Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes 109 James Street October 21, 2014 Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Time: A. 516 Campbell Street CASE 2014-074 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Maurice McNally, Avondale Custom Homes Ken Overstreet, Avondale Custom Homes Application for: New Infill Residence Commissioners: Scott Roy, Chairman B. 312 North Fifth Street CASE 2014-090 Jennifer Ablanalp Applicant: Anais Miodek Bowring, Owner Nanette Andersson Daniel Bowring, Owner Application for: New Wood Windows Al Hiller George Salomon C. 216 Campbell Street CASE 2014-098 Paul Zellmer Applicant: Paul Cvek, Contractor Carolyn Zinke Veronica Heaton, Business Owner Application for: Façade Renovations Staff Liaison: Michael A. Lambert D. 227 South Fifth Street CASE 2014-099 Preservation Planner Applicant: Michael A. Cramer, Owner Application for: Porch Reconstruction including New 630/938.4541 Wood Windows preservation@geneva.il.us 5. Secretary’s Report 6. New Business A. From the Commission B. From the Public 7. Adjournment Next meeting December 16, 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 October 21, 2014, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the October 21, 2014 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zinke Absent: Commissioner Zellmer Staff Present: Preservation Planner Lambert; Community Planner DeGroot Others Present: Ms. Liz Safanda with Preservation Partners, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Lois Kaplan, 523 Windett Lane; Ben Ward, 1111 James St., Mike Howard with Carpentry with Integrity, Inc.; Elgin; Dan Marshall with Marshall Architects, St. Charles; Anais Bowring, 312 N. Fifth Street; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the September 16, 2014 Minutes. Commissioner Zinke noted a change under New Business, last sentence, discussing the statewide tax credit. The sentence should end “the pilot program will end in 2016.” Motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Salomon, to approve the minutes, as amended. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0. 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Application A. 312 N. Fifth Street – Applicants Anais and Daniel Bowring – Siding and Window Replacement - Mr. Lambert explained this home was reviewed prior by the commissioners for some emergency siding. He stated the south side of the home was an individual home constructed in 1845 as a four-bay, one-story home which was then “married” to a circa 1855 two- story home probably shortly after the Civil War, and then remodeled around 1875. The home was relocated to its current location in 1890 and the interior was remodeled again between 1915 and 1925, resulting in additional exterior renovations. Further details of the porch and siding followed. Per Lambert, the current owners are rehabbing the interior and exterior of the home. A majority of the home’s windows reflect the 1875 remodeling with 2 over 2 windows. Some historic windows will remain while some new windows are being proposed for the 1980’s addition, to the rear. Tonight’s proposal included rehabilitation at the juncture between the 1855 house and the 1980 addition. Details followed. Photos of the work in progress were presented. Applicant/owner, Ms. Anais Bowring offered to respond to questions. Commissioner comments followed that the project was a good project and that the owner was sympathetic to the structure. Per a question from Commissioner Hiller, Ms. Bowring explained that only one casement window was being proposed on the side of the house in order to look taller and “smooth out the difference.” However, Ms. Bowring said she must have sent the wrong picture of the window to the commissioners. Continuing, Ms. Bowring stated that once the siding was  Historic Preservation Commission October 21, 2014 completed, the remaining windows would be casement. Asked if the opening of the porch would have to return to the commission for review, Lambert confirmed it would. Commissioner Andersson confirmed the location of the new casement window with Ms. Bowring confirming that the new window would have a single muntin, with no horizontal lines, to match the existing historical windows. Lambert explained the reasoning for this window recommendation. Andersson expressed concern that the new window would not look historical and preferred a 2 of 2 over casement window. Of the few options that were explored with staff, Ms. Bowring stated she preferred the casement because she believed it mimiced more of the rectangular shape the windows had. In addition, other commissioners pointed out that the windows in the 1980’s addition would be replaced with casements and the proposed window was not on the primary facade. Lambert then added that there was an exposed corner board that differentiated between the 1855 structure and the 1980 addition and that the commissioners may want the owner to differentiate the two. Continuing, Ms. Bowring stated she wanted to eventually remove the door and return the structure to a single-family home again. Dialog then turned to the window regarding egress purposes. Mr. Lambert explained that the building department, while not concerned about the window for egress, was more concerned about placing the window above the handrail. Ms. Bowring further discussed that she would like to side the home so that it goes well with the existing historic siding and remove the existing staircase (not historic) and reconstruct a new one to meet code. As to the window, she agreed the proposed window was on the north side but was not extremely visible from the street versus the two front windows closer to the porch. Commission Hiller supported the proposal because the window was not on the front façade. Other questions followed on whether Ms. Bowring or Mr. Lambert had thought about having no muntins, wherein Ms. Bowring had not considered the clear window. Lambert, noting the interior was done in the early 1900s, believed the single-pane windows would look odd and he believed the muntins broke down the proportions of the window. He stated the decision was up to the owner and what she wanted to achieve. As a last comment, Mr. Lambert mentioned that all of the windows on the first floor were not centered under the second floor windows which was why he recommended the one muntin element, i.e., to disguise the asymetry. Overall, commissioner comments were positive and there were no issues with the window being proposed. Also, the commissioners were fine without the corner board. Motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to accept the proposal for the changes to 312 N. Fifth street, as explained by the homeowner, where there is a casement window being inserted where the door exists currently. Owner has the option to use the 2 over 2 window configuration, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0 B. 123 W. State Street – Applicant Mike Howell/Construction with Integrity/Ben Ward, Owner – Exterior Rehabilitation, Window Replacement – Mr. Lambert provided a history on the Yates Building, built between 1848 and 1850, according to the Geneva History Center, and noted it was one of the early commercial settlement buildings in the city. The building was constructed with locally-quarried stone with the Italianate brackets being added later. Two commercial spaces existed on the first floor. Photographs of the original storefronts were presented on the overhead, 2  Historic Preservation Commission October 21, 2014 reflecting how the storefronts changed over the years, as well as the current building as it existed today. Per Mr. Lambert, the applicant’s proposal included the retention of the original 1940’s storefront windows; repairing the cracked limestone painted lintels using epoxy; and reviewing the condition of the east side windows. Additionally, Lambert discussed the condition of the limestone sills, some of which were not repairable and reviewed the existing conditions of the windows, pointing out the cobbled sashes. He further directed commissioners’ attention to the modifications made to the west facade windows and the fact that the rear facade had timber lintels, which were typical of the era. Per Hiller’s questions, the original building was constructed as one building by Mr. Yates but currently two owners owned the building – one for each half. Mr. Howell, President with Carpentry with Integrity, Inc., presented a window that came from the second floor of the building, and pointed out how the sashes were not historic, were cobbled together, and the window bucks were dry rotting. He explained that the owner is rehabbing the interior and was proposing to replace the windows with Marvin wood windows (5/8” inch muntins) with new window bucks. Ideally, Mr. Howell preferred to install clad windows to get away from wood and its maintenance. Commissioner Hiller voiced concern how the proposed windows would match up to the other side of the building, wherein Mr. Howell explained he did not consider the other side of the building. Instead he discussed how the lintels would be repaired (pin and epoxy) and walked through how the custom windows would be installed and sized. Mr. Howell explained that he had not addressed the stone sills yet and believed that would be determined by their condition. He did indicate that he could use some of the historic sills he came across to replace the second floor window sills. Lambert preferred he use the historic sills. Some commissioners preferred that staff review the window sills. Per a question, Mr. Howell confirmed that the two first-floor picture windows would be maintained. Dialog followed that there were 19 windows total for the building. Mr. Dan Marshall, with Marshall Architects, St. Charles, Illinois, explained that a simple staircase exit will be created on the back elevation, consistent with what was most likely there prior, without creating a sense of false history. Dialog followed regarding the staircase and the fact that there was no landing to break up the new staircase. It was also pointed out by the chairman that adding a landing would draw attention to the staircase. Returning to the windows, Chairman Roy preferred to see the wooden windows (size match and same reveals) on the street facade the same as the originals. He stated the other elevations could be clad if the owner desired them. Other commissioners agreed with the chairman’s comments with Hiller emphasizing that he preferred to see the front match as closely to the three existing windows since it was one building. Discussing the headers, the contractor agreed to maintain the north wing wood lentils. Commissioner Andersson suggested changing the color of the window’s spacer, possibly using bronze. Regarding the Low-e glazing that was being proposed, Mr. Lambert stated that the National Park Service recommended that instead of providing Low-e glazed windows, to use a solar film on the inside panes. Mr. Lambert shared his thoughts on solar film and the fact that the windows were on the second floor and that the glazing would look very different from the east portion of the building. Per a commissioner questions, Lambert stated that Springfield does allow Low-e windows. Asked if the owner was considering the tax credits, Mr. Ben Ward, owner, commented on his lack of pursuit of the tax credits for now. Commissioners encouraged Mr. Ward to pursue them. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to accept staff’s findings of fact, as presented, with the stipulation that clad windows will be allowed on all sides 3  Historic Preservation Commission October 21, 2014 except the south facade (street-facing) which will be all wood. Low-e coating will be allowed; the stairs are acceptable; staff will review the repair/replacement of any sills; and the owner will be retaining the two first-floor windows and door. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0 5. Secretary’s Report Mr. Lambert reported he continues to work on a draft of the preservation ordinance to present at the November meeting. He reported that building permits have surpassed last year’s requests. 6. New Business A. From the Commission – None. B. From the Public – Ms. Liz Safanda distributed copies of the Preservation Partners newsletter to the commissioners directing their attention to the “Snapshots” section where it was mentioned that the City of Geneva was revamping its preservation ordinance. Details followed, with particular language stating that anyone from the community can nominate a structure for landmarking with or without owner consent. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. on motion by Chairman Roy, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 6-0. 4 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 516 Campbell Street – Lot 3 November 18, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Avondale Custom Homes The infill residence proposed for the vacant lot at the mid-block of Maurice McNally Campbell Street between Fifth and Sixth streets is part of a larger Ken Overstreet, Project redevelopment. Manager REQUEST The proposed residence is the fourth of four (4) new residences that will be built on the vacant land surrounding the former Winship-Towner- Request: Bentley-King home and property. The entire parcel is bounded by Fifth Street, Campbell Street and Sixth Street. Permit Review New Infill Residence The proposal is for a two story home with an attached street-facing, front- load garage. The architectural concept was revised based on HPC feedback at the August 19, 2014 regular meeting. The architecture of the HPC Case Number: proposed home incorporates traditional forms, massing, materials and 2014-074 details. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff Liaison: The plans, as submitted for building permit application, appears to Michael Lambert comply with the bulk regulations identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will confirm compliance at the HPC meeting. Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 The proposed architecture is sympathetic to historic elements of 19th preservation@geneva.il.us century homes but is not a duplicate of other homes within the Geneva Historic District. Exterior materials (stone, stucco, and asphalt shingle roof) are consistent with materials found throughout the Geneva Historic District. Based on previous discussions for new houses at this block in the Historic District, the design strikes a compromise between the preferred prohibition of street-facing and snout-nosed garages (as identified in the Design Guidelines) by setting the garage a greater distance from the street. The only issues that may require additional explanation is specific information about the details of exterior materials, windows and architectural elements.  November 18, 2014 516 Campbell 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 n/a 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 n/a retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical 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 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. 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 The proposed new construction will not adversely affect any historic construction shall be undertaken in such a manner structure; however, the site has been cleared of mature vegetation that if removed in the future, the essential form and the previously open parcel of land will support four, new, single- and integrity of the historic property and its family houses. 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 312 North Fifth Street November 18, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Anais Miodek Bowring The house at 312 N. Fifth Street is undergoing a multi-phase, multi-year Daniel Bowring rehabilitation. The Applicant has appeared before the HPC for two, Owners separate requests previously: replacement of vinyl siding with wood siding at the rear of the house and a request to replace a non-historic door with a new wood window at the north side of the house. Following discussion at the October 21, 2014 HPC meeting (regarding the Request: details of the new window which was approved subject to additional New Windows consideration of a horizontal muntin), the Applicant chose to follow the HPC recommendation for inclusion of a horizontal muntin at the new window. HPC Case Number: REQUEST 2014-090 The Applicant is requesting permission to install 6 new, wood, double- hung windows to replace non-historic windows that had been added previously. The proposed windows will match existing, circa 1875, historic windows that remain in the house. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert STAFF ANALYSIS Preservation Planner The subject property is a “contributing” property, according to the 1999 630/938.4541 Architectural Resources Survey. The house consists of an early 4 bay, one preservation@geneva.il.us story house (circa 1845) and a 2 bay, two story house (circa 1855) that have been joined. The house was moved to this site around 1890 and a small wing (since razed) was erected at the rear. The historic rear addition was razed to make way for a substantial addition in the mid-1980s. The proposed windows will be installed at existing, historic openings at the First and Second floors; new windows will be of the same size as the existing openings. Window openings at the First Floor were enlarged slightly during an early 20th century remodeling, and the Applicant intends to retain the larger opening width. November 18, 2014 312 North Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4B 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 n/a HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: n/a (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4C 216 Campbell Street November 18, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Paul Cvek, Contractor Based on the Building Permit Review Matrix, adopted by the HPC, any Veronica Heaton, Business new freestanding, front yard sign must be approved by the HPC. Owner REQUEST The Applicant seeks to install a new freestanding, front yard sign at a place of business. Request: Permit Review STAFF ANALYSIS New Freestanding Sign at The proposed sign complies with the sign regulations for the City of Front Yard Geneva. The proposed sign will have no adverse effect on the existing historic structure, which is rated as “contributing” to the character of the Historic District, according to the 1999 architectural survey. HPC Case Number: 2014-098 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4D 227 South Fifth Street November 18, 2014 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Michael A. Cramer, Owner The enclosed, rear porch was reconstructed without the issuance of a building permit; the Building Division has placed a “Stop Work Order” on the project until reviewed and approved by the HPC. Request: REQUEST Permit Review The Applicant proposes to complete the work for the reconstruction of Rear Porch Reconstruction the existing / non-historic, enclosed, rear porch. STAFF ANALYSIS HPC Case Number: The porch is at the rear of the residence; however, it is visible from the 2014-099 Franklin Street right-of-way. The porch is not a historic porch in function, massing or detail. The existing porch has been largely reconstructed including a new slab, sill plate, and windows, apparently. The new windows are wood windows with simulated divided lites applied at the Staff Liaison: exterior and interior face of the glass; no spacer bar between the glass Michael Lambert surfaces is apparent based on the submitted images; however, spacer Preservation Planner bars may be present. The architecture of the reconstructed porch does 630/938.4541 not deviate significantly from the porch that existed prior to 1999. The preservation@geneva.il.us completed porch will not adversely affect the main portion of the house and—if removed in the future—would have no adverse impact on the historic building.