Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 1800 South Street – Training Room Geneva, Illinois 60134 March 17, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the March 17, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:03 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Zellmer Absent: Commissioners Salomon and Zinke Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert; Development Dir. DeGroot Others Present: Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects, Inc., 28 S. Water St., Batavia; Guy & Kim May, 312 S. River Lane, Geneva; Austin Dempsey, Batavia Enterprises, 140 1st Street, Batavia; John & Josephine Richards, 211 N. Third St., Geneva; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Colin and Gloriann Campbell, 18 S. 6th Street, Geneva; Marty Smirsich, 909 S. Batavia, Geneva; Margaret Egan, 402 Campbell St., Geneva; Brian Kronewitter and Tim Weber, with Cordogan Clark Architects, Inc., Aurora, IL; Don Biggs with Kane County; Geneva Library Board members Esther Steel, Mark Adams, Zac Craft & Christine Lazarus; Recording Secretary, Celeste Weilandt Chairman Roy explained the protocol for the meeting. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – None 4. Old Business A. Continued Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Discussion (Seeking a motion to continue discussion from continued meetings of Feb. 24, 2015 & Mar. 10, 2015 to Mar. 31, 2015.) Due to concerns of not having a full quorum at the March 31, 2015 meeting, Chairman Roy entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to April 21, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0. 5. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects A. 312 S. River Lane (Case 2015-011). Applicant Guy & Kim May/Vasilion Architects, Inc.; Application for Exterior Additions and Site Development. Preservation Planner Lambert reviewed photos of the structure dating from the 1999 architectural survey and from 2014, noting very little historical character remained from the 1950’s Mid-Century Modern ranch home. Lambert reported that due to the extensive proposed remodeling, any decision the commission made was subject to Zoning Board approval due to a variance needed for the front addition/garage. Per Lambert, the building commissioner reviewed the compatibility worksheet and found that the proposal met the bulk standards and zoning regulations.  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 For the petitioner, Mr. Steve Vasilion, with Vasilion Architects, Inc., summarized that the proposal came out of necessity due to the steep grade the home was constructed upon. The single-car garage would be razed and the driveway lowered to decrease the grade somewhat. A two-car garage would be constructed with a new interior stair to the home’s entry. The garage addition would require a remodel of the front foyer and some front windows would become a bay window. The second floor would be expanded to include a media room, screened porch, and outside deck/terrace over the garage, which would have a view of the river. Proposed elevations were shown on the overhead. Mr. Vasilion said he was replicating the three-stacked windows that were located on the side of the original garage and replicating the pattern throughout the home. Also, he was trying to reduce the various materials found on the structure to a two material, two- color scheme (matching the colors on the home currently) and making the home cleaner looking and somewhat contemporary. Concern from the commissioners included the garage’s location being six feet closer to the street. As compared to the other homes on the street, Mr. Vasilion explained that a few of the homes were closer than the 20 ft. setback. Hiller voiced concern that the extending six feet was not fair to the other neighbors. He suggested coming back three feet but other commissioners pointed out that the right-hand side vehicle would not be able to park due to the foyer’s bump-out location. Asked if Mr. Vasilion could utilize the current basement stairs somehow, he stated he could not because there was no room for a landing. If the variance was not granted, Mr. Vasilion said he would speak to the owners on further pursuing the project or reworking the foyer. Chairman Roy pointed out that the concern was the front extension of the garage and the fact that the commission does consider massing/scale and the context of the street when proposals come before the commission. Mr. Lambert confirmed the only item the proposal did not meet was the setback. Commissioners were fine with the overall clean design of the home and believed the changes would add to the neighborhood. Owner/petitioner, Mr. Guy May, explained that the design was necessitated for the health and safety of his family, particularly with snow and ice. With the new design, it would resolve those concerns. He understood the commissioners’ concerns about the six feet extending forward, but explained a variety of other homes in the area were either positioned forward or backwards. He believed with that mix, his home’s design would fit in the area aesthetically and would not detract from the neighborhood. Per a question, even if the foyer was reworked, Mr. Vasilion stated he would still be over the zoning requirement and would have to seek the variance. Commissioners then discussed some ideas, such as rotating the foyer and bay window to make the plan work. Mrs. Kim May, owner, discussed the bay window provided a nice view of the river and she wanted to optimize the home’s view of the river. Mr. Lambert summarized he was hearing concerns about the garage and to recommend reducing the garage length by three feet. Dir. DeGroot explained how the zoning board would consider the proposal as well as the comments this commission provided. Mr. Lambert also noted that three other entry options were considered by the applicant. 6. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 127 S. First Street (Case No. 2015-012). Applicant Batavia Enterprises, Inc./ Vasilion Architects, Inc.; Application for New Freestanding Front Yard Sign. (Andersson recuses 2  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 herself @ 7:33 p.m.) Mr. Lambert reviewed the monument sign proposal before the commissioners. The structure was a Holberg (phonetic spelling) and Roesch catalog building designed in 1918. A 1999 photograph followed. The sign would be located on the north side of the building located on First Street with new sign panels for the tenants. The sign met the city’s allowable square footage. Mr. Steve Vasilion, for Batavia Enterprises, stated that currently there was no sign for the building and he was proposing a monument sign with some of the colonial details taken from the building and inserting them into the proposed sign. The sign would be constructed of a brick base with metal perforated aluminum panels (removable) for the various tenants and it would be lit from a single, ground-mounted light fixture. Mr. Austin Dempsey from Batavia Enterprises confirmed that sign criteria will be consistent for all tenants, with consistent color and font. Dir. DeGroot added that a sign package was not a requirement of the proposal but the proposal was allowed to go once before the HPC for a review. Commissioner Hiller then confirmed the location of the sign, stating that it was located closer to the applicant’s building versus a residential neighbor. Overall, commissioners were supportive of the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the application as presented, with font and color of tenant signs to be consistent. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Zellmer, Roy Nay: None Abstain: Andersson MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 4-0-1 (Andersson returns 7:41 pm) B. 211 N. Third Street (Case 2015-013). Applicant John & Josephine Richards/Gallagher Associates Architects, PC; Application for New Rear Addition. Mr. Lambert shared photos and reviewed the history of the original home, which was the 1928 home of Ernest and Violet Skogland, who ran a former mortuary business. He stated the history of the home was unclear in that it was identified in the 1999 Architectural Survey as being a Wilson Brothers house but he could not verify that. Other historical facts followed. Lambert summarized that the proposed addition was in the rear of the home and that it did meet the requirements of the zoning compatibility worksheet. As an aside, he stated that when the proposal was brought to him, he worked with the architect to lower the addition’s roof ridge from the historic ridge for a clean delineation from the original home. Architect, Mr. Sean Gallagher, with Gallagher Associates, discussed that the proposal was straightforward. He was creating a den, mudroom, and three-quarter bath for the brick Georgian home with the idea that the den could be converted to a first-floor bedroom in the future. Mr. Gallagher stated he was trying to keep the design proposal as simple as possible. As to the adjustments to the ridge height, Mr. Gallagher reported adjustments to the pitch were made and would not match the main home, which was fine due to its rear location. Cornice and fascia lines would be carried over to the new addition and the new window styles would be similar to the original home. Mr. Gallagher further pointed out that an adjustment to the construction drawings included converting three double-hung windows in the bay into sliding French doors to access a future rear patio. Simple clapboard would be added to the addition with miter corners; however, there was an alternative plan for corner boards. Additionally, five-quarter trim would wrap the windows with sill 3  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 and simple square cap on the heads of the lower windows. He planned on cutting into the upper cornice, similar to the main house double-hung windows. Overall, he stated he was trying to make the addition sympathetic to what currently existed but also distinguishable from very nice architecture. Commissioners comments were supportive. The addition was low impact, tied into the original home very well and was easily distinguishable. Per Mr. Gallagher, Hardi-board was a material option and, if used, would be smooth side out, but it would also have to be used with corner boards. Mr. Lambert closed by stating that in addition to the proposal, there would be some interior restoration back to the original home’s room configuration. Motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Hiller, to approve the application, as presented. Roll call: AYE: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Zellmer, Roy NAY: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 5-0 C. 210 S. Sixth Street (Case 2015-014). Applicant Kane County Government/Don Biggs; Application for Demolition – Sixth Street School. Mr. Lambert briefly summarized this was a demolition request for an existing school building. In addition to the report he shared some of the historical background on the architect of the building: Mr. Frank Brownfield Gray, who went to St. Charles High School and who designed not only the Sixth Street School (and its later gymnasium addition), but also the Geneva Island Park Pavilion, and his own home at 909 S. Batavia Avenue in Geneva. Floor plans and photographs of the existing conditions at the Sixth Street School (the “School”) followed. Mr. Lambert did not tour the interior of the School. Mr. Brian Kronewitter, with Cordogan Clark Architects, Inc., Aurora, IL, and on behalf of the petitioner, Kane County, summarized that the county was seeking a demolition permit for the School. Mr. Kronewitter introduced Mr. Don Biggs from Kane County. Mr. Biggs summarized that the building was currently used by the county’s Regional Office of Education which only used about 30% of the space. The county was paying the electric and providing maintenance on the building but it was becoming cost prohibitive for the county. He stated the School was at a point where extensive rehab was necessary and the county preferred to sell the building. Mr. Biggs reported that the Geneva Library District was under contract with the county for the purchase of the property but the county would have to raze the building first which was why he was before this board to obtain a permit. Commissioner Zellmer asked if there was an open bid process, wherein Mr. Biggs explained that with government entities the right of first refusal must go to another government entity and the library district was the only interested party that came forward. Mr. Tim Weber, Cordogan Architects, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, reviewed elevations of the School noting the three-story, 24,000 square ft. building was constructed in 1924 with a kindergarten and a gymnasium added in 1923. Photos of the building’s design elements were provided and degradations were noted. Additional photos of existing conditions followed: the building had significant tuck pointing done, there was a large amount of patching of the built-up roof, and the windows, which looked replaced, had deteriorating caulk. The most noticeable damage was the significant amount of cracking at the wall of the gymnasium addition, possibly caused by settling and a sanitary line or something else. The area would require some form of jacking/reinforcement. The built-up roof looked to be near the end of its serviceable life and a tear- off would probably come next. The perimeter flashing was starting to sag and crack and there 4  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 appeared movement cracking in some of the limestone design elements. Mr. Weber stated that buildings constructed at this time were not constructed with expansion joints. A review of the interior space followed, noting the terrazzo floors were in good condition but there was water entering from the perimeter of the building causing damage to the plaster along the window heads and entrance (Tab 8 of report). Mr. Weber pointed out in some of the photos the challenges of the doorway widths in the building and trying to meet current accessibility code. Some complied while others did not. Regarding water management off the roof, Mr. Weber explained that the roof’s design causes water to run off a single edge of the roof and it freezes, collects, and is causing much of the exterior damage on the building even though it looks like steps were taken to control it. It was more of a design flaw. Turning to the report, Mr. Weber noted that Tab I reflected the various costs associated with the items mentioned above while Tab J addressed the comparison of rehabilitation costs to comparable market values. The new construction costs dollar figure came from RS Means, which was based on a charter-type school renovation within the building. Dolan & Murphy provided real estate comparables to similar historical properties that were redeveloped and what this property would be worth if it was developed. If this application were approved, the county would be ready to move forward with demolition within 60 days. Per Commissioner Zellmer’s question, Mr. Biggs returned and explained that the county had no use for the building, the Regional Office of Education was in the process of signing a rental lease agreement for a different building, and the county was not interested in rehabbing the building since it would run about $3.5M to $4.0M and there was no use for the space, which is why the county was selling the property. Commissioner Zellmer explained the challenge to this case was that it was a done deal and the library did not do its due diligence to determine whether it needed a new building or not. Commissioner Andersson added that as a historic structure, settlement was normal for the age of the building, however, Mr. Biggs indicated the settlement was due to some specific item and would not be typical for it. Also, there was asbestos as well as an underground fuel tank. Both Zellmer and Andersson stated that caulk and roofing for the gymnasium addition were maintenance items that could be addressed. Dialog followed by the two commissioners that the building was already repurposed and was currently being used as office space and it had not been offered for any other use except for demolition. Former president of the Geneva Library Board, Esther Steele, who served on the board for 12 years, stated that the library does need a new library but it will have to go to the public to see what it wants. She confirmed the library district owned the right of first refusal for the School since the 1990s and did own the building at one time. The library decided to sell the building to the county. The library district also had purchased the building from the school district. Over the years she stated the library district came to the county numerous times about purchasing the site. She stated there was no option of maintaining the School as it currently sat because structurally it could not support the book stacking and it did not have the use of space the library was seeking as found in more modern libraries. Library board member, Zac Craft, explained that the real estate contract was contingent upon demolition. The School building was 24,000 square feet while the current library was at 27,000 square feet and there was no intention of moving into a smaller space. The building offered no flexibility, would not be able to offer the necessities of a modern library, and the library board preferred keeping the library downtown. Asked if the library board had retained an architect to see if the building could have an addition added to make the building work, Mr. Craft stated the board had not because the cost to renovate/rehabilitate outweighed the cost of constructing new. 5  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 Additionally, asbestos existed and the School had very limited flexibility of space. The library was only in the planning stages. Zellmer recommended that an architect look at the School, citing how the Pure Oil building was saved when the developer was asked to take a look at it a second time. Mr. Brian Kronewitter, with Cordogan Clark Architects, returned and stated his firm was also library architects and were in the process of designing the Aurora Public Library in its downtown. He explained one of the main issues with libraries was operational expenses -- having a multi-level library cost more to operate. Keeping the historical component of the School, he said, would mean a three-story library. Asked how large Aurora’s library was, Mr. Kronewitter indicated it was a much larger, three-story building. Returning to the stand, Ms. Steel pointed out that, historically, the library district always wanted to remain downtown with the other public buildings, and the citizens wanted a library in the downtown area. She agreed it would be easier and cheaper to construct a library west of the city but the board had worked for what its constituents wanted. As for parking, she said an architect did create a number of designs for the site, keeping it at two-stories, and even possibly placing parking underground. She even reported that two students from Judson College, taught by architect, Sean Gallagher, provided designs for keeping the original School and increasing the square footage to 50,000 square feet. Mr. Sean Gallagher, however, pointed out, that they were only third year students. Turning to the report and responding to Commissioner Andersson’s question about structural load capacity of the floors, Mr. Mark Adams, treasurer for the library board, clarified the board had not done any studies on how to use the School because the board was not at that process yet. He stated the classrooms were currently rated at 70 lbs. per square foot but 150 lbs. per square foot was needed (pg. 313 of report). Commissioner Zellmer believed an addition could be constructed to place the stacked books. He also recalled that the library board stated it liked the site but not the historic building. Mr. Craft stated it was not a matter of not liking the building, it was a matter of the building structurally and functionally not fitting the library’s needs for a modern library. To date, there was no other land available in the downtown area to construct a new library. Ms. Christine Lazarus, director of the Geneva Library, commented on some of the programs that the citizens wanted such as reading rooms, computer areas and rooms which neighboring libraries had to offer and in which the Geneva library could not due to maximized stack space. Ms. Lazarus further pointed out that library books were constantly “weeded” out, meaning for every book purchased/donated, another one had to be removed due to the lack of shelf space. She stated the elevator did not provide enough accessibility space. She agreed the School was beautiful but the overhead costs for placing service desks at every level of the School building would be over $1,000,000. In addition, constructing another addition to a building that was useless and adding space to the site would only decrease the parking – similar to what was occurring at the current library. Chairman Roy summarized his understanding of the argument for demolition was that the current building would not support the books but that there was a programmatic requirement for meeting space, reader rooms, etc. that did not have the same structural requirement as the stack space. The commission’s point, he clarified, was that the existing School could be used for the office space portion while a separate addition could be constructed to support the stacks of books. Ms. Lazarus concurred but, again, reminded the chairman that a school was not constructed to be a library with its small classrooms, and vice versa, and there were networking needs. 6  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 Commissioner Andersson reminded fellow commissioners that it was up to the HPC to determine if the School could not be adaptively reused for any purpose and should it be torn down. Commissioner Zellmer believed the School’s current gymnasium could be razed and reconstructed with a new addition and the library district would have to work around it to make the entire building work, or, that the School building be reused as something else, such as a community center. If the HPC denied the petition, Mr. Biggs explained the process the county would follow next; however, Mr. Lambert clarified that the county would have the right to appeal the petition before the City Council and City Council could overturn the HPC’s denial. If the city council did not overturn the denial then the county would proceed with other steps. Lambert further clarified that staff tries to discourage looking at end uses, considering the press coverage, etc. However, he did research and found that six schools of the same age and same similarities of this building were renovated into successful libraries. He did speak to four of the maintenance techs as well as the directors at those libraries who stated that some rehabs were successful while others were not. Per Mr. Lambert, there were successful 20th century examples of schools rehabbed to libraries across the country. However, none existed in Illinois. Again, Commissioner Andersson pointed out the commission’s charge was to determine if the School deserved to be demolished. She voiced that the building was a turn of the century school in the community’s local downtown area, constructed by a home town architect, its architectural integrity was significant, and she believed the School could be used again. She acknowledged that Cordogan Clark’s report was done very well. Per the chairman’s question, Mr. Biggs reported that the costs associated with the asbestos and underground storage tanks would be incurred by Kane County for a total cost, with demolition and contingencies, of $447,000. Mr. Kronewitter then said their report addressed potential other uses for the building based on the zoning district, which were allowable special uses for the area. Details followed. Turning to the Secretary of Interior Standards (“SOI”), Commissioner Hiller said the first standard, which the commission was to address, was that the property would be “used for its historic purpose or placed in a new use requiring minimal change…”, citing that the architects already showed that the building could be used for another use. But, exceptions the commission had considered for prior razed buildings included: safety hazards to the public; property that was a deterrent to a major improvement program that would be a substantial benefit to the community; and retaining the building would cause a financial hardship for the owner. Hiller pointed out that while he supported the building for reuse, he stated having a library there would be a significant benefit the community. Andersson concurred, but that was not her decision to make. Mr. Biggs reminded the commissioners that it was costing a significant amount of money to operate the building and it was a financial burden to the county due to the cost of repairs. The county did not have the $4.0M to renovate it appropriately and there was no demand for the space. Chairman Roy opened up the meeting to public comment: Ms. Margaret Egan, 402 Campbell Street, saw both sides of the story. Personally, she believed anything could be done to the building but at a cost. She discussed that the city will need to place a referendum before its citizens to construct a library and if it does not pass, she asked how will the property be sold? Her concern was that she lives on Campbell Street and needed to know what direction the city was going, what would be the height of the new building, etc. but still preserve the historic district. 7  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, understood the challenge before the commissioners but voiced concern about the pre-emptive demolition and no guaranty that a referendum would pass. It was risky and she believed the timeframe should be extended to months, not 60 days. Ms. Glorianne Campbell,18 S. Sixth Street, attended this school when she was a child. She was in the building last week and while she said the exterior was intact, she stated so much of the interior was modernized. She also voiced concern about the short time span to demolish. She was very torn about the issue but stated that if the School was razed that the curator of the Geneva History Museum tour and save the historic artifacts and that the cornerstone be saved to open the time capsule at a future date. She also asked if she could dig up the smaller time capsules she and her classmates buried at the northeast corner of the site back in 1934. Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, shared that he has visited the Batavia and St. Charles libraries many times, as well as the Gail Borden Library, which has its parking lot filled; something the Geneva Library could not currently offer. He believed another library and additional parking would benefit the community in addition to having some of the city’s offices move into the currently library space across the alley. However, the other side of the argument was losing another historic building. He asked that there be a real effort to incorporate the front section of the School into a new building, which would require more imagination, more money, be difficult but could be done. Remembering a point to make and the fact that it was not factored into the demolition timeframe, Mr. Lambert clarified that if the commission were to deny or approve the petition, it would go to the city council. However, because the county was another government entity and owned a public building, the review process would be delayed and have to go before the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency for a Section 707 review to determine whether a demolition could take place. Mr. Lambert reported that the Section 707 review was an independent process from this commission and the city council and he did not know how long the process would take. The process was triggered by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. However, he discussed what the level of review the IHPA would be looking at from this commission regarding the demolition petition. Further explanation followed. Chairman Roy proceeded to read into the record a statement received from Mr. Kurt Wehrmeister, former HPC commissioner and editor of the Geneva Republican, dated March 17, 2015 (attached as “Exhibit A” to the minutes) who asked the commissioners to deny the demolition. Concluding comments from the commissioners were as follows: Andersson: It was a great report but the case was not made that the building was in such poor shape that it could not be adaptively reused; it was a historic building designed by a local architect; it had structural integrity; and it was part of the city’s downtown heritage. She supported a negative vote. Hiller: While there was not much the interior offered, the architect was local; the commission’s priority was adaptive reuse, citing other saved buildings in the area; he agreed with Mr. Wehrmeister’s letter; and he supported a vote to have another use for the building. Zellmer: He supported the previous comments; recommended repurposing the building; and fixing the issues. He could not vote for a demolition, citing the Pure Oil Building being reused. Abplanalp: She supported the commissioners’ comments and would not support a demolition. Chairman Roy: He stated more alternatives needed to be considered; the building was being underutilized by the county, the property needed to be sold whether the library district wanted it or not but that it be repurposed. While he stated the Geneva Library Board did not own the property yet, and did 8  Historic Preservation Commission March 17, 2015 not have to spend money towards it, he understood the library board had not looked into its own programming needs to determine how it would fit into the current property. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the demolition for 210 S. Sixth Street, as proposed. Seconded by Commissioner Andersson. Roll call: Aye: None Nay: Abplanalp (based on SOI #1), Andersson (based on SOI #1), Hiller (based on SOI #1), Zellmer(based on SOI #1), Roy (based on SOI #1) MOTION FAILED. VOTE: 5-0 7. Secretary’s Report – No report. 8. New Business A. From the Commission – Hiller asked for a status of Preservation Month activities to which Mr. Lambert explained there would be an expansion of the poster program used last year. Hiller explained to new commissioners how the posters and Internet application played into the walking tour. He asked for volunteers and Commissioner Zellmer volunteered to assist Hiller with this activity. B. From the Public – None. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0. 9