Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Design Review Subcommittee (6) • Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 11, 2011 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:00 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, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller—140 N Channing St Julie Schmidt—140 N Channing St RuthAnne Hall — 140 N Channing St PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 150-152 College Street—repair/ replace windows 140 N Channing Street—modify roof structure and profile, remove non-original addition APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were considered. Minutes provided to commission via email were not received by all commissioners. C Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 4 Page 2 of 7 NEW BUSINESS: 150-152 College Street—repair/replace windows The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair or replace all windows on the house. Most windows on the house are original to the structure. The windows on the southwest corner are later wood replacements. No work is proposed to the large picture windows on the east and south elevations, as well as to windows in the second floor north elevation sleeping porch. A detailed inspection of each window on the house showed that the condition of the wood showed some deterioration to severe deterioration or damage. Windows were inspected for the integrity of the wood, soundness, and quick-fix repairs conducted over time to determine whether they could be maintained and repaired or replaced. Staff determined that 6 of 24 windows should be repaired and the remaining could be replaced with new wood one-over-one windows. The property owner is proposing to replace the windows with one-over-one Casco Double Hung Wood Aluminum-Clad windows. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Windows A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and design and with their original materials and numbers of panes (glass lights). B. Which are not original should not be added to primary facades or to secondary facades where readily visible. C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, the recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in material and design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable as replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be considered in determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires replacement shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive weathering, loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or insect attack, and cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular window may be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to repair the windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation of appropriate replacement windows. D. Which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials to match the original. If repair is not feasible, replacement should be with new windows to match the original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extruded windows are an acceptable replacement substitute for original steel sash windows, as long as their size, shape and profile match the original windows. 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 A) Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 • Page 3 of 7 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Roxworthy: Were the sashes soft when keyed? Saher: Wood is compromised on lower sashes. There are "L" brackets holding them together. Some of the more recent windows (non-original) could be replaced. Wiedmeyer: Windows to be wood interior and aluminum clad? Saher: Yes. In some cases, the sashes can be replaced. Miller: A lot of the photos look more like peeling paint, not bad wood. Not sure if examples provided are to be replaced or repaired. Claudia VanDelinder(Larkin Center Rep.): The COA indicates which of the 6 windows would be repaired, and the 18 to be replaced. Miller: Are there storm windows available? Will they be installing storm windows with the replacements? Saher: Some do not storm windows. Some were too small. VanDelinder: Some of the contractors indicated storm windows were not necessary for the replacement windows. Roxworthy: Thermo pane windows do not need storm windows. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 140 N Channing Street—modify roof structure and profile, remove non-original addition The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the roof structure and profile of the house, and remove a non-original addition. The applicant proposes to use available Sanborn maps in proposing the changes to the footprint of the building. The original configuration of the building, as indicated in the 1897 and 1913 Sanborn maps shows that the building was comprised of a 1%-story structure with an addition to the rear. The building had a front covered stoop, and two side porches on the south elevation—one facing the front, and the second facing the rear. No portion of the building was constructed above Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 Page4of7 any of the porches as originally configured. The Sanborn maps do not provide any indication of the shape of the roof. The 1950+Sanborn map shows the configuration of the building as it is currently constructed. A new addition was constructed on the front elevation in a southerly direction, eliminating the side porch that faced the front. Additional modifications to the rear of the building eliminated the side porch facing the rear. The building was reconstructed as a 2-story structure, configured to overhang the rear-facing side porch, and overhang the first floor along the north elevation. The zoning lot was additionally subdivided into two lots creating the property at 437 North Street, which is not the subject of this application. The current condition of the exterior is as follows: • As seen from the front elevation, the roof on the building comprises of a hipped roof over the main original portion of the building, and a secondary hipped roof over the addition. The front stoop is also covered in a hipped roof. • As seen from the side elevations, the rear portion of the house is covered in a single hipped roof. • The entire structure was clad in substitute aluminum siding. • New paired windows were added to the addition in an attempt to maintain the character of the original windows on the house. The current proposal will provide for a new hipped roof that will be constructed over the reconfigured floor plan and based on the available Sanborn maps. The roof is proposed to be an architectural shingle roof. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Residential Additions A. Should be located at the rear of dwellings, not on the front or readily visible areas of the sides of dwellings. B. Should be secondary (smaller and simpler)than the original dwelling in scale, design, and placement. C. Should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original dwelling's design, roof shape, materials, color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights, etc. D. Should impact the exterior walls of the original dwelling as minimally as possible. When building additions use existing door and window openings for connecting the addition to the dwelling. E. Should be constructed to avoid extensive removal or loss of historic materials and to not damage or destroy significant original architectural features. F. Should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. For example, a ca. 1880 Queen Anne style rear porch addition would not be appropriate for a 1920s Craftsman/Bungalow house. 4111) Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 • Page 5 of 7 Staff Recommendation: The changes to the roof and the removal of the addition will bring the property back to a configuration that is closer to the original configuration of the building. The roof is proposed to be a hipped roof, which will be constructed over the reconfigured floor plan of the building. Staff notes, and is aware,that the applicant is not proposing a strict restoration of the building — requiring that the roof style be gable-ended. However, the proposed rehabilitation will take a non-contributing building to a configuration that will contribute to and continue to maintain the overall character of the historic district. The modified configuration will continue to respect the existing height, rhythm and pattern of homes on the street. In light of this, staff recommends approval of the application to reconstruct the roof and remove the non-original addition to the house with the following condition: • The applicant returns to the Design Review Subcommittee to request approval of the remaining exterior changes at a future date, prior to construction. ***** Travis Juracek (construction): Roof has 2x4 on 24" center. Roof bowing can be seen from the street. Propose to remove addition and put back to the original footprint of the house. Porch details will be submitted later. Roof proposed with a 2' overhang. Want to complete closing up the building prior to winter setting in. Saher: Staff is aware of block face. Applicant does not want to retain the noncontributing addition structure. The proposed floor plan would be in character with this neighborhood. Juracek: The electric service will be moved to the side yard. The front porch would come off of Channing St. We are still working on interior plans. Roxworthy: Is the original wall still there? Miller: Worked on GPA committee to find another house with similar footprint (318 North St); which is a Queen Anne Style. GPA's proposal was to use 318 North St as a model for this home. Don't feel there is enough information provided to determine if the roof style is appropriate. This proposal is very far off the discovery previously found. GPA findings were given to Habitat for Humanity. Juracek: Those plans were received. Miller: You want to completely removing the roof? We need to have info/details on the roof style. Bill Klaves (Habitat for Humanity-owner): Want to get roof on. What we are proposing is with our parameters. Juracek: We reviewed the guidelines, prior to our submittal. Stroud: We probably need to break this into two portions: one being the removal of the addition and two being the roof style. Juracek: Unveiling is scheduled for the end of the month. Stroud: Once the addition is taken off, details will be shown. What is the difference in the gable style roof vs. the hip style roof for this proposed project? Roxworthy: Not much of a difference in the two styles for this project. Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Juracek: We had drawings completed with trusses of a hip style roof. The work on the project is done by volunteers. Safety is important. Volunteers can install the hip roof after the trusses are put in by those in the roofing business, however, the gable roof would be too high up for volunteers to assist in any roof construction. We would add gingerbread detailing too. Dan Miller: Habitat for Humanity and NSP has done so much for our neighborhood. Lots of effort on projects has been done by Bill Klaves and Travis Juracke (H of H) and several city employees too. This property was originally purchased by the city for the GPA to revive. Great deal of time was spent putting together a 10 page proposal to partner with the city. Economy bottomed out and the city could not help the GPA with the project. The Sanborn map of the neighborhood is very interesting. It's a little subdivision of gable fronted houses. Exact footprint was found at 318 North St. GPA's dream was to replicate that house. Appreciate the plans is to remove the addition which is not pleasing to the eye. However the hip roof would make it look like a 4 square. Hip roof is typical on a wide house; where this house is tall and narrow. House would look better with a gable end. The transom window was found downstairs, will it be installed? Not asking for restoration, asking for appropriate detailing. Since the roof needs to be replaced; I respectfully ask the committee to request a gable roof, and not the hip style roof. Julie Schmidt: Sure there is a similar house somewhere with a hip roof. When people built these houses they built what they could afford. Some had gable roofs and some had hip roofs. It might have looked like another house, but if what is being proposed is something that also was done at the time, I have no objection. People did what they could afford to do with their property. Stroud: In 1897, the building date is during the transition between Queen Anne and Four Square styles. Many of houses built in this time period was built with salvaged pieces. Motion#1 made by Committee Member Roberson to approve the addition's demolition. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. Additional discuss on roof style: Stroud: If restoration was being completed, a gable style roof would be preferred. Since we are in the "transition period", either style roof(hip or gable) would be acceptable. RuthAnne Hall: Interior demo was completed ant the rafters were exposed. No details were found regarding the roof framing prior to the addition. Juracek: We did uncover the fact the roof trusses were undersized for the entire house. Roberson: Both new and old lumber is present? Juracek: Yes. We are trying to rehabillate the house. Key of the project is "partnership" on the property. Are we required to restore to the GPA's "dream house"? Our intention has been to rehab, not restoration. Roxworthy: Are we providing different standards for Habitat then what we require for individual ownership? Klaves: We have commitments to the "new owner". It is part of the ownership process thru Habitat. We believe this to be a restoration project. Miller: Why are we making the decision before the unveiling is completed? Design Review Subcommittee—October 11, 2011 • Page 7 of 7 rik Klaves: While we are finishing other houses in the area, we need to get a roof on or before the snow flies. Juarack: We have a six(6) week delay for the production of the trusses. Miller: When the siding is removing,fish scales and/or clap board siding may exist. Briska: What does it cost difference to put on a gable roof vs. a hip roof? Gable framing will probably be less expensive. Trimming will be the expense. Consideration should be given to have contractors hired to install the gable roof. Klaves: Costs get passed on to the homeowner. Weidmeyer: Pitch is 8/12? Photo appears to be a 12/12. An 8/12 gable will be too tall. Motion#2 made by Committee Member Ristow to approve as submitted (hip style roof). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. *den Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary December 13, 2011 r