Historic Preservation Commission
Regular MeetingGeneva, IL · December 15, 2015
Minutes
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
109 James Street
Geneva, Illinois 60134
December 15, 2015, 7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Roy called to order the December 15, 2015 meeting of the Geneva Historic
Preservation Commission at 7:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners Abplanalp, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke
Absent: Commissioner Salomon
Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert
Others Present: Alex Teipel with Resources Architecture; Dan Marshall with Marshall
Architects, Rasmussen Residents Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd.,
Geneva; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – November 17, 2015
Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the
November 17, 2015 minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 3-0-2 (Abplanalp & Zellmer
abstain).
4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Projects
A. 200 Fourth Street (Case 2015-116). Applicant: Bob Rasmussen with Midwest
Custom Homes; Dan Marshall with Marshall Architects; Concept Review for New 5-Unit In-fill
Townhome Project. Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert reported this in-fill project did
go before the Plan Commission for input. Mr. Lambert summarized additional historical information
that was not included in the commissioners’ packets – the home was the former Jones House
constructed in 1856. The site was located on the 1869 Birdseye Map of Geneva and the 1891
Sandborn Fire Insurance map, which reflected the two rear sheds most likely relocated from
another property. The house was relocated between 1891 and 1923.
Photographs of the current site followed as well as a series of photographs of neighborhood
properties to provide some context of the area. Mr. Lambert described the irregular setbacks of
the site as compared to the rest of Campbell Street. Proposed elevations of the buildings followed
as well as comparison photos of the recent 7th Street (and James) townhome project.
Mr. Bob Rasmussen with Midwest Custom Homes, introduced members of his team: Rick
Dahl and Tony Moore. Mr. Rasmussen discussed his professional background in residential and
commercial development, including infill and mixed-use projects in St. Charles. He described
some of the redevelopment projects he worked on in Geneva and St. Charles, including the recent
purchase of the Judd Mansion in St. Charles.
With respect to the proposed development, Mr. Rasmussen stated he was seeking input
and direction from the commissioners. He plans to retain the Jones House and the former Disciple
Historic Preservation Commission
December 15, 2015
of Christ church buildings but remove the out buildings. A five-unit townhome was proposed for
the vacant yard at Fourth and Campbell Streets. Mr. Rasmussen said he received positive input
from the Plan Commission on this project. He said he will keep the 402 Campbell home as is, but
he would like some feedback regarding its front staircase. As to the two-story, he would like to
return the second floor back to the original two separate residential apartments, as depicted in the
original blue prints. He plans to remove the two rear sheds since he believes there is no historical
significance to them and one of them is in very poor shape. The area will be used for additional
parking spaces. Also, the parking will be kept internal on the site.
Mr. Rasmussen recalled that one of the city’s objectives was to create residential
opportunities within walking distance to the downtown area which this site offered. He referenced
the north elevation, noting how he downscaled that side of the building (row homes) to be relative
to the existing Jones home, but yet look like it was constructed as an old mansion. The existing
garage door could either become a true garage door or be kept as a false front. Turning to the
south elevation, Mr. Rasmussen explained that it comprised of a three-story stone structure with
the goal to use similar stone indigenous to the area. He asked for commissioner guidance.
Commissioner comments included the following: Commissioner Hiller was pleased to see
the original buildings were being left alone and the applicant was in compliance with at least five of
the Secretary of Interior (“SOI”) standards. He liked that the proposed plan took queues from the
neighborhood and the footprint was fine, but he preferred to see how the proposal impacted the
buildings around the site and asked that Mr. Rasmussen provide a streetscape. Chairman Roy
liked the proportion of the three buildings on the Campbell Street elevation but preferred to get the
height down. He believed the vertical elements were accentuating the height of the center
building; Zinke concurred. Suggestions were voiced to break up the ridge line. Mr. Rasmussen
offered to consider the idea.
Mr. Rasmussen further pointed out that many of the homes located west of Third Street had
their third floor built into the roof and he was amenable to bringing down the proposed roof to meet
that scale. Current proposed height was 37 feet but Mr. Rasmussen said he wanted to bring it
down to 35 feet. (Park Place was 38 feet in height and the townhomes on 7th & James were 35
feet.) Chairman Roy suggested lowering the basement and ridgeline down to meet height
requirements. Zellmer and Zinke suggested either lowering the center unit of the row homes on
the 4th Street elevation to break up the ridge line or work in something else.
Turning to the northern interior portion of the site plan, questions followed as to how
vehicles would exit their garages wherein Mr. Rasmussen explained enough room allowed for a
three-point turn. Regarding the false garage door on Campbell Street, commissioners suggested
inserting something in its place since it was creating a false sense of history. Turning to parking
spaces, Mr. Rasmussen stated there were 21 spaces and proceeded to explain how he calculated
them for the row homes as well as for office parking.
Commissioner Zinke asked the commissioners and staff if the two book-end buildings
(north & south ends) on the Fourth Street side were “too” historical looking – calling attention to the
SOI standard that calls for not creating a false sense of history. Mr. Rasmussen understood her
comment, but also believed the new building would be delineated enough to reflect it as a new
building. Mr. Lambert shared that while elements are drawn from the original building, the details
would distinguish the current time frame from the original historical buildings. The applicanted
pointed out the newer siding would be a cement-type material using real limestone.
Commissioner Zinke then proceeded to read into the record an emailed letter from Collin
and Glorianne Campbell, 18 S. 6th Street, Geneva: “If these units or something similar is approved,
2
Historic Preservation Commission
December 15, 2015
we would like to suggest that the facing be actual limestone instead of some phony-looking cast
block so as to match as closely as possible, the existing buildings on the property.”
Mr. Rasmussen concurred.
Mr. Lambert requested confirmation on the following: whether the commission was
comfortable with the proposed front yard parking on Campbell Street (3 parking spaces) --
Mr. Rasmussen stated he would match as closely as to the existing cobblestone pavers. Some
commissioners were fine with it; however, Zinke stated she did not prefer them but it was not a
deal breaker. Mr. Rasmussen stated he had no direction from the Plan Commission on this point,
however, he did receive direction from them to provide more common area green space for the
residents who live there, which he could do. Dialog followed.
Regarding the secondary sidewalk leading to the Campbell Street easement, staff
recommended removing it since it connected to nothing. Commissioners also preferred to not
have the false garage doors on Campbell Street; Mr. Rasmussen concurred. Commissioners were
fine with the setback of the proposed building in line with the north wall of the Jones House. Lastly,
Mr. Lambert asked the applicant if the driveway could be depressed in order to minimize the height
so as to construct a retaining wall along the Harding House. Mr. Rasmussen indicated he could
consider it but explained it would be difficult, given the magnitude of water and the requirement of
pumps to remove the water. Commissioners reiterated to the petitioner that having a streetscape
comparison was important when he returned.
Discussing the rear sheds, Mr. Lambert said he did not spend much time researching the
sheds but stated they were located from somewhere else at some time and were rotting. The 1999
survey only reflected the structures as out-buildings and did not rank them. Lambert
recommended holding off on these until January when more interior pictures of the sheds could be
obtained and when the county report would be released. Commissioner Hiller recommended that
more research be done while Zinke suggested tabling the shed matter for now. Discussing the
two-story Jones (Shones) House with the wrought iron balcony, Mr. Rasmussen preferred to do a
painted post with brackets, similar to the east porch, with a picket-style railing. Chairman Roy and
Zinke concurred, noting the wrought iron did not fit the style of the building. However, Abplanalp
and Zellmer believed that removing the wrought iron from the porch took away some historical
significance to the other half of the building, which Wes King had designed. Mssrs. Rasmussen
and Dahl offered to bring back a copy of the original blueprints to view the wrought iron element, if
any, at the next HPC meeting. Lambert referenced the SOI standard that addressed the element
but stated that attaining historic significance was not just based on age.
The chairman opened up the meeting to public comment.
Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, discussed her personal experience on this property
back in 1956. She stated the proposed plans for the building were excellent but the wrought iron
“was awful” and was probably an element added at the request of the former, flamboyant owner
Mrs. Harding, and not representative of the architect. With regard to the proposed height of the
building, she believed the only people that would be impacted would be the residents to the south.
B. 523 South Fourth Street (Case No. 2015-082). Applicant: W. Alex Teipel with
Architectural Resources; French Market Pavilion. Concept Review of Open Air Market Shelter /
Support Buildings. Mr. Lambert summarized the proposal was for an open-air market pavilion for
the French Market. Historical commentary followed. Per Lambert, an internal city committee was
working with operators of the French market, who spear-headed the project. Inspirational designs
for the pavilion were shown on the overhead. Per Lambert, the City has located the pavilion in the
3
Historic Preservation Commission
December 15, 2015
center of the Fourth Street parking lot (west of Dodson Bldg. 8) and will include two accessory
structures: a public restroom/wash area for vendors and another for storage or security, etc.
Parking beneath the open-air structure will take place when no events are running. A site plan with
elevations was provided. Mr. Lambert stated the petitioner was seeking feedback.
Mr. Alex Teipel with Architectural Resources confirmed that the city has provided its input
as to what it wants for the area. The structure will include a stone base, similar to the Dodson
building, with five exposed steel trusses on the inside and commuter parking underneath. Six
parking spaces will be lost due to the two accessory buildings. Addressing lighting for the signage,
Lambert said that what was discussed at committee level was that the “French Market” sign would
be lit at night for evening events but was to be sympathetic to the city’s sign ordinance.
Commissioner Hiller voiced concern about the stonework weighing down the structure but
then Zellmer said it probably depended on the color of the stone. Chairman Roy and some other
commissioners had concerns as to how the structure would look against the adjacent Dodson
building, wherein Mr. Lambert stated that some of the structures’s inspiration came from the
Rockford Market in Rockford, Illinois. Mr. Lambert added that the public works department did not
want the two accessory buildings to be wooden due to maintenance concerns. Topics of height
(peak was 32 feet with 14 ft. clearance under trusses), opening the ends of the building to make it
appear lighter, and colors were discussed. Mr. Teipel said the top levers could either be removed
or he could use a lighter color. Substituting the solid roofing panels with translucent panels was
also mentioned but Zellmer said it would not be very dim with 14 feet of open walls.
Commissioners asked that Mr. Teipel provide a streetscape of the structure next to Dodson
Place and Deja'vou and a color pallet of the materials for the next meeting.
5. HPC Review of the HPC Building Permit Applications
A. 621 South Street (Case No. 2015-104). Applicant: Alex Teipel with Architectural
Resources; Robertson Residence. Application for New Attached Garage. (Zellmer recuses
himself.) Mr. Teipel stated the commission saw this proposal before and proceeded to provide
photos and elevations of the home. Proposed is a two and one-half garage with a bonus room
upstairs. A painted pergola will also be added. The existing garage will be converted to living
space as there is no basement. Hiller pointed out the home was relocated twice – it was first
located at the corner of Fulton and First Street, then moved to Franklin and First Streets, and then
to its current location. He had researched the home years ago.
Mr. Lambert confirmed the proposal does meet the city’s floor area ratio and lot coverage
but no materials or cut sheets were submitted by the applicant. Mr. Teipel stated the siding would
be Hardiboard, smooth side out. He then distributed cut sheets for the windows and garage door,
noting the garage door would be steel stamped and the new garage windows would be Jeld Wald
clad windows, SDL 3 over 1. Chairman Roy was fine with what was being presented in the cut
sheets. Roof shingles were also noted. Lastly, new Jeld Wald patio doors on the west elevation
would be added to the location of the former garage.
Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Abplanalp to accept the
project using the submitted drawings and specifications given to Mr. Lambert. Roll call:
Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Zinke, Roy
Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 4-0
(Zellmer returns.)
4
Historic Preservation Commission
December 15, 2015
6. Secretary’s Report/Staff Update
Mr. Lambert reported that he and Commissioner Zinke met to discuss the brochure project
which was moving along well. Details followed. Following last month’s meeting, Lambert received
feedback on the 405 S. River Lane regarding the kitchen proposal and the concern of the six
violations of SOI Standards and whether an application should go forward or return to the applicant
for further review. Mr. Lambert shared how he reviewed the project after that prior meeting. He
referenced the drawing that was given to him pointing out that if any of the commissioners were
following the council’s discussion of the HPC’s ordinance, one of the council’s questions was why
the HPC needed to see plans. In going back, Lambert apologized for not asking the architect to
provide plans for the entire first floor because if commissioners would have seen the entire first
floor, the applicant could have shifted the kitchen over to an existing study. As it was, it looked as
if there was no other alternative other than to manipulate the exterior walls to make the plan work.
Therefore, he believed 1) he should have asked the applicant to provide full first-floor plans and 2)
the commission may want to have a policy discussion regarding the standards and if a certain
number are not met on a project, should the commissioners direct an applicant to return instead.
Chairman Roy explained how he viewed the River Lane plans initially noting that first, he
did not see an alternate solution; second, he recalled the commission discussing the architect
whose design style was to make a building look like it had multiple additions; and third, he thought
that if the application was denied it would be appealed before the council, whom he had concerns
about. Hiller shared similar comments but said the commission should not deny the applicants’
need to expand their home. He also believed the applicant was very restricted. Zinke shared her
thoughts and felt the decision was hurried, which was why she voted nay. Per questions, Lambert
stated there was nothing in the HPC’s ordinance that required the entire first floor plan to be
submitted, which he believed the commission could discuss. Dialog followed that commissioners
could address similar issues in the future by tabling a matter, asking the applicant to return with an
alternative, or have the applicant work with staff.
7. Announcements
A. From the Commission – Commissioner Abplanalp described a GIS map project she
was working on which identified demolished sites dating back to 1985 (50+ sites). She will email
Lambert the map who will then email the commissioners. Lambert shared the positives of the
information. In the past week, Lambert announced he received four inquiries for landmarking, one
of which interested party is seeking information about the tax freeze. Lambert hopes to have the
nomination for 810 Dow Avenue by February. Chairman Roy questioned how this matter would
play out with various aldermen since the landmarking was owner-initiated, wherein Lambert
summarized notification could become an issue if the new preservation ordinance is not passed –
meaning notification would have to fall under the requirements of the existing preservation
ordinance.
B. From the Public – None.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Zellmer,
seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0.
5
Agenda
Meeting Agenda
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING LOCATION &
HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2015 MEETING
Location: 1. Call to Order
Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call
Council Chambers
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes
109 James Street November 17, 2015
Geneva, IL 60134
4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Projects
Time: A. 200 Fourth Street CASE 2015-116
7:00 p.m. Applicant: Bob Rasmussen, Midwest Custom Homes
Dan Marshall, Marshall Architects
Application for: New 5 Unit Infill Townhome Project
Commissioners:
Scott Roy, Chairman B. 523 South Fourth Street CASE 2015-082
Jennifer Abplanalp Applicant: W. Alex Teipel, Architectural Resources
Al Hiller French Market Pavilion
George Salomon Application for: Open Air Market Shelter / Support Buildings
Paul Zellmer 5. HPC Review of HPC Building Permit Applications
Carolyn Zinke
A. 621 South Street CASE 2015-104
Staff Liaison: Applicant: Robert Akers, Architectural Resources
Robertson Residence
Michael A. Lambert Application for: New Attached Garage
Preservation Planner
6. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update)
630/938.4541
preservation@geneva.il.us 7. Announcements
A. From the Commission
B. From the Public
8. Adjournment
Next HPC meeting: January 19, 2016
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
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
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 4A 200 South Fourth Street
December 15, 2015
Proposed Townhome Construction
Applicant: BACKGROUND
Bob Rasmussen, The existing property consists of a vacant corner yard at the intersection
Midwest Custom Homes of Fourth and Campbell streets; the Schones (Jones) House (remodeled);
the former Disciples of Christ church (remodeled and enlarged for use as
Dan Marshall,
a single-family home); and several outbuildings (two small barns).
Marshall Architects
REQUEST
The Applicant is seeking the Commission’s response to a proposal that
would retain the historic Schones House and former Disciple of Christ
Request: church buildings and the removal of the outbuildings. A 5 Unit Townhome
Concept Review for a 5 Unit is proposed for the vacant yard at Fourth and Campbell Streets. The rear
Infill Townhome Project of the property and a portion of the Campbell Street front yard would be
utilized for vehicular parking.
HPC Case Number: The Applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission (December
2015-116 10, 2015) seeking feedback regarding the proposal. The concept supports
a City of Geneva goal of providing increased and diversified housing within
the downtown area.
Staff Liaison: STAFF ANALYSIS
Michael Lambert
Both the Schones House and former Disciple of Christ church buildings are
Preservation Planner identified as significant structures within the Historic District and are
630/938.4541 proposed to be retained with little modification.
preservation@geneva.il.us
Per the adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Properties in Geneva, the
proposed townhomes should be reviewed for compatibility with the
surrounding structures (on site and off site) as well as for compatibility
with the overall character of Fourth and Campbell streets. Additionally,
architectural massing, materials and details should be complementary to,
yet distinct from, historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Campbell Street Blockface Development - December 2015
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 4A 523 South Fourth Street
December 15, 2015
Permanent Market Shelter
Applicant: BACKGROUND
City of Geneva The City of Geneva has partnered with Sebastien Bensidoun, the operator
Sebastien Bensidoun, of Geneva’s French Market, to establish a permanent market shelter and
support structures within the confines of the surface parking lot,
Operator – French Market
immediately west of the Dodson 8 Mixed-Use building along south Third
W. Alex Teipel, Street.
Architectural Resources
In an effort to recall the
former industrial nature
of the site, which was
occupied by lumber yard
Request: sheds adjacent to the
Concept Review for A Chicago & Northwestern
Permanent Market Shelter railroad line, the City of
Geneva suggested that
the market pavilion
HPC Case Number: should reflect elements
2015-082 of 19th century rail
Reprinted from Geneva In Vintage Postcards by John J. Laukaitis
stations and lumber yard
structures. Additionally, exterior materials should be either sympathetic
or complementary to the existing structures adjacent to the market site.
Staff Liaison:
Michael Lambert REQUEST
Preservation Planner The Applicant is seeking the Commission’s response to a proposal that
630/938.4541 would be a multi-function space for the French Market, general parking,
preservation@geneva.il.us and other activities. The pavilion incorporates a permanent restroom
facility and a complementary storage / general support building.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposal has been reviewed and refined by City of Geneva staff and
the Project Architect. Staff and Mr. Bensidoun are seeking comments
from the HPC before proceeding further with the project.
Design Inspiration Images for an Open Air Market
Geneva, Illinois
Metal – Glass - Wood
Northwestern Railroad Depot
Geneva, IL (demolished)
Train Arriving at Normandy – Claude Monet
Design Inspiration Images for an Open Air Market
Geneva, Illinois
Metal – Glass - Wood
Design Inspiration Images for an Open Air Market
Geneva, Illinois
Metal – Glass - Wood
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 5A 601 South Street
December 15, 2015
Proposed Garage Addition
Applicant: BACKGROUND
Robert Akers, The existing house incorporates an attached, side-load, two car garage at
Architectural Resources the rear of the property.
REQUEST
The Applicant is seeking the Commission’s approval of a design that would
Request: convert the existing garage into living space and construct a new,
Permit Review for attached three car garage with street-facing, vehicular doors.
A Garage Addition
The project required a variance for side and rear yard setbacks, which
were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 9, 2015.
HPC Case Number:
2015-104 STAFF ANALYSIS
The submitted permit drawings appear to be consistent with the concept
plans reviewed by the Historic preservation Commission on October 20,
Staff Liaison: 2015. At the time that this staff report was generated, the Applicant had
Michael Lambert not submitted a completed Zoning Compatibility Worksheet or complete
Preservation Planner material specifications; both are to be provided to Staff prior to the HPC
630/938.4541 meeting for review and comment.
preservation@geneva.il.us