Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Design Review Subcommitee (Agenda only) City Clerk Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers 150 Dexter Court Elgin,IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. November 10, 2009 2. November 24, 2009 3. December 8, 2009 D. Old Business E. New Business 1. 15 N Geneva Street—Addition to building to connect storage room 2. 565 Douglas Avenue—Remove rear door, 2nd floor 3. 160 Kimball—Replace all windows 4. 330-334 Raymond Street—Porch rehabilitation 5. 27 N Porter Street—Remove rear door, 2nd floor 6. 141 Hill Ave—Rebuild back addition F. Tabled Items 1. 320 N Spring Street—Install garden wall—9.22.09 2. 703 Raymond Street—Restore three porches— 10.13.09 G. Correspondence 1. COA Log H. Adjournment e" Minutes Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission March 9, 2010 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall)by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Briska, Betsy Couture, Paul Durrenberger, Pat Miller, Dennis Roxworthy, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Fritz-Williams, Historic Preservation Specialist r PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 15 N Geneva Street—Additional to building to connect storage room 565 Douglas Avenue—Remove rear door, 2nd floor 160 Kimball Street—Replace all windows 330-334 Raymond Street—Porch rehabilitation 27 N Porter Street—Remove rear door, 2nd floor 141 Hill Avenue—Rebuild back addition OTHERS PRESENT: Holly Wiedmeyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Commissioner Couture to approve the minutes of November 10, as amended (page 5: Roxworthy: "brick mold staying?"); and November 24, and December 8, 2010, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Durrenberger. eft The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 10 NEW BUSINESS: 15 N Geneva Street—Additional to building to connect storage room The owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior changes to the garage and an addition to connect the building and the garage. The work to the garage has been completed without permits. Changes to the garage include removing the overhead door, replacing it with a wall, door and two vinyl windows, removing the service door and replacing it with bricks and a glass block window. Doing this work without approval from the city created an unlawful zoning condition, two occupyable structures on a single lot. In order to continue to use the garage as office/storage, the contractor is proposing to connect the building and the garage with an addition. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Garages, Carriage Houses and Outbuildings A. should be preserved and maintained. Original features should be repaired to match the original. B. should not be moved or relocated to another part of the lot, if original to the property. New Commercial Construction A. should be at the rear of the building. B. should be compatible with the original building in scale, proportion and rhythm of openings, and size. C. should be built as to result in minimal removal of original walls and details from the rear of the building. Try to connect the addition with the original building through existing door or enlarged window openings. D. should be of exterior materials similar to the existing building. E. should not be vertical. Rooftop penthouses and additional stories should not be constructed unless the addition will not be readily visible from the street or other pedestrian viewpoints. Roof additions should be set back from the main facade. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the COA with the following conditions: 1. The vinyl window is not relocated. The all new windows should be aluminum-clad wood windows. 2. The new sliding door is aluminum-clad wood. ***** (contractor): Wajih Alkayed Wiedmeyeer: Will the bricks match? Alkayed: Yes, they will match the current addition to the back of the building as close as possible. Wiedmeyer: Can you step the new wall back from the existing south wall? Miller: If you don't do that it will be hard to make it look right. There will be a straight line, not staggered. Alkayed: Yes, I can do that. Miller: Will there be a door on the south side as shown in Exhibit F or like G3? Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Alkayed: No, that was a preliminary sketch (Exhibit F). Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as amended (to setback south wall one foot) with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 565 Douglas Avenue—Remove rear door, 2nd floor The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a door from the rear of the house on the second floor that goes out to a deck. The COA applications states that a wall will be installed on the interior. The applicant does not state what will happen with the exterior opening. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Doors and Door Features A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period of the dwelling. Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style, glazing (type of glass and area) and lights (pane configuration). Wood or solid core fiberglass is acceptable materials for use in replacement doors. B. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door opening should not be enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height. C. should not be added at locations where they did not originally exist. If needed to meet safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added at the rear or sides of dwellings where they would not be readily visible. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: The exterior is bricked over. ***** Steve Babianz (owner): This was a two unit and this was the second exit. Stroud: Used originally as a boarding house but no original stair,possibly a porch. Roxworthy: Can it be a window? Owner: No, are you requiring it to be bricked in? Staff: No,that was my recommendation based on the fact I didn't think the door opening was original. Miller: I think the door opening was original and should be maintained. You should have a blind door on the outside and wall on the inside. Owner: I just want to remove the door since it is a safety issue not to have handrails on that balcony. Staff: You would make it a non-operable door by removing the hinges and handle and screwing the door to the frame. Wiedmeyer: You could replace the door with a wood slab door before making it inoperable. That would eliminate the glass portion from exposing the inside of the wall. Owner: The door is so narrow, I don't want to special order another door just to screw it shut. Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 4 of 10 Staff: The existing glass would need to be opaque. Either black paint or replace the glass unit with opaque glass. Miller: The design of the door is okay(2 panels over one glass lite). You could put painted plywood behind the glass. Owner: I'll paint it black. Stroud: Maybe you could check the feasibility of switching out the etched glass to plain glass before painting it. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as amended (door stays as inoperable with blacked out glass). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 160 Kimball Street—Replace all windows The contractor has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all windows on the building. In August, 2009, the DRSC approved the replacement of 15 windows damaged by the fire and the fire department. The contractor has exceeded the approved scope of work and replaced all the windows. The new windows are Pella,Architect Series, aluminum- clad wood windows. Eleven new windows have false muntins between the glass panes. The contractor is also seeking to replace the four rear doors to the apartments due to vandalism. These are currently six panel steel doors that were installed without a COA a few years ago. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Windows A. which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and design and with their original materials and numbers of panes (glass lights). B. which are not original should not be added to primary facades or to secondary facades where readily visible. C. should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, the recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in material and design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable as replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be considered in determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires replacement shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive weathering, loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or insect attack, and cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular window may be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to repair the windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation of appropriate replacement windows. D. which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials to match the original. If repair is not feasible,replacement should be with new windows to match the original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extruded windows are an acceptable replacement substitute for original steel sash windows, as long as their size, shape and profile match the original windows. Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 5 of 10 E. Vinyl extruded windows are not permitted for use in historic districts. F. which are new should not have snap-on or flush muntins. True divided muntins are preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appearance as historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window sash and installed on both sides of the glass are preferable to snap-on simple grilles. G. screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized aluminum and fit within the window frames. H. that are approved for replacement may be fitted with new double-paned Low-E glass that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glass that does not contain a tint should be used. Doors and Door Features A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period of the dwelling. Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style, glazing (type of glass and area) and lights (pane configuration). Wood or solid core fiberglass is acceptable materials for use in replacement doors. B. should be constructed of solid wood panels, such as the four-panel Homestead or Italianate design may be used on the front if appropriate to the style of the house. C. should involve glazing in clear etched or beveled glass as appropriate to the style of the house, if applicable. D. should only involve artificial materials such as "lexan" or other acrylic based materials, if applicable. E. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door opening should not be '" enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height. F. should not be replaced by doors with new designs, especially those at the front entrance or at side entrances which are readily visible from the street. G. should not be added at locations where they did not originally exist. If needed to meet safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added at the rear or sides of dwellings where they would not be readily visible. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. Eleven windows with three over one divided lites shall be true divided lites or simulated divided lites. SDL are on the outside, inside AND between the glass. 2. Rear doors have four panels,but may be steel. ***** John Brust(Contractor): Wiedmeyer: I drove by yesterday and it didn't match staff's description. Brust: I have started adding the muntins Jennifer asked for already. Miller: Are you making custom pieces? Brust: Yes, I am custom milling the wood and gluing them on to the glass. Miller: The basement windows still have the wire mesh on them. Weren't you going to take ,, that off? Brust: No, I have repaired them exactly as required. The wire mesh remains for security. Wiedmeyer: So it's the removal of all the windows that was done without a permit? Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 6 of 10 Staff: Yes, last fall he received approval only for the windows that had been boarded over from 4 fire damage. Couture: What about the ones that had been boarded up before the fire? Staff: Since he wasn't changing those openings, he wasn't required to put new windows in. Owner: The building deteriorated between the time I got approval from the DRSC and work started. Vandals did more damage than the fire department. Miller: He was only suppose to replace 15 windows? Staff: Yes, 15 windows were damaged from the fire and/or the fire department. Stroud: I wish you would do more to the outside of the building like the front entry and removing the wire mesh. Wiedmeyer: Will these glued on muntins be exterior and interior? Brust: Yes. Miller: And the rear doors will be 4 panel? Staff: yes, that is under my recommendations. Motion made by Commissioner Briska to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed 6-0-1. 330-334 Raymond Street—Porch rehabilitation The contractor has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the porches. Work started under the previous owner without a permit. The existing porches are in various states of deterioration. Work to be completed includes new structural supports, decking, stairs, newel posts and handrails. The contractor has submitted drawings (Exhibit Gl-G3). Staff has revised the drawings to be appropriate for the buildings (Exhibit G5). Additionally, the retaining wall on the property needs replacement. The contractor is proposing a concrete wall (Exhibit G4). Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. C. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood,not concrete or brick). D. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade, if the porch floor is made of wood. E. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting,vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. Porch Columns and Railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required,use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. 4111) Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 7 of 10 B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Retaining Walls A. should be preserved and maintained, if original to the dwelling(or built before 1945). B. should be of poured concrete (not concrete blocks) or in stone designs such as cut stone, random rubble, coursed rubble, or cobblestones. Retaining walls of brick are less appropriate but may be constructed. If constructed of artificial or cultured stone, textures, colors and random designs should replicate natural stone. If located in front yards,the walls should be constructed using up to two courses and an additional cap course,not to exceed twenty inches in height. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: The handrails, spindles, newel posts, stairs, and decking are modified to match Exhibit G5. ***** Tim Drumm from JV Henik Inc (Structural Engineer): Miller: Will you be changing the roof? Drumm: No change. Miller: (to staff) The skirt frame is 1x6 and the boards are 1x4 right? Staff: yes, I drew the sketch free hand so it does not appear completely to scale, but the text specifies the sizes. Drumm: Can I use lattice? Wiedmeyer: No, lx4's is the only appropriate material in this case. The spindles should have square edges as well. And can staff find a better cap than pyramidal? Staff: Yes, I'll find something else. I was just trying to keep it simple. Miller: Some of the framing details appear off. Staff: I'll send Mr. Drumm a typical structural detail to ensure the post,rim joist and column line up. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as amended with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couture. e"' The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 8 of 10 27 N Porter Street—Remove rear door,2' floor The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a door from the rear of the house on the second floor that goes out to a deck. The opening will be replaced with a window. The rest of the opening will be re-clad to match the adjacent substrate. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Doors and Door Features A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period of the dwelling. Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style, glazing (type of glass and area) and lights (pane configuration). Wood or solid core fiberglass is acceptable materials for use in replacement doors. B. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door opening should not be enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height. C. should not be added at locations where they did not originally exist. If needed to meet safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added at the rear or sides of dwellings where they would not be readily visible. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: The new clapboards are staggered into the adjacent siding to blend the new with the old. ***** Scott Savel (Contractor): Miller: Are you replacing the door with a window? Savel: yes Wiedmeyer: Will the trim match the other windows? Savel: yes, it will match the one next to it. Miller: Can you move the window to the south so that the trim doesn't run into the bed molding? Savel: Nope, there is a wall there. Miller: Can you just remove the door: Savel: The owner would like some natural light. Miller: Can the window be on the side of the dormer? Savel: That's more expensive. I have the opening od the door. It's on the rear of the house. Not visible from any street. Miller: This could be a good chance to correct poor design though. Savel: The whole back of the house is poor design. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve with staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 9 of 10 141 Hill Avenue—Rebuild back addition The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the rear addition and rebuild it exactly to match. The existing one floor addition does not have a proper foundation. Additionally, the deck on the roof was not installed properly and severe damage has occurred to the structure as a result. The soffit and fascia are damaged and water is getting in behind the siding, then weeping out from behind the clapboards. The roof is holding enough moisture to grow vegetation. The interior plaster is detaching from the walls and ceiling. The owner wishes to completely remove the addition and rebuild it from the ground up. The windows and any other exterior elements that are salvageable will be reused. A new door will be installed to match the existing. The only change to the exterior will be relocating the east window slightly to the south to accommodate the original built-in cabinets on the interior. Rebuilding the addition will necessitate the reconfiguration of the basement hatch doors directly to the south. The owner will rebuild the stairs and walls down to the basement in concrete. A new metal hatch door will be installed. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Additions A. should be located at the rear of dwellings,not on the front or readily visible areas of the sides of dwellings. B. should be secondary(smaller and simpler) than the original dwelling in scale, design, and placement. C. should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original dwelling's design, roof shape,materials, color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights, etc. D. should impact the exterior walls of the original dwelling as minimally as possible. When building additions use existing door and window openings for connecting the addition to the dwelling. E. should be constructed to avoid extensive removal or loss of historic materials and to not damage or destroy significant original architectural features. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. David and Jennifer Williams (owner): Williams: I don't anticipate that I will have to rebuild the entire addition but I wanted to get approval for a worst case scenario. We will begin interior demolition and then investigate how far the rot has progressed. The roof was holding so much moisture trees were growing out of the compost stuck in the decking last year. There is mold and lichen growing on the roof as well. The plaster inside has been severely damaged. Wiedmeyer: what is the addition on now? Williams: We believe the bottom sill plate rest on dirt. And overtime, layers have been added to the driveway that puts the sill plate approximately 6"below grade. You can see in the pictures �.. how the siding goes below the asphalt. Miller: Is this the room with the wainscot? What are you going to salvage? Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 10 of 10 Williams: We'll salvage everything we can, clapboards, trim, fascia, soffits, and windows. We do want a new door. And the east window will be relocated to accommodate the butler's pantry. But right now we hope to prop the room up, dig a proper foundation,put the room back down and then sister the roof rafters as required. Roxworthy: Are you going to put the overhang back? Williams: Yes, we like having a place to stand out of the weather while we fumble for our keys. Wiedmeyer: What about the railings and the door out to the deck? Williams: Over the weekend we removed the railings and deck floor to get a better look at the roof from there. There was an ice dam right at the edge that has been contributing to the leak inside. We will replace those railings and deck in the future. The door will be closed off until we have railings,per code. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couture. The motion passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: COA Log No discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Durrenberger. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couture. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t 1 # r ennifer Fritz-Williams Approved: Historic Preservation Specialist D j l,Z I 2o/D Design Review Subcommittee—March 9, 2010 Page 3 of 3 r Motion made by Commissioner Durrenberger to approve COA as amended;proposed shed to be install with a time limitation of one year from date of COA issuance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: COA Log No discussion. Complaint Log No discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Durrenburger. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. en Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary /7/_. ���,�O/0