Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 109 James Street 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes August 18, 2015 Geneva, IL 60134 4. Permit Review Time: A. 21 North Fourth Street CASE 2015-072 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Patrick Griffin, GriffinWilliams LLP Tim Nelson, Architect Permit review of: Proposed Façade Modifications Commissioners: Scott Roy, Chairman B. 213 South Fifth Street CASE 2015-079 Jennifer Ablanalp Applicant: Joe and Janet Norris, Owner Al Hiller Sean Gallagher, Architect George Salomon Permit review of: Proposed Rear Addition Paul Zellmer Carolyn Zinke C. 27 West State Street CASE 2015-085 Applicant: Mark Antonelli, Owner Ralph Falatto, Contractor Staff Liaison: Permit review of: Proposed Façade Modifications Michael A. Lambert Preservation Planner 5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) 630/938.4541 6. New Business preservation@geneva.il.us A. From the Commission B. From the Public 7. Adjournment Next HPC meeting: October 20, 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 109 James Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 August 18, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the August 18, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Salomon, Hiller, Zellmer Absent: Commissioner Zinke Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert Others Present: Brian and Lisa Goewey, 601 Forest View, Geneva; Jim Boleander, Steve and Patti Rambo, 602 Forest View, Geneva; Karen Fitzgerald, 1145 Keim Ct. Geneva; Tim Nelson, 1007 James St., Geneva; Pat Griffin, 501 W. James St., Geneva; Lisa Hellman, 516 Franklin St., Geneva; Jen Kelly, 803 Dow, Geneva; Sheree Womack, 321 N. Third, Geneva; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Chairman Roy reviewed the protocol for the meeting. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – July 21, 2015 Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the July 21, 2015 minutes, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote of 4-0-1 (Abstain: Abplanalp) 4. Concept Review A. 21 N. Fourth Street (Case No. 2015-072) Applicant: Patrick Griffin, Griffin Williams, LLP/Tim Nelson, Architect; Proposed Facade Modifications. Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert explained the applicant is proposing to add three windows on the west location of the building and relocate the door on the north elevation. Architect, Mr. Nelson, confirmed that three windows were being proposed for interior offices and they would be aluminum casement with transoms above with the same finish. The door was being relocated because the current location was to accommodate a stairwell and space for a future elevator. Mr. Nelson explained that the current Dryvit piers located on the west elevation will be removed to expose the original brick building. The metal awning/roof will be painted and the gable above the front door will be a shingle-sided material (possibly wood or Hardieboard) with a sign above for the law firm. Owner, Mr. Griffin, owner anticipated the lighting for the sign would be gooseneck. The roof will be repainted either the Starbucks roof color or the blue that is on the Pure Oil roof. Mr. Nelson stated that in removing the door, he would try to match the brick as closely as possible. Commissioner Abplanalp recommended reusing any old brick. Mr. Griffin, in speaking further, mentioned that his contractor had also suggested reusing brick from the windows. Asked  Historic Preservation Commission July 21, 2015 why this was a concept review, Mr. Lambert stated the applicant was still working on some final details and it was a courtesy to the commission. Overall, the commissioners supported the proposal and asked staff to move it forward. 5. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 13 N. Third Street (Case No. 2015-073). Applicant: Jim Bolenger, CFA5Architects; Brian Goewey, Owner; Application for Facade Modifications. Mr. Lambert reminded commissioners that this building formerly housed the Great Harvest Bread Company store until 2014. Originally, the building was moved from State and Third Streets in 1901 to become a restaurant. Historic photographs of the structure followed. Mr. Lambert pointed out how the original frame house became wrapped within multiple masonry additions. Because this was an unusual structure and Mr. Lambert was not sure how to proceed so he contacted the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (“IHPA”). Also, this building was not included in the 1999 architectural survey because it was outside the period of significance that was being reviewed at that time. The IHPA recommended that the building be reviewed as a typical 20th Century (commercial architecture) development where there were one-story masonry additions added to frame structures. Should the petitioner decide to move forward with any of the state’s incentives, Mr. Lambert explained the IHPA would be looking to ensure that the brick building continues to be attached to the frame house. Of interest, however, was that the first floor of the framed residence did not exist anymore because it has been removed over the years and was supported by steel beams. Mr. Lambert then presented a current photo of a restaurant located in Wheaton, Illinois which housed the same restaurant business that was being proposed for the Third Street location. Mr. Brian Goewey, owner, handed out a sample of the wooden material (hickory) that would be placed on the facade. Mr. Chris Williams, contractor for the project, explained how the wood product would be attached to the building, i.e., via panels and through the mortar line and not through the brick. The existing door would be removed and replaced with a new door with the same glass, and the frame would remain. Details followed regarding the finish and the installation of the wooden panels onto the building. The window frames would remain and be repaired and repainted black. The wood panel material would cover only the brick shown in the photograph. As to exposing additional brick on the west elevation, Mr. Goewey stated it was looked at but they wanted to go with what was being presented tonight. Commissioner Hiller proceeded to express concern about setting a precedent covering historic facades since a majority of the city’s projects involved removing false fronts and to expose the original materials. He cited various examples around the city. He appreciated the owner making the facade removable, but also appreciated the historic charm of being able to tell it was a historic house converted into a commercial building. While he was not supportive of the overall design in keeping with the character of the historic district, he was not totally against the project. Hiller suggested scaling down the facade to expose more brickwork; Zellmer concurred. Mr. Goewey further explained how the exterior theme is carried into the interior of the building. Chairman Roy also agreed with Hiller’s comments and preferred to have the architectural wooden band at the top of the structure but recommended removing more of the wooden material between the windows and the sides of the windows. On that point, Mr. Goewey then distributed another option he had considered, which the commissioners favored because more brickwork was exposed. The chairman opened up the meeting to public comment: 2  Historic Preservation Commission July 21, 2015 Mr. Steve Rambo, 602 Forest View Drive favored the contemporary look so he preferred the first option; however, he favored this facade over paint. Motion by Commissioner Hiller to accept the proposal for 13 N. Third Street, using Exhibit A as the new facade. The gooseneck lighting was acceptable. Seconded by Commissioner Salomon. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 6. Secretary’s Report A. Window Policy Discussion – Mr. Lambert referenced the summaries he sent out previously regarding the window policies for the City of Geneva, the IHPA, and the National Park Service. He stated that when he first started with the city, the IHPA contacted him and told him that Geneva was one of two communities with the most stringent requirements for window replacements than the state and the National Park Service. At a previous time he said the commission decided to keep it current window policy but then more recently Commissioner Zinke asked staff to review the city’s policy again. Because the window policy was adopted by resolution by city council in 2010 as part of the commission’s design guidelines, he would have to prepare an executive summary for next Monday’s Committee of the Whole meeting. Mr. Lambert indicated that some window projects were on hold were waiting to hear what this commission decides. As proposed, Mr. Lambert explained that Geneva’s new standards for a window policy would be as follows: - For historic windows in good condition, there is no change in city’s policy; - For historic windows in poor condition, the city would allow duplication with historic or alternative materials or require interior and exterior muntins with spacer bars (in a bronze material). Zellmer asked who determines what “poor condition” means, to which Mr. explained that the commission would make the judgment. Some examples were cited. Continuing, Mr. Lambert explained there was no provision for economic hardship in the city’s current window policy; however, under the proposed changes, there would be a provision but there would also be a process to determine economic hardship. Again, the commissioners would make a decision on that provision. For primary and street-facing windows: - For windows not original to the building and less than 50 years old but also having evidence of historic windows: the city would allow replacement with historic or alternative materials and require interior and exterior muntins with spacer bars (in a bronze color); - For windows not original to a building and less than 50 years old but no evidence of historic windows: the city would allow replacement with historic or alternate materials and require interior and exterior muntins with spacer bars (in a bronze color). For secondary or non-street-facing elevations: 3  Historic Preservation Commission July 21, 2015 - For historic windows in good or poor condition: the city would allow replacement with historic or an alternate material but, direction would be needed as to what “visible from the street” meant for interior street yards. Mr. Lambert explained how the IHPCA determined this requirement currently and pointed out how the city’s policy penalized residents with large side yards. Regarding the Merritt King House, Lambert talked about the historic windows in the rear portion of the home and believed, in his opinion, that somewhere in the city’s window policy a provision should exist that allows where there is a very significant historic or older portion of a house that pre-dates 1865, which is Geneva’s earliest architecture, that those windows be considered for restoration. (A strong case would need to be made.) Lambert stated that both the IHPA and the National Park Service do not address this issue in their policies, but when the two IHPA representatives were meeting with him, they said the issue was becoming a larger discussion as people were starting to realize that many older homes were built from the back to the front. Lastly, secondary, non-street-facing elevations with windows of any age not original to the building: the city would allow replacement with historic or alternative materials and require interior and exterior muntins with spacer bars (bronze). Upon hearing staff’s discussion on the matter, the commissioners were fine with the material changes but discussed how to determine windows “viewable from the street.” Lambert pointed out that the IHPA used a discernable break (change in plane) in the side elevation. He said he discussed this topic with Anthony Rubano and Darius Byrjka whom stated the commissioners could use a plane break or use a specific amount of feet from the front of a house to make a determination. Commissioners were supportive of using a significant plane break and staff’s recommendation for the provision “to retain and restore original windows of good condition which are evidence of significant pre-1865 construction, even if found on the rear elevation.” A short conversation was raised regarding those window projects that were underway and those that were approved under the old window policy. Commissioner Hiller also confirmed that none of the above changes that were discussed would affect someone’s ability to obtain a tax freeze. As a last comment, Chairman Roy said that Commissioner Zinke was supportive of revising the city’s policy with those of the IHPA and National Park Service. Commissioner Abplanalp moved to approve the window policy changes, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Salomon. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Hiller, Zellmer, Chairman Roy Nay: None B. Promotional Brochure – Lambert recalled for the commissioners that Zinke raised this issue and drafted some brochure samples. He reminded commissioners that he emailed them the brochure that was created previously by the National Trust and which identified the significant benefits of historic designation. He asked the commissioners to provide their input because he would be creating a tri-fold for the city. Commissioners expressed concern that if there was too much information no one would read the brochure. Lambert offered to have an abbreviated version of the brochure at the city’s two counters and then a more elaborate version on the city’s web site, possibly as a downloadable .pdf file, as suggested by Commissioner Abplanalp. Lambert also suggested dividing the brochure into the benefits for residential and for commercial structures, adding some photographs, and then possibly obtaining some quotes from residents who had received tax credit projects. Hiller suggested having a televised version of the brochure ready for the next city council meeting. Lambert would also speak to the I.T. Department and possibly have 4  Historic Preservation Commission July 21, 2015 some “fun facts” added to the video. Due to his timeline schedule, Lambert envisioned getting this project to the village council by November/December with a final run starting in the new year. Mr. Lambert provided an update on the Sixth Street School, stating that the survey work for the school was completed. The consultant was working on the narrative as well as some proposed boundary changes to the National Register district with the intention of combining the two historic districts for the National Register. Per Lambert, the goal is to have a draft of the National Register’s proposed changes in front of this commission for its September meeting, followed by the consultant applying to the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council. Lambert clarified that the nomination process was not new but was, instead, an amendment to the existing nomination. Concern was raised that adding additions to the district could bring out the residents. However, Mr. Lambert explained the difference between the National Register’s district and the city’s local district, noting the city’s district was larger than the National Register’s district and nothing was being changed for property owners under the city’s current local district. Lambert proceeded to explain the difference between the National Register and the local historical district. Commissioners were also updated on the 127 First Street garage addition. Mr. Lambert recalled that the commission approved the garage addition in form and mass but left staff to work out the details. Based on his experience with this project, Lambert stated he will either recommend that the commission make a decision or have something return to the commission rather than leaving the details to staff. He believed the commission was not clear enough and that he may have encouraged the commission to move a project forward faster than it should have. Continuing, Mr. Lambert reported that review of the Historic Preservation Ordinance continues and it will return to the Committee of the Whole meeting next week. He intends to present some of the topics that were not discussed that were new elements to the ordinance and invited the commissioners to attend the August 24, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting. Based on input there, he will redraft the ordinance and return it to the Committee of the Whole. Commissioner Abplanalp mentioned she was following the ordinance revisions via YouTube and said it sounded like the council wanted to remove the conservation district portion; Lambert confirmed they did want it removed. Regarding the owner consent issue, Mr. Lambert said he received two different legal opinions on the matter and proceeded to explain the case law behind them to the commissioners. After hearing much discussion about requiring 51% approval, Lambert stated he and Development Director David DeGroot discussed the matter and determined the city would follow the Illinois zoning model which states that if 20% of the property owners affected by the zoning change object then it requires a supermajority of the city council. A description of the simple process followed. Lastly, Lambert stated that many communities are watching this commission on resolving the issues being raised. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – None. B. From the Public – None. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0. 5 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 21 North Fourth Street September 15, 2015 Window and Façade Modifications Applicant: BACKGROUND Patrick Griffin for The structure at 21 North Fourth Street was constructed, according to the GriffinWilliams LLP / 1999 Architectural Survey, in the early 1980s as a retail store for Giesche GWF Real Estate Holdings LLC, Shoes. Owners The 1999 Architectural Survey classifies this property as “non- contributing” within the Historic District. Tim Nelson, The storefront was remodeled with the addition of some decorative piers Tim Nelson Architects and Prairie School-inspired light fixtures at some point after the original construction date. This project was submitted to the HPC for Concept review at its regular meeting of August 18, 2015; the HPC found the proposal to be favorable Request: at that time. No significant modifications have been made since the Permit Review: Concept Review. Facade Modifications REQUEST The current owners desire to remove the storefront piers and lighting. HPC Case Number: Additionally, the proposed design includes the addition of three windows facing Fourth Street as well as the addition of decorative shingle siding 2015-072 within the existing gable above the main entry off Fourth Street. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 mlambert@geneva.il.us Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 213 South Fifth Street September 15, 2015 Proposed Rear Addition Applicant: BACKGROUND Joe and Janet Norris, Owners The structure at 213 South Fifth Street was constructed, according to the 1999 Architectural Survey, in 1893. The construction period of the Norris Sean Gallagher, Architect home can be verified as built between September 1891 and October 1897, according to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. maps for Geneva, IL. The similar Queen Anne house to the south was built during the same time period. Request: Permit Review: The 1999 Architectural Survey classifies this property as “contributing” Proposed Rear Addition within the Historic District. The Norris’ home was built as part of the property to the north; however, the Norris’ property was subdivided from the north parcel between 1905 HPC Case Number: and 1912. Likely, the builder of the Norris home was the owner of that 2015-079 north parcel, but that information has not been verified by Staff. The Crichton family is not associated with the 213 S. Fifth Street property until after 1910 but before 1920. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert John William Crichton (often mis-spelled as Creighton) was born in Preservation Planner Dundee (Kane County), Illinois on 15 Sep 1853 to William Robert Crichton 630/938.4541 (1820-1900) and Grace (Todd) Crichton (1827-1913). The parents were mlambert@geneva.il.us born in Scotland and were part of the Crichton clan that immigrated to the Dundee, Illinois area and became quite successful in dairy farming. John William Crichton married Mary Jane Cooper (1857-1911). They had at least three children: Harry (b. 1882); Edith (b. 1888) and Wilbur (b. 1898). The Crichton family farmed in Geneva Township. In 1920, John Crichton is living at the 213 South Fifth Street property, as the owner, with his son, Wilbur (given name: John Wilbur Crichton), who was a truck driver for a local lumber yard. John Crichton (the father) died in 1925, so the family—mot probably—sold the house at that time or shortly thereafter. The Crichton family was associated with the Fifth Street house for less than 15 years, most probably.  September 15, 2015 Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 2 Proposed Rear Addition REQUEST The current owners propose to remove an existing rear yard deck and construct a new, two- story addition to the rear of the home. The proposed expansion meets lot coverage and Tear Down / Infill regulations. The project has received a favorable review for the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) as part of a Tax assessment freeze Program application. EXISTING SITE – 213 SOUTH FIFTH STREET PROPOSED SITE – 213 SOUTH FIFTH STREET WEST ELEVATION  ADDITION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION  ADDITION NORTH ELEVATION September 15, 2015 213 South Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4B HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Contributing Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Queen Anne Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Clapboard siding and shingle siding with architectural detail, roofline, window Features : variety 4. Date of Construction: 1893 5. Date(s) of Significant unknown Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1893 - 1965 7. Historic Names Associated Crichton / Creighton with Property: 8. Historic Images: None 9. Historic Map Representation: Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. maps (1891, 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1930, 1945) 10. Why is it Important? Excellent example of a Queen Anne cottage. (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Exterior siding and details will replicate and complement the architecture of the Features Consistent with historic residence. 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 The proposed addition is consistent with the recommendations of the design HPC Design Guidelines: guidelines; the addition is set back from the original wall plane of the historic portion of the residence. The addition could be removed with minimal impact on the historic residence. 15. Compliance with COG Yes. HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG Yes. HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: IHPA has reviewed the proposed addition as part of a Tax Assessment Freeze (Projects utilizing or program participation request. IHPA initially had concerns about the shed roof potentially utilizing Rehab dormers and had requested that the pitch of the roofs be lowered so that the Tax Credit or Tax Assessment dormers were not visible form the street. After a site visit, IHPA determined that Freeze) the new dormers at the rear addition could not be seen from the street. IHPA also encouraged the retention of the historic chimney. September 15, 2015 213 South Fifth Street, Agenda Item 4B FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The property will continue to be used reside3ntially. be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The historic character of the property will be retained, the addition retained and preserved. The removal of historic replicates the historic architecture but is differentiated by a break in materials or alteration of features and spaces that planes. characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The addition replicates the historic architecture but is differentiated by record of its time, place, and use. Changes that a break in planes. create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The rear of the home has been altered over time and will be impacted that have acquired historic significance in their by the proposed addition. own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The historic architectural features will be preserved. techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired Where affected by the proposed new construction, features will be rather than replaced. Where the severity of repaired to be consistent with the historic architecture. 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 (the building had been previously sandblasted and the resulting sandblasting, that cause damage to historic condition cannot be reversed). 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 addition replicates the historic architecture but is differentiated by construction shall not destroy historic materials a break in planes. The rear of the home has been altered over time and that characterize the property. The new work shall will be impacted by the proposed addition. 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 addition, if removed, would leave the majority of the original construction shall be undertaken in such a manner residence unharmed. 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 27 West State Street September 15, 2015 Soffit Modifications Applicant: BACKGROUND Mark Antonelli, The structure at 27 West State Street was constructed before 1850, Owner according to the 1999 Architectural Survey and other historic documentation. Likely, the building was erected between 1845 and 1848 Ralph Falatto, and, as such, is one of the earliest commercial structures in the City of Contractor Geneva. The 1999 Architectural Survey classifies this property as “significant” within the Historic District. The storefront is largely intact and retains original fenestration openings Request: as well as the original projecting eave at the street facade. Permit Review: REQUEST Soffit Modifications The historic soffit material (only the horizontal board) has begun to cup and splinter, leading to deterioration. The board cannot be made flat again. Therefore, the Applicant requests to replace the soffit material HPC Case Number: with an exterior grade, smooth-faced plywood. The historic bed molding 2015-085 will be retained, stripped, re-installed, and re-painted. Once completed, the repair should be indiscernible to the unaided eye from ground level. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 mlambert@geneva.il.us Existing Eave Conditions at 27 West State Street September 15, 2015 27 West State 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 Two-Part Commercial Style(s) or Type: National Style – Late Federal 3. Significant Architectural Limestone façade with original fenestration openings, pitched roof with projected Features : eave, raised side gable parapets. 4. Date of Construction: Before 1848 (within first 15 years of settlement of the City of Geneva) Geneva History Museum dates the building to 1850 5. Date(s) of Significant 1998 – West Addition Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): Circa 1845 - 2015 7. Historic Names Associated Lance House with Property: Dunham Building 8. Historic Images: Yes 9. Historic Map Representation: Alice Schwenkler’s 1848 Birdseye Map of Geneva; 1869 Birdseye Map of Geneva; Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Maps (1885, 1891, 1897, 1905, 1912, 1923, 1935, 1945) 10. Why is it Important? Very Early, Extant Commercial Building (Context / Significance) 11. Proposed Architectural Soffit material to change; architectural character will not change Features Consistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Soffit material is not historic but, once painted, will replicate historic appearance Features Inconsistent with as constructed originally. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG Yes. Compatible materials; retention of historic bed molding. 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. (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze)  September 15, 2015 27 West State Street, Agenda Item 4C FINDING OF FACT – STAFF ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or The proposed work will not modify the historic or present use as be placed in a new use that requires minimal commercial retail / business use. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be Removal of deteriorated soffit material will not substantially alter the retained and preserved. The removal of historic character of the historic structure. The historic bed molding will be materials or alteration of features and spaces that retained, stripped, re-painted, and re-installed. The finished condition characterize a property shall be avoided. will replicate the historic appearance. 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 with the proposed work. that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The existing soffit is cupped, splitting, and deteriorated. The existing, techniques or examples of craftsmanship that historic bed molding will be preserved. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The existing deteriorated soffit cannot be returned to a flat condition; rather than replaced. Where the severity of the cupping has become exaggerated such that the soffit is no longer deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive tight to weather or bird/insect infiltration. 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 Stripping and repair of the existing, historic bed molding shall be done sandblasting, that cause damage to historic with care and gentle paint removal (no sandblasting). materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a N/A project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new N/A construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new N/A construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.