Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 April 19, 2016, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called to order the April 19, 2016 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke Absent: Commissioner Collins Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert Others Present: Lyle Skinner, 227 S. Second St., Don Biggs, Kane County, 504 W. Meadow, Lombard, IL; Tim Weber, 960 Ridgewood Ave., Aurora, IL; Brian Kronewitter with Cordogan Clark Architects; Mike and Kim Milano, 117 S. Sixth St.; Tim Nelson, Tim Nelson Architects, 421 James St.; Lawrence Colburn, 513 S. Third St., Erica Ruggiero with McGuire Igleski & Associates 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 15, 2016 Corrections were as follows: Page 3, part B, 3rd line, Zinke was of the understanding that the Geneva Plan Commission would not review the plans until after the HPC reviewed and voted on them. Lambert stated he used the words “Plan Commission” when he should have used the “Zoning Board of Appeals” throughout the minutes. Page 5, 4th paragraph, Zinke said she commented about the 9 over 1 double-hung windows and said the sentence should read: “Zinke pointed out that one of the significant features of the home were the 9 over 1 double-hung windows which will have a significant number lost in the proposed plan.” Page 2, 4th paragraph, Hiller said the sentence should read that he “supported the original concept over the proposed ones and felt the newly submitted Elevation E was the best compromise.” Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Salomon to approve the March 15, 2016 minutes, as corrected. Motion carried by voice vote of 4-0-2 (Roy and Zellmer abstain). 4. HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 227 S. Second Street (Case 2016-018). Applicant: Lyle Skinner, Owner. Application for Porch Stoop Reconstruction. Preservation Planner Lambert discussed there were two issues with this house – the first being that the front wall of the home sat on the property line and the existing stoop was in the public right-of-way. It was an existing condition since 1880. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the stoop and the work will be subject to final approval by the Public Works Department. Another issue is the fence, which sits right on the public sidewalk. Access to the north side has to be through a small gap between the railing and the fence. The building commissioner is aware of the issue and has allowed the railing not to be completely code compliant to allow the access. Historic photos and alterations of the house followed. A site plan was shared, along with the proposed details for the front porch. The applicant is proposing to add  Historic Preservation Commission April 19, 2016 brackets to the existing overhang. Lambert asked that commissioners discuss the appropriateness of those brackets. Applicant/Owner, Mr. Lyle Skinner, stated he prepared the drawings. Per Hiller’s question whether the proposed stoop steps were wider than the original steps, Mr. Skinner explained the posts for the railing were angle-ironed onto the current porch and so he widened the porch to incorporate the posts into the porch body itself. They were four to five and one-half inches wider. Hiller inquired whether the Azek material, which was not commonly used in the district, was a necessary material for the project, wherein Mr. Skinner stated that considering his age the material required less maintenance. (Samples of the Azek material were passed around.) Preservation Planner Lambert added that the fence and stoop do take on significant amounts of moisture, especially during snow removal, due to the proximity of the porch/stairs to the public right-of-way. Commissioners were fine with the Azek material (color: Oyster), voicing comments that it was not glossy and looked as if the applicant painted it. For the record, Lambert stated that the Azek material has been highly debated in various historic districts, with some districts using the material for just about anything, some districts limiting its use to certain types of projects, and some districts not allowing it at all. Commissioners were fine with the ornamental brackets. No comments were received from the public. Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to accept the proposal for the front stoop alterations, subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 B. 227 S. Third Street (Case 2016-019). Applicant: Lyle Skinner, Owner. Application for Front Yard Fence Reconstruction. Preservation Planner Lambert reported that the current historic fence on this property was located at the public sidewalk. He walked through the proposed fence alternations, noting the lot slopes significantly and so the fence design has been created to create an average of the 42-inch height and it maintains some of the features from the old fence. The zoning requirements for the fence height have been met. Due to the slope of the grade, Mr. Lambert recommended that any motion made be subject to retaining the visibility triangle. Owner, Mr. Skinner stated the inverted corner design of the fence was constructed based off of Cantigny. He constructed the fence himself 36 years ago and did reuse the pickets from the prior fence. Concerning the visibility triangle, he lived at the property for 36 years and said there were no accidents at the corner. He explained how the fence will follow the slope of the land and become as high as 3 feet at the corners. Details followed. Mr. Skinner stated he will use the Azek material for the fence. All posts will be wolmanized. Mr. Skinner closed by sharing some history about his home, explaining that the first floor of his house used to be the second floor and apparently the street level was raised up many years ago. Commissioners were fine with the fence and material. No questions from the public. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer, to accept the proposal, subject to review of the visibility triangle and review by the Public Works department. Roll call: 2  Historic Preservation Commission April 19, 2016 Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 C. 100 S. Third Street (Case 2016-022). Applicant: Don Biggs, Kane County Government; Brian Kronewitter, Cordogan Clark Architects. Application for Parapet Reconstruction. Mr. Lambert depicted photographs of the parapet on the Kane County Court House and explained why the project was coming before the commissioners, i.e., some reconstruction work needed to be done. Mr. Michael Weber, with Cordogan Clark, stated the Third Street facade will be paid particular attention. The brick may need to be replaced but, overall, it is in good shape with some tuck pointing planned. Per Mr. Weber, there appeared to be a lot of water penetration from the top of the parapet, so flashing would be added to the area. Damage to the back side of the parapet was depicted, with Mr. Weber pointing out brick spalding, broken brick and displaced brick. Prior repairs of the parapet were also pointed out. Mr. Weber indicated he will try his best to match the existing brick color as closely as possible. Because the historic terra cotta is damaged in some areas, he plans to pull units from the west face of the building and insert them onto the Third Street side to maintain the existing look. On the west side, those units will be replaced with in-kind material or new material. Continuing, Mr. Weber explained that the flashing will consist of two dull stainless steel drip edges and two layers of flexible flashing in between. Most people will not see the flashing from 40 feet away but they may see the drip edge when looking closer to the building. Mr. Biggs, representing Kane County, stated that the prior repairs included a rubber membrane going over the parapet wall which caused more water damage and internal building damage. Details of how the membrane would be installed followed. Mr. Biggs stated the anticipated start date for the repairs was to begin April 25th or 26th of next week. No scaffolding would be used. Commissioners commended the applicants for maintaining the visual integrity of the structure. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer to accept the proposal, subject to any new materials not reviewed by the HPC to be reviewed by staff. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 D. 117 S. Sixth Street (Case 2016-025). Applicants: Mike and Kim Milano, Owners; B. Hogan/J. Bendafreddo, Contractor. Application for New Detached Garage. Mr. Lambert reported that the permit on this case called for a demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage. A picture of the garage from the 1999 survey was depicted but staff said no current photo was submitted with the application. Reviewing the site plan, Mr. Lambert pointed out the garage was not visible from the street side and had no significant architectural elements that were taken from the historic home. The lot coverage requirements were also met. Elevations of the proposed garage followed and Mr. Lambert noted the introduction of minor details around the new garage’s windows. Also, the proposed garage was sympathetic to the garages of the 19th century. Lastly, the only question that staff had was whether the cedar siding exposure would be smooth side out or rough side out. 3  Historic Preservation Commission April 19, 2016 Mr. Tim Nelson, with Tim Nelson Architects, stated the owner tried to match the existing garage as far as roof pitch. The size of the garage was slighter larger than the original garage and its details were chosen from the details of the historic home. The garage door would face south. Owner, Mike Milano confirmed the proposed garage would be five feet from the side and rear lot lines. Per Commissioner Hiller’s question, Mr. Milano estimated the original garage was about 30 to 40 years old and it had significant cracks in the flooring, along with a bow-back to the roof. Mr. Nelson could not confirm, but assumed the cedar siding would be smooth side out. Motion by Commissioner Abplanalp, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to accept the proposal with the siding to match the siding on the house. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 E. 513 S. Third Street (Case 2016-026). Applicant: Lawrence Colburn, Owner; LawnBoyz Landscaping, Contractor. Application for Site Paving. Per Mr. Lambert, this project was before the commissioners due to changes to the paving on the site -- specifically pavers and a proposed Uniblock screen wall between the two buildings. The applicant was proposing to install crushed stone, turf, brick pavers and Uniblock walls, as depicted on the overhead. Mr. Lawrence Colburn, owner, explained that the project was basically to remove the slab of asphalt between the two buildings and extend the current pavers and beautify the space between the two buildings. Two landscaped walls were being installed and acting as “place holders” to keep the flow of pedestrian traffic yet keep the vehicles off the site. Mr. Colburn was open to other designs for the landscaped walls, however. In speaking with the building department, once the flow of traffic was changed, he assumed the apron onto the street would also be removed and grass filled in its place. He stated there were safety issues to consider. Commissioners were fine with the proposal but Mr. Lambert stated that if the wall material changed or the design significantly changed, the applicant would have to return to the HPC. If the walls were removed, then project would not have to return to the HPC. The applicant could then work with the Public Works Department to fill in the curb and grass. Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Salomon to accept the proposal, as presented. Roll call: Aye: Abplanalp, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0 5. Presentation / Discussion A. National Register of Historic Places – 2016 IHPA / IHSAC Review; Central Geneva Historic District – Boundary Update; North Geneva Historic District – Boundary Update; Erica Ruggiero with McGuire Igleski & Associates. Mr. Lambert briefly explained the Memorandum of Agreement between Kane County and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) regarding the demolition of the 6th Street School and the condition that the county would hire a consultant to update the nominations for the National Register of Historic Places for the Central Geneva Historic District and the North Geneva Historic District. Mr. Lambert summarized how the process was to unfold, stating the HPC would be allowed to make comments and then those comments would be 4  Historic Preservation Commission April 19, 2016 forwarded to the mayor by a letter. In summary, Lambert stated this report was scheduled to go before the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council (IHSAC) in June 2016 but could go later with the state’s latest budge issues. Ms. Erica Ruggiero, with McGuire Igleski & Associates, summarized various updates made to the Northern Geneva Historic District. The district now comprises of 77 acres and includes 176 contributing properties, 20 non-contributing properties with 196 historic structures constructed from 1835 to present day. A historical background of the area followed along with a depiction of the revised boundary. A review of the Central Geneva District then followed, with Ms. Ruggiero noting three properties were left out when the district was originally created, but were now included with the amendment. This district includes 135 acres, 278 contributing buildings (constructed between 1835 and present day), and 63 non-contributing buildings Examples of each category were depicted as well as the revised boundary. Lastly, Ms. Ruggiero summarized that the architectural sections of each district were updated to reflect all architectural styles and building types throughout the period of significance. Property photos were depicted on the overhead. Ms. Ruggiero reported that her firm believed the Fox River was an important element and not a boundary and recommended to the IHPA and the National Park Service (NPS) that Island Park and the industrial properties between the Fox River and Bennett Street be included in one of the districts. However, Ms. Ruggiero reported that the IHPA and NPS responded and saw the Fox River as a boundary and not an imperative part to the development of Geneva. As a result, Ms. Ruggiero said her firm recommended that Island Park and the industrial properties along the east bank of the Fox River be further researched and eventually included in their own National Register of Historic Places district. Commissioner Zinke asked for clarification on how to classify future properties, wherein Mr. Lambert explained there will be two documents to use: The National Register and Geneva’s local survey, which will continue to include the three classifications the HPC is used to using. Mr. Lambert shared that by the time the city’s survey is updated, he hoped to have the non- contributing and contributing properties match Ms. Ruggiero’s update. Lambert also clarified that the term “potentially significant” had been removed as a classification. Per Zinke’s second question about the HPC having the opportunity to review any future development at the Sixth Street School site, Mr. Lambert added that the city’s local boundary district did not change at all and that the city’s local district was a larger district than the National Register’s district. Asked if neighbors needed to receive notification regarding the changes to the boundaries, Mr. Lambert stated there would be a public notice done at the state level. General dialog and questions of clarification about the two districts followed. Mr. Lambert expressed his frustration that the NPS considered the Fox River and the industrial parts of town as being a boundary versus a critical element. He also found it disconcerting that three properties were not included in the Central Map District – 513 Third Street, 517 Third Street and 116 South Street since the represented early settlement structures even though they were non-contributing. Other than that, he stated staff did not have any issues with McGuire Igleski’s recommendations. Both Mr. Lambert and Ms. Ruggioro explained how they argued to connect the east banks of the Fox River to the Central District by stating the railroad bridge and dam were visual links. As a result, Lambert suggested that the commissioners may want to make this one of their comments to the IHSAC as being a weak case in its findings. Ms. Ruggiero also suggested that the HPC may want to consider creating a multiple “industrial” properties nomination where the industrial buildings are not contingent upon specific boundaries and can be spread throughout the city. Details followed. 5  Historic Preservation Commission April 19, 2016 6. Secretary’s Report/Staff Update A. Historic Preservation Month Activities – Hiller reported that it will be the 50th anniversary of the National Preservation Ordinance and he will be using the National Park Service’s 50th year celebration logo to promote the month’s activities. Activities for the month include a tour of houses dating back to 1866, 1915, and 1966. Posters will be placed in front of the homes with access to QR codes so visitors can use their cell phone and learn about the history of each home. Some of the tour sites were mentioned. Mr. Lambert said he would follow up with I.T. staff on whether audio can be inserted into the QR codes, as suggested by Commissioner Abplanalp. On another matter, Mr. Lambert said the biennial preservation awards that are usually given by the city will follow a different process this year. There will be no judges and, instead, commissioners will be asked to visit the sites, review the projects, and send comments back to Lambert. Regarding the survey form, Mr. Lambert reported the intern has 13 field visits to make, photograph the structures and will revise the survey form. The goal is to complete the survey form by January, 2017. B. Forms and Brochures – Per Mr. Lambert, the review process has been slow due to the creation of one of the new application forms as a result of the new ordinance. He hopes to have Dir. DeGroot review the application forms in a week or so. The HPC brochure will also be reviewed again by the HPC. Regarding Zinke’s question about the matrix and whether staff should provide more administrative approvals, Mr. Lambert agreed the matrix could be reviewed, but he was fine with the number of cases coming before the HPC. Other staff updates included: 1) the city had the same number of permits today as it did last year at this time; 2) a status of Grahams 318 - staff had not heard back from the applicant; and 3) a status of the 315 James Street front door replacement. 7. New Business A. From the Commission – None B. From the Public – None. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Roy . Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 6-0. 6