Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Design Review Subcommitee (15) Minutes Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission November 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 (6:05), Pat Miller, Dennis Roxworthy, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Fritz-Williams, Historic Preservation Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRS Secretary PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 521 Raymond Street— Replace stoop at rear New Business 903 Douglas Avenue— Install a 4'fence 433 DuPage Street—Enlarge dormer and restore windows 376 E Chicago Street—Replace handrail on rear stairs OTHERS PRESENT: Holly Wiedmeyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were provided for review. ITEMS TABLED: None r Design Review Subcommittee—November 9, 2010 Page 2 of 6 OLD BUSINESS: 521 Raymond Street— Replace stoop at rear THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE OCTOBER 261" MEETING DUE TO NON REPRESENTATION. No representation. Item remained on the table. No discussion. NEW BUSINESS: 903 Douglas Avenue— Install a 4'fence The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 48" high fence. The current fence is 48" in a scalloped pattern. The fence, however, is damaged beyond repair in one section. The owners would like to replace the fence at the same height, only with an arched shadow box design. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Fences A. should be proportionate to the house and the design should be compatible with the character of the building and district. B. should be painted white or a trim color related to the house, never left to weather or given a stain finish. C. of cast iron or other material of original design should be preserved D. of cast iron may be added to buildings constructed in the late 19th and early 20th century. Cast iron fences are generally not appropriate for dwellings built after 1920. E. if placed along common property lines should not be placed against another fence- double line fencing is not permitted. F. should have posts that are set a minimum of 30 inches below grade and no more than eight feet apart. G. if wood, be of cedar, redwood or pressure treated pine, cypress or other rot resistant wood. H. that has a decorative gate or arbors must be submitted with a drawing complete with dimensions. FENCES IN FRONT YARDS should be no higher than 36 inches with the posts being slightly higher and having caps J. should have pickets no wider than four inches with spacing between boards a minimum of one inch up to the width of the board depending on the design of the fence. K. if applicable to the layout, should have a minimum of corner posts, end posts and gate posts which are slightly taller than the fence and five to ten inches thick with a cap and finial. Line posts can be visible and decorative to compliment the main posts or be hidden behind the picket design. Fences which cross a driveway or walkway should have gate posts. Gates should be designed to swing onto the private walkway or driveway, not onto the public sidewalk. Design Review Subcommittee—November 9, 2010 Page 3 of 6 FENCES IN REAR YARDS L. built for privacy should not extend beyond the rear yard beginning at the back corner of the house. M. built for privacy should have a minimum of gate post, corner post, and end posts which are five to ten inches wide and taller than the pickets. N. Can be constructed in the same low fence design found in the front yard 0. of wood boards or planks for privacy should be located in rear yards and be no taller than six feet. Boards should be no more than six inches wide. P. Privacy fences of flat boards with flat tops in a single row are most appropriate for the historic districts. Vertical boards topped with lattice or picket are also appropriate as privacy fences. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. The fence is not shadow box design. 2. The fence is 50%open. Fritz-Williams: Request to install new fence with the arch to be "up" instead of"down" as currently existing on site. Design shown was a Arched with Lantern Posts (provided by owner). Arlene Gocken (owner): A tree came in a recent storm and took a section of fence down. The fence was installed about 15 years ago, and some of the posts are rotting too. Briska: Shadow box design is not allowed within the historic districts; however a single plane in an arch design could be considered. Miller: What is the width of the pickets? Fritz-Williams: Standard 1 x 4 is a true dimension of 3 5/8". Miller: If installed with a 50%opening, the opening will be too wide. It will not look correct. Owner: The photo of the existing fence will show how we propose to install the boards. The new fence will be identical size in width and spacing. The only difference will be the arch at the top, not a scallop to the bottom. Wiedmeyer: Spacing should be no more than 1Y2 - 2" maximum. Owner: My husband requested I ask to have a 6' high fence from the garage edge to the alley, and then along the alley too. Wiedmeyer: A transition from the 48" to 6'. The yard does not have much room for transition. Owner: If the commission prefers the 48" fence to be installed all the way around, I have no objections. The arch at 48" will be okay. The fence is to keep our dog in our yard. Briska: Is the 48" height at the "top" of the arch or the "bottom" of the arch? Owner: The 48" height will be the top of the arch. Posts will be slightly higher. Briska: Will the corner posts and gate posts be more elaborate? Owner: Design shown was given to us by the fence company. Wiedmeyer: The corner posts and gate posts should be 6x6, not the standard post size of 4x4. Briska: Will the posts continue to be inline with the fence boards? Fritz-Williams: The existing fence style has inline posts (sections of fence between posts). Briska: Cap design preference? Design Review Subcommittee—November 9, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Fritz-Williams: The existing fence has a shallow pyramid style; almost flat. Briska: Is there an alternate design preferred by the owner? Posts will need to be higher on the corners too. Fritz-Williams: The posts height should be approximately 5-6" higher than the bottom of the arch; where the sections meet. Weidmeyer: Should exact drawings be brought to staff for final approval? Fritz-Williams: Committee can make that as a requirement if so desired. Owner: We would prefer to use the existing post style. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve as amended; 1-corner and gate posts to be higher; 2-cap to match existing fence cap (shallow pyramid style). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 433 DuPage Street— Enlarge dormer and restore windows The owner withdrew this COA since the posting of the meeting agenda. 376 E Chicago Street— Replace handrail on rear stairs The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the handrail and stairs on two rear stoops. Work began without a permit, but when the owner was notified by the code officer that a permit and COA was required, she stopped work. The handrails are not visible to the street and the property has been altered over time. Staff is recommending a vernacular handrail to meet code requirements and compliment the overall character of the property. 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. • Design Review Subcommittee—November 9, 2010 Page 5 of 6 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 with the following conditions: 1. The final stairs and handrail match Exhibit F. Fritz-Williams: The porch on the driveway side is slightly visible; and the stairs on the east side of the house is not visible from any right-of-way. Staff has been working with the owner, since the work began prior to this COA approval being received. Briska: Drawing is missing the spacing between the spindles. Fritz-Williams: Standard building requirement of 4" maximum spacing will apply. Briska: Is this a minimal 2x2 spindle. Fritz-Williams: Yes. They are true 1 5/8". Bull nose treads to have a 1" overhang. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weidmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: None DISCUSSION: PROBLEM PROPERTIES: Durrenberger: Since being on the committee, properties such as the last one brought before us seem to be ignored by city staff. Many problems (both Code and COA issues) seem continue to bring the properties down. The bigger issue as why the problems are still allowed to exist without improvement/upgrade. This is especially true with homes that were converted in the past to multi-tenant building. Fritz-Williams: The property is a lawful nonconforming 5 units; which had originated a single family residence. Miller: The problems seem to remain or are missed when the code enforcement officers are switched from area to area. It seems as if the same unit is being inspected during rental licensing inspections. Fritz-Williams: I will request for the code enforcement supervisor (Vince Cuchetto) to be present at the next committee meeting to address the committee's concerns. • ' Design Review Subcommittee—November 9, 2010 Page 6 of 6 ' 170 N Porter Street—Chimney: Fritz-Williams: Photos were given-to-committee members to view the chimney before and after work was completed. Staff is requesting direction from the committee to determine if the work completed without an approved COA can be approved by staff; or if the chimney replacement should be brought before the committee for review. Background information: Property owner had received a COA in April 2009 to replace mortar of the existing chimney. As the "after" photo indicates, mortar repair was not the only work completed. The chimney was taken down to the roofline and built as shown without a COA. Briska: Didn't they take off 3-4 rows and rebuild the cap? Fritz-Williams: No, it was taken down to the roofline. The height of the chimney meets the building requirements. The design now has a soldier row and a very large cap. Briska: Not much of this house is historical; however it is within the historic district. Miller: Design is too heavy; definitely inappropriate. Briska: Should be a corbel with 3-4" cap; not the mansard looking cap in photo. There really is not much in the guidelines regarding chimneys. Wiedmeyer: If this design had been brought before us for a COA, it would not have been approved. Roxworthy: Agree the design would not have been approved. Although this house is not historically accurate, this chimney does not enhance the features. Wiedmeyer: How was this chimney issue found? Fritz-Williams: Recent inquiry by a citizen. During my research, the 2009 COA was found. The homeowner did not request an inspection after the work was completed. Stroud: This needs to be brought before the committee for review. Durrenberger: I agree. Since the work was completed without an approved COA,the committee should review the chimney details. Couture: Will they be required to remove the entire chimney? Or remove to just below the soldier row and rebuild? Stroud: The committee would make that determination during the meeting in which the COA is presented for review. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Re ectfully submitted, Cdr rSandra L. Kolba Approved: Secretary, Pro tem November 23, 2010