Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Design Review Subcommitee (16) Minutes Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission November 23, 2010 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:03 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 Planner;Vincent Cuchetto, Code Enforcement Manager, and Sandra Kolba (substituting for Cindy Walden, DRS Secretary, during her absence). PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 521 Raymond Street—Replace stoop at rear New Business 409 North Street—Replace windows and doors 552 E Chicago Street—Demolish house 170 N Porter Street—Remove and rebuild chimney 457 E Chicago Street—Remove overhang OTHERS PRESENT: Holly Wiedmeyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Although the approval of minutes of the meetings of July 27, September 28, October 12, October 26 and November 9, 2010 were listed on the agenda, the only minutes presented were from the November 9, 2010 meeting. Steve Stroud asked if there were any corrections or additions which needed to be made to these minutes. Betsy Couture made a motion to approve the minutes of November 9, 2010, Dennis Roxworthy seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the minutes were unanimously approved. r Design Review Subcommittee — November 23, 2010 Page 2 of 15 ITEMS TABLED: 703 Raymond Street—Restore porches(10.13.09); due to non-representation. 320 N Spring Street—Handrail for side porch (6.22.10); due to non-representation. RENTAL LICENSE PRESENTATION BY VINCENT CUCHETTO TO SUBCOMMITTEE: Steve Stroud and Jennifer Fritz-Williams introduced Vincent Cuchetto, Code Enforcement Manager,to the members of the subcommittee. Steve indicated that, before the start of the regularly scheduled meeting,Vince had been invited by the subcommittee to make a presentation regarding the rental licensing and multiple family inspections. Steve indicated that Paul Durrenberger had some specific questions he wanted to ask about these items. Fritz-Williams: As a reminder, at the last meeting we had some questions about our rental inspection procedures and what the code officers are looking for on multi-unit buildings and so I brought Vince to discuss the procedure. You can ask him specific questions. Cuchetto: I haven't formally prepared anything today. Normally when I come to speak at different engagements, there is a topic to go over but I am strictly here for you to answer your questions. If I don't have an answer to a question, I will write it down and get back to you in a timely manner. I understand there were some concerns about several particular properties. I brought my computer here so I am logged into the code enforcement software system so I can look things up for you. Does anybody want to start? Durrenberger: By the time we see code violations, we hope that a lot of information has already gotten some attention from the city. A lot of times what we see is something that I wonder how has this even gotten this far without being noticed by the city? Are you going to approve a stairs on something that I feel, at this point, should be torn down? I feel like the city is complacent in a process that allows a property to continue to be unacceptable. I don't like being put into that position because people look at me and say, "Did you guys look at this? Did you look at that? How did this ever get done?" Particularly with properties that are multiple units. I feel like we are just letting something continue and perpetuate and it really is not acceptable. I guess I want to know if you are looking at things ahead of time before we even get them? What started this was a property on Chicago Street and the front and back steps. A couple of years ago, I went on a food drive and found the front door open. I walked in and was shocked at what I saw and wondered how the owner of the property could get a rental license. I have heard the comment, "This property meets all the code requirements for a legal five unit," or something to that affect. My question is how can that be, how can the bar be set so low if that is true? Cuchetto: We had,just this year alone, on that particular property, three violations—one on a rental license inspection, which is still open; one on a permit case—installing steps without a permit on 10-29-09; and one on unsanitary conditions. Durrenberger: What do you mean by saying a rental license case is open? Cuchetto: The rental license case is still open because it involves a permit for the steps. The good thing about rental license cases is that we have a lot more authority to impose fines. On Design Review Subcommittee — November 23, 2010 Page 3 of 15 multi-unit buildings, the rental license is for the entire building, not just for individual units. We can condemn individual units but, with a rental license is for the whole building. So, if violations are not complied, we can tickets until we are blue in the face. So the best way to guarantee compliance is to go after the rental license. It is a long process. First , we have to send the owner a notice. If they don't comply, we issue a letter of suspension giving them 20 days to come into compliance. If then they still have not complied,then we go for revocation of the rental license where we put a green sticker up on the door telling the tenants that they have 60 days to find someplace else to live. After 60 days, if they don't come into compliance, then we can condemn the entire building because now it is unlawful. That is a really big stick which we don't bring that out unless we absolutely have to because, literally, we are putting people out on the street and that is the last thing we want to do. But we want to bring the property into compliance. That is our main goal. Miller: Could you elaborate on how inspections are tracked with respect to per-unit inspections, common areas and the process, procedures and goals? Cuchetto: In the last couple of months, I have heard several people say that, when the inspector shows up at a house or property and that unit isn't ready for an inspection,then the inspector will just inspect something else. That is not the case. Part of process improvement for the code department is not just training our inspectors, it is streamlining our processes, working with our technology so that we can work harder, work smarter and work faster. We will be doing that next with the rental license program. In the past, we kept track of rental inspections manually. It is not acceptable to be writing down in a file which unit was inspected. We have already started taking the steps to make a separate entry for each rental unit so we can tell which one has been inspected and when it was inspected. So we are working on it. The inspectors are not allowed to keep reinspecting the same property over and over again. That is not acceptable and, if it is happening, we will take care of it. Miller: I think that is the target you need to strive for. It is exacerbating that inspectors get reassigned all the time to an area and therefore they don't know what the other guy said or wrote down or they don't take time to look. So one clean unit gets a three-year license but, when there are four or five units in a building, it could be a decade before some of those other units get looked at. I think that is really important. Things need to be tightened up. In ten years, I have had four or five different inspectors. Cuchetto: We are addressing that. Inspectors come and go and, within the next five years, I am going to lose three inspectors. We are a little "lean" right now. We have six inspectors that are for residential, one is city-wide and one is commercial. We have eight inspectors for this huge metropolis. We do the best we can. We ask for help from the community. If you see something, you've got my e-mail address, my phone number. Call the problem in and we will get somebody out right away. Every single inspector has at least one district that they work, some have two. We had one inspector retire in April and he is probably not going to be replaced. We are running pretty thin. This week I did a rental inspection on DuPage Street for Amber Von Dran who has part of the historic district. I can tell you that I am pretty sure that the owners of that property were not all that thrilled to see me. I am not opposed to going out and helping with the inspections. W are working very hard to be sure all the inspectors are trained properly and we will have different people working in these areas. With your help in spotting some of these problems, we will do what we can to quickly respond. Design Review Subcommittee — November 23, 2010 Page 4 0115 row. Durrenberger: We operate by specific guidelines. Do you have any criteria that you follow when you walk into a unit or is it just kind of whatever the inspector happens to feel like?__ Cuchetto: No, it is not whatever the inspector happens to feel like. We are going to test the outlets and GFIs better be working. We are going to check for functioning smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. We are going to check for health and life-safety issues. We are going to make sure that exhaust fans in the bathroom that are working. We are going to make sure that windows aren't cracked and are working properly. We check the furnace and the water heater. We look at the general appearance of the home, inside and out. We want to make sure that a couch or loveseat sitting on the front porch. There are literally thousands of codes to enforce and ordinances are passed for a reason. Fritz-Williams: The inspectors check whether windows open and if there are screens, correct? Cuchetto: Yes, we enforce screens but only during a certain times, I believe between May through October, I would have to check the specific dates. Miller: What if someone has central air? Can windows be sealed shut and never open? Cuchetto: By code,they need to function. It is an egress issue. Fritz-Williams: And, it is a safety issue. Roxworthy: This is a city wide question. I know you have a lot of foreclosures. I understand that there was talk about the city going in and inspecting these houses to be sure that they are up to code when vacant. Fritz-Williams: The ordinance passed but there is a delay in the implementation date. Cuchetto: We don't know if we are going to get additional staff or if they are going to bring somebody in. Roxworthy: What I have seen is houses that have been abandoned and end up with such things as frozen and broken pipes. Cuchetto: Before the beginning of last winter, we started a mail program, sending out letters to the attorneys representing the mortgage companies of foreclosed homes on a quarterly and, now, monthly basis, asking for voluntary winterization of these properties. Last year we were down to one report of frozen pipe, a huge reduction in loss compared to the previous winter. We also send out letters regarding grass cutting and keeping up the property. We keep track of all of the homes that are foreclosed and we get both a weekly and monthly update which gives us all the properties that have gone into foreclosure. Last year, by State law, we must be informed when a house goes into foreclosure so that we can keep track of those properties. We estimate that, right now, there are 1400 foreclosed properties in the City of Elgin. We have enough issues with property maintenance,the rental license program and, now, 1400 foreclosed properties. We hope that we are going to get additional staff but City Council may want to bring in a company and get it done all at once Miller: Could you clarify the letter you are talking about. Are you saying that you are asking the mortgage company to volunteer and are they cooperating? Cuchetto: Yes. I had gone to Legal first and asked them if we can we do this, can we require them? They said that, technically, we can't make them, but we can certainly ask them. Roxworthy: There was a situation next door to us at 1030 Bellevue Avenue. The people left the house in bad shape. I contacted the mortgage company to suggest that they go in and turn the water off but the mortgage company said that they couldn't do that. The heat wasn't on and the windows started to look frosty. This property had been turned into the city numerous Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 5 of 15 times for various reasons. Eventually, the realtor came and walked into the house and encountered a waterfall. Then there was another property, 1010 Bellevue, where, for four years it was reportedly overcrowded. We watched them cut an egress window on the side of the basement. I called Mayor Schock who said that he would take care of the situation. The code officer came out and said everything was fine, that it met code. How could that house have been up to code? The house went into foreclosure and some guy just bought it for $38,000,that's how bad it was. It is getting gutted as we speak. Stroud: Are there any other questions or statements. Vince, thank you very much. Cuchetto: I am available anytime. (Vince handed out his card to all of the members). OLD BUSINESS: A motion was made by John Wiedmeyer to un-table Item D1, 521 Raymond Street; Dennis Roxworthy seconded the motion; a vote was taken and it was passed unanimously. 521 Raymond Street— Replace rear stairs The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the fire escape stairs to the second floor apartment at the rear of the building. The existing stairway is not code compliant with missing and rotten wood and openings larger than 4". Staff has proposed a simple design to meet code requirements and compliment the overall style of the house. The house has been altered over the years and the stairs are not visible from the right-of way. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Fire Escapes A. should be located at the rear of dwellings only, where they will not be readily visible from the street. B. should be of wood construction with simple balusters and handrails, if built on the exterior. Metal fire escapes may be applied if they are not readily visible from the street. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Durrenberger: How many steps now exist?Are there still the same number of steps? Fritz-Williams: No, there is not the same number of steps because the old stairs do not meet our code requirements for risers in steps. Roxworthy: The skirting—there is a house over at 161 Ann Street—after seeing it, I have a problem with the skirting on something like this. It makes it look more massive. I would rather not see the skirting if possible. Fritz-Williams: I would require it to be painted. Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 6 of 15 Roxworthy: Well, if you go by there,Jennifer, it is so massive, even if it were painted. Stroud: If it were painted to match the house? z>. Roxworthy: Even some of these old three flats, they don't have skirting. Durrenberger: If you are a person who uses those open staircases, it is a little bit more comforting if they are enclosed, otherwise you feel like you are just kind of out there. Roxworthy: I understand what you are saying but it just is so intrusive, all you see is that, you can't see the house anymore. Fritz-Williams: It is not visible from any area of the right of way. It is at the rear of the property. I would recommend that it be painted and it is not visible. Owner: Can I speak before we go any further? Stroud: Yes, sure. Owner: I am facing foreclosure on this property. And I was expecting you would let me fix whatever is fixable. The structure under the steps is still in good shape. I am fighting for the loan modification and I don't know if it is going to happen or not. But, at this point, I just cannot spend any money on that property. If I fix it, I probably could spend no more than about $300 to replace whatever is bad. Fritz-Williams: I don't know if it would meet code requirements. We can talk to Amber to see if she will allow that but I would rather have the Committee approve the full plan so that you or a future owner do not have to come back on this. Owner: If I lose the property, obviously, I am not going to do it. Fritz-Williams: If you lose the property, then the next property owner would have to replace it per the approved COA. A code case stays with the property. Owner: It will be no problem to replace all the hand rails and all the steps and risers. That would hopefully give me more time to finish the modification with the bank and then, next summer, I will come back to you guys and get it done in the right way. Fritz-Williams: You will replace the handrails all the way up and also replace the risers and treads? Owner: Yes. The code inspector told me that this stairway was built the wrong way but this is how the stairs were when I bought the property in 2005. The inspector was suggesting that I shave 'A" on the end and then it will have the right position of the steps. Fritz-Williams: And the landing? Owner: Not the landing but the steps itself. Couture: I am sorry that you are having this trouble but we have made some exceptions for people in our neighborhood who are also having similar troubles and don't have the financial resources available to fix their property according to what needs to be done. We have given them a year to come back to us to pursue the proper COA and the proper design for their front porch and allowed a temporary improvement to be made to get them through. Stroud: What I would suggest in this case is that we would go ahead and approve the design that Jennifer has given us and that a certain amount of time is allowed for the repair to be done. It would give the current owner a chance to rectify the situation with his mortgage and then he would have a design to follow. If he does foreclosure, then the new owner will have a design to follow. In the meantime,there is a certain amount of time that is permitted and, in that case, it could be fixed up enough to satisfy code. So what is the normal time span on a COA, six months? Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 7 of 15 ego- Fritz-Williams: COAs have six months, a code case has thirty days. Roxworthy: That is really not up to us, we review only the design. Fritz-Williams: We will work with code and the owner. Stroud: That is what I am saying. If we approve the design,then we have done our part. So, dealing with code is something that Jennifer can do, but that is not our area. So I am going to suggest that, if the design is appropriate, then we entertain a motion on it and then the homeowner and the code department can work out the other details some other time. Wiedmeyer: Just for clarification,this does not require him to build this design set of stairs; if Jennifer works with code and he is able to just do repairs to it, to fix it and make it code compliant, then that is the route that the owner can take. Stroud: But this would take care of the design review part of it. So if that is sensible, then I entertain a motion to approve. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. At end of meeting, this item was readdressed: Miller: Regarding the apron. Dennis suggested we should we leave the apron open. When it is redone, what is the right way to do it? Stroud: They were obviously using the old one for storage. elibk Miller: So, if he redoes it, what is the right way to redo it? As an example, a house on Channing has the apron area open on the porch and it is very, very tall and the problem with that is there is nothing behind it, there is nothing there but a blank cement wall with ridges in it. But on a building where you look through this and see something there like siding or windows or brick or something showing, I think we should consider leaving it open. Stroud: I think it is an individual property consideration too. Roxworthy: I think that they made a mistake on Josh's property. NEW BUSINESS: 409 North Street— Replace Windows and doors The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows and three doors. Work began without a permit or COA. Six windows have already been replaced with vinyl windows. The three previously existing windows on the front of the house were 3 over 1 wood. The vinyl replacements are a different size, 1 over 1. One window on the west side,first floor was one over one, but the new vinyl replacement is an altered size. Additionally, windows were replaced on the south side with 2 vinyl windows. It is unclear how many original windows there were or what style. However, the front and possibly the south windows were not original to the property. These windows replaced the original one over one wood from the 1880's. The number Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 8 of 15 and configuration of windows was altered when the windows were replaced. Since the windows are being replaced, staff would recommend returning the windows to their original configuration. The owner wishes to replace 3 doors, two on the side and one front door. These doors are not original to the property. Staff has provided examples of appropriate doors in Exhibit Fl. 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. 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. C. Vinyl extruded windows are not permitted for use in historic districts. D. screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized aluminum and fit within the window frames. E. 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. rik E. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door opening should not be enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height. Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 9 of 15 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. 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. Windows are one over one, wood or aluminum-clad wood windows. 2. Two windows on the front shall match the east side including window hoods. 3. West side, first floor window shall match the original opening size. 4. All trim is restored to match the original Miller: I agree with staff recommendation. Wiedmeyer: Have you seen what kind of window to put in as far as size and trim? Mario Gavina (Owner): Yes Wiedmeyer: Is that acceptable to you. Owner: Yes,that is why I am here to be sure to know what to do. Wiedmeyer: Okay. Stroud: Would anyone like to entertain a motion to approve based on staff recommendation? Wiedmeyer: One question on the staff recommendations. There is nothing stated about the two back windows. Fritz-Williams: He would have to go back to three 1-over-1 double hung. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve staff recommendations including the rear windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 552 E. Chicago Street— Demolish House The contractor has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the structure. This building suffered a catastrophic fire on May 13, 2010. The fire collapsed four of the five stepped gables and the entire roof, part of the second floor fell into the first and part of the first floor has collapsed into the basement. The Elgin Fire Department has declared the property structurally unsound and a total loss. 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: rik 1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 10 of 15 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. ****** Stroud: Is the homeowner present? Fritz-Williams: I had a conversation with Kathy (owner) and she said that the event is still too painful. They are looking forward to finishing this chapter and moving on. The owners express their thanks to the Commission and to the community for the support they received during such a difficult time. While Elgin lost an irreplaceable building, it did not lose three of its irreplaceable citizens that day, that is the most important thing. Staff requests approval. I believe Margaret Watts, a representative from the neighborhood, is here to speak on this matter. Margaret Watts: I just wanted to know what the process was to move forward on this matter and I want to thank the Commission for this information. When would the building be demolished? Fritz-Williams: Once the COA is approved,the demolition can start, anytime after November 29. Miller: I have one question. Is there any possibility to salvage anything from the property? Fritz-Williams: At this time, no, not with such a dangerous structure. Miller: How about the exterior? The bricks? Fritz-Williams: I can check with Kathy (owner)to see if she is okay with that. Roxworthy: One question: Do the owners think that they will rebuild on that property. Fritz-Williams: She (the owner) does not know at this point of time if she wants to be back on that particular property. She definitely wants to come back to Elgin but most likely not that location. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously . Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 11 of 15 170 N. Porter Street— Remove and rebuild chimney The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebujld the chimney. Work began on the chimney in April of 2009 after a rental inspection cited the owner for missing mortar on the chimney. However, the owner did not have a COA and a stop work order was issued. The owner obtained the COA for replacing missing mortar only on April 27, 2009, Exhibit Fl. An inspection was never scheduled for the chimney to determine if the work had been completed in accordance with the approved COA. Staff received several complaints about the chimney's construction being inappropriate. Jennifer Fritz-Williams investigated the complaints and found the owners had replaced the entire chimney rather than just the mortar. She turned the issue over to the code enforcement department. The owners have submitted the COA for allowing the chimney to remain as built. The original chimney was a dark red, wired cut brick with a flat stone cap and metal flue cap. From existing photographs it is hard to tell if any bricks were chamfered or if any special design existed. The new chimney has smooth bricks with a soldier course chamfered out in the middle. There is a very large stone cap with slanted sides and a metal flue cap. Staff has provided a picture, Exhibit C6 of the property across the street that looks very similar to the previous chimney. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Chimneys A. should be rebuilt to match the original design if rebuilding is required. B. should be cleaned and re-pointed in accordance with masonry guidelines to match the original in materials, colors, shape, and brick pattern. Chimneys that have been extensively re-pointed resulting in mismatched colors and textures may be painted in brick colors such as dark red or brown. C. should have clay, slate, or stone caps. Metal caps may be acceptable if they are minimally visible. D. should have proper flashing at the point where they meet the roof. Metal flashing should be used instead of the application of caulking material or bituminous coating, which can deteriorate due to weathering and allow moisture damage. o Metal flashing around a chimney should consist of both the base flashing and the counter (cap)flashing that should overlap the base by at least 4 inches. o Flashing should be step flashing, not box flashing. E. should have corbelling or minimal detailing if appropriate. F. should be constructed properly, using red brick in traditional dimensions, if applicable. G. should not be removed or altered if original. r Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 12 of 15 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. The chimney is rebuilt without the soldier course. 2. The stone cap is much narrower with only a slight slant on the top to allow for water runoff. Brad Giertz(owner's son)(Brad)and Joni Curchin(sp?owner's daughter)(Joni)appeared. Joni: I wish (Vincent Cuchetto) could have stayed because he is familiar with the case. I have a question. Brad was never given a listing of historical district guidelines prior to looking at this so why did this not comply? He worked very hard on it and used the most expensive bricks and materials. So, prior to this he should have been given some type of guidelines to follow. Shawn O'Leary came back and okayed it. Brad: There was a final approval. I called him and he came and approved everything. Fritz-Williams: There was a final approval on your rental inspection but there was no final approval on the permit or the COA. Brad: He approved everything. I was there on the scaffold. Fritz-Williams: Shawn O'Leary has no authority to approve a building permit. He approves the rental inspections. Joni: Then why wasn't someone saying something at that time and not a year and a half later? Fritz-Williams: If you would have called the number on the back of the permit to schedule the inspection for the building permit, this would have been caught then. Joni: Why didn't Mr. O'Leary tell us to do that? Instead of just saying okay, everything is fine, and that is the end of it? Fritz-Williams: The number to call for a building permit inspection is on the back of the permit. And, when you are given the permit, you were told to call that number. Joni: Well he (Brad) wasn't told. Fritz-Williams: I hear the ladies at the counter tell every single person getting a permit the number to call for an inspection. Joni: Well Brad is very thorough and he knows. Brad: And it is the best brick you can buy. It has a drip edge underneath there so that water doesn't fall around the chimney and deteriorate the bricks. Those other ones that you showed don't have that. It has the same seal cap that it had before. It is the same size. The other one was all deteriorated and was falling apart and I was ordered to replace it. Fritz-Williams: The brick is not the issue before the Committee. The code case that was opened from the rental inspection indicated missing mortar around the chimney. You were issued a COA for the replacement of the mortar around the chimney. You rebuilt the chimney. That is the issue before the Committee. Brad: Okay, have you ever been up on a roof? You could just lift those bricks off. You don't even have to take a hammer. I mean, all the mortar was deteriorated. It takes two weeks to build the scaffold and probably a week to tear it down and then you have to be really careful so you don't tear up the shingles and there is just so much work. You can't just replace the mortar on there. Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 13 of 15 Fritz-Williams: When you realized that, you should have come back to revise your COA at that time. You did not do that. That is why you are here before the Committee. Stroud: Discussion? Miller: I have a question for Jennifer. In your introduction, you stated that the other chimney was wire cut brick. From my experience, isn't wire cut a 20th Century brick. The house is circa 1880. Fritz-Williams: Yes. The chimney was probably not the original. The chimney was already 3' over the roof line. It had already been altered sometime in the past. Miller: So, the material he chose to use to replace it is not the problem. The problem is with the design as it is not historical. That matter should have been addressed. Brad: I was ordered to redo that chimney. I did not want to even touch it but the tenant that was in there, an accused sex offender who is not there anymore... Joni: The tenant was calling and constantly complaining so he would call for just about every little thing. So, then, Shawn O'Leary answered his call and came over and told Brad what had to be done. So then Brad did what he saw needed to be done and then he came back and okayed it and Brad spent a lot of time working on it. Brad: It is an indestructible chimney; it is going to be there forever. The cap is protective; water won't touch the brick so it won't go into the house. The old cap is why the original chimney failed. This chimney has a drip edge, special brick and flashing correctly flashed. Stroud: First thing to consider—was a COA or permit issued for a chimney replacement? Brad: Yes. Stroud: For replacement? Brad: Why isn't Shawn O'Leary here? I got a permit and he approved it. Stroud: For an exterior, a COA and permit are required. If there is a change in configuration or appearance on house or property, a COA must be approved. Joni: Why is it Brad's fault? Stroud: We are not placing blame. It is required that a homeowner is responsible for obtaining a COA and a permit. The homeowner, not a contractor. A contractor could obtain a COA and permit but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the homeowner. The only thing we are considering here is not the material of the chimney. We are here to approve the configuration and appearance. If you brought a COA for a replacement chimney before us, it would have been either approved or denied based on the design. You could have changed the design, you could have tried to keep it historical if possible. This Committee cannot agree to this design. If you would find a picture of this house when it was built, it wouldn't have a chimney of that design, it's too modern. Joni: Are you expecting him to do it over again? Stroud: That is what we are here to decide. If you don't agree, you have the right to appeal. Joni: There are cracks in this procedure. We made this chimney the best it could so we would never have to go up there again. Roxworthy: This is the Design Group here. The chimney should look as original as possible. The brick is okay but the design does not fit the guidelines. We have no control over the city inspectors. We only go by what we do. Joni: We met with Vincent Cuchetto and looked at the original chimney on his computer. Brad: It had pourous bricks which would freeze with water, the brick I used is the best brick. Design Review Subcommittee— November 23, 2010 Page 14 of 15 Stroud: The material is not the issue. You should have come in and gotten the appropriate COA. Everyone in the historic districts has received a guideline book when the areas became a historic districts. The old homeowners should have passed it on to the new homeowners. All exterior work requires a COA. Brad: I was working with Shawn O'Leary the whole time and he never said anything. He was there step-by-step. Stroud: Clarify who is Shawn O'Leary. Fritz-Williams: Shawn O'Leary is a code officer in that particular area at that time. The original COA that Mrs. Giertz got over-the-counter was approved only for missing mortar. A new chimney would not be approved over-the-counter. Joni: Whose fault is it then? Stroud: Again, this is not a blame game. Fritz-William: When people come in for a COA, we don't call them liars. She said she would only be replacing missing mortar. Brad: Shawn O'Leary was checking it all of the time. Fritz-Williams: Shawn O'Leary does not approve COAs and permits, only me or Sarosh Saher can approve COAs. Joni: Why didn't someone come out to inspect when my mom came in for the COA? Fritz-Williams: Your mom did not call for a permit or COA inspection. Shawn only was there for the rental inspection and code case, which he closed once he inspected. Joni: Who called in the complaint? Fritz-Williams: There were several citizen complaints. Brad: From who? Fritz-Williams: That information is privileged for staff only. Wiedmeyer: We can do a motion to approve or disapprove the design of the chimney. If we vote now, it can pass or not. Joni: And the consequences if it doesn't pass? Stroud: You would need to replace the chimney or appeal our decision. If you chose to appeal, the procedures can be explained. Would anyone like to entertain a motion to approve the chimney as built? Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted without staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. A roll-call vote was taken with the following results: Bill Briska "No"; Betsy Couture "No"; Paul Durrenberger "No"; Pat Miller "No"; Dennis Roxworthy "No";John Wiedmeyer "No"; Chairman Steve Stroud "No". The motion failed unanimously. Fritz-Williams: We will send you a letter with the results and you have ten days to appeal. We will need the appeal in writing. It will be placed on the January 4, 2011 agenda of the Elgin Heritage Commission. Brad: Exactly what is it you don't like? Durrenberger: The appearance and the aesthetics. Stroud: The design is too modern. The chimney design does not match the same time period Design Review Subcommittee Page 15 of 15 as the house. Fritz-Williams: Read the guidelines. It is discussed in the guidelines manual. Brad: Red brick is the worst brick since lime comes out and it turns white. Stroud: The item has been voted on. Put together a very good presentation for the Heritage Commission. If they refuse, you can then go before the City Council. The material isn't wrong, the design is wrong. Brad: Is the cap wrong? Fritz-Williams: Remove the soldier course and continue with standard brick and a smaller cap would be approporiate. Larger modern cap is not appropriate for the home. Miller: One way to know for sure is to study 19th Century buildings. If you find one in the entire world in 1885 with the current chimney design, you could have strong proof, however, I don't believe, based on history, you will find a chimney like that. Stroud: A decision has been made. We can no longer continue this as an open discussion. Prepare for an appeal. Brad: Isn't there a statute of limitations? Stroud: Not on an appeal. Brad: Have you ever replaced a chimney? Fritz-Williams: We need to move on to the next item on the agenda. Brad: The chimney cost me $10,000 and will be there forever. 457 E. Chicago Street— Remove overhang The owner withdrew this COA since the posting of the meeting agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Wiemeyer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Committee was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted ndra L. Kolba Approved: Design Review Subcommittee (Substitute) Secretary 4