Muyni
← Back to Geneva

Historic Preservation Commission

Regular Meeting

Geneva, IL · November 17, 2015

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 November 17, 2015, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the November 17, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:03 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Hiller, Salomon, Zinke Absent: Commissioners Abplanalp, Zellmer Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert Others Present: Residents Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd., Geneva; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2015 Motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the October 20, 2015 minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 3-0-1 (Hiller abstains.) . 4. Permit Review A. 516 Campbell Street (Case No. 2015-110). Applicant: Timothy Feeney, Owner; Zack Tentinger, Landscape Architect; Concept Review of Proposed Hardscape at Infill Home. Historic Preservation Planner Lambert reminded commissioners that this case was conceptually approved in November 2014 for Avondale Builders and was a concept landscape plan for the last of the four homes built on the former Merritt King property. He presented the original landscape plan as submitted by Avondale (from 11/2014) as compared to the newly proposed plan (from 11/2015). Mr. Lambert stated that three square feet of hardscape coverage was not being used. A review of the proposed plan followed. Mr. Zack Tentinger, with Tentinger Landscapes, confirmed the materials being used would be Unilock Brussels block on the back patio and front driveway. Bluestone would be used for the veneer on the front and back stoops. Natural Joliet limestone would be used for the veneer on the risers of the steps to match the veneer placed on the Avondale home. Commissioner comments were positive. Asked if the owners could cut back additional lot coverage on the property, Mr. Tentinger explained he revised the plan numerous times in order to accommodate the residents and to provide for vehicle traffic in and out of the site. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve as presented. Roll call: Aye: Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-0 Historic Preservation Commission November 17, 2015 B. 20 S. Second Street (Case No. 2015-109). Applicant: Scott Lebin, Owner; Curt Audet, Audet Carpentry. Concept Review of Proposed Fixed Canopy Modifications. Mr. Lambert presented historic photos (1924) of the building stating the building was a former Wilson Brothers building. A history of the building and its conversions followed, as well as an explanation of how the block addition was added. Mr. Lambert reported that work on the fixed canopy began but a stop order was placed on the project. He believed the original canopy was the lower portion and the upper portion was added some time later to possibly assist with drainage. A roof was being proposed due to rotting and leaking. Plans of the original drawing initially reflected a swooping awning with some dental molding to be added to the fascia. However, in the newer proposed plan the swooping design was being replaced with a single pitch in three directions with a standing seam copper roof. If the project was recommended to move forward, Mr. Lambert recommended cutting in the flashing into the mortar joints versus gluing to the face. Mr. Curt Audet, with Audet Carpentry, confirmed that the swoops were removed for an angle canopy. He distributed a drawing of what was being proposed. Mr. Audet clarified that the canopy would be a standing seam steel roof with the color being “copper (brand: Menards Residential Steel Roofing). Asked why he did not seek a permit initially, Mr. Audet recalled there was a rubber membrane roof installed about 10 years ago and he was called in to investigate some rotting taking place. Details followed. Mr. Audent said that owner, Mr. Scott Lebin, then recommended that he “make the roof a little bit better” which actions then, in turn, were brought to the city’s attention. Mr. Audet stated his roofer recommended using a pin and overlay seal design versus cutting into the building’s brick, in order to restore it back to the original if necessary, but it would be up to the commission regarding that decision. Mr. Lambert, however, explained that the city preferred a mechanical fashion that was attached into the mortar joints and was comparable to what was allowed. Details of the structure’s upper dental molding were explained in more detail. Chairman Roy recommended a more plain look to the dental since it appeared too flashy for the building. Hiller concurred, stating the building seemed to already lose its identity over the years and adding the roof would not take away from the building’s character any more than what had been changed. Zinke agreed with the simplified dental, referencing Secretary of Interior Standard No. 3. Motion by Commissioner Zinke to approve the canopy modification with the modification that the dental be removed because it would give a false sense of history to the building. Flashing was to be mechanically fastened into the mortar joint and not into the face of the brick. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Roll call: Aye: Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Chairman Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-0 C. 405 S. River Lane (Case No. 2015-112). Applicant: Chris Huot / Dana Larson- Huot, Owners; Reliable Home Improvements, Contractor. Permit review of Proposed Facade Modifications/Addition. Mr. Lambert recalled this property was reviewed last month for a window replacement project; tonight it was for a proposed front addition. This Frazier and Raftery home was part of the river beautification project (from 1928) begun by Kate and Edmond Raftery. Lambert recalled the Frazier and Raftery architectural design called for the home to look like an additive type of structure with an intentional look of materials. 2 Historic Preservation Commission November 17, 2015 Proposed was an addition to the southwest side of the home which would face River Lane. Photos followed. Mr. Lambert pointed out the garage was original to the home but the carport may have been added in 1965 and was not original to the home’s design. First floor plans were depicted, including the location of the proposed addition, which would be an expansion of the kitchen. Approximately 18% to 20% of the original façade was being removed, which included a frame wall being removed as well as a 12-foot 6-inch amount of brick veneer and wood frame of the original home. Proposed elevations were referenced. Contractor, Mr. Mark Landhauser with Reliable Home Improvement was present to answer questions. Commissioner Hiller was glad to see the carport removed but stated the proposal conflicted with the Secretary of Interior Standards and which this commission used as guidelines. However, he believed the commission had to make allowances for the house to evolve. Since it was a significant building, he asked if the owners had considered other options, such as adding half of the addition to the front of the structure and the other half to the rear, thereby saving some of the corner stone yet using the same area. Mr. Landhauser indicated he had not considered it and the decision was based on the parameters the customer wanted. Another alternative suggested by Commissioner Zinke was to flip the dining room and kitchen. However, it was noted a large oak tree existed in the rear. Chairman Roy shared his concerns about the addition being added on the front of the house, while Hiller asked if part of the wall to the dining room could be used as an interior feature. Mr. Lambert stated he would have to confirm with the building commissioner if the zoning met conformance as it related to the southern lot line and side yard setback. Mr. Landhauser believed it was in conformance. (Lambert steps away to confirm setback allowance.) Commissioner Zinke asked Mr. Landhauser if the brick wall could be incorporated into the kitchen somehow, wherein Mr. Landhauser stated that if some of the brick was taken, he could use it for filling in the sidewalls between the dining room and the kitchen. Zinke offered, again, various ideas for Mr. Landhauser to consider as it related to the kitchen/dining area so that less of the wall could be removed. She also shared her concerns about the addition being on the front facade, noting the commission was charged by the Secretary of the Interior to keep the front facade as historic as possible. However, the chairman reiterated the architecture and design of this house was purposely designed to look like it was added onto. Commissioner Salomon also shared his points of view. Commissioner Zinke asked the architect to give the project more thought to which he offered to do. Commissioner ideas flowed back and forth as well as how the proposal conflicted with five of the SOI Standards. Asked if breaking three of the five standards would affect the building’s significance (Mr. Lambert returns; confirms zoning allows for six-foot side yard), Mr. Lambert then shared his comments regarding the SOI Standards and their effect on the building’s significance designation, noting the standards were guidelines and were written broadly. The home was very prominent from both directions on River Lane, but his concern was that 12 feet of masonry was being removed and the kitchen was a St. Charles kitchen architecturally designed for the home. Ms. Liz Safanda with Preservation Partners, 1013 Dunstan, commented that taken in its entirety, the structure was not that significant since the carport was added 55 years ago. She believed it changed the structure’s look back then and in removing it, it was not a significant loss of the home’s front view. 3 Historic Preservation Commission November 17, 2015 Realizing the original garage was located where the dining area was, Hiller understood why the proposed addition was located where it was. Salomon pointed out that removing the carport would actually draw attention to the center of the original house, which was a positive. In addition, he pointed out that three changes to the home had already occurred: 1) the original garage was converted to a dining area; 2) a garage was added to the north side, and 3) the carport was added on the south side. Mr. Lambert, in thinking more about the home, explained that this could have been a remodeling of the original home, calling out that he knew of one other remodeling done by Frazier and Raftery, and that it could give credibility that the home had previous evolutions to the front facade. Per Mr. Lambert’s question about landscaping, Mr. Landhauser explained that a reduction in paving would take place and more greenscape would be in front of the southern addition. Last comments included that the reuse of the brick could be requested of the applicant in the motion. Motion by Commissioner Salomon to approve the kitchen addition, as proposed, with the suggestion that the owner reuse the historic brick, where possible, in the interior of the house. However, the commissioners shared that certain SOI standards conflicted with the proposal, specifically, Standard Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 with four of the standards having varying levels of significance. Due to extenuating circumstances on the site, i.e., preservation of the oak tree and the fact that the south side of the home had been altered over time, even though there were 4 standards that did not fit perfectly, the commission was recommending to allow a front yard addition as the best solution for this particular case. The proposal is, however, consistent with the architectural style and is in compliance with the city’s historic design guidelines. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Roll call: Aye: Hiller, Salomon, Roy Nay: Zinke MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 3-1 5. Secretary’s Report/Update Mr. Lambert reported that the camp retreat was very successful with positive feedback received. (39 individuals attended; 41 signed up) Chairman Roy suggested holding another camp in a few years. The speakers were also impressed with this commission’s activities and formal hearing process. Positive comments followed. Lambert announced at last night’s Committee of the Whole (COW) the Historic Preservation Ordinance was discussed and it was determined it will not be reviewed again until mid-January. Discussion and concerns were raised at the COW meeting regarding owner objection and whether it should trigger a three-fourths vote. Lambert described how he tries to explain how the commission aligns with national standards and definitions only to have the city council re-revise the ordinance. Another issue he reported was the argument of the 30 or 50-year requirement for historic buildings with Lambert explaining that the local ordinance had used 30 years as a threshold since written in 1995 when the idea of neighborhood conservations districts were discussed years ago and then included in its current revision. However, Lambert stated it had always made sense to him to require neighborhood conservation districts have a 30year cutoff and move historic landmarking to a 50-year cutoff. But when neighborhood conservation districts were removed from the ordinance, he believed it was appropriate to return it back to 30 years. Due to concerns raised at the COW meeting, staff would be listening to city council audio to confirm that staff was given direction to revise it to 50 years. Mr. Lambert stated he nor Dir. DeGroot recalled being given those directions. Additional council concerns included such topics as colors, two- dimensional drawings and owner objection. 4 Historic Preservation Commission November 17, 2015 Conversation flowed back and forth with Lambert expressing concern on how the city was proceeding. He voiced concern that he does not want the city to lose its Certified Local Government status nor have the city have an ordinance that cannot stand up to law. Ms. Safanda pointed out the hard work that staff was going through with the preservation ordinance but believed there was an underlying distrust of the HPC. A few alderman, she believed, did see the larger picture. She would continue her outreach to various aldermen to sit in on some of the HPC’s meetings. Other topics from last night’s meeting were also discussed. As a last comment, Ms. Safanda stated the mayor appeared to be moving the process forward, was very inclusive of the audience, and pointed out any major inconsistencies in the ordinance. Per Zinke’s question, Lambert was of the understanding that Neighborhood Conservation Districts would not be re-inserted into the ordinance but could, potentially, be brought up under the zoning ordinance. Lambert emphasized that there is nothing that has been suggested in the ordinance that did not come out of the Strategic Plan and he had nothing to lose or gain except to ensure that Geneva had the best tools to work with. Lastly, Lambert announced that Commissioners Abplanalp and Zinke would be meeting with him on December 16 to work on the brochures for web-based access. He hoped to have a recommendation ready at the January meeting. Lambert stated he has worked on 114 cases to- date; last year was 119 cases and he expected to exceed that amount this year. 6. New Business A. From the Commission – A short dialog followed on defining what New Business will consist of. Lambert provided an update regarding the status of last month’s door petition for the Frazier and Raftery building on west James Street. He provided the owner with some resources for commercial hardware suppliers. Ms. Safanda briefly commented she has not located any original drawings for the building but will continue her search. Commissioner Zinke shared what she read on Facebook regarding the Mill Race property. Lambert, however, provided his own staff update and would keep the commission informed of any news. Regarding the survey for the 6th Street School, Lambert stated he had not received a copy of the survey yet. As for preserving certain industrial sites along the eastern bank of the river, Lambert stated that the National Register coordinator in Springfield indicated that rivers are barriers and boundaries not unifying items unless there is a historic bridge which crosses it. However, the Kane County consultant is pursuing, and believes, the city’s local district should include the east bank of the river and include Island Park. Lambert also said the county’s consultant believes that because there was an industrial history and the river was the spine of that industry. The river itself was the link to complete the industrial heritage. The dam was also a link. Lambert voiced comments otherwise. Per Zinke’s question, Lambert provided an explanation on how contributing/non-contributing structures would fit into the new survey. He hoped to have the results of the survey, along with photographs of the sites, by next Spring. Lastly, he eventually plans to revise the design guidelines. B. From the Public – None. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Chairman Roy. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 4-0. 5

Agenda

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 109 James Street 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes October 20, 2015 Geneva, IL 60134 4. Permit Review Time: A. 516 Campbell Street CASE 2015-110 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Timothy Feeney, Owner Zack Tentinger, Landscape Architect Concept review of: Proposed Hardscape at Infill Home Commissioners: Scott Roy, Chairman B. 20 South Second Street CASE 2015-109 Jennifer Abplanalp Applicant: Scott Lebin, Owner Al Hiller Curt Audet, Audet Carpentry George Salomon Concept review of: Proposed Fixed Canopy Modifications Paul Zellmer Carolyn Zinke C. 405 South River Lane CASE 2015-112 Applicant: Chris Huot / Dana Larson-Huot, Owners Reliable Home Improvements, Contractor Staff Liaison: Concept review of: Proposed Façade Modifications / Addition 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: December 15, 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 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 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 516 Campbell Street November 17, 2015 Proposed Hardscape at Infill Home Applicant: BACKGROUND Timothy Feeney, The Feeney Home is the fourth and final infill home to be constructed on Owner the vacant lots facing Campbell Street at the former Merritt King Home property. Zack Tentinger, Tentinger Landscapes, Inc. The proposed plan is consistent with the conceptual plan submitted and approved for the redevelopment of the site for the new home. The submitted request appears to be compliant with the allowable lot coverage for the site. Request: Exterior Site Modifications: The proposed materials are as shown below: Proposed Hardscape Top Left: Unilock Brussels HPC Case Number: Block (Sierra) at Driveway, 2015-110 Front Walk and Rear Patio Bottom Left: Full Color Staff Liaison: Cleft Bluestone at Front Michael Lambert and Rear Stoops Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 Below: Joliet Natural preservation@geneva.il.us Limestone to match House Veneer at Front and Rear Risers and Side Skirting Veneer Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4B 20 South Second Street November 17, 2015 Fixed canopy Modifications Applicant: BACKGROUND Scott Lebin, The Applicant initiated work without a permit and was issued a Stop Work Owner Order by the City of Geneva Code Enforcement Officer, James Forni. The owner is undertaking the work to replace rotted framework at the fixed, Curt Audet, flat roofed canopy and proposes to add a pitched roof of standing seam Audet Carpentry copper. Request: Exterior Facade Modifications: Non-historic Fixed Canopy Pitched Roof HPC Case Number: 2015-109 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 3 Permit Review PROPERTY HISTORY The history of the property at 20 South Second Street can be traced to the Skoglund Furniture Store and Funeral Parlor when that business was located on State Street at the present-day site of the Strawflower Shop. The building was built in October 1924 to provide private garage space for the Skoglund’s furniture delivery trucks as well as its hearses. The building was built by the Wilson Brothers, prolific building contractors in Geneva. Geneva Republican – October 10, 1924 courtesy of the Geneva History Museum Skoglund Funeral Parlor Hearse – 1931 courtesy of the Geneva History Museum Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of 3 Permit Review The building was used, after 1957 as a men’s clothing store which is when, presumably the former garage door onto Second Street was converted to a men’s clothing store. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, the building was acquired by John Gaines and Scott Lebin for their offices. Left: Alley with post 1945 block addition to Skoglund garage at right Above: Mid-1980s view of the former Skoglund Garage when remodeled for the Gaines-Lebin offices Left: Aerial view of the Skoglund garage showing the post-1945 addition to the rear November 15, 2015 20 South Second 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 Utilitarian/Vehicular Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Historic masonry facade Features : 4. Date of Construction: 1924 5. Date(s) of Significant Circa 1958 Addition(s) and/or Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): 1924 - 1965 7. Historic Names Associated Skoglund Furniture Store and Funeral Parlor with Property: Wilson Brothers 8. Historic Images: Attached 9. Historic Map Representation: 1930, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps 10. Why is it Important? Associated with a historic and prominent Geneva business (Context / Significance) Associated with the transition to motorized delivery trucks and hearses 11. Proposed Architectural None Features Consistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Expansion of Fixed canopy Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG New features should be based on historic documentation and should be able to HPC Design Guidelines: be removed, in the future, without significant damage to the character-defining architectural facade. 15. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Window Policy: 16. Compliance with COG N/A HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: None Recieved (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) November 17, 2015 20 South Second 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 was converted from utilitarian private garage to a be placed in a new use that requires minimal commercial/office use in the mid-1950s. The proposed use is to change to the defining characteristics of the continue as a commercial/office space. building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be The historic façade has been altered; the proposed work will further retained and preserved. The removal of historic modify the historic character of the façade. materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The fixed canopy is a conjectural feature not consistent with the record of its time, place, and use. Changes that historic architecture of the building; the fixed canopy was added create a false sense of historical development, approximately thirty-five (35) years ago. The proposed copper roof is such as adding conjectural features or architectural not consistent with the original architectural character of the private elements from other buildings, shall not be garage building. undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes The canopy is more than thirty (30) years old and may be considered that have acquired historic significance in their to be part of the historic story of the property. own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction The existing and proposed canopy work is not consistent with the techniques or examples of craftsmanship that utilitarian architectural character of the former garage building. characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The existing canopy is impaired due to rotted structural framing. 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 canopy and associated roof flashing may negatively construction shall not destroy historic materials impact the historic brick façade. The contractor proposes to provide that characterize the property. The new work shall “cut-in” flashing which will be less of an impact on the façade than be differentiated from the old and shall be glued or mechanically-fastened flashing. 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 fixed canopy and proposed “cut-in” flashing could be removed in construction shall be undertaken in such a manner the future with minimal impact on the historic façade.. 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 405 South River Lane November 17, 2015 Front Addition Applicant: BACKGROUND Chris Huot, The Applicant requests to expand the historic Kitchen with an addition to Owner the front of the home where a carport was constructed after 1941. Reliable Home Improvements, Contractor Request: Exterior Site Modifications: Front-facing Addition HPC Case Number: 2015-112 Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Agenda Item 4C Page 2 of 3 Permit Review PROPERTY HISTORY The history of the property at 405 South River Lane can be traced to the subdivision of the west bank of the Fox River by Ira Minard in August 1857. It is unclear when the first modest, workers’ homes began to appear along the banks of the Fox River; however, many of the lots—nearest State Street—were developed as liveries, stables, paddocks, and pastures for the draft horses required for drayage and passenger service throughout the nineteenth century. Although historical documents identify homes on South River Lane, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps did not document any residences along the river side of that portion of the thoroughfare south of Campbell Street until 1930. Although historical accounts refer to the South River Lane area as possessing slum-like conditions with dilapidated shanties that sat in yards filled with tin cans (see attached newspaper article), Kate H. Raftery—with her husband, Edmond’s support, encouragement, and political connections—initiated the River Lane Beautification project, beginning in 1928 or 1929. The Raftery family moved from Evanston, Illinois to Geneva in 1911. Kate Raftery had established The Little Traveler shop on Third Street in 1925; Edmond had been involved in the management of several Chicago companies but moved to the Fox River valley to assume the duties of President for the Rathbone Sard Stove Works in Aurora, Illinois. Edmond Raftery also served as a city aldermen in Geneva. At first, the shanties were repaired and remodeled into “artistic cottages.” But—as a result of the Raftery’s efforts and the construction of their own River Lane home (designed by their son, architect Howard Raftery), the beautified area became popular for the construction of “traditionally-designed homes” that captured the beauty of the riverfront with neatly landscaped lawns and gardens. The beautification efforts of the Rafterys, supported fully by the City of Geneva mayor and aldermen, resulted in abandoning the original effort of refurbishing the run-down shanties in favor of constructing new, traditionally-designed homes along the Fox River. The house at 405 South River Lane, built between 1936 and 1938 for George Renwick, is among the early houses that were built in a traditional style in accordance with Kate and Edmond Raftery’s beautification standards. The earliest homes were designed by well- respected, residential architects of the period, 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map including the Raftery’s own son, Howard Agenda Item 4C Page 3 of 3 Permit Review Raftery. Howard Raftery had begun working for Walter Frazier in 1927; the two formed a partnership in 1932 and established their architectural office in Geneva. The George Renwick House at 405 South River Lane was designed by the Frazier & Raftery architectural firm (Walter Frazier: Houses of Chicago’s North Shore 1924-1970, Kim Coventry and Arthur Hawks Miller; Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society, 2009, p. 102.) The existing kitchen cabinetry is a vintage St. Charles kitchen, known for their “modern metal” cabinetry beginning in the 1940s. REQUEST The Applicant is seeking to remove a significantly large masonry wall that is part of the original design if the house and visible from South River Lane. Upon demolition of the carport, the Applicant is seeking to construct a new addition to provide space for an enlarged Kitchen. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property is significant according to the 1999 Architectural Resources Survey and is, now, nearly 80 years old. The addition is sympathetic to the original “additive” nature of the residence as designed by Frazier & Raftery. However, if the addition were to be removed in the future, an entire historic masonry wall, original to the residence, would need to be replaced. Typically, additions of this magnitude are encouraged at the rear of the structure which may include re-arranging interior spaces. Fox River Front at Geneva Made Vista Beauty Shanties and Weeds Are Transformed Into Town’s Front yard By William F. McDermott This is the story of redemption of a river front. It chronicles the transformation of old, tumbledown shacks into picturesque, artistic dwellings, and dingy backyards into rock gardens and flower beds, with trails rambling off among the trees. Nowhere along its winding course does the Fox river afford lovelier vistas than at Geneva, Ill., where its shores have been so magically changed. Like every other old town along a water course, Geneva had its traditional river front, a hodge-podge of shacks and shanties, a hangover from the days when boats plied the stream and when stage coaches pulled in and out at regular intervals. Long before the civil war it had a population of at least a thousand people, and it may be said at one time to have been a rival of Chicago. But fate and Lake Michigan combined to make the latter the metropolis and Geneva has been content to be a village of a few thousand, proud of its fine schools, shaded streets, lovely homes and public-spirited citizens. Island New Playground. It has followed the American tradition of moving away from its old, battered sections, leaving its early day scenes to go to rack and ruin, peopled by the poorest of the poor. So while one might further back from the stream and find nesting in the rolling hills a town of culture and tradition, reminding one of a New England city or a university center, yet a trip along the Fox river was bound to give him a jar. One of the peculiar things is that redemption has struck both shores of the watercourse with telling effect. Just below the bridge and old mill is an island of several acres which the city has reclaimed. It has been cleared of brush and undergrowth, landscaped and made into a park and playground. It has been dedicated to the children of Geneva, although youngsters in even greater number—many from Chicago—come from near and far for picnics. A winding path along the shore, across the bridge and into the island is the connecting link and it is named “the children’s walk.” Originator of Idea. The east side of the river is lined with costly homes. Forrest Chrissey, the magazine writer, is responsible for much of the beauty of this section, believing that a river front is next t a lake front to give village or city a proper setting. But the real romance of Geneva’s miniature “slums” centers about a woman. Mrs. Kate H. Raftery is idolized by the community for her genius in this direction. Leading an active social life until she was past 50, she and her husband, retired president for a large concern in Chicago, moved to Geneva for its “ideal setting, country life, horseback riding and delightful people.” Although without commercial training, she there established the Little Travelers’ shop, which has become a mecca for society people looking for curios and wares from many foreign nations. Prosperity came, and along with it the dream of beautifying the river front. The first step was to buy outright one of the shanties which still claimed to be a dwelling for humans. An architect looked at it in despair, but when Mrs. Raftery outlined her plan hope came to his eyes. He saw in it a real chance of an achievement. It took thousands of dollars to make it over into a “dream cottage,” set in a landscaped yard, but when it was finished it was the sensation of Geneva. Old Charm Retained. Then one after another of the old places were picked up and made new. All of the old charm was retained from hand- hewn beams and fireplaces to old-fashioned staircases. Gardens sloping down to the river were laid out, while willows lining the bank at intervals served to curtain off the stream. An old-time springhouse on the site of the village’s first log cabin, forest trees and rocky shores, all have served their purpose in making a new river front for Geneva, with the result that the newest and finest homes are being built right at the shore, where formerly urchins romped through the underbrush and played in weed patches. No one knows just how old Geneva is, but it was settled at least as early as 1834. It has grown in the shadow of Chicago, yet it has not been overshadowed by it, except in size. Caption at accompanying photos: Above—One of modernized houses, formerly a decrepit shanty in a yard of tin cans and weeds. Mrs. Kate H. Raftery, who is given credit for beautification of Fox river front at Geneva, Ill. Below—One of the river-front houses, which is soon to be made over into an artistic dwelling. Reprinted from the Chicago Daily News – Evening Edition, November 22, 1929 November 17, 2015 405 South River Lane, Agenda Item 4C HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS 1. 1999 COG Architectural Significant Survey Designation (NC, C, PS, S): 2. Associated Architectural Traditional, Front Gable brick residence with frame side wings Style(s) or Type: 3. Significant Architectural Historic form and details, including wood windows and siding of brick and Features : clapboard 4. Date of Construction: Ca. 1936-1938 5. Date(s) of Significant Unknown Addition(s) and/or 2015 Alteration(s): 6. Period of Significance (POS): Ca. 1936 - 1965 7. Historic Names Associated George Renwick House with Property: Frazier & Raftery Architects Edmond & Kate Raftery 8. Historic Images: N/A 9. Historic Map Representation: 1945 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 10. Why is it Important? Part of the Raftery River Lane Beautification initiative (Context / Significance) Residential example of the Frazier & Raftery architectural firm 11. Proposed Architectural The front-facing addition is compatible with the materials and massing of the Features Consistent with historic residence. Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 12. Proposed Architectural Front-facing Addition Features Inconsistent with Architectural Style and POS: (Exterior Rehab / Additions) 13. Significant Landscape N/A Elements: 14. Application of COG Historic elements are encouraged to be preserved rather than replaced. HPC Design Guidelines: 15. Compliance with COG Clad windows are acceptable in new construction; the proposed design is HPC Window Policy: consistent with the architectural details / materials and windows of the home. Clad, replacement windows were recently approved by the HPC. 16. Compliance with COG Siding is acceptable per siding policy and NPS SOI Standards. HPC Siding Policy: 17. Summary IHPA Comments: None Recieved (Projects utilizing or potentially utilizing Rehab Tax Credit or Tax Assessment Freeze) November 17, 2015 405 South River Lane, 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 property will continue to be used as a residential building. 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 original street-facing expression will be altered by the proposed retained and preserved. The removal of historic work; historic materials (masonry and windows) will be removed materials or alteration of features and spaces that under the submitted proposal. characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The front-facing addition will create a false impression of the record of its time, place, and use. Changes that architect’s original vision for this residence; a rear-facing addition or create a false sense of historical development, modification of interior spaces may better preserve the original such as adding conjectural features or architectural architect’s vision of the residence. elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes Additions have been made to the rear of the residence. that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction While the carport structure is not historic or sympathetic with the techniques or examples of craftsmanship that original design of the residence, the proposed addition will modify the characterize a property shall be preserved. street view of the residence as designed by Frazier & Raftery Architects. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired The south masonry wall is not deteriorated. 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 addition destroys a significant wall of the house as construction shall not destroy historic materials originally designed. The proposed addition is sympathetic to the that characterize the property. The new work shall original “additive” nature of the original design of the residence and is, be differentiated from the old and shall be consequently, differentiated form the historic residence. Rooflines compatible with the massing, size, scale, and serve to differentiate the addition from the historic south wing of the architectural features to protect the historic home. integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new The proposed addition, if removed in the future, would require the construction shall be undertaken in such a manner reconstruction of a significant masonry wall of the original home. that if removed in the future, the essential form Additionally, it appears that a large portion of the existing west wall of and integrity of the historic property and its the original clapboard south wing would be altered as well. 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.