Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Design Review Subcommitee (13) Proposed- Minutes Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 12, 2010 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:09 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: Paul Durrenberger CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Fritz-Williams, Historic Preservation Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRS Secretary PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 475 Park Street— Handrail (12.08.09) 367 North Street— Install handrail on front stoop (9.28.10) 457 St Charles—Replace handrails on rear porch (9.28.10) New Business 174 S Gifford Street— Replace front handrails 256 Division Street— Demolish property 260 Division Street—Demolish property 101 Center Street— Demolish property 107 Center Street—Demolish property OTHERS PRESENT: Holly Wiedmeyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Commissioner Couture to approve the minutes of September 14, 2010, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 • Page 2 of 12 ITEMS TABLED: None OLD BUSINESS: Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to un-table items D1 and D2 for discussion (representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 475 Park Street—Handrail (12.08.09) The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new handrail at the top of his exterior steps and repair the cracked concrete landing. The old handrail was a metal pipe. The work on the new handrail began without a permit or COA and the owner was stopped over the weekend by the code officer. Staff has revised the proposed handrail system to accommodate comments made by the subcommittee members. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Wiedmeyer: Is the plan acceptable to you? Miguel Reneria (owner): Yes. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 3of12 Miller: Will the iron pipe going to remain. Fritz-Williams: Yes - Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 367 North Street—Install handrail on front stoop (9.28.10) THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE SEPTEMBER 28"MEETING DUE TO A NON-REPRESENTATION. The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a handrail on the front stoop. While there has not been a handrail for many years,the owner was recently notified by his insurance company that a handrail is required by them. Staff is proposing a simple handrail to meet the requirements without detracting from the house, Exhibit G. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. ***** Greg Gurreo translated for Biviano Villegas(owner), who was present for tonight's meeting. Owner: Can the stoop/steps be wider. Roxworthy: COA for handrails only. Owner: Would want to build porch one foot wider. Roxworthy: What material? Will the concrete steps remain? Owner: Will leave as originally approved. Briska: A pin should be added for the newel post; due to size of landing. Should a single pipe be installed? There are only 3 steps, house has been altered, and a single railing will be out of place. Roxworthy: Agree the single pipe would be best. Miller: There's not much room to attach a newel post. Will the pipe be 21/2" with elbow to the house? Similar to 475 Park St? Fritz-Williams: Minimum of 214" diameter. Owner: Pipe on one side only? Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 4 of 12 Couture: Okay with either option. Miller: The solution is to make the stoop the right size and build the correct railing. Newel post would be too large; rail may not be. Briska: Pipe would be brought up from the bottom step to a minimum of 30"; then bent to meet the house. Owner: Agreeable to pipe requirement. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve as amended; install pipe from bottom step up 30";then bent to meet the house. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 174 S Gifford Street— Replace front handrails The contractor has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install handrails on the front steps. The handrails were removed some time ago, not pictured on the inventory photos from 2008. However, handrails are required by code. Since the building is altered, staff has proposed a simple handrail (Exhibit G). Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railings A. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. B. 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 have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers, to match original porch construction Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: 1. All wood is painted. Yadira Uribe(owner)was present for tonight's discussion. Durrenberger: Prefer to have hand rails on both sides. Miller: Height of railing? Fritz-Williams: Top of rail will be 30". Briska: Distance between spindles? Fritz-Williams: Maximum of 4" spacing. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as submitted (both sides). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. The next four agenda items (E2, E3, E4 & E5) are under same ownership and requesting demolition of structures. There was general discussion of the COA requests. After which, each individual property was discussion, then roll call voting was completed separately. 256 Division Street—Demolish property 260 Division Street— Demolish property 101 Center Street— Demolish property 107 Center Street— Demolish property Representing St Joseph Church: Ignacio Alvarez, Willis Willer and Greg Gurrero. Roxworthy: The green house has the most details remaining. Fritz-Williams: COA for demolition was brought before the committee before. Prior conversations were with Father Earl. Church staff has been changed. Economic Hardship is being presented. Details regarding each property are attached and include a real estate appraisal and estimates for repairs needed. Copies of the open Code violations were given to committee members. This provided detailed information regarding the structures and the grounds. (Note: after the meeting all violation reports were retrieved by staff) Gurrero: We would like to demolish all the properties. Need a large church. Parking is also needed. Briska: The church's intention to retain the property? Any active plan to expand? Willer: Yes, we would like to expand, but no funds are available. Briska: Do you have the funds to demolish the buildings,then grade and seed the land? Wilier: The church diocese will loan us the money for the project,then we pay them back. Miller: Applying for Certificate of Appropriateness, not sure why. Request was denied before. Fritz-Williams: If denied by the committee, it would be heard by the Heritage Commission within 90 days. Briska: Can the committee actually consider the hardship? Fritz-Williams: Yes. Gurrero: Properties have been vacant for 6+years now. Wiedmeyer: Who owns the parking lot north of your property? Fritz-Williams: City of Elgin, public parking lot. Willer: We have 9 services on Sunday and 2 on Saturday. Approximately 5,000 parishioners with little money. Gurrero: We like to build a grotto for landscaping on the lots. Durrenberger: At one time, the diocese was looking to build another mission. Willer: No area available within our boundary (Rockford diocese). Gurrero: We can't even expand with the building demolition. Wiedmeyer: What would the city view on these properties? ""` Fritz-Williams: The city would like to see them gone. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 6 of 12 Willer: We understand the city would like them to be gone too. It's part of the city's gateway. Structures are major eye sores. Guerrero: City implied they might want a zero lot line, but not definite. Willer: Willing to put a park with landscaping. Wiedmeyer: If the properties were fixed up, that would be a dream. Couture: Can NSP grants help? Fritz-Williams: These properties are not eligible for NSP. Willer: Both 101 & 107 Center acquired after the Historic Districts were established. Briska: In terms of staff, who were involved in the city's decision? Fritz-Williams: Planning, Code and the Legal department. Briska: Does the church intend to sell or release ownership of the property? Willer: No. There is no money available to build a new building. A chapel addition maybe considered to the existing in the distant future. Guerrero: Similar to the Lutheran Church in East Dundee,just north of Haeger Pottery. Fritz-Williams: All four properties have property maintenance code cases; in the city's legal since 2005. Wiedmeyer: Eventually these properties are going to become an emergency situation. Miller: Is there any parishioners that need housing? Willer: We have attached 3 different quotes from different contractors. Roxworthy: Will you be getting more from the demo material? Willer: Hoping to have some items for recycling of the wood detailing, etc. Couture: There is no clear plan for what to do with the property if demo. No plan given for landscaping, park, parking or building. Guerrero: Hispanic people need to see progress, concrete action, before committing. Couture: Your diocese will give you money to process with the demo, but not for reconstruction? Willer: Diocese is also having money issues too. They get their money from the various parishes. Guerrero: Diocese wants $80,000 from our parish. Only a portion will be given back to this parish. Discussions now began on each individual property. 256 Division Street— Demolish property The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building. The owners cannot afford to rehabilitate the property based on the cost to make the improvements and the resale value of the property afterwards. Current exterior code violations include the front porch deterioration, peeling paint, and missing siding. The owners have no plans to redevelop the site. Instead the site will be graded and seeded. Al) Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 7 of 12 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition A. should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building. B. should not occur, unless: 1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; 2. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or 3. The denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code—"Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance." 4. The denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation, or redevelopment of the site, and/or adjacent properties from substantially improving the aesthetic, architectural or economic value of the affected properties and surrounding area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Miller: I've looked at the estimates for both the interior and exterior of this project. Many of the items would be repairable, not in need of demo. Willer: One house was used by the nuns for the school. Two were purchased for potential expansion. Wiedmeyer: One quote indicates an item for asbestos siding; the structure has shingle siding. Prices seem to be elevated too. Willer: Prior commercial entity had inquired a few years ago about the property. We need a location to worship for 1,400 people. Considered making one house into a meeting space, however structural problems were found and they could not proceed. H.Wiedmeyer (audience): Can a walk thru be done of the houses? Fritz-Williams: No. Unsafe structures. Willer: Agree,too much structural damage for interior viewing. Briska: Properties are being requested for demolition, no other intention. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion failed 5-1. Yeas: Briska Nays: Couture, Miller, Durrenberger, Wiedmeyer and Roxworthy 260 Division Street— Demolish property The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building. The owners cannot afford to rehabilitate the property based on the cost to make the Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 • Page 8of12 improvements and the resale value of the property afterwards. Current exterior code violations include the front porch deterioration, peeling paint, and missing siding. The owners have no plans to redevelop the site. Instead the site will be graded and seeded. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition A. should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building. B. should not occur, unless: 1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; 2. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or 3. The denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code—"Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance." 4. The denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation, or redevelopment of the site, and/or adjacent properties from substantially improving the aesthetic, architectural or economic value of the affected properties and surrounding area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Miller: My comments are the same as 256 Division. Additionally, a roof patch would have kept the ceiling from caving in. Willer: Ceiling damage was caused by vandals. Miller: Neglect is not a valid reason for demolition. Motion made by Commissioner Durrenberger to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion failed 5-1. Yeas: Briska Nays: Couture, Miller, Durrenberger, Wiedmeyer and Roxworthy 101 Center Street— Demolish property The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building. The church has owned the building since 2001 and has not been able to rehabilitate the property. At this time, the current exterior code violations include the missing garage door, damaged garage roof, damaged roof on house, missing and rotten wood siding and trim, deterioration of front and side porches, crumbling mortar on chimney, peeling paint, handrails not up to code, missing steps to front porch, structural deterioration of front porch piers, and 4, Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 9 of 12 dining room window replaced without a COA. The church has no plans to redevelop the site. Instead the site will be graded and seeded. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition A. should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building. B. should not occur, unless: 1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; 2. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or 3. The denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code—"Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance." 4. The denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation, or redevelopment of the site, and/or adjacent properties from substantially improving the aesthetic, architectural or economic value of the affected properties and surrounding area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Miller: Same comments as 256 Division. Fritz-Williams: The front steps have already been removed to assist with keeping vandals out. Willer: Prosecution is being conducted. Miller: Pastor's house had work that was required. The repairs were done and the house is now quite beautiful Couture: Yes, a great example of how improvements can make a difference. Guerreo: Can't go back to the past; we are looking to the future. Motion made by Commissioner Durrenberger to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion failed 5-1. Yeas: Briska Nays: Couture, Miller, Durrenberger, Wiedmeyer and Roxworthy 107 Center Street—Demolish property The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building. The church cannot afford to rehabilitate the property based on the cost versus the value of the building after repairs. The church has no plans to redevelop the site. Instead the site will be graded and seeded. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 • Page 10 of 12 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition A. should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building. B. should not occur, unless: 1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; 2. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or 3. The denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code—"Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance." 4. The denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation, or redevelopment of the site, and/or adjacent properties from substantially improving the aesthetic, architectural or economic value of the affected properties and surrounding area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. ***** Fritz-Williams: Building has been vacant and green tagged since 2003. Guerreo: This was acquired to expand the church structure. Willer: Both Center Street properties were purchased with the intent to expand the church. Couture: On the survey, indicates contributing to NR district; and building was fair condition. Willer: Building is structurally unsound. Basement's north corner is collapsing. Guerreo: Fear is that the building will collapse on its own. Wiedmeyer: Is the little garage part of this property? Willer: No. Garage is part of 256 Division Street. Miller: Surprised the comparables are for single family residences. Whenever someone has plans for a property, the first action should be obtain approvals for the site improvements. Briska: It is a shame the structure has no viable economic opportunity for this property. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion failed 5-1. Yeas: Briska Nays: Couture, Miller, Durrenberger, Wiedmeyer and Roxworthy CORRESPONDENCE: Staff Inquiries and comments: #1 -352 Prairie Street—Requesting comments for deconversion drawings Fritz-Williams: Item was brought before the committee back on July 27, 2010, regarding the porch replacement. (Perspective drawings were given to committee members for Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 11 of 12 r- consideration.) Owners plan to demo the front porch; a separate COA for approval will to be submitted. The drawings show the gable roof forthe-porch is gone. Boxes eaves were found. Miller: The roof should be either flat or Mansard. Fritz-Williams: Owner wants to redo the roof. Can the original (July 2010) COA be extended to include the removal of the gable roof? It is not original. Miller: What is proposed for the front of the house? Fritz-Williams: As far as I can determine, the house is Prairie style; confirmed by the main staircase. Briska: Part of the building is Colonial. Fritz-Williams: The gable does not add to the structure; and is off center. Briska: Can the COA have the gable demo'd? Committee members had no objections to removing the gable as part of the porch concept. #2 -361 Douglas Street— Installation of windows without a COA Fritz-Williams: A code case has been entered. It appears the new windows there were installed are made of vinyl. #3 -457 St Charles St—Bricks on rear concrete porch Fritz-Williams: The homeowners will need to come before the committee for the handrail / approval. A photo of the rear entrance to the house was shown to committee members. The [ owner wants to install brick pavers over the existing concrete steps. The entire porch is not visible from the street. Can staff approve this request, or do you want the COA to be brought before the committee? Motion made by Commissioner Durrenberger to allow staff to approve attaching brick pavers to the rear porch (as shown in photo). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed unanimously. #4- ELECTRONIC AGENDA& MINUTES Fritz-Williams: The City of Elgin is giving paperless as possible. All commission and committee agendas will be placed on the city's website (www.cityofelgin.org)for reviewed. Paper copies of the agenda packets will no longer be sent to committee members. For our next meeting, an email will be sent to each member letting them know the agenda is complete and ready for review. The entire agenda packet will be scanned and you can review the documents on your computer. During the meeting, I will utilize the overhead projector to display the COA request, for any questions that may arise from drawings, photos, etc. Design Review Subcommittee—October 12, 2010 Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Durrenburger. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, of Cindy A. Walden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary d/- //- // A)