Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2015 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes - May 19, 2015 109 James Street Geneva, IL 60134 4. HPC Permit Review of Proposed Development Projects A. 229 West State Street CASE 2015-054 Time: Applicant: Scott Price, Owner Todd Crabbe, Craftsman Services 7:00 p.m. Application for: Replacement Windows Commissioners: B. 123 West State Street CASE 2015-065 Applicant: Benjamin Ward, Owner Scott Roy, Chairman Mike Howell, Carpentry with Integrity Jennifer Ablanalp Application for: New Rear Yard Pergola Al Hiller George Salomon C. 321 Hamilton Street 6CASE 2015-066 Paul Zellmer Applicant: First Congregational Church Carolyn Zinke Lynnly Buchanan, Owner’s Representative Alexander Novy, Project Coordinator Application for: New Rear Yard Pergola Staff Liaison: 5. Old Business Michael A. Lambert 6. Secretary’s Report Preservation Planner A. Election of Vice Chairman 630/938.4541 B. Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Update preservation@geneva.il.us C. CAMP Commissioner Training Workshop D. Sixth Street School Demolition / Historic District Survey Update 7. New Business A. From the Commission B. From the Public 8. Adjournment Next regular meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2015 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 1800 South Street – Training Room Geneva, Illinois 60134 May 19, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the May 19, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:07 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Andersson, Salomon, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke Absent: None Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert; Development Dir. DeGroot Others Present: Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects, Inc., 28 S. Water St., Batavia; Joe Stanton, 717 N. First St., Geneva; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Colin and Gloriann Campbell, 18 S. 6th Street, Geneva; Marty Smircich, 909 Batavia Avenue, Geneva; Sandra Ellis, 209 Peyton Street, Geneva; Aldermen Bruno and Radecki; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Chairman Roy reviewed the protocol for the meeting. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2015 Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zinke, to approve the April 21, 2015 minutes, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0. 4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Development Projects A. 28 N. First Street (Case No. 2015-029) Applicant: Batavia Enterprises, Inc., Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects, Inc.; Application for Window Modifications. Per Preservation Planner Lambert, the proposal was before the commissioners last month as a concept review to replace the single window on the second floor (in the addition portion only) with two windows. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Steve Vasilion, with Vasilion Architects, restated that the two new Pella windows will be symmetrical over the one below; the details of the stonework will be identical to what is existing and he will be reusing the header stone and sill pieces from an existing window that was found inside the building. No filler will be used around the perimeter of the new window. Motion by Andersson, seconded by Zinke to approve the window modification request for 28 N. First Street, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 As an aside, Mr. Vasilion stated he will be writing a letter to the city council expressing his support for the work this commission does, commenting that preservation is important and the City of Geneva has been used as a model for other preservation organizations.  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 B. 401 Franklin Street (Case No. 2015-039) Applicant: Todd Kendall; W. Alex Teipel, Architectural Resources; Application for New Detached Garage. Mr. Lambert summarized the request before the commissioners and presented a photo of the home from the 1999 Architectural Survey, noting the number of additions that were done to the home over the years. The owner would like to add a two-story detached garage at the north rear yard of the property which would be sympathetic to the architecture of the main house. The garage entrance would be located on Fourth Street. The proposal, which included the detached garage, the removal of an existing shed, and the removal of the current driveway to a ribbon driveway, kept the property equivalent to the current lot coverage. Per Mr. Lambert, the current building and site improvements exceeded the current lot coverage; however, the site was “grandfathered” in. Commissioner Hiller thought that the proposal would have to go before the Zoning Board but Dir. DeGroot explained it would not. Mr. W. Alex Teipel, with Architectural Resources, reported that a large stone patio will be removed and reducing the driveway to strips will keep the lot coverage the same. The owners wanted to add a new garage because their current garage was too small by current standards. The materials and details for the new garage would match the home, which was cedar-sided, and the siding would be stained to match; windows would be wood. (Mr. Teipel noted a drafting error on the plans). Asked what the reason was for the location of the proposed garage, Mr. Lambert explained it was to allow enough space for the owners to back out of their driveway onto Fourth Street. Andersson voiced concern that there would be no useable space for a backyard. However, Mr. Lambert shared the fact that staff and the owners did consider all options for the location of the garage on the site and this was the best choice for the family. Regarding the windows, Mr. Lambert stated the home’s window fenestration pattern was very eclectic and did not represent any one style of window. He believed the intent of the architect and owners was to blend the windows found on the house with the windows on the new garage. Further dialog followed that the height of the garage would be lower than the home and the roof slope on the garage would match that of the house. Discussing the garage door material, Andersson stated that since the garage was new construction, fiberglass or metal would last longer. It was noted that the owners would be removing part of the Fourth Street concrete wall only enough to get a car through (about 12 feet). Motion by Zinke, seconded by Abplanalp to accept the proposal for 401 Franklin Street, as presented, with the project meeting Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 C. 127 N. First Street (Case No. 2015-040) Applicant: Joe Stanton, W. Alex Teipel, Architectural Resources; Application for New Attached Garage and Roof Deck. Mr. Lambert summarized the request before them, stating the home was one of the first five brick homes constructed in Geneva. The first-story wing of the Spaulding home was constructed in 1843 (north wing) while the second story wing was added within 10 to 12 years afterwards. Photos of the home, from the 1999 Architectural Survey, were displayed on the overhead with Lambert adding that the home was identified as a potentially significant historic property. The proposed 1-1/2 car garage would be located at the lower portion of the property, facing Peyton Street. Proposed elevations followed. Mr. Lambert stated he shared with the owners examples of Greek Revival details for the garage because the home was so significant. Mr. Lambert also shared that he did mark up some of the drawings to reflect some simple details the owners could consider for the porch. 2  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 Items that remained outstanding, however, included the materials and architectural details for the garage door. Mr. Lambert stated that the applicant was open to suggestions. Per Commissioner Hiller’s question, the commissioners did review this property several months ago but it was for a one-car garage with a gabled roof. Applicant, Mr. Joseph Stanton, 717 N. First Street, concurred that the proposal was brought before this commission some months ago. He confirmed that the prior families who owned the home included the McConnaughays and the Shodeens. Mr. Stanton stated he did seek information from the Geneva History Center to see what was original to the house as well as view some Sandborn maps. He explained that a two-car garage was originally considered for the site, but after seeing that it overpowered the home, he decided on a one and one-half garage. The existing front porch would be razed and returned to its original form. He agreed to meet with staff to review design details. The fiberglass garage door entry would be a cherry-stained color. Looking at the west elevation Andersson favored the flat roof over the garage but did not favor the heavy banister. Mr. Stanton mentioned he was open to suggestions. Architect, Mr. Teipel reminded the commissioners that the railing height and spindles had to meet code. The proposed spindles were a 2 by 2 turned spindle. In looking at the front porch of the home, Andersson acknowledged the front to be very simple, as compared to the rear of the home, where the railing on the garage was very detailed. She preferred the deck railing to be more “simplified.” Mr. Stanton was open to the idea and was more than happy to return next month with railing/spindle details. Continuing, Andersson recommended keeping the cornice on top of the garage, keep the corners of the banisters light but stepping back the banister to make it less visually prominent or, use a metal banister. Mr. Stanton did not favor the metal material and pointed out that from the front, the garage would not be seen. He still favored the white painted railing. Mr. Lambert noted that if the form and concept were fine, the commissioners could move the petition forward and the petitioner could return next month with the details. Again, he reminded the commissioners that once the front porch was opened, some historical details could come out, and if not, there were enough examples around the city. After some discussion and clarification about where Mr. Stanton would be in four weeks into the construction process, and in reviewing the elevations more closely, the commissioners decided that Mr. Stanton could begin opening up the porch now and if the general configuration of the garage was acceptable, he could return with the garage railing details. Mr. Stanton favored that decision. (Andersson, Zellmer and Mr. Teipel reviewed the plans for the garage for the north elevation in more detail, due to concerns about the header and joists.) Chairman Roy also shared that the commissioners could approve the plans but once in the field, if something changed, city staff could halt the process and return to the commission with a couple of options for the garage. Motion by Hiller, seconded by Zinke to approve: 1) the size, shape, and massing of the design as presented; 2) allow the construction to begin on the garage; and 3) staff would review the front porch details which, in turn, would be reflected in the details of the new garage addition. Details of the railings to return next month. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 D. 212 S. Fifth Street (Case No. 2015-041) Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes; Application for Window Modifications. Mr. Lambert referenced his handout for the Merritt King 3  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 home, noting that nine additions were made to the home over the years and which would have an impact on the windows, their condition and relocation. Mr. Ken Overstreet from Avondale Custom Homes discussed that this home was before the commissioners in September 2014 with submittals of a number of exterior and interior photos. Tonight’s focus would be on the existing windows and windows being replaced. Referring to the window schedule on the dais, Mr. Overstreet stated he is proposing to restore 32 historic windows and replace 18 windows -- 3 of which were doors. He noted he and staff did walk through the home to identify which windows would be restored/replaced. He summarized that a number of different windows had been placed in the home since 1840 – anything from 1 over 1 to 12 over 12 and relocated to the various additions over time. Mr. Overstreet indicated that Mr. Eric Nelson also reviewed the schedule of windows and suggested that some of them be tempered. He asked for commissioner input on this topic; however, Mr. Lambert informed him that tempered windows would have to be reviewed by the building division and that Mr. Nelson was willing to work with that department. Mr. Lambert stated that the rear two historic windows (No. 27; west elevation; 6 over 6) Mr. Overstreet was concerned about would have to be reviewed by Mr. Nelson and the building commissioner. Mr. Lambert also shared that the Illinois Historic Preservation Commission did walk through the house and identified those windows they were concerned about. While they encouraged preservation of the historic windows, the rear windows were not a concern for the tax assessment freeze. Mr. Lambert was very comfortable with what Mr. Overstreet was presenting, noting that the applicant was returning some of the 1980s windows back to the appearance of the original house. Mr. Overstreet then discussed the general renovations of the home that took place over time, noting the home was balloon construction over balloon construction and he was reusing as much of the home’s material, as possible. Commissioners were very pleased that the home was being saved and restored. Motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to accept the window modifications, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 5. Old Business A. Continued Discussion - Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lambert reported the city attorney reviewed the preservation ordinance and, to date, the modifications to the ordinance were basically grammatical in nature and certain language was made consistent. Referring to Section 10.6.12 and what constitutes a demolition, Lambert stated the section was clarified better to match some of the comments made by the commissioners and placed into a bullet-style format. The last major change clarified what the documentation requirements were before a structure was to be razed. He read the specific language to the commissioners and stated the requirements will be the same for significant or contributing properties within a neighborhood conservation district. Hiller asked for clarification of Section 10.6.7.B - Standards for Designation of Historic Districts, specifically the interpretation of the word “collectively”. Mr. Lambert referred to the section on the overhead and explained that the prior language, as reviewed by the city attorney, appeared to cause more confusion. Therefore, it was revised to include the word “collectively” with 4  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 the meaning that the body had to represent the six requirements. After reviewing the section further the commissioners were comfortable with the stated language. As a general comment, Zellmer stated that he had concerns about landmarking a building without an owner’s consent and was hearing those same concerns from the residents and from a number of emails. He stated he did not support that portion of the ordinance, nor would the residents. While he agreed it was a tool to be used for certain circumstances, he believed it was important for residents to get an owner’s consent first before landmarking, otherwise it was a mistake. He believed it was better if the city and the commissioners, through education, could convince the residents that owning such properties that landmarking their own properties, was the best solution. Andersson reminded the commissioners that both sides of the community were heard (those in support and those that were not) and explained that the ordinance was a tool available to the city and the commissioners but it had been used very rarely. She was not certain that this particular section of the ordinance should be removed at the HPC level since the commission received no direction from the city council to change such language. She reminded the commissioners that the language was part of the ordinance since its inception and it was one of the reasons why Geneva was such a stellar historic preservation community today. Andersson supported the ordinance as revised. Conversation vacillated back and forth Abplanalp emphasized that steps were already being taken to educate the community with the pre-application meeting and that checks and balances were placed in the ordinance to assist in that direction; Salomon concurred with the comments and did not envision residents landmarking other residents’ homes. He reiterated the required two-thirds supermajority vote at the council level. Zinke shared her own experience within her neighborhood and discussed how the character of her area had changed over the 12 years she had lived there, i.e., the population was aging, the owners’ children were less interested in the area and sold the homes to developers who demolished the homes, and correspondingly, the banks, through the foreclosure process, had less interest in a historic district than the neighbors or former owners of the home. She worried that some of the beautiful homes that existed now in the historic district would be in the same position in 20 years. She believed the provision needed to remain in the ordinance and if it became a problem, then the city council needed to make the change in the ordinance. In her final statement, Andersson understood Zellmer’s comments to mean that without owner consent the collective community could not landmark, for example, a bank’s property, which was of historic importance to the community as a whole or its heritage, and there would be no ability to stop them from razing it. Chairman Roy supported the language in the ordinance and emphasized that it was up to the commission to use the tool appropriately. The commission was not out to create random districts around the community. If a district was going to be created, he stated the process would have to be followed with the final decision coming from city council. Also, if a bank or entity was going to affect the character of the community, he believed the language was a tool that was necessary to stop the process. Hiller noted that, as written, the ordinance provided a fair balance and the steps for an individual to landmark a building were difficult under the ordinance. Lastly, Mr. Lambert stated the IHPA did review the ordinance and found it to be fair and have checks and balances throughout even though it was more rigorous. The due process was maintained. As to the educational component, he shared a short story about a couple that came into his office concerned about what they were hearing about the landmarking process. After he explain the process to them, they left with a better understanding. Motion made by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Salomon, to accept the final draft of the 2015 Historic Preservation ordinance, as presented. Roll call: 5  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 AYE: Abplanalp, Andersson, Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Chairman Roy NAY: Zellmer MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-1 6. Secretary’s Report Regarding the Sixth Street School demolition, Mr. Lambert confirmed that the county met with the IHPA and a mitigation plan had been identified for the county. The City of Geneva was not involved in the process between the two agencies but both parties have agreed to the following: undertake a survey of the Geneva historic district, which includes the two national registered historic districts and resurvey them to reflect any new changes within the districts and make recommendations for boundary amendments. As of yesterday, Lambert said he was informed that a consultant was selected for the demolition to start on the school. He will be able to work with the contractor regarding the survey and to exchange information. General information followed regarding the RFQ proposals and what the community would be getting in return for the demolition of the school. Per Zinke’s question, Mr. Lambert explained that the state could only determine if a property was eligible for the National Register but could not compel someone to put a building on the National Register. Details followed regarding the significance of the building to the community. Hiller announced the walking tour has continued into this year’s Preservation Month, again, using the QR code, which opens up the walking tour throughout the community. A couple of buildings – the Patten House and the Unitarian Church -- were added to the walking tour. Hiller shared the positive feedback he received regarding the tour. He said the library asked if walking tour pamphlet maps could be provided to them this year along with the poster. Hiller was commended by staff and commissioners for putting this activity together. Mr. Lambert announced the Geneva Broadcast Network will be airing a segment on historic preservation during the month of May and can be found under the “Geneva Works” tab. He also encouraged the commissioners to attend the upcoming Landmarks Illinois conference in Carbondale, Illinois. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – Chairman Roy thanked Commissioner Andersson for her input and service to the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission over the past 11 years. Andersson shared thoughtful words and said she, too, would miss the commissioners. Mr. Lambert reviewed the many projects Andersson was involved with over the years, some of which included developing the window and siding policies, the design guidelines, and participating in the Downtown Stationery Master Plan effort. A round of applause followed. B. From the Public – Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, was saddened to see Commissioner Andersson resign from the commission but commended her and the commissioners’ work on the preservation ordinance. She hoped that council members watched tonight’s video, particularly paying attention to the historic preservation ordinance part of the meeting and the reason for the dissenting vote. She hoped that commissioners would be able to voice their comments at next week’s city council meeting. Ms. Liz Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, will also miss Commissioner Andersson. She also announced that the History Museum will be running a trolley during Swedish Days which will travel the perimeter of the historic district. She asked if there was a drop-dead date for the demolition of the Sixth Street School, since she wanted to retrieve the time capsule from the cornerstone. 6  Historic Preservation Commission May 19, 2015 Mr. Ernie Mahaffey, 503 S. First Street, expressed concern about losing the third-party designation of landmarks, fearing a domino affect would take place -- those who owned landmarks could rescind their landmark designation; those that lived in historic districts could decide that they have the right not to live in a historic district, and so on. He emphasized that as the tear-downs come, the community deteriorates fundamentally. As it he saw it, what protects the area is the historic designation; what protects his neighbors is his home and the fact that they have to appear before the HPC for any changes they want to make to their properties, which he thought was fair. The district was part of Geneva and people cared. Mr. Mahaffey stated he supported the ordinance being updated and commended the work being done by the commissioners, especially when there was opposition to it. Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, emphasized that the community has rights and government has to balance the rights between the individual and the community but need the tools to do it. He thanked the commissioners and staff for their work on the ordinance. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Andersson, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 7-0. 7 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 229 West State Street July 21, 2015 Storefront Window Replacement Applicant: BACKGROUND Scott Price, The structure at 229 West State Street was constructed in 1906 by the Owners John Wheeler Construction Company for the State Bank of Geneva. Todd Crabbe, The 1999 Architectural Survey identifies this commercial property as Craftsman Services having been constructed in a Classical Revival style and rated the building as “significant” due to age, architectural style / integrity, and association with the development patterns of the local community. The storefront has been remodeled from its original architectural form Request: between ca. 1975 and 1999. At that time, the iconic, limestone entry Permit Review: portico was removed; classical details of the engaged pilasters were Storefront Window covered by a metal, fixed awning; the storefront windows openings Replacement reduced in height; and new aluminum-framed storefront windows were installed. One of the storefront windows, facing Third Street, was filled in during more recent remodelings of the storefront. HPC Case Number: Historic images provide a sense of the original window frame proportions 2015-054 of the substantial picture windows of the original bank building. In 2014, the Third Street window was damaged and replaced with a two part window that did not match other storefront windows or the historic Staff Liaison: character of the original, storefront windows. Michael Lambert REQUEST Preservation Planner The current owners and tenant desire to replace the existing storefront 630/938.4541 windows with new window units that are sympathetic to the historic mlambert@geneva.il.us windows, based on photographic evidence. Current View Google Image captured October 2012 July 21, 2015 Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 2 Storefront Window Replacement Historic images of the 229 West State Street “Bank Block” building: Circa 1928-1930 Circa 1920-1923 Proposed Aluminum Window Frame to match historic dimensions (approximately) and keeping glass face in historic plane. July 21, 2015 229 West State Street, Agenda Item 4A HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Classical Revival, Commercial / Office Building Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Bedford Limestone Façade and architectural trim, face brick, and historic Features : fenestration patterns 4. Date of Construction: 1906 5. Date(s) of Significant No additions; storefront remodeled between 1975 and 1998 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1906- ca.1975 7. Historic Names Associated “Bank Block” with Property: State Bank of Geneva 8. Historic Images: Yes (see attached) 9. Historic Map Representation: Sanborn Fire Insurance Co.: 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945 10. Why is it Important? Important commercial architecture at prime commercial corner in Geneva; part (Context / Significance) of the State Street historic blockface between Second and Third streets; predecessor building to 1924 bank building erected diagonally across intersection; State Bank of Geneva continues in operation in Geneva. 11. Proposed Architectural The proposed windows respect the original architectural character of the Features Consistent with building. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural The window height is not consistent with the original windows; however, later Features Inconsistent with façade modifications prevent the installation of full-height windows. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG The proposal conforms to the general provisions of the City of Geneva Design HPC Design Guidelines: Guidelines. 15. Compliance with COG The proposal conforms to the general provisions of the City of Geneva Window HPC Window Policy: Policy and the National Park Service compliance standards. 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) City of Geneva Geneva Historic Preservation Commission 22 S. First Street Geneva, IL 60134 630/232.0818 GENEVA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - WINDOW POLICY Policy Guide for Window Repair or Window Replacement Requests Replacement windows are not a recommended treatment for historic buildings. To the greatest extent possible, the maintenance and preservation of original historic exterior materials should be encouraged in all cases. The replacement of windows frequently compromises the asesthetic integrity of a building through the removal of original architectural details and the alteration of the building’s historic character and visual identification with a particular period or style of the past. This window policy was developed by the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission in 2000 as a tool to aid property owners in selecting appropriate treatment for their project. 1. Contributing (or higher rated) buildings, Residential and Commercial. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first, assuming windows are original or historic. If the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, replacements should be of materials, detailing and styling that are consistent with that of the original or existing historic windows. 2. Non-contributing buildings. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first. If the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, the style and proportions of replacements should be consistent with building style, however more flexibility should be allowed in the window material. 3. Existing additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings prominent and easily viewed from the street. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first, assuming windows are original or historic. If the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, replacement should be of materials, detailing and styling that are consistent with that of the original or existing historic windows. 4. Existing additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings not prominent or easily viewed from the street. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first. If the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, the style and proportions of replacements should be consistent with building style, however more flexibility should be allowed in the window material. Original historic portion will always be addressed by #1. 5. New additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings. Windows should match material, detailing and styling of existing windows, if on prominent facade, but allowing for flexibility of materials if addition is not prominent or readily visible from the street. Original, historic portion will always be addressed by #1. 6. New additions to non-contributing buildings. Windows should match material, detailing and styling of existing windows, if on prominent facade, but allowing for flexibility of materials if addition is not prominent or readily visible from the street. 7. New residential or commercial construction. Flexibility should be allowed in material, however styling, detailing, spacing and proportions should be appropriate to the suggested architecture or styling of the new structure. Interior snap-in or false, between-pane grids, are not appropriate. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Geneva Historic Preservation Commission uses the Standards when reviewing specific rehabilitation projects in the Historic District. The following standards should be considered when dealing with historic windows. Standard #2 The original distinguishing qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Standard #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Standard #6 Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Window Policy, Page 1 of 3 City of Geneva Geneva Historic Preservation Commission 22 S. First Street Geneva, IL 60134 630/232.0818 Window Significance Not all windows are equally significant. Factors determining significance include: • Age of window • Design of window • Physical integrity • Street facing façade • Architectural and historical significance Windows should be considered significant if they: 1. Are original or historic. 2. Reflect the original design intent for the building. 3. Reflect period or regional styles or building practices. 4. Reflect changes to the building resulting from major periods or events. 5. Are examples of exceptional craftsmanship or design. Window Facts • Windows convey building character. • They are made of irreplaceable materials. • Windows need periodic maintenance. • Renovation of windows is realistic and affordable. Storm Windows The use of exterior storm windows should be investigated whenever feasible because they are: 1. Thermally efficient 2. Cost-effective 3. Reversible 4. Allow the retention of original windows Interior storm windows are available and do work best in some situations. Storm windows, in combination with historic windows, can provide better energy performance than most modern windows, which utilize insulating glass. Wood storm windows are preferred as wood has a better insulating value than metal. However, aluminum clad storm windows may be allowed provided they do not cover the trim. Storm windows can also provide significant protection from the weather to your historic windows. If old or historic storm windows exist, consider continuing to use them. Storm windows can also be placed on the inside of a window. Weatherstripping is the single most cost-effective way to improve the energy performance of your windows. Energy conservation is no excuse for the wholesale destruction of historic windows which can be made thermally efficient by historically and aesthetically acceptable means. What is the Condition of Your Window? When evaluating the physical condition of windows, look at the following: 1. Window location 2. Condition of paint 3. Condition of frame and sill 4. Condition of sash (rails, stiles and muntins) 5. Glazing problems 6. Hardware 7. Overal condition (excellent, good, fair, poor, etc.) Moisture is the primary contributing factor in wooden window decay. Failure of the paint should not be mistakenly interpreted as a sign that the wood is in poor condition and hence, irreparable. Wood is frequently in sound condition beneath unsightly paint. Window Repair Routine Maintenance needed to upgrade a window to “like new” condition normally includes the following: 1. Some degree of interior and exterior paint removal. 2. Removal and repair of sash (including reglazing and replacement of sash cords and chains, where necessary). 3. Repairs to the frame. 4. Weatherstripping or jamb liners and reinstallation of sash. 5. Repainting. Window Policy, Page 2 of 3 City of Geneva Geneva Historic Preservation Commission 22 S. First Street Geneva, IL 60134 630/232.0818 Window Replacement Replacement windows should match historic windows in: • Style and operation • Dimensions • Materials • True-divided lite • Clad wood windows are okay on secondary or tertiary facades • Avoid bronze anodized aluminum Look at the following when replacing windows: 1. Pattern and size of the openings 2. Proportions of the frame and sash 3. Configuration of window panes 4. Muntin profiles 5. Type of wood 6. Paint color 7. Characteristics of the glass 8. Other details (arched hoods, decorative elements, etc.) Resources • “Fixing Double-Hung Windows.” Old House Journal (no. 12, 1979): 135. • Look, David W. “Preservation Brief #10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982. • Phillips, Morgan and Selwyn, Judith. Epoxies for Wood Repairs in Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (Government Printing Office, Stock No. 024-016-00095-1), 1978. • “Sealing Leaky Windows.” Old House Journal (no. 1, 1973): 5. • Smith, Baird M. “Preservation Brief #3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1978. • Myers, John H. “Preservation Brief #9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1981. • Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief #13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. • See the following web page to view the Preservation Briefs: http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1983. • NPS Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: http://www.gsa.gov/web/p/hptp.nsf/Guidelines+for+Rehabilitating+Historic+Buildings?OpenView • Carmody, John, Heschong, Lisa and Selkowitz, Stephen. Residential Windows: A Guide to New Technologies and Energy Performance. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996. • Caring for Your Historic House. Heritage Preservation and National Park Service. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1998. • McAlester, Virginia and McAlester, Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997. • The Window Handbook: Successful Strategies for Rehabilitating Windows in Historic Buildings (16 different NPS Tech Notes on Windows). • The Window Workbook for Historic Buildings (Companion to the Handbook, contains technical papers and listings for windows and restoration products). • See the following web page to view the Preservation Tech Notes: http://www.gsa.gov/web/p/hptp.nsf/NPS+Preservation+Tech+Notes?OpenView • New York Landmarks Conservancy, “Repairing Old and Historic Windows: A Manual for Architects and Homeowners.” Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1992. • Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits: http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/fax/tax_t.htm Window Policy, Page 3 of 3 July 21, 2015 229 West State Street, Agenda Item 4A FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The property continues to function as a commercial / office building. be placed in a new use that requires minimal Originally constructed as a bank, the first floor is now occupied by a change to the defining characteristics of the national coffee and bakery franchise (Starbuck’s). building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The windows were altered after 1970 and, again later, as part of the retained and preserved. The removal of historic storefront remodeling which removed the classical, pedimented entry materials or alteration of features and spaces that portico with flanking limestone columns. At that time, one window characterize a property shall be avoided. opening towards Third Street was infilled. Most recently, the remaining Third Street window was damaged and repaired without a permit, resulting on the present permit application for three (3) windows. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The proposed work does not create a false sense of historical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that development. The proposed windows closely match the apparent create a false sense of historical development, historic frame size and configuration within the existing opening. such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes N/A that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The proposed windows will fill the entirety of the exposed window techniques or examples of craftsmanship that openings; the window openings were reduced in height as part of the characterize a property shall be preserved. storefront remodeling. The existing windows are not historic windows. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The historic material of the window sash is indeterminable. It is likely rather than replaced. Where the severity of that the original windows may have been constructed with wood sash deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive and frames; however, no historic elements remain to provide physical feature, the new feature shall match the old in evidence of the original windows. 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 propose windows do not destroy historic materials or features. construction shall not destroy historic materials The proportions of the proposed windows closely match the details of that characterize the property. The new work shall the historic windows, based on photographic evidence. The proposed be differentiated from the old and shall be windows complement the original size and scale of the historic compatible with the massing, size, scale, and windows.. architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new The proposed work is not intended to alter any historic window construction shall be undertaken in such a manner opening or further alter historic building materials. 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 July 21, 2015 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND Benjamin Ward, The Applicant is requesting permission to complete exterior site Owner improvements as part of a larger rehabilitation project. Mike Howell, REQUEST Carpentry with Integrity The Applicant is seeking approval to erect a freestanding, rear yard pergola for the use of tenants of the rehabilitated historic structure. Request: STAFF ANALYSIS Exterior Site Modifications: The subject property is significant according to the 1999 Architectural Rear Yard Pergola Resources Survey. However, the rear yard was used, historically, for storage and functions ancillary to the commercial and residential occupancies. The proposed pergola does not adversely affect any of the HPC Case Number: known historic features of the property. 2015-065 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us 1885 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map – delineating open space in 2015.  Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 2 Permit Review Current View of West Side Yard View circa 1968 prior to demolition of frame commercial building to west of Yates Building July 21, 2015 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 Modifications) 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 Detached, Rear Yard Pergola, located where storage buildings of unknown Features Consistent with architectural character once stood. The early and subsequent storage buildings Architectural Style and POS: are not considered significant at this property. (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural None 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 N/A HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: None received. (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze)  123 west State 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 Historically, this lot was developed for commercial and residential use be placed in a new use that requires minimal The rear (northerly) portion of this site has been undeveloped except change to the defining characteristics of the for the installation of a gravel parking area. building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be This proposed work does not impact the historic character of the site. 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 The developed outdoor space reflects the desire to provide for record of its time, place, and use. Changes that outdoor gathering space that complements the rehabilitated create a false sense of historical development, commercial and residential interior functions. 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 The proposed new work does not alter or destroy any known, project shall be protected and preserved. If such significant historic features of the property. resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed new work does not alter or destroy any known, construction shall not destroy historic materials significant historic features 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 work does not impact the historic elements of the construction shall be undertaken in such a manner property. that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards. Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4C 321 Hamilton Street July 21, 2015 Permit Review Applicant: BACKGROUND First Congregational Church – The Applicant is requesting permission to complete exterior site United Church of Christ, improvements. Owner REQUEST Lynnly Buchanan, The Applicant is seeking approval to erect a freestanding, rear yard Representative pergola for the use of the congregation and its guests. Alexander Novy, STAFF ANALYSIS Project Coordinator – The subject property is significant according to the 1999 Architectural Eagle Scout Candidate Resources Survey. However, the rear yard was used, historically, as a residential occupancy. The proposed pergola does not adversely affect any of the known historic or archaeological features of the property. Request: Exterior Site Modifications: Rear Yard Pergola HPC Case Number: 2015-066 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us July 21, 2015 321 Hamilton Street, Agenda Item 4C HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Greek Revival Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Limestone Façades Features : 4. Date of Construction: 1856 5. Date(s) of Significant 1873 – Entry Portico / Vestibule Addition(s) and/or 1919 – Art Glass Windows Alteration(s): ca. 1955 - North Addition and Steeple 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1856 - 1965 7. Historic Names Associated Congregational Church with Property: 8. Historic Images: Yes 9. Historic Map Representation: Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. (1885, 1891, 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945) 10. Why is it Important? Significant Religious building (architecture) (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Detached, Rear Yard Pergola, to be located on site of former residence (razed). 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 N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG Yes HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG N/A 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)  July 21, 2015 321 Hamilton Street, Agenda Item 4C FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or Historically, this lot was developed for residential use; however, it has be placed in a new use that requires minimal been cleared and is used, now, as an outdoor gathering space for change to the defining characteristics of the church functions and activities. The site has been developed with a building and its site and environment. garden wall and small patio at the remote east end of the parcel. 2. The historic character of a property shall be This proposed work does not impact the historic character of the site. 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 The developed outdoor space reflects the needs of the established record of its time, place, and use. Changes that congregation for outdoor gathering space that complements its create a false sense of historical development, interior functions. such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The landscaped yard and garden walls /patio have not attained historic that have acquired historic significance in their significance in their own rite. own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction N/A techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired N/A rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as N/A sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new The proposed new work does not alter or destroy any known, construction shall not destroy historic materials significant historic features 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 work does not impact the historic elements of the construction shall be undertaken in such a manner property. that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.