wood units. documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as No chemical treatments for painted material or stone have been sandblasting, that cause damage to historic identified in the submitted materials. 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 Proposed improvements at the west elevation are designed to be construction shall not destroy historic materials differentiated form historic elements and do not harm the historic that characterize the property. The new work shall character of the property (west elevation was not intended to be be differentiated from the old and shall be viewed when constructed. 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 west stoop and roof could be removed in the future construction shall be undertaken in such a manner without interfering with the integrity of the early commercial that if removed in the future, the essential form structure. 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.