Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Design Review Subcommittee (5) ... • Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission September 27, 2011 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Briska, Betsy Couture, Pat Miller, John Roberson, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow and Dennis Roxworthy CITY STAFF PRESENT: Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRS Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 359 Park Street—Install French doors on side of house 439 Park Street—Replace retaining wall; repairs to house: windows, soffit; repairs to garage: overhead doors, service door, siding, roof APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were considered. Minutes distributed to committee members via email, but not received by some. ITEMS TABLED: 439 Park St—additional information on rear doorway (blocks installed), materials to be used on garage elevations, style of garage door, etc Add-On Item: 432 S Liberty St— Project status update Design Review Subcommittee—September 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8 NEW BUSINESS: 359 Park Street—Install French doors on side of house The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new French door on the side of the house. The French door comprises of a pair of 15-light doors, and will be installed in place of an existing door and one-over-one window. The new doors will open out onto an existing stoop leading to the side yard. The location of the doors is on the east elevation towards the rear of the house. The location is not readily visible from a public right-of-way. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Doors and Door features 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: Even though the guidelines generally recommend against changing the design and configuration of doors, staff notes that these doors are located on the side elevation and will not be readily visible from the street. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. The French doors are trimmed out in dimensions that match the existing trim around the door that is proposed to be replaced. 2. The dimension of the stoop is increased to match the width of the proposed French doors. 3. The guardrail be adjusted to run along the entire length of the stoop, in the same design as currently exists on stoop. Staff additionally recommends that the existing original door and window should not be thrown out. They should be kept in the basement or be made available for salvage. Saher: Owners will need to modify a door and window opening to allow the installation of the French doors. Tom Lee (owner): Our plan for the future is to expand the deck on that elevation. Miller: Will you save the elements (door& window) that are removed, in case a future owner wants to put the elements back? T.Lee: Yes, we will save them. Design Review Subcommittee—September 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Miller: French doors are not typical of the style house. If proposed on another elevation, the doors would not be allowed by the guidelines. Maureen Lee: We are trying to open up the kitchen area of the house. Wiedmeyer: Door is the same height? T.Lee: Not sure. Door proposed is 80";the door in the photo is taller than I am (5'11"). Miller: Siding and shingles will need to be replaced. T.Lee: Yes. The French doors are constructed with solid oak, not a veneer. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff comments. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 439 Park Street— Replace retaining wall; repairs to house: windows, soffit; repairs to garage: overhead doors, service door, siding, roof The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to request approval of work completed, or in the process of being completed on the property. The following are the items being proposed/completed. 1. Replace retaining wall along front of house Status:original wall removed. Replacement not installed. 2. Paint exterior of house Status: not begun 3. Repair soffit on south side of house Status: not begun 4. Replace all windows with new wood windows Status: not begun 5. Replace two overhead garage doors Status: One of two doors replaced 6. Repair or replace 2nd garage soffit and siding Status:work begun, sheathing installed, siding not installed on westerly garage. 7. Repair roof Status: not begun 8. Repair side entry porches Status: Side entry porch has fascia replaced. The property owner was issued a stop work order and notice to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) on September 8, 2011. Note: the property owner has only submitted an application for a COA at this time. No specifications or proposals for design and materials of the various features are provided at this time. r Design Review Subcommittee—September 27, 2011 Page4of8 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Retaining Walls 411) 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. C. should not be removed or replaced with new materials, if built before 1945. D. should not be built on the fronts of dwellings, if constructed of timbers or railroad ties. 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. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—September 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Garage Doors A. should be maintained to the greatest extent possible, but may be retrofitted with modern hardware and custom garage door openers. If the original doors are missing or too deteriorated to repair, they should be replaced with new doors that fit the original opening and are appropriate to the design and period of construction of the garage. B. should be raised panel designs, with a solid core, if proposed to be in metal designs. Flush design doors (without raised panels) unless retrofitted to look like traditional doors and hollow core metal doors should be avoided when possible. C. should have windows simple in design with clear glass, if windows are necessary. Muntins in a simple design may also be used. The use of ornamental stained glass and openings in decorative shapes such as sunbursts and oval designs are not permitted. D. should have painted metal panel doors to match the house in a color appropriate to the period of the house. Garages 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. Staff Recommendation: The recommendation of staff on each item is as follows: 1. Replace retaining wall along front of house Recommendation: On visiting the site, staff noted that the material from the original hollow- core concrete block retaining wall was no longer there. Staff recommends that the wall be reinstated in a material to match the hollow core concrete block on the main structure. As an alternative, a poured concrete retaining wall could be constructed to match the portion that remains on the front of the house. 2. Paint exterior of house Recommendation: Approve in conformance with the guidelines. 3. Repair soffit on south side of house Recommendation: the soffit is currently a bead board sift wrapped in aluminum. Staff recommends that the aluminum be removed to expose the wood soffit and new material added to match. As an alternative, if only the portion removed is to be replaced, then due to the minimal amount existing on the building, new aluminum could be added. 4. Replace all windows with new wood windows Recommendation: documentation is provided on the replacement windows. Staff recommends that if replacement is approved, then the new windows be wood one-over-one replacement windows custom built to fit the opening exactly. 5. Replace two overhead garage doors Recommendation: One of two doors has been replaced. The door does not conform to the requirements of the guidelines. Staff recommends that the door be removed, and replaced with a door in keeping with the requirements of the guidelines. 6. Repair or replace 2nd garage soffit and siding Recommendation: portion of the soffit has been removed. Staff recommends that soffit be properly installed,primed and painted Design Review Subcommittee— September 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8 7. Repair roof Recommendation: not begun 441) 8. Repair side entry porches Recommendation: Fascia has been installed. Staff recommends that fascia be properly installed with necessary soffit,primed and painted. Antonio (Tony) Lopez (owner): Submitted for permit for interior work (plumbing, electrical, heating). The retaining wall permit was still open when we bought the house. We removed the rear door and installed the blocks. Most of the house is brick with wood trim around windows and doors. Most of the windows are broken. Willing to work with committee to complete the exterior details. Retaining wall: Stroud: Guidelines allows for 2 rows and a cap. Are the original blocks still on site? Lopez: Blocks fell apart as we began to work on retaining wall. Saher: Foundation may not have been installed property, if at all. Wiedmeyer: Same type of block is available today (thru Brady Brick). Couture: Concrete wall would be appropriate; including the wall along the driveway too. Miller: If installing block,the size,texture and needs to be considered too. Briska: Bricks/blocks were same as house. Stroud: Replacement should be "in kind" of what was there. Lopez: Bricks were mostly thrown away. Too many broke apart. Briska: The wall was in pretty good shape. Only the corner was in bad shape. Stroud: Need to determine how tall is the retaining wall? Roberson: If the wall is over 24", sealed engineered plans will be needed for the permit. Miller: May need to reduce the slope of the grade to be under 24" height. Briska: Base will need to be more than one block wide. Lopez: Want to install a drain tile too. Stroud: Typically there is a barrier to keep the moisture from the stone for proper drainage. Soffit: Wiedmeyer: How much of the soffit is missing? Lopez: Approximately 15' length. Not sure we can match what is there. Willing to install something similar. Wiedmeyer: Aluminum is there now. Prefer to allow replacing the back side only. Windows: Stroud: Original wood windows are best to restore and keep. Wiedmeyer: Original windows with storm windows are less expensive to repair than replace. Miller: Unless there is evidence of extreme damage/conditions, committee does not approve replacement of windows. Stroud: Instead of replacing windows, installing double pane instead of single pane glass in the broken windows you will find cost effective and weather efficient. Wiedmeyer: From observations, broken glass seems to be the main problem. Easy to replace glass, or you can have a glass company complete the repair. Couture: Several videos online to show how to repair the windows. 41) Design Review Subcommittee— September 27, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Stroud: Weights that are missing are easy to pick up from other sources too. Unless staff can provide proof of damage beyond repair, the windows need to be repaired not replaced. Saher: Staff can approve window repairs. Garage: Wiedmeyer: How much of the west side of the garage was torn down? Briska: Garage was a concrete building on the east. An addition was put on and only plywood was used for walls. Stroud: Typically, a garage is constructed all at once. In this case we are working with an addition. Need to blend the two portions of the building together, or make distinguishing division of the two. • Wiedmeyer: Need to have bead board soffit, and freeze board at the top. Stroud: No aluminum, nor vinyl material. Wiedmeyer: Wire backing with stone stucco. Saher: Dryvit is also prohibited. Roberson: How should the applicant proceed? Should the material be the same on both the front and side elevations? Miller: The left side has a corner board in the photo. Saher: There needs to be a transition from one to the other. Holly Mack/Wiedmeyer: Both a COA and a building permit was required prior to construction. Neither was applied for prior to work being done. Lopez: Building was constructed about 2'from the property line. Miller: If an addition was being done, we would request it be setback from the original. Wiedmeyer: The owner took the building done. A permit should have been obtained; and the setbacks should have been brought into conformance too. Stroud: When was stucco put on? Was original garage built with clapboards? Wiedmeyer: If you look at photo, the freeze boards are built up about 1-11A" out; which varies the trim. Stroud: Do we have a transition? Roberson: I feel we should pull this from the agenda, due to the setback encroachment and along the rear property line. Side Porch: Wiedmeyer: The roof has been replaced. Briska: Prior photos indicated a flat roof existed on the side porch. Saher: The side porch should be a replica of the front porch design. Miller: Existing "new roof" on the side porch has very little overhang. Not sure if there is enough room to install trim. The size of the fascia board is wider than the front. Front porch has trim moldings; side porch does not. Saber: The front porch has hanging gutters. Recommend this item be table for additional staff comments and submittal of details by owner. Back Door: Saher: The closing up of the rear doorway is questionable of legality; including access and egress of building. Currently the steps go up to nothing. �"' Lopez: There are now two doorways, instead of three. Design Review Subcommittee— September 27, 2011 - Page 8 of 8 Motion#1 made by Committee Member Briska to approve the following items only: 1-Retaining wall: both sides to match in material; if block the size, height and style must match 4111) the house blocks, in addition to a 3" rough edge cap. 2-Soffit (rear of house): replace existing missing pieces (appx. 15' length)to match existing soffit as close as possible (appx 6-8" wide). Note: Staff to approve window repairs (no replacement). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. Motion#2 made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table all other exterior issues; owner needs to submit details for committee to review. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Couture. The motion passed unanimously. Additional Staff Comments: 432 S Liberty St— Project status update Saber: Owner has agreed to correct the siding, window trim and install window sills. He is requesting committee to consider leaving the corner boards instead of installing siding. The aluminum soffits were to be removed. This work is being done by under a grant program. Need to provide guidance to the homeowner to continue work. Stroud: Corner boards are not present on the front of the house. Miller: The boards installed are not thick enough and they need to be mitered. Wiedmeyer: Willing to guide/instruct the homeowner of how to do reuse the siding, in addition to correctly mitering trim and corner boards for this project. CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Couture. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Respe fully submitted, Cindy A.ealden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary December 13, 2011 4.5