Historic Preservation Commission
Regular MeetingGeneva, IL · March 15, 2016
Minutes
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
109 James Street
Geneva, Illinois 60134
March 15, 2016, 7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Chairman pro tem Hiller called to order the March 15, 2016 meeting of the Geneva Historic
Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman pro tem Hiller; Commissioners Collins, Abplanalp, Salomon,
Zinke
Absent: Chairman Roy, Commissioner Zellmer
Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert; Mayor Kevin Burns
Others Present: Bonnie Pechous, 1806 Via Vento Drive; Colin and Glorianne Campbell,
18 S. 6th Street; Sharon Jones, 521 Franklin; Todd Kendall, 401 Franklin;
Bob Unteidt, 318 S. Third St., Architect Tim Nelson, 421 James St.; Steve
Burnham, 328 S. Third St.; Maddi Foote, 1528 Sherman; Dan Marshall,
812 E. Main St., St. Charles; Tony Moore, 616 Franklin; Rick Dahl, 2910
Gl___, St. Charles; Bob Rasmussen, 409 Illinois Ave., St. Charles; Leslie
Juby, 316 Peyton Street, Jamie Dwyer, 128 N. Sixth Street; Liz Safanda,
1013 Dunstan; Kristen Sumerfeldt, 302 S. Third Street; Jeannie
Wunderlick, 302 S. Third Street
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – January 26, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Chairman pro tem Hiller to approve the
January 26, 2016 minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 2-0-3 (Abplanalp, Salomon and
Collins abstain)
Mayor Burns thanked the commissioners for their service on the Historic Preservation
ordinance.
4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Projects
A. 200 Fourth Street (Case 2015-116). Applicant: Bob Rasmussen, Midwest Custom
Homes and Dan Marshall, Marshall Architects. Concept Review of New 5 Unit In-fill Townhome
Project. Preservation Planner Lambert recalled that this case was before the commissioners at a
prior meeting and the property was located at Fourth and Campbell Street, better known as the
historic Shones House/Harding & Harding House. Two sheds were also located on the property.
Photos and maps of the property were shown on the overhead. Changes to the property, over
time, were detailed by Mr. Lambert.
The site plan from the January 2016 meeting was referenced, along with the setbacks, and
the neighborhood context. Per the commissioner’s prior request, Lambert said a street view sketch
along Fourth Street was provided. Also, Mr. Lambert explained that three alternative concepts
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
were provided in the packet, along with a fourth concept submitted today. Architectural details of
each concept were reviewed.
A revised elevation for the Campbell Street side was referenced by Mr. Lambert, noting that
the petitioner was also seeking commissioner input on it. Mr. Lambert reminded the
commissioners that there was discussion about the garage doors facing Campbell Street which
was counter to the HPC Design Guidelines. However, the Plan Commission supported the garage
doors facing Campbell Street.
Mr. Dan Marshall with Marshall Architects, 812 E. Main Street, St. Charles, reported that
the ridge height was lowered a couple of feet and he reduced the roof pitches. Mr. Marshall
walked through the steps he took to create a number of options for the row houses. As to whether
the garage doors should have windows or be solid, Mr. Marshall indicated the doors on the sheds
were solid and so he took some clues from that feature.
Mr. Bob Rasmussen, with Midwest Custom Homes, 409 Illinois Avenue, St. Charles,
reiterated the support for the working garage doors by the Plan Commission. He believed the
feature worked well. Mr. Rasmussen proceeded to explain in detail the steps he and Mr. Marshall
took to create the various facades for the building. He asked for commissioner input on the
concept.
Chairman pro tem Hiller shared that he originally did not support the original concept he
had seen but felt that—of the options presented at this meeting—the newly-submitted concept,
which included reduction of the ridge height and the appearance of less mass (Elevation E), was
the best compromise. The addition of the double windows at grade level was a nice feature also.
He believed the garage, with the feature being used, was the best solution. Zinke also supported
Elevation E, stating that the chimney in the picture was now shorter and the grade was raised
which seemed to fit in better with the neighborhood. The simple look of the porches was a
positive. Regarding the two-car garage door, Zinke asked if two single garage doors could be
installed in its place, wherein Mr. Rasmussen indicated he was constrained by the width of the
garage itself.
Discussion followed regarding the two out buildings and the shed that were located on the
property. Mr. Rasmussen indicated the shed would be removed because there was no value in
trying to keep it. The other out building was relocated to its current location and placed on a
concrete slab and was not original to the site. Commissioner Abplanalp supported the removal of
both buildings. Mr. Lambert commented that after conducting his research he had no idea where
the buildings originally came from other than the “Geneva community.” Mr. Rasmussen
mentioned that he was seeking demolition of both buildings. Details followed.
Commissioners reached a consensus and supported Elevation E.
Chairman Pro tem Hiller invited the public to speak.
Ms. Sharon Jones, 521 Franklin Street, read a statement from Patricia P. MacLachlan
(Exhibit “A”), 318 S. 5th Street, Geneva, who could not be attendance tonight.
Ms. Sharon Jones, 521 Franklin Street, speaking for herself, commented on the remarkable
buildings on the property and appreciated the petitioner taking on the job. However, she did not
prefer to see the design that was being presented tonight, but preferred that the design be simple
and not pretend to copy what the petitioner thought was a 1920’s Colonial.
2
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, distributed a picture of the newly constructed
Avondale homes at 516 Campbell. He recommended that the petitioner use Batavia limestone for
the project, to which Mr. Rasmussen said he would use thick limestone. He would bring samples
for the final plans.
Mr. Dan Marshall added that his father also used local Fox Valley flagstone on
contemporary homes, such as those in Wild Rose, and it was quarried from the McLean and
Route 31 site as well as quarried from Batavia.
Mr. Rasmussen returned and proceeded to explain the interior plans for the home.
Regarding the railings on the home, Mr. Rasmussen reported that they were deteriorating and
rusting and he preferred to add a railing system that might have been there when the home was
originally constructed in the 1960’s or 1970’s. However, if the HPC required that the current
wrought iron railing stay, he would keep the feature. He sought input. Discussing the railing
feature, Commissioner Zinke said she was torn with respecting the Mid-Century building versus
keeping the railing feature. She asked others for their thoughts.
Commissioner Collins opposed the wrought iron stating it did not fit with the building. He
supported the petitioner replicating something better. Mr. Rasmussen believed there was a nice
porch on the east elevation of the home that could be mimicked for the front elevation. However,
Mr. Lambert believed that if the petitioner was seeking the rehabilitation tax credit on the project,
he recommended the state provide the petitioner some feedback first. Also, Mr. Lambert added
that the National Park Service would review the railing/porch as part of the progression of the
building and whether or not it had attained significance in its own right. He recommended that the
petitioner contact the state on that matter. Commissioner Abplanalp was supportive of keeping the
iron railing and staircase.
Mr. Rasmussen confirmed with the commissioners regarding the feedback he was
receiving, included: 1) support for the elevation; 2) the sheds were not significant and could be
demolished; and 3) find a way to retain the railings and keep the home designed as a ‘50s home.
Commissioners also agreed that they preferred to hear about the project from the State.
Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, opposed the railings and supported the petitioner
seeking the state’s input.
Ms. Sharon Jones returned and voiced how she appreciated the architecture
differentiations within the city’s historic district and that they were so “remarkable.” She asked the
petitioner to “get some lines in there that reflect today.”
B. 318 S. Third Street (Case 2016-001). Applicant: Bob Unteidt, Graham’s Chocolate;
Tim Nelson, Architect. Concept Review of Proposed Facade Modifications and Addition.
Mr. Lambert recalled this case was presented at an earlier meeting (January 2016). He proceeded
to walk through the drawings that were approved by the Geneva Zoning Board. Modifications
included setting the additions back from the historic façade of the original enclosed house with a
one-foot setback of both the additions. The proposed south elevation would include a change that
includes shingle material instead of stucco and a 1-foot setback. The north elevation would include
shingle material and a 1-foot setback with a raised roof at the mid-section adjoining the historic
rear of the home to the new addition. Three-dimensional drawings were highlighted.
3
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
Mr. Tim Nelson, architect for the project, recalled that one of the concerns from the last
meeting was that the additions on the north and south sides were aligned with the front wall of the
original building, and therefore, were moved back one foot from the original building. The south
addition was also set back one foot and it revealed more of the façade on that side. Another
change included new cedar shake material on the new addition to differentiate from the original.
However, Mr. Nelson said he was including some stucco material on the rear addition to tie the
design together. One change not mentioned, however, on the north addition was that the north
wall would remain and it could be seen as part of the original structure from the interior. Lastly,
Mr. Nelson referenced the 3-D drawings but said they did not include the minor modifications done
for this meeting.
Mr. Bob Unteidt, 318 S. Third Street, discussed how he was carrying over the same open
baking concept from Graham’s Chocolate to 318 S. Third Street, which he believed added to the
charm of the business. He was also running out of space at Graham’s Chocolate. A summary
followed on how the plans got to where they were today as well as Mr. Unteidt commenting on
some suggestions made by former Commissioner Sean Gallagher, whom he ran into one day.
Further explanation followed regarding the new production area, baking area, and seating area.
Chairman pro tem Hiller recalled from the last meeting that SOI Standards 1, 3 and 5 were
a concern by the commissioners. These standards dealt with overall mass, materials, ADA
compliance and HVAC concerns.
Commissioners provided their comments regarding the massing, which included that the
original contributing building was being engulfed by the three additions, which was inappropriate;
the front elevation could be reduced without losing much space; the rear gables could be lowered
thereby visually reducing the mass from the street view. As to the mass on the south addition,
Commissioner Salomon agreed it was a large expansion but understood the business needed to
grow. However, if there was a way the petitioner could accentuate the existing historic building
and minimize some of the mass surrounding it, all parties would be pleased. Commissioner
Abplanalp, even though she saw the original building being swallowed by the expansion, she also
saw the business’s need to expand and believed the architect did a great job maintaining the
original façade and pushing back the addition so that it did not stand out. She referenced a
photograph on page 33 of the agenda packet which reflected the building at a very nice angle.
Mr. Nelson described how he tried to keep the front of the building intact but agreed that
two additions would be visible. He believed, however, when viewing the building from the
sidewalk, the addition would obscure what was being seen in the rear as far as the roof line. He
believed a roof line was needed to tie in and create some interest in the rear part of the addition.
Another suggestion as stated by the chairman pro tem was to consider creating a gable on
the front of the building, hanging over the porch, to soften the visual from the front and then have
the gable follow up to the railing and then down to visually break up look of the front box. Other
commissioner ideas followed.
Adding to the dialog, Mr. Lambert stated that the project was almost trying too hard to
match the details of the bungalow and the problem seemed to be in the execution of the massing
of the details. He believed the building may not be overwhelming if the original details were less
duplicated and the proposed architecture was differentiated from the existing architecture. Again,
he reiterated to the petitioner that if he was pursuing the project as a tax credit project, if more than
75% of the building was engulfed by new additions, it would be a difficult tax credit project. He
believed the project was already close to 75% covered. He also believed much of the south
4
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
elevation would be seen from the public right-of-way because the Paper Merchant’s building sits so
far back from the street.
Mr. Lambert summarized that it appeared to him that the commissioners agreed that space
was needed and the amount of space but it was the execution of the space and it possibly trying
too hard to mimic the house. As a result the house was getting lost in the process.
Commissioner Zinke asked if the petitioner would consider the front porch and north
addition as glass atriums so the original building could be seen. She queried the owner whether
the offices on the second floor were actually needed or if the owner’s two business offices could be
kept at a third location, thereby reducing the need for the large second floor addition and having
the original building more visible. Mr. Unteidt said he could think about that suggestion. Both
Salomon and Abplanalp commented that original walls in the building were being kept. Mr. Nelson
also confirmed that 50% of original walls were being kept with some punch-outs.
Mr. Lambert interjected and stated that the second floor area that Zinke was concerned
about may not be under the commission’s purview as it related to sight lines. He offered to double-
check the matter. Discussion then moved to SOI Number 5 – to push back the north addition from
the primary façade to reveal at least one or both of the historic first floor windows. Chairman pro
tem Hiller believed that pushing the north addition back would probably impact the interior space
but again, he suggested softening the look and not losing too much space. He also suggested
adding a gable roof echoing the shape of the building on the front side in order to stop the flow
back. Details followed.
Mr. Nelson then described the number of historic windows that would be lost. Zinke pointed
out that one of the significant features of the home are the 9 over 1 double-hung windows and a
majority of those windows would be lost if the proposed plan was to be constructed.
Commissioners spoke back and forth on how they would like to address the massing.
Commissioner Zinke preferred that it be more compact and away from the main mass of the
historic building. Additional comments included: 1) to not mimic the Craftsman Bungalow so that
the original building could be delineated from the additions; 2) work with board and batten over
cedar shake; 3) consider using glass material for the north and south additions; and 4) the
petitioner provide a streetscape.
On a different note, Lambert cautioned the petitioner and the commissioners that the term
“demolition” as defined in the ordinance, was defined as more than 25% of any exterior wall,
foundation, walls, and roofs. If such was true, then the petitioner would have to quantify his
request for a demolition. The percentage figure, then, would have to be confirmed. To that end,
Mr. Nelson responded that the two side additions would be losing some of their wall space but in
the greater scheme, he said the second floor wall space would be intact.
In summary, Mr. Lambert stated he heard the suggestions that needed to be explored:
moving the additions back, using glass, and reducing mass. The struggles seemed to be in the
details, the materials, and the amount of wall that was being lost. He believed a compromise had
not yet been met. Lambert then made himself available to the petitioner to go over ideas and
recommended that the petitioner bring in some key elevations with various material samples.
Regarding the outstanding issue of the HVAC equipment, Hiller recalled the commissioners’
concerns were that it be to the rear or to the north side of the building, which Mr. Nelson confirmed
the HVAC and electrical would be located in the rear.
5
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
Chairman pro tem Hiller invited the public to speak.
Ms. Leslie Juby, 316 Peyton Street, was surprised to hear the commissioners discuss
interior since it was not the commission’s purview. She supported the expansion and was fine with
the expansion “wings” on the house because they were set back. She believed it was far enough
from the streetscape also. Ms. Juby could not find the five concerns the commission previously
discussed, noting they were not on the new plan. While she appreciated the suggestion of using
glass, she stated glass was very hot and very cold. She believed if the southern “bump-out” was
either removed or pushed back further, enough of the original building would be exposed and the
proposal would be compliant with the state regulations. She believed losing 14 historic windows
was also a significant amount of windows to lose.
Mr. Jamie Dwyer, 128 N. Sixth Street, believed the project should be looked at as a whole,
summarizing that the project was huge and the owner would be setting a precedent for the other
businesses along Third Street. He believed the empty space on Third Street was just as important
as the buildings and stated the zoning allowed for the project should not have been granted. Too
much mass existed. Mr. Dwyer stated the HPC was supposed to consider size, mass and scale as
it relates to the neighborhood. The new proposal no longer appeared to be a house but was a very
large building with a cute bungalow stuck on the front.
Mr. Lambert clarified what the purview of the HPC was and stated that once a variance is
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, then the HPC has to work within the parameters of that
granted variance. He confirmed the Zoning Board of Appeals did review this proposal, supported
it, and now it was under the review of the HPC and had to be compliant with the HPC’s standards.
Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Rd., Geneva, confirmed with Lambert that the “boundaries”
for this project were pre-determined. She agreed with the comments of Mr. Dwyer and
Commissioner Zinke that the project needed to be minimized as much as possible and some
creativity used. She asked to see a streetscape also.
Ms. Kristen Sumerfeldt, who works at Grahams 318 Coffee House as a manager, stated
that when people visit Grahams they create lasting memories and like to see the charm but when
there is no room to sit, it is disappointing to see them walk out. She spoke about the families and
traditions that she sees occurring at the 318 Coffee House, but also the challenges of not enough
space to allow the tourists in. She believed the owners’ offices needed to be close because the
business was so family-oriented and the owners needed to be near their staff. She agreed
preserving the windows, keeping the charm, and preserving the building was important but stated
the bakery cannot keep up with the lunch demand and the nearby business owners were pleased
with the expansion.
Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, stated the project had nothing to do with historic
preservation. He referenced that last fall, People Magazine selected the top 50 coffee shops in the
U.S. and Grahams 318 was listed as Number 5.
Ms. Jeannie Wunderlick, 302 S. Third Street, daughter of the owner and works the
business, said the earlier comment about the building becoming a factory was offensive and asking
to move the offices to a third location would make the business a factory. The goal was to be on
the premises with staff and to grow the business successfully. To the idea of the additions being
glass, Ms. Wunderlick expressed concern because she stated that was an area that needed to
grow. She did not believe the view of the building was a big deal and stated her father planned on
using the historic windows as much as possible – just moving them.
6
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
Mr. Steven Burnham, owner of The Paper Merchant, voiced concern about the additional
number of people that would come with the additional space and the fact that they would sit in his
driveway or sit on his property’s wall. He had concerns about the upper deck and crowds being
loud. He saw no reason why concessions could not be made for production and having offices off-
premise.
Ms. Maddi Foote, the owner’s daughter, did not see noise and additional people as an issue
nor a negative to the adjacent Paper Merchant nor any other business. In fact, people would shop
those businesses on Third Street, including the Paper Merchant.
Mr. Steven Burnham returned stating the long-range problem was that there was no place
for children to go and they ended up playing on his stairs and railing. Clean-up was another issue.
Chairman pro tem Hiller summarized that he would like the petitioner to work with staff to
come up with another plan to satisfy the majority of the commissioners’ concerns. He agreed with
fellow commissioners about the mass/bulk but given the constraints, stated not much could be
done. Mr. Lambert closed by confirming that the petitioner can return with a streetscape and a
design element that had some alternatives. He offered to discuss with the petitioner the state’s tax
credit program. Commissioner Abplanalp asked the petitioner to return with the percentage of the
wall that was going to be removed to know if a demolition would be required or not.
5. HPC Review of the HPC Building Permit Applications
A. 401 Franklin Street (Case No. 2016-002). Applicant: Todd Kendall, Owner; Mike
Hoorelbeck, Collegiate Landscape. Application for Site Hardscape. Mr. Lambert reported this
case was before the commissioners due to changes being made to the yard that was visible to the
street. A historical background of the home followed as well as a description of what work had
been done and what the commissioners had approved prior. Reviewing the lot coverage,
Mr. Lambert stated it was at 54% and the new coverage was now at 53.2%. Proposed was a patio
in the rear of the lot, the driveway reduced to ribbon strips, and drive aprons to be modified in the
public right of way. The wall that surrounded the rear of the property was partially in the public
right-of-way and did not count toward the owner’s lot coverage.
Mr. Todd Kendall, owner for 401 Franklin Street was present to answer questions. No
commissioner questions followed.
Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to accept the
proposal for 401 Franklin Street, as presented. Roll call:
Aye: Abplanalp, Collins, Salomon, Zinke, Hiller
Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-0
6. Secretary’s Report/Staff Update
Mr. Lambert stated the new preservation ordinance was passed by the city council and was
now in effect. He, along with the city’s intern, have been in the process of re-writing all of the
Historic Preservation Commission forms. Lambert said he has been assisting with one landmark
nomination that is owner-generated and said a few more may come forward. Two requests for
demolitions were made but no applications were received just yet. Other updates included Lambert
7
Historic Preservation Commission
March 15, 2016
working on the brochures, attending an upcoming Landmarks Illinois 5-year strategy planning
session, and May as Preservation Month.
Mr. Lambert announced that the focus for Preservation Month will be the 50th anniversary of
the National Preservation Act. Hiller described some of the ideas he got off the state’s website that
can be incorporated into the HPC’s Preservation Month activities. He asked for volunteers to
assist with some poster and display ideas as well as ideas for educational walking tours that bring
awareness to the community. Lastly, Hiller asked that commissioners send him or Zinke their
ideas for homes that are close to 50 years old so they can research them. Commissioners were
also asked to email Lambert those projects that they felt worthy of a preservation award.
7. Announcements
A. From the Commission – None.
B. From the Public – None.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Salomon,
seconded by Commissioner Collins. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0.
8
Agenda
Meeting Agenda
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING LOCATION &
HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 MEETING
Location: 1. Call to Order
Geneva City Hall 2. Roll Call
Council Chambers
109 James Street 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2016
Geneva, IL 60134
4. Concept Review
Time: A. 200 Fourth Street CASE 2015-116
7:00 p.m. Applicant: Bob Rasmussen, Midwest Custom Homes
Dan Marshall, Marshall Architects
Concept Review of: New 5 Unit Infill Townhome Project
Commissioners:
Scott Roy, Chairman B. 318 South Third Street CASE 2016-001
Applicant: Bob Unteidt, Graham’s Chocolate
Jennifer Abplanalp
Tim Nelson, Architect
Steve Collins Concept Review of: Proposed Façade Modifications and
Al Hiller Addition
George Salomon
Paul Zellmer 5. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications
Carolyn Zinke A. 401 Franklin Street CASE 2016-002
Applicant: Todd Kendall, Owner
Staff Liaison: Mike Hoorelbek, Collegiate Landscape
Michael A. Lambert Application for: Site Hardscape
Preservation Planner 6. Secretary’s Report (Staff Update)
630/938.4541
7. Announcements
preservation@geneva.il.us
A. From the Commission
B. From the Public
8. Adjournment
Next HPC meeting: April 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
January 26, 2016, 7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Roy called to order the January 26, 2016 meeting of the Geneva Historic
Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman Roy; Commissioners, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke
Absent: Commissioners Abplanalp, Salomon
Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Lambert
Others Present: Jim Sullivan, 1537 Whitehall Ct., Batavia; Jamie Dwyer, 128 N. 6th St.,
Geneva; Tom Wetmore, Wetmore Construction, 418 Fourth St., Geneva;
Bob Unteidt, 318 S. Third St., Geneva; Architect Tim Nelson, 421 James
St., Geneva; Steve Burnham, 328 S. Third St., Geneva; Recording
Secretary Celeste Weilandt
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – December 15, 2015
Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the
December 15, 2015 minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 4-0.
4. HPC Concept Review of Proposed Projects
A. 318 S. Third Street (Case 2016-001). Applicant: Bob Unteidt, Graham’s Chocolate;
Tim Nelson, Architect. Concept Review of Propose Facade Modifications and Addition.
Preservation Planner Michael Lambert summarized this case was for the expansion of Graham’s
318. A photograph from the 1999 Survey was depicted on the overhead, along with photos of the
existing conditions of the building. The proposed additions were depicted on the overhead with
Mr. Lambert explaining that the Zoning Board did grant the applicant’s variance requests for rear
yard relief. Existing and proposed elevations were presented on the overhead.
Architect for the project, Mr. Tim Nelson, introduced Mr. Unteidt, the owner of Grahams. He
described in detail that there would be a single-story addition on each side of the building as well
as a two-story rear addition. The architectural detailing would match the existing building and new
stucco on the additions would match the existing.
Commissioners asked questions about the rear parking, what the two variations were for,
lot coverage, and how the new additions would be differentiated from the historic home.
Mr. Nelson explained that the one-story side addition on the south elevation, by virtue of adding the
addition itself, created a break in the plane. On the front elevation, he stated the two side additions
would be set back from the front of the original home. However, the north elevation would be
difficult. Mr. Nelson stated that another interior fireplace was being installed and would be placed
back-to-back to the original fireplace, using a different flue but the same chimney.
Historic Preservation Commission
January 26, 2016
Concerns were voiced by Commissioners Zinke and Hiller regarding the massing of the
proposal as compared to the buildings to the north and south and the fact that the addition would
dwarf the original house. Commissioner Hiller, however, appreciated the corbel details and other
details that were being incorporated into the additions. For the north elevation, Hiller
recommended the porch be set back somewhat and that the roof line be broken up. Commissioner
Zellmer agreed with Hiller’s comments and believed the original house was being “engulfed” by the
additions. Asked if the applicant could slide the south addition and upper deck to where the ADA
ramp was located, Mr. Nelson agreed it could be considered but the flow of patrons and other
issues had to be considered. Various ideas followed on how the applicant could break up the long
roof line on the north elevation.
Commissioner Zinke referenced one of the Secretary of Interior Standards which stated that
any changes made to a building have to be reversible in the future. She then asked Mr. Nelson if
the interior wall that was being removed could be kept as an interior feature of the room.
Mr. Nelson indicated that issue could be discussed with the owner and possibly used for breaking
up the facade. Turning to the north elevation, Zellmer recommended leave the existing window at
the end, in place, which could be the starting point of the addition.
Chairman Roy mentioned that a differentiation in material for the addition could “lighten” up
the building, such as using siding or a mixture of both, to which Mr. Nelson was open. In reviewing
the second floor railing, Commissioner Hiller was not particularly fond of its look on the building
and asked if it could be done differently. Mr. Nelson explained the 42-inch railing would be wood.
Because the kitchen space was not finalized, Commissioner Zinke asked that the applicant
seriously consider how much kitchen space was really needed and whether the addition could be
reduced in square footage.
Chairman Roy opened up the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Steven Burnham, owner of the building to the south (Paper Merchant), brought up some
historical points about what the first mayor envisioned for the City of Geneva in its planning efforts.
Mr. Burnham believed site views were important and if they were eliminated, the whole feel of the
community changed. He further expressed concern about the massing of the building now and for
the future and pointed out there was very little green space remaining on Third Street. He voiced
concern about the lack of parking.
No other public comments followed.
Mr. Nelson confirmed he would return to the commission with another concept review.
5. HPC Review of the HPC Building Permit Applications
A. 327 N. Third Street (Case No. 2016-002). Applicant: Tom Wetmore, Wetmore
Construction. Application for Window Replacement. Mr. Lambert briefly discussed the background
on the circa 1940’s Cape Cod and presented a photo from the 1999 Survey. Back in 1999 there
were original wood windows on the first floor with what looked like replacement windows on the
second floor. Current photos were also provided on the overhead. He noted the windows had
been replaced since the 1999 Survey and under the new window policy, adopted in September
2015, where there were no historic window materials, alternative materials were allowed but with
certain requirements to be met. Those requirements were: a simulated divided light (SDL) on the
interior and exterior of the glass and a spacer bar, which the Anderson 400 windows did have.
However, Mr. Lambert stated he could not determine what the original dimensions of the sash
rails/details were from the 1999 Survey.
2
Historic Preservation Commission
January 26, 2016
Mr. Tom Wetmore, with Wetmore Associates Construction, 418 Fourth Street, Geneva,
discussed his intention to replace the two dormer windows because they leaked water. The
current windows were vinyl replacements and not in good shape. The first floor windows were
currently Anderson 400 Series windows and the proposed windows were Anderson 400 Series
SDL, double-hung windows with a six over six window. The proposed windows would be slightly
larger than what currently existed because they were placed into the existing windows and would
provide better installation. Per a question, the first floor windows were in good condition.
Chairman Roy stated this was a good solution and the application met the guidelines.
Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to accept the
window replacements as presented. Roll call:
Aye: Hiller, Zinke, Zellmer, Roy
Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-0
6. Secretary’s Report/Staff Update
Mr. Lambert mentioned he will be bringing back the brochures in March to review since
Commissioner Zinke will be out of town. On another matter he mentioned that the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, which was adopted on January 19, 2016, was being recommended to be
amended as it related to the application fees. Mr. Lambert proceeded to share the discussion that
took place at last night’s Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the ordinance.
7. Announcements
A. From the Commission – Mr. Lambert stated the next HPC meeting will meet at a
different venue due to Presidents Day. Dialog turned to whether there were any applicants
interested in nominating their building for landmarking, to which Mr. Lambert indicated there was
one person and perhaps a few more interested parties. A general discussion followed on how
applications would go through the process to be considered for nomination. Commissioner Hiller
suggested that applicants may want to first come before the Historic Preservation Commission to
present their application and receive input from the commissioners before moving their application
to City Council. Other commissioners thought that was a good idea.
B. From the Public – None.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Zellmer,
seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 4-0.
3
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 4A 200 South Fourth Street
March 15, 2016
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
Following an initial Concept Review at the December 15, 2015 HPC
meeting, the Applicant is returning with several alternate elevations,
revised in response to a request for additional enhancements and
Request: elevation modifications. The Applicant is seeking HPC comment in order
Concept Review for a 5 Unit to move forward with project planning.
Infill Townhome Project
REQUEST
The Applicant is seeking the Commission’s response to a proposal that
HPC Case Number: would retain the historic Schones House and former Disciple of Christ
2015-116 church buildings and the removal of the outbuildings. A 5 Unit Townhome
is proposed for the vacant yard at Fourth and Campbell Streets. The rear
of the property and a portion of the Campbell Street front yard would be
utilized for vehicular parking.
Staff Liaison:
Michael Lambert The Applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission (December
Preservation Planner 10, 2015) seeking feedback regarding the proposal. The concept supports
630/938.4541 a City of Geneva goal of providing increased and diversified housing within
preservation@geneva.il.us the downtown area.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Both the Schones House and former Disciple of Christ church buildings are
identified as significant structures within the Historic District and are
proposed to be retained with little modification.
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.
The December 2015 HPC report is appended for reference.
Garage Doors reminiscent of historic mid-19th Garage Doors with windows and more
century swinging doors on existing , on-site characteristic of early automobile garage
outbuildings (to be demolished). swinging doors.
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 4B 318 South Third Street
March 15, 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 returning with revised exterior concepts and seeking the
Commission’s response to a proposal that would retain the historic
Request: residence but provide sizable additions to the sides and rear of the
Concept Review for Additions historic structure.
to the Sides and Rear of a
Contributing Property The Applicant has met with Staff and the following items were discussed:
Architectural compatibility of the south entry vestibule; architectural
minimization of the upper dining deck/balcony and railing system at the
HPC Case Number: south elevation; and determination of alterations that may be required at
2016-001 the historic chimney to accommodate a second fireplace. Additionally,
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,
Staff Liaison: incorporation into the north-facing roof plane.
Michael Lambert
Preservation Planner The primary concerns raised by the HPC during its initial review of the
630/938.4541 proposed expansion, in January 2016, included the following concerns:
preservation@geneva.il.us 1. Overall mass of the proposed additions that envelope a
majority of the historic building;
2. The lack of distinction between materials at the historic and
contemporary portions of the buildings in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (the revised
submittals indicate shingle siding for the proposed additions);
3. A concern regarding the massing of the south addition,
particularly the details of the proposed upper level patio
railing/balustrade;
4. A concern about the location of the accessible entrance and
associated courtyard; and
5. A desire to push the north addition back from the primary
façade to reveal at least one or both of the historic first floor
windows at the north elevation.
Agenda Item 4B
Page 2 of 2 Concept Review
STAFF ANALYSIS
Per the adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Properties in Geneva, the proposed expansion should be
reviewed for compatibility with the architecture, scale, materials, and details of the existing structure. The
architectural massing, materials, and details should be complementary to, yet distinct from, the historic
building. The January 26, 2016 Staff Report is appended for reference.
EXISTING EXTERIOR VIEWS - JANUARY 2016
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 401 Franklin Street
March 15, 2016
Proposed Hardscape
Applicant: BACKGROUND
Todd Kendall, The existing property has been undergoing renovation work, which
Owner includes the construction of a new garage, approved by the HPC at its May
19, 2015 meeting.
Mike Hoorelbek,
Collegiate Landscape
REQUEST
The Applicant is seeking to complete the renovation of the property which
includes replacement of the existing driveway with a ribbon driveway;
Request: completion of two drive aprons in the public right-of-way; and additional
hardscape improvements for sidewalks and patios.
Permit Review
HPC Case Number:
2016-011
Staff Liaison:
Michael Lambert
Preservation Planner
630/938.4541
preservation@geneva.il.us
2/24/2016 Copthorne® | Unilock
Copthorne®
Old world charm. New age technology.
The modern yet elegant look of Copthorne will add a touch of class to any landscaping project. With an average compressive strength
rating of up to 4 times the strength of conventional poured concrete, Copthorne is a virtually indestructible paver that will not split,
crack or fade.
Colors
Basalt Burgundy Red Burnt Clay
Old Oak
http://unilock.com/products/enduracolor-plus/copthorne-2/?region=2 1/5
2/24/2016 Copthorne® | Unilock
Shapes & Sizes
Standard
20 cm x 6.5 cm x 6 cm
7.75" x 2.5" x 2.25"
Why Choose
Belpasso features EnduraColor™ Plus, a proprietary blended layer of nature’s highest performing minerals that never fade. It virtually outperforms any other
paver surface when it comes to surface wear, color retention and its ability to repel even the nastiest staining substances. Choosing Belpasso, with
EnduraColor Plus, will ensure your patio, driveway, outdoor kitchen or pool deck will look like new, even after years of wear and tear.
Learn About Copthorne Copthorne Torture Test
http://unilock.com/products/enduracolor-plus/copthorne-2/?region=2 2/5
2/24/2016 Copthorne® | Unilock
Features
Applications
Borders & Accents
Pedestrian
Residential Vehicular
Technologies
EnduraColor™ Plus
EnduraColor Plus is the defining difference when it comes to superior wear resistance and color longevity. EnduraColor Plus is not a
coating or secondary treatment, but rather a proprietary blended layer of nature's highest performing minerals (which never fade) that
have been embedded right into the surface of each stone during the manufacturing process. This ensures that the surface will not
fade, crack, peel or delaminate, and the beauty of your project will last a lifetime.
Reala™ Surface Technology
Ultra-realistic textures cast from actual natural stone, brick and cobblestones.
Ultima™ Concrete Technology
For heavy traffic loads, this proprietary manufacturing process creates pavers and walls with up to 4 times the strength of poured
concrete.
Surface Texture
Timeworn
Patterns
Copthorne A Copthorne B Copthorne C Copthorne D
Standard (100%) Standard (100%) Standard (100%) Standard (100%)
http://unilock.com/products/enduracolor-plus/copthorne-2/?region=2 3/5
2/24/2016 Copthorne® | Unilock
Packaging
Unit Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Layers Ln Ft Bndl. Ln Ft Bndl. Units Sq. Lbs Units
Thickness Bndl. Layer Bndl. Soldier Sailor Ft. Bndl. Bndl.
Standard 6 89.20 11.15 8 127.9 393.7 6.73 2349 600
Copthorne® Old Oak, Burgundy Red, Burnt Clay
Sold Separately/Blended on Site
Additional Copthorne® Information
Sold in full bundles only on a refundable skid (except specific areas of NY where half bundles are also available). Important: Textured surfaces require a
buffer between the plate compactor and the paver surface to prevent scuffing.Take extra care when using Polymeric Sand with this product. Contact Unilock
for information.
Important Information
The surface of each Copthorne paver is uniquely cast using Reala Surface technology to capture the feel of Europe’s oldest brick
streets. Made with Ultima concrete, you not only get that bygone
look and feel, with the assurance that Copthorne can be used inthe most demanding of applications.
Base Requirement & Bedding Course – standard paver base specification
Handling & Installation – A protective pad is required when doing the final paver compaction. Be sure to offset
joints forbest appearance. Cutting is seldom required if you are installing a curvilinear walkway. Minimum radius 6 feet for curvedapplications.
Install from multiple pallets for best color distribution.
Accent compatibility
all paver applications and as accents in walls
Jointing Material and Joint Stabilization
Good: Ordinary dry joint sand
Better: Unicare Polymeric Sand, Techniseal RG+, Alliance XP
Best: Ordinary dry joint sand stabilized by a water-based or solvent based
joint sand stabilizer (joint sand stabilizersealer may make the surface slightly slippery).
Note:
o Polymeric sand is often installed too high in the joint. Ensure the sand level is lower than the paver surface to allowfor
a three dimensional appearance.
o Alliance Gator Maxx Polymeric Sand is recommended for concrete overlays.
Sealers
Product may be sealed but it is not absolutely required
Sealers generally decrease the slip resistance of a product
Unilock Unicare, Surebond, BP Pro and Techniseal sealers can be used.
Semi-gloss sealers will still appear glossy on this product. Please test a stone to ensure the desired effect.
Product must be cleaned before sealing
Cleaners – Any paver cleaner from Unilock, Techniseal, Surebond or BP- Pro is acceptable.
Special note: Other than overlay on concrete stoops and steps, you should have a bedding layer between the pavers and the poured
concrete surface to avoid issues with height variance
All measurements are nominal
http://unilock.com/products/enduracolor-plus/copthorne-2/?region=2 4/5
2/24/2016 Copthorne® | Unilock
Colors, product data, and availability are subject to change without notice. Please confirm all details with your local Unilock Dealer or call 1-800-UNILOCK
(1-800-864-5625) for availability in your area. The colors shown should only be used as a guide. Final color selections should always be made from actual
samples.
http://unilock.com/products/enduracolor-plus/copthorne-2/?region=2 5/5
HPC Date Address, Agenda Item XX
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE & PROJECT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY – STAFF ANALYSIS
1. 1999 COG Architectural Contributing architectural resource; no identification of historic landscape
Survey Designation features.
(NC, C, PS, S):
2. Associated Architectural n/a for landscape
Style(s) or Type:
3. Significant Architectural n/a for landscape
Features :
4. Date of Construction: n/a for landscape
5. Date(s) of Significant n/a for landscape
Addition(s) and/or Residence has been enlarged several times between the 1910s and 1990s; a
Alteration(s): detached garage is currently under construction.
6. Period of Significance (POS): n/a for landscape
7. Historic Names Associated none / unknown
with Property:
8. Historic Images: none / unknown
9. Historic Map Representation: Yes
10. Why is it Important? Greek Revival home that has been expanded and remodeled to reflect various
(Context / Significance) architectural trends including Colonial Revival and Modern Colonial Revival;
landscape is undistinguished.
11. Proposed Architectural n/a for landscape
Features Consistent with
Architectural Style and POS:
(Exterior Rehab / Additions)
12. Proposed Architectural n/a for landscape
Features Inconsistent with
Architectural Style and POS:
(Exterior Rehab / Additions)
13. Significant Landscape none / unknown
Elements:
14. Application of COG none
HPC Design Guidelines:
15. Compliance with COG n/a for landscape
HPC Window Policy:
16. Compliance with COG n/a for landscape
HPC Siding Policy:
17. Summary IHPA Comments: none
(Projects utilizing or
potentially utilizing Rehab
Tax Credit or Tax Assessment
Freeze)
March 15, 2016 401 Franklin Street, Agenda Item 5A
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 utilized for residential purposes.
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 property has been significantly altered; the existing landscape
retained and preserved. The removal of historic does not consist of any significant landscape features that will be
materials or alteration of features and spaces that altered by this proposal.
characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical The landscape is contemporary and does not create a false sense of
record of its time, place, and use. Changes that historicism.
create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes The property has been significantly altered; the existing landscape
that have acquired historic significance in their does not consist of any significant landscape features that will be
own right shall be retained and preserved. altered by this proposal.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction n/a
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired n/a
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 The property has been largely redeveloped over time; no known sub-
project shall be protected and preserved. If such surface features are known or expected to be disturbed by the
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures proposed improvements.
shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new n/a
construction shall not destroy historic materials
that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new n/a
construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows:
1. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact as presented.
2. Adopt Staff’s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards.
3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.