Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 October 20, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the October 20, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke Absent: Commissioner Hiller Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert; Intern Nick Wesendorf Others Present: Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd., Geneva; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – September 15, 2015 Clarification by Commissioner Zinke was noted on Page 2, paragraph beginning with the words “Commissioner Hiller,” last full sentence: Delete the words “did not want to confuse the commissioners” and replace with the words “did not want to confuse the details of the case.” Motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the September 15, 2015 minutes, as revised. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0. 4. Concept Review A. 621 South Street (Case No. 2015-104). Applicant: Robert Akers with Architectural Resources; Robertson Residence; Application for a New Attached Garage . Historic Preservation (Zellmer recuses himself) Planner Lambert reviewed the background of this case and referenced current photos of the home and the site plan. The existing side load garage will be converted to living space while a one and a-half story frame garage will be added, facing the street. Per Mr. Lambert, the proposal is subject to a ZBA review for the side yard setback. Proposed elevations were shown. Lambert confirmed the owner did submit a preliminary zoning compatibility worksheet to the city. Mr. Teipel with Architectural Resources explained that the goal was to match what was currently there. The materials will include wood siding and the garage will be similar to the opposing side. He stated that city staff appeared to be fine with what was being proposed. Commissioner input was supportive of the proposal. 5. HPC Review of HPC Building Permit Applications A. 123 W. State Street (Case No. 2015-065). Applicant: Benjamin Ward, Owner; Mike Howell, Carpentry with Integrity. Application for New Hand Rail attached to Historic Wall. (Applicant not present.) Mr. Lambert said this was a minor case and he shared some of the  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 changes to the proposal, i.e. the new staircase would be straight and the new interior handrail for the staircase would be a white powder-coated railing to match. Concern was raised that the railing was not stainless steel, wherein Mr. Lambert indicated that the anchors would be stainless steel. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the grab rail with the stainless steel anchors to be anchored into the mortar joints. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 B. 312 S. River Lane (Case No. 2015-102). Applicant: Steve Vasilion, Vasilion Architects Inc.; Guy & Kim May, Owners; Application for Addition to an Existing Residence. Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that this case came in for a concept review this past spring. He shared the history behind some of the changes to the home. Lambert stated the plans did go before the ZBA which approved a variance. The most recent renderings were shown. Mr. Steve Vasilion, with Vasilion Architects, reminded the commissioners that the garage elevation will be lowered and enlarged to a two-car garage because it sits too high on the property. The only difference from the concept review was a small rectangular bay window. The second floor will include a screened porch and a small outside terrace with trellis. The existing siding will be replaced with an 8” reveal siding product. The original three-windows on the side of the garage are being salvaged from the existing home and set the theme for the home. Per a question, Mr. Vasilion envisioned starting as soon as possible. Motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to approve the proposal for 312 S. River Lane, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 C. 405 S. River Lane (Case No. 2015-075). Applicant: Mike Schmidt, Schmidt Exteriors; Chris Huot, Owner; Application for Window Replacement. Mr. Lambert explained this application was a window replacement but became a stop order by the city code enforcement officer because there was no window permit issued. The work was on hold for about three months. Per Lambert, this home was one of the first Frazier and Raftery homes and part of the River Lane beautification project back in 1928. A history of this home and the history behind the development of River Lane followed. Photographs were shown of those historic windows on the home that had not yet been replaced. Lambert pointed out the beaded brick mold around the windows while others had straight trim, which was the intent of the architect’s style for the home. Examples of the windows that had been replaced were shown with Lambert explaining that the replacement windows were window inserts and the window openings were slightly smaller than the originals only to save the original jambs, interior casings, and original brick molds. The new windows would conform to the commission’s window policy; however, the spacer bar between the glass would not be bronze – it would be aluminum. On behalf of the owner, Mr. Schmidt with Schmidt Exteriors, Batavia, Illinois, appeared and said a total of 9 windows were replaced and 3 originals needed to be replaced and were located on the first floor front facade. Interior sashes were shown to the commissioners. 2  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 Asked what happened with the owners, Mr. Lambert explained that the window replacements were a house-warming gift from the owners’ parents who did not know a permit was necessary. Lambert said he asked Schmidt Exteriors to prepare cost estimates of what it would cost to restore each original window ($1810.00) as compared to replacing a window ($1100.00). Commissioner Zinke commented she would have preferred to have seen the historic wooden windows repaired and the permit sought; Chairman Roy agreed. However, Commissioners Abplanalp, Zellmer and Salomon, seeing that the other windows were already in place and, for consistency purposes, felt that the remaining three windows would have to be replaced. Motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the remaining 3 windows to be replaced with new windows for conformity. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Chairman Roy Nay: Zinke MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-1 Per Comissioner Zinke’s question, for projects that start without a permit, Lambert explained it was a misdemeanor offense; however, he stated the goal was to bring a project into compliance. If no compliance was met, then the matter would go to adjudication. D. 229 W. State Street (Case No. 2015-099), Applicant: Jack Buttacavoli with Sign Central; Scott Price Owner; Starbucks, Tenant. Application for Sign Lighting. Intern, Mr. Nick Wesendorf, reviewed the application, stating the proposal consists of adding up-lighting to the existing signs located on the west and south facade using a light bar. The building was designated as significant in the 1999 historic survey which was why the proposal was brought to the commissioners. Mr. Jack Buttacavoli with Sign Central, Round Lake, Illinois, explained that he came up with the up-lighting option because the original gooseneck lighting would not work due to the awning having no structure. The letters would be attached to a raceway with the light facing upward. The raceway would be the same color as everything else. Some shadows would be seen. The lighting would be similar to the lighting at the 25 North building. As for the logo, it would be an interior sign. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the signage/lighting for 229 W. State Street, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 E. 305 S. River Lane (Case No. 2015-089). Applicant: Geno Neri, Neri Landscape; Jayne McCulloch, Owner; Application for New Porch Deck. Mr. Lambert reviewed the proposal for this Frazier and Raftery home (1928) and the historic significance behind the home as well as the architectural details and style of the home. Per Lambert, the applicant was seeking to replace the existing wooden front porch flooring with stone to match the formal stone exterior entryway. Mr. Geno Neri with Neri Landscape in St. Charles, said he is proposing to install a flagstone porch in place of the current wood flooring that was deteriorating. The pillars and railing would remain the same. He stated the owner would like the porch to be similar to the main entrance. The existing lattice would be removed and replaced with a stone wall and one step. Commissioner Zinke voiced concern that the small porch was a significant architectural feature of the home, citing the Secretary of Interior (“SOI”) standards. Lambert explained that the SOI standards stated 3  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 original materials should be used in place of original but he also stated that any new alternatives could be returned to the original materials. He also added that there was a precedent already set by this commission using synthetic floor decking at The Little Traveler. Commissioner Zellmer expressed concern that the flag stone may “wick” water up to the wooden pillars and the owner may want to use a synthetic material underneath the wooden pillars. Commissioners discussed the matter further. Given what stone would be used and the fact that the improvement was reversible, it was suggested that a metal stand-off plate be placed under the pillars to address any water concerns. Commissioners favored that suggestion. Chairman Roy invited the public to comment. No comments from the public. Motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the covered porch proposal at 305 S. River with the addition of a metal standoff plate installed under each pillar. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 F. 212 S. Fifth Street (Case No. 2014-093). Applicant: Brian Kay, George Kay & Associates; Gary Reno, Owner; Application for New Site Paving. Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that this was the former Merritt King home and the new owner would like to complete his site plan. Mr. Lambert described the two proposals on the overhead -- one as the original proposal and the other as more recently proposed, noting that the more recently proposed plan had less lot coverage. He recalled the plan was to reuse the original brick coming from the Campbell Street side, reminding the commissioners that the brick was salvaged from an Elgin street project from the 1970s, but that the HPC wanted to somehow incorporate the brick into the paving of the site. The revised landscape plan reflected only the walkway with the blue stone. Mr. Brian Kay with George Kay & Associates in Geneva, distributed bluestone samples for the patio and walks noting that one hundred percent of the remaining brick at the home would be re-used on the property. A small brick border will be used around the front walk. Mr. Kay shared a drawing of what brickwork was planned for the driveway, stating he had about 800 to 900 square feet remaining but it was not enough for the entire driveway. Therefore, in trying to find a solution he was recommending to place the bluestone chips down where there was not enough bluestone brick and because the city had a zoning code that gravel could not be used for driveways. Mr. Kay, in thinking through the matter a bit more, recommended that the crushed bluestone be confined to a specific area. Asked if the crush bluestone could be used for the parking area as a landscape feature, Lambert was amenable because the stone would now be off the street. However, he offered to take back any suggestions to the public works staff and to the planning director. A thorough discussion followed among the commissioners followed. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to approve the revised plan and the new materials, as presented, showing the amount of crushed bluestone that can be reconfigured to be acceptable to staff’s requirements. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 4  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 G. 201 S. First Street (Case No. 2015-103). Applicant: Bart Biesecker, Owner; Peerless Fence, Contractor; Application for New Front Yard Fence. Mr. Lambert described the fence proposal noting it was coming before the commissions because the property was significant and a fence was being installed in the front street yard which he could not approve administratively. Also, the proposed fence was aluminum and came in two heights: 36 inches and 48 inches and the city code required 42” inches. Should the commission approve the request, Lambert said it would have to go before the ZBA for a height variance. Owner, Mr. Bart Biesecker, 201 S. First Street, confirmed the non-streetside fence would be a six-foot wooden fence constructed of copperwood. While he initially wanted the front fence to be similar to his neighbors, he stated that proposal changed. Mr. Lambert explained that some of Mr. Biersecker’s neighbors’ fences were approved and installed before certain IDOT regulations went in place which did not allow private work in a public right-of-way. Therefore, the city now required owners to meet IDOT’s requirements. Mr. Biesecker stated he received two fence proposals from Peerless Fence (both fences came in 36” or 48” inch standards) but he did not made a decision yet and told Peerless he was looking at 42” inches, wherein Peerless indicated it was not a standard and would have to get back to him with some 42” inch proposals. The two fence proposals were referenced and Mr. Biesecker indicated he was fine with either proposal. Commissioners were also fine with either example. Mr. Biesecker said he preferred the 48” inch fence due to safety and having a dog. Dialog followed on where the fence would line up on the property. Motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to approve the fence request, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 H. 28 S. Sixth Street (Case No. 2015-096). Applicant: Michael & Jolynn Loisi, Owners; Application for New Front Yard Fence. Mr. Lambert reviewed the front yard fence request for Sixth and James Streets which will meet the 42” inch height requirement. He also referenced an email from Colin and Gloriann Campbell who supported the fence request. Owners Michael and Jolynn Loisi were present. Ms. Loisi explained in more detail where the fence would be installed. They also had a dog. She requested the 42” fence height. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the fence request at the 42” height. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 I. 315 James Street (Case No. 2015-097). Applicant: Ed O’Connell; Mary Buchowski, Owner; Application for New Entry Door. Mr. Lambert reviewed the historical significance behind this Frazier and Raftery building (built circa 1948) and presented a current and a historic photo of the building, noting the difference in doors. He stated he was asked by former economic development coordinator Ellen Divita whether or not the front door could be removed on the building, wherein he stated he provided prior excerpts of correspondence on this building to the commissioners. In reviewing the file and correspondence, it became apparent to Mr. Lambert that the front door was an intrical part of the historic building. The application sought replacement for a 5  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 storm door, which normally did not require a permit; however, because the building was a commercial building, it did require a permit and review by the building department and fire department. As a result, a stop order was issued on this property because there was not permit filed. Mr. Lambert stated that a new storm door was installed but it was different in that it had a fixed transom with a standard size door versus the three-window oversize door that was original to the building. Furthermore, he mentioned there were prior controversial discussions that took place regarding a second floor addition in years prior, which the City Council ultimately approved. Architectural details on the building followed. In reading through the case file, the interior bi-fold doors were decorative and the primary door was the exterior door and not a storm door. Mr. Lambert summarized that the issue was really whether the outside door was ever really a storm door. Per Lambert, former Community Development director Dick Untch reviewed this file and determined that the door was iconic, new hardware could have been installed to make the door more operable, and the door could not be replaced. This information was provided to Ms. Divita who, in turn, conveyed the information to the owner. Mr. Ed O’Connell, tenant of the building, explained that he had tried to get the door replaced for some time because it was a safety issue. It was nine feet tall and 42”-inches wide (143 lbs.) and the western wind blew the door onto his customers. He once had a female patron who broke her leg due to the wind blowing it closed on her leg. In April 2015, a large storm came through and “sprung the door” and Mr. O’Connell said it could no longer close; the hinges had been split. Mr. O’Connell described how he altered the new door to keep with Mr. Frazier’s original three-window design and he did not believe it changed too much. While he said he did not want to change the door, he said he had to for safety issues and to keep mice, etc. out of his building. He said the new door weighed 78 pounds and no one had noticed it for four and a half months. Ten years prior he said he saved the door but due to it being 65 years old and wooden, he stated it “lost its lifespan.” He explained that the interior bi-fold doors were beautiful maple doors that someone painted over. The original outside door, he presumed, was now in a landfill. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to explain his reasons for replacing the door – safety for his customers – and the fact that he did look into door closures at the home center stores. Mr. Zellmer indicated such closure systems would not be found at a home center store; it would be through a hardware specialist. After some lengthy discussion and the commissioners sharing their concerns that the original door was discarded, Mr. O’Connell then stated he did apply for a permit for the door and did present plans to the commission for the exact size of door he was going to replace. He stated the commission asked for specifications from the manufacturer but because there was no manufacturer, “it was a custom-made door” he made himself. He also stated he was not going to build a door until a storm damaged it even though he said he submitted paperwork last fall but now was not sure. For the record, however, Mr. Lambert stated no permit ever came across his desk for this building’s address in the three years he had been working with the city. In further conversation it was determined that the owner had been speaking with Ms. Divita regarding the door and not the HPC. The owner had become recently ill which was why Mr. O’Connell said he was attending the meeting. Mr. Lambert then clarified that Ms. Divita did seek his opinion on this matter, which he said was provided in his January 29th email along with input from former Director Untch. Mr. Lambert also reported that he was the person who noticed the door had been replaced after Labor Day and it was then he recalled the discussion of this matter after a year he began working for the city. He further explained the steps he followed after that. 6  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 Resident Ms. Liz Safanda stated she walked by the building yesterday (windy day) and stated the bottom half of the door was propped open with a rope. The top portion was fixed. She stated there was no image of the three unit as stated by Mr. O’Connell. She emphasized the building was a gem and the door was an integral part of the building’s design. She shared her disappointment that building permits are not sought out by the residents. Other comments from the commissioners were that the door should be replicated and reinstalled. It was one of the last pieces of the building that retained its significance. Mr. Zellmer explained that the door could have been replicated with other material and appropriate hardware if there were safety issues. Commissioner Salomon pointed out the main issues at hand: 1) Mr. O’Connell did not contact the city or the fire department to find out whether the new door he installed was safe; 2) proper procedures were not followed; 3) available city resources were ignored; and 4) the door and hardware options were not explored. Mr. Lambert pointed out to Mr. O’Connell that there were alternative door materials and hardware systems available to handle such oversized doors. Mr. O’Connell stated he would look for “alternative hardware.” Mr. Salomon also recommended that Mr. O’Connell follow up with ADA compatibility for his entrance but Lambert said that was probably addressed by the building department when the addition was put on the second floor. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp to approve the new entry door proposal, as submitted. Roll call: Aye: None Nay: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy MOTION FAILED. VOTE: 0-5 Commissioner Zellmer made a motion that the front entry door be replaced to be similar in shape, size, and proportion to the original/historic door and that the new door be in new material (aluminum or PVC) and the owner to consider hardware/closure options so that the door is functional. Seconded by Commissioner Salomon. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 Mr. O’Connell stated he would replace the door if he found hardware that fit in it. Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva, IL, stated there were a number of individuals who could restore windows and doors, specifically, the Historic House and Window Restoration company in Aurora, Illinois. She pointed out this building was significant to her since she was depicted as a child in the historic photograph of the building and the architects were friends of her parents. Ms. Safanda agreed with Commissioner Salomon’s comments regarding this matter and emphasized the importance of this building. Ms. Safanda offered to find out if the original architectural plans existed for the building and would contact John Raftery. J. 616 Franklin Street (Case No. 2015-098). Applicant: Giovanni Aguilar, golden Fence Co.; Cindy Moore, Owner; Application for New Front Yard Fence. Mr. Lambert described the straight-forward proposal for a wooden cedar fence. The commissioners were seeing this proposal because the fence was in the front yard of a significant building. Motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the fence proposal, as presented. Roll call: 7  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 Per Commissioner Zinke’s question regarding whether the commission should rethink its matrix regarding fences coming before the HPC versus being administratively approved by staff, Mr. Lambert stated he preferred that such proposals come before the HPC due to the fences being in the front yard and the material being used was the purview of this commission. K. 322 S. River Lane (Case No. 2015-100). Applicant: Mark Nyman, Contractor; Kirk Huot, Owner; Application for New Front Porch Railing. Mr. Lambert reviewed the application for this home, specifically a porch railing was being installed for safety purposes. Two porch railings examples were shown – a wooden-looking PVC railing and an aluminum powder-coated black railing (owner’s preference) which would be mounted between the pillar and the stone wall with a railing down the steps. Commissioners preferred the black aluminum railing. Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp to approve the porch railing, as presented, with the railing to be aluminum powder-coated black, as preferred by the owner. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0 6. Secretary’s Report/Update A. CAMP Training Workshop – Per Lambert, the training workshop is scheduled for November 14, 2015 and has had a good response. Details followed. The city’s aldermen will be invited. Former HPC Commissioner Nanette Andersson will be assisting at the workshop. B. Public Outreach Brochures – Lambert hopes to have sample brochures at the December meeting. Details followed. C. Historic Preservation Ordinance Update – The draft ordinance is scheduled to come before the November 9th Committee of the Whole meeting. However, the city attorney is asking for more discussion between himself, Lambert and Director DeGroot, which may push the ordinance to a later date. As a general comment, Lambert said the owner consent issue, as far as constitutionality, appears to be a national topic; not just a Geneva topic. General dialog followed. Mr. Doug Karre with the Village of Oak Park’s Historic Preservation Commission has asked Mr. Lambert to be a juror for the village’s preservation awards. Lastly, Lambert reported that, to date, he has received 109 permits and he expects to break that number by year-end. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – None. B. From the Public – None. 8  Historic Preservation Commission October 20, 2015 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Salomon. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0. 9