Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2016 MEETING Location: 1. Call to Order Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call Council Chambers 109 James Street 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes December 15, 2015 Geneva, IL 60134 4. Concept Review Time: A. 318 South Third Street CASE 2016-001 7:00 p.m. Applicant: Bob Unteidt, Graham’s Chocolate Tim Nelson, Architect Concept review of: Proposed Façade Modifications and Commissioners: Addition Scott Roy, Chairman Jennifer Abplanalp 5. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications Al Hiller A. 327 North Third Street CASE 2016-002 George Salomon Applicant: Tom Wetmore, Wetmore Construction Paul Zellmer Application for: Window Replacement Carolyn Zinke 6. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update) Staff Liaison: 7. Announcements Michael A. Lambert A. From the Commission Preservation Planner B. From the Public 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us 8. Adjournment Next HPC meeting: February 16, 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 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 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 4A 318 South Third Street January 26, 2016 Proposed Additions Applicant: BACKGROUND Bob Unteidt, The existing property consists of an Arts-and-Crafts, stucco bungalow that Grahams 318 has been converted for commercial use. The Applicant has sought and was granted approval for lot coverage and rear yard setback variations by Tim Nelson, the Geneva Zoning Board of Appeals on January 13, 2016. Tim Nelson Architects REQUEST The Applicant is seeking the Commission’s response to a proposal that would retain the historic residence but provide sizable additions to the Request: sides and rear of the historic structure. Concept Review for Additions to the Sides and Rear of a The Applicant has met with Staff and the following items were discussed: Contributing Property Architectural compatibility of the south entry vestibule; architectural minimization of the upper dining deck/balcony and railing system at the south elevation; and determination of alterations that may be required at HPC Case Number: the historic chimney to accommodate a second fireplace. Additionally, 2016-001 owners of adjacent properties have questioned Staff in regard to: site fencing; refuse collection; and the location of HVAC equipment (expressing a desire to shield HVAC equipment and noise by, possibly, incorporation into the north-facing roof plane. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert STAFF ANALYSIS Preservation Planner Images of the existing architectural conditions follow. 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Per the adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Properties in Geneva, the proposed expansion should be reviewed for compatibility with the architecture, scale and details of the existing structure. The architectural massing, materials, and details should be complementary to, yet distinct from, the historic building.  Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 2 Concept Review EXISTING EXTERIOR VIEWS - JANUARY 2016 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 5A 327 North Third Street January 26, 2016 Proposed Window Replacement Applicant: BACKGROUND Chris & Jen Haas, Owners The Cape Cod residence incorporated divided lite, double-hung, wood windows when constructed in 1942. Per the 1999 Architectural survey, Tom Wetmore, Wetmore & the original wood windows were intact at this property (see attached Associates Construction 1999 survey form). However, between 1999 and 2008, the existing windows were installed. REQUEST Request: Installation of Replacement The Applicant is seeking to replace the existing, non-historic windows at Windows at Street-facing the street-facing dormers with new, composite clad windows with Dormers simulated divided lites. STAFF ANALYSIS HPC Case Number: The existing windows do not conform to the requirements of the recently- 2016-002 adopted window policy (September 2015). The proposed windows are consistent with the 2015 Window Policy (see attached copy or the 2015 Window Policy). Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 preservation@geneva.il.us Existing Front / Third Street (West) Elevation – January 2016  Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 2 Permit Review Existing Stevens Street (North Side) Elevation – January 2016 Existing First Floor Window – January 2016 Existing Rear (East) Elevation from Stevens Street – January 2016 Existing Dormer Window – January 2016  GENEVA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Policy Guide for Window Repair or Replacement Requests 1. Contributing (or higher rated) buildings, Residential and Commercial. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first, assuming windows are original or historic. If the evaluation of the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, replacements should be of detailing, proportions, operation/function, and styling that are consistent with that of the original or existing historic windows; replacement window material shall either replicate historic materials (wood or metal) or be fabricated of a contemporary, alternate material (e.g. aluminum clad, wood windows). Where muntins existed, historically, replacement windows shall incorporate true or simulated divided lites; muntins at simulated divided lites must include muntins applied to the exterior and interior of the window glazing and, where insulated glass is installed, bronze-colored spacer bars shall be installed between the panes of glass. At interior side yards, “prominently viewed from the street” shall apply only to those side wall windows located towards the street and forward of a significant change in building plane. 2. Non-contributing buildings. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first. If the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, the style, detailing, operation/function, and proportions of replacements should be consistent with building style, however more flexibility should be allowed in the window material. 3. Existing additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings prominent and easily viewed from the street. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first, assuming windows are original or historic. If the evaluation of the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, replacement should be of detailing, proportions, operation/function, and styling that are consistent with that of the original or existing historic windows; replacement window material may replicate historic materials (wood or metal) or be fabricated of a contemporary, alternate material (e.g. aluminum clad, wood windows). Where muntins existed, historically, replacement windows shall incorporate true or simulated divided lites; muntins at simulated divided lites must include muntins applied to the exterior and interior of the window glazing and, where insulated glass is installed, bronze-colored spacer bars between the panes of glass. At interior side yards, “prominently viewed from the street” shall apply only to those side wall windows located towards the street and forward of a significant change in building plane. 4. Existing additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings not prominent or easily viewed from the street. Thoroughly assess the condition of the window sash and frame. Repair first. If the evaluation of the assessment determines that repair is not feasible, the style, detailing, operation/function, and proportions of replacements should be consistent 1  with building style, however more flexibility should be allowed in the window material. Original historic portion will always be addressed by #1. 5. New additions to contributing (or higher rated) buildings. Windows should match the style, detailing, operation/function, and proportions of existing windows, if on a prominent facade, but alternate materials may be considered acceptable. Original, historic portions of a building shall always be addressed by #1. 6. New additions to non-contributing buildings. Windows should match the style, detailing, operation/function, and proportions of existing windows, if on a prominent facade, but alternate materials may be considered acceptable if an addition is not prominent or readily visible from the street. 7. New residential or commercial construction. Flexibility should be allowed in material, however styling, detailing, spacing and proportions should be appropriate to the suggested architecture or styling of the new structure. Interior snap-in or false, between-pane grids, are not appropriate or acceptable. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Geneva Historic Preservation Commission uses the Standards when reviewing specific rehabilitation projects in the Historic District. The following standards should be considered when dealing with historic windows. Standard #2. The original distinguishing qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Standard #4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Standard #5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Standard #6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. (Preservation Brief #9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows, p. 2) 2 Window Significance Not all windows are equally significant. Factors determining significance include: • age of window • design of window • physical integrity • street facing façade • architectural and historical significance Windows should be considered significant if they: 1. are original or historic. 2. reflect the original design intent for the building. 3. reflect period or regional styles or building practices. 4. reflect changes to the building resulting from major periods or events. 5. are examples of exceptional craftsmanship or design. Window Facts • Windows convey building character. • Most often, historic windows are made of irreplaceable materials. • Windows need periodic maintenance. • Renovation of windows is realistic and affordable. Storm Windows The use of storm windows should be considered whenever feasible because exterior or interior storm windows are: 1. thermally efficient 2. cost-effective 3. reversible 4. allow the retention of original windows Storm windows, in combination with historic windows, can provide equal or better energy performance than many modern windows, which utilize insulating glass. Wood storm windows are preferred because wood has a better insulating value than metal. However, aluminum clad storm windows may be allowed provided they do not cover the trim. Storm windows can also provide significant protection from the weather to your historic windows. If old or historic storm windows exist, consider continuing to use them. Storm windows can also be placed on the inside of a window. Weatherstripping is the single most cost-effective way to improve the energy performance of your windows. Energy conservation is no excuse for the wholesale destruction of historic windows which can be made thermally efficient by historically and aesthetically acceptable means. 3 What is the Condition of Your Window? When evaluating the physical condition of windows, look at the following: 1. window location 2. condition of paint 3. condition of frame and sill 4. condition of sash (rails, stiles and muntins) 5. glazing problems 6. hardware 7. overall condition (excellent, good, fair, poor, etc.) Moisture is the primary contributing factor in wooden window decay. Failure of the paint finish should not be mistakenly interpreted as a sign that the wood is in poor condition and hence, irreparable. Wood is frequently in sound condition beneath unsightly paint. Window Repair Routine Maintenance needed to upgrade a window to “like new” condition normally includes the following: 1. some degree of interior and exterior paint removal. 2. removal and repair of sash (including re-glazing and replacement of sash cords and chains, where necessary). 3. repairs to the frame. 4. weatherstripping or jamb liners and reinstallation of sash. 5. re-painting. Window Replacement Replacement windows should match historic windows in: • style and operation • dimensions • true-divided or simulated divided lite(s) • appropriate alternate materials (i.e. avoid bronze anodized aluminum window frames and sash unless historic precedence exists) Investigate and document the following when replacing windows: 1. pattern and size of the openings 2. proportions of the frame and sash 3. configuration of window panes 4. muntin profiles 5. type of wood 6. paint color 7. characteristics of the glass 8. other details (e.g. arched hoods, decorative elements, etc.) 4 Resources • “Fixing Double-Hung Windows.” Old House Journal (no. 12, 1979): 135. • Look, David W. “Preservation Brief #10: Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982. • Phillips, Morgan and Selwyn, Judith. Epoxies for Wood Repairs in Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (Government Printing Office, Stock No. 024-016-00095-1), 1978. • “Sealing Leaky Windows.” Old House Journal (no. 1, 1973): 5. • Smith, Baird M. “Preservation Brief #3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1978. • Myers, John H. “Preservation Brief #9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1981. • Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief #13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows.” Washington, D.C.: Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. • See the following web page to view the Preservation Briefs: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1983. • NPS Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/ • Carmody, John, Heschong, Lisa and Selkowitz, Stephen. Residential Windows: A Guide to New Technologies and Energy Performance. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996. • Caring for Your Historic House. Heritage Preservation and National Park Service. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1998. • McAlester, Virginia and McAlester, Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997. • The Window Handbook: Successful Strategies for Rehabilitating Windows in Historic Buildings (16 different NPS Tech Notes on Windows). • The Window Workbook for Historic Buildings (Companion to the Handbook, contains technical papers and listings for windows and restoration products). • See the following web page to view the Preservation Tech Notes: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes.htm • New York Landmarks Conservancy, “Repairing Old and Historic Windows: A Manual for Architects and Homeowners.” Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1992. • Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits: http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm NOTE: All webpage links were verified at the time of re-publication; however, webpage links may change from time-to-time. REV 09/2015 5 Window Information 327 North Third Street Provided by Wetmore Construction, Contractor The windows are as follows in regards to the North and West Elevations which face Stevens and Third street respectively: • 2nd Floor Dormers Windows Exterior Finish Existing is White Vinyl interior and exterior windows. They appear to be Lange or similar replacement company, hardware and glass are not labeled. They were installed in the old window, the weight pockets still exist on either side of the window. I would guess the originals were installed early 90’s Proposed window is Andersen 400 series with prefinished white interior and white vinyl/composite clad exterior Window Size Existing window Rough Opening 33-1/2”x48-1/4” Proposed Rough Opening of 34-1/8”x48-7/8” Grilles: Existing window has no grilles Proposed window has simulated divided light grilles in a three wide by two tall pattern per sash Note that ‘Divided Light with Spacer’ indicates this has a grille on the interior face, spacer between the glass, and a grille on the exterior face of the window glazing Note that ‘Colonial’ indicates the style and ‘3/4” the width of the grill which matches the windows below • 1st Floor West Elevation Proposed windows: Andersen 400 series pine interior with white clad exterior Owner will need to send pictures of the logo on the glazing but I would think these windows are 12-15 years old http://parts.andersenwindows.com/LearningCenter_ProductIdentificati on.html#identifyYourAndersenProduct Existing window: 48-1/4”x64” Rough Opening Grilles are interior removable grilles in ¾” wide Colonial style • 1st Floor West Elevation & North Elevation Proposed windows: Andersen 400 Series pine Interior with white clad exterior Existing windows: Same age, style and specifications as the 1st floor west elevation  Andersen Windows - Abbreviated Quote Report Project Name: Revised Wetmore - 327 3rd St Quote #: 312 Print Date: 01/07/2016 Quote Date: 01/07/2016 iQ Version: 15.2 Dealer: Customer: Indicates simulated divided lights, Billing Interior Grill, Space & Exterior Grill Address: Phone: Fax: Sales Rep: Administrator - DO NOT REMOVE Contact: Created By: Trade ID: Promotion Code: Item Qty Item Size (Operation) Location Unit Price Ext. Price 0001 2 TW28310 (AA) $ 705.68 $ 1411.36 RO Size = 2' 10 1/8" W x 4' 0 7/8" H Unit Size = 2' 9 5/8" W x 4' 0 7/8" H Unit, Equal Sash, White/PI White, High Performance Low-E4 Glass, Divided Light with Spacer, Colonial, 3W2H, 3/4", High Definition Chamfer, Chamfer, Ext Grille - White, Int Grille - Prefinished White (Each Sash) (Includes 5 1/4" Factory Applied White - Painted Complete Unit Extension Jambs) Insect Screen, White TW, Hand Lift with screws, White Grill style, configuration and size Zone: Northern (matches 1st floor windows) U-Factor: 0.31, SHGC: 0.28, ENERGY STAR® Certified: No Subtotal $ 1,411.36 Total Load Factor Tax ( 8.000%) $ 112.91 Customer Signature 0.430 Grand Total $ 1,524.27 Dealer Signature ** All graphics viewed from the exterior ** Rough opening dimensions are minimums and may need to be increased to allow for use of building wraps or flashings or sill panning or brackets or fasteners or other items. Quote #: 312 Print Date: 01/07/2016 Page 1 Of 2 iQ Version: 15.2  Item Qty Item Size (Operation) Location Unit Price Ext. Price Ask to see if all of the products you purchase can be upgraded to be ENERGY STAR® certified. This image indicates that the product selected is certified in the US ENERGY STAR® climate zone that you have selected. Data is current as of September 2015. This data may change over time due to ongoing product changes or updated test results or requirements. Ratings for all sizes are specified by NFRC for testing and certification. Ratings may vary depending on the use of tempered glass or different grille options or glass for high altitudes etc. Project Comments: Quote #: 312 Print Date: 01/07/2016 Page 2 Of 2 iQ Version: 15.2