Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Design Review Subcommittee (9) Notice of meeting cancellation Regularly scheduled meeting on November 22, 2011 of the Elgin Heritage Design Review Subcommittee No items have been received for committee discussion, therefore the regularly scheduled meeting on November 22, 2011, has been canceled. r Our next meeting will be on our regularly scheduled meeting date of December 13, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.,City Council Chambers,2nd floor of the North Wing,City Hall,150 Dexter Court,Elgin. Should you have any questions regarding the posting of this cancellation notice,please contact the staff liaison Saher Saher at 847-931-5943. SS/caw Notice issued on 11/18/11 .. Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission December 13, 2011 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, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Pat Segal, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow CITY STAFF PRESENT: Dave Waden, Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRS Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: fir► None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 355 Raymond Street—Install a new free-standing monument sign 1005 N Spring Street— Modify garage door location on accessory building in the rear 109 Hill Avenue—Demolish carriage house on property 373 S Liberty Street—Rehabilitation of house and garage 55 S Liberty Street—Replace garage door APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of September 27, 2011, as amended (pg 6—Couture: how to repair the windows); and the following minutes as submitted: October 11, 2011, October 25, 2011 and November 8, 2011. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: None Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 'Page 2of8 NEW BUSINESS: 355 Raymond Street—install a new free-standing monument sign The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new freestanding monument sign on the property. The sign will measure 7x4 feet (28 sq. ft.) and be located on the northwest corner of the property, at the intersection of Raymond Street and Watch Street. The sign will be landscaped in conformance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The material of the sign is proposed to be painted wood, and will be externally lit with light fixtures located within the landscaped bed around the sign. The building on the property is not rated as a significant building as it was constructed outside the period of significance of the Elgin National Watch Historic District. The sign is therefore designed to complement the building on the property and meet the requirements of the city's zoning ordinance. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Signs and Graphic Designs A. Should also follow regulations subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.50 of the city's zoning ordinance. B. Should be kept to a minimum with preferably a maximum of two per commercial business or community facility. C. Should have no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate with the building colors. D. Should be anchored into the mortar, not the masonry. E. Should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze, plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood. F. Should not cover or obscure architectural features. G. Should not be backlit or internally lit. H. Should not be illuminated with visible bulbs,flashing lights, or luminous paints, but with remote sources. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted. Stroud: Building is considerably newer than the neighborhood. Sign is full wood construction. Is this submittal in compliance with the sign ordinance? Walden: Yes, both the size of the graphic and landscaping bed complies as submitted. Wiedmeyer: Color of the graphic? Linda Hartman (Director of Heritage Health): Medium green tone (PMS 342) will be the outer border of the graphic, logo and lettering. The main portion of the graphic is a dark tan (PMS 465). Note: A color rendering was shown to committee members. Couture: Exterior lighting from the landscaping bed will nicely accent the sign. Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 Wage 3 of 8 [ Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Couture. The motion passed unanimously. 1005 N Spring Street—Modify garage door location on accessory building in the rear The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the garage door location the building in the rear. The building in the rear is of a later vintage than the primary residence on the property and designed in the Cape Cod style. It was constructed as a second residence on the property. The proposal to modify the garage door is being requested to provide additional room on the interior to allow a car to be parked within the garage, as well as to provide of additional storage space within the structure. The change to the exterior will result in the following: 1. reconfiguring the existing entrance doors to the structure—one of which is proposed to be removed, 2. removal and replacement of a knee wall in front of the two service doors to the structure with one of the two entrance doors, 3. moving the garage door from its existing recessed location of approximately 5 feet back from the building elevation to be flush with the elevation, and 4. Creating a new cement stoop in front of the new door location. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Architectural Details and Features A. Should be repaired rather than replaced. B. Should not be removed or altered if original to the building. C. Should not be covered or concealed with vinyl, aluminum or other substitute material. D. should not be added unless there is physical, pictorial, or historical evidence that such features were original to the house or consistent with the style which would allow them to be added to the house. These features should match the original in materials, scale, location, proportions,form, and detailing. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff does not recommend approval of the request for the following reasons: a. The proposal calls for a change that increases the prominence of the garage door on the elevation by moving it from its recessed location to one that is flush with the elevation. Additionally, the characteristic shadow line created by the recessed garage door will also be eliminated giving the elevation a flat appearance. Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 'Page 4 of 8 b. The proposal is a change to the buildings architectural character rather than a return to an original character and does not meeting the above recommendations of the guidelines. c. Existing architectural features are proposed to be eliminated or moved. ***** Jennifer Fritz-Williams (consultant): Not removing any doors. Currently the garage is only 14' long. Most cars will not fit inside. A handout "Colebrook" was provided to each of the committee members. Roxworthy: Because this is an addition, I have no problem with the proposal. I think it looks better. Stroud: We need to consider this as a separate building structure. Couture: I feel the recess of the garage makes the character of the house. Moving the garage door forward will make the structure look flat. Fritz-Williams: Most structures like these have been closed up or completely made into garages. Wiedmeyer: If the recess was placed 12" from the plane of the front of the structure, it would give some depth. Roberson: Being recessed is best. Could you bump out the back of the garage, further into the lot? Jim Sosnowski (owner): The structure is approximately 4' to the property line. Briska: It's fine as is, but I am okay with the change as proposed. Roberson: The two entryway doors are not practical; one step up,then two doorways. Segal: Tried to visualize without the recess. I really don't think it's going to change the interest/depth character of the house. Current layout is not practical for garage use. Stroud: A roll call vote to be taken for this item. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed 4-2; with 1 abstain. Yea: Briska, Roxworthy, Segal, Stroud Nay: Couture, Wiedmeyer Abstain: Roberson 109 Hill Avenue—demolish carriage house on property The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the carriage house on the property, as it is beyond repair/stabilization. The applicant has also received a notice by the city's code enforcement department to fix up or demolish the structure. Staff inspected the carriage house and has determined that the structure is beyond stabilization or repair. Some elements may be salvageable. The application has indicated that at this time, they are only requesting demolition of the structure to remove the hazard from the property, and intend to build a new structure in the Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 Page 5 of 8 future when grants become available. A cost estimate for a new structure is provided for reference and record. Note:the applicant had made a similar request for demolition of the carriage house on June 25, 2002, which was approved with conditions pertaining to the construction of a new carriage house on the property. A copy of the approval and its conditions is attached. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Guidelines for 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: 1. Staff recommends approval of the request to demolish the carriage house at it meets the standard B.1 - existence of an emergency condition on the property. ***** Stroud: Need to salvage if possible. Couture: What will happen to the grant fund that was previously approved for the restoration? Segal: So few carriage house exist. Rich Hischberg(owner): Garden next to the carriage house was for the horses. Want to put the carriage house back someday with the various elements currently on the structure. Roxworthy: Are the studs inside bent? Owner: Studs are on a dirt base. Stroud: Footings have probably rotted out. Owner: Various exterior propped boards are currently "holding up the building". Wanted to consider temporarily removing the top, and then restructure the bottom. Briska: Structure is too far gone. Wiedmeyer: Have any recorded any measurements of the elements (trim pieces, siding exposure, moldings, windows, etc)? Easiest way to do document the details is by photos. Be sure to place a ruler along the element to include measurements. Owner: Behind the garage the retaining wall is in bad condition too. Waden: If approved for demolish, is there a timeframe to rebuild? Roberson: Not opposed to approving demolishing and giving a timeframe for rebuild. Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 'Page 6 of 8 Stroud: It is a shame to lose a carriage house, but safety needs to be considered too. Suggest a one year plan after being torn down. An extension could be considered. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as amended: owner to submit within one year a plan for rebuilding of carriage house with similar features. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Segal. The motion passed unanimously. 373 S Liberty Street—rehabilitation of house and garage The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to Carry out various improvements to the exterior of the primary structure and garage on the property. The house and garage were constructed around 1975 are non-contributing structures in the Elgin National Watch Historic District and as such does not merit strict application of the guidelines. The work requested is being considered for a residential rehabilitation grant funded by the CDBG program, and is as follows: 1. Replace roof on house and garage, install new gutters and downspouts 2. Replace doors and windows 3. Repaint trim/frames 4. Replace the front and rear stoop overhangs. rh. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Design Guidelines—Approach and Format The design guidelines apply to all properties within the locally designated districts regardless of age or architectural style. For non-historic buildings (properties which are less than fifty years of age or which have been substantially altered), the Commission may apply the guidelines with more flexibility than for historic buildings. In reviewing work affecting non-historic buildings, the Commission's approach is to maintain or enhance their relationship and compatibility with adjacent historic buildings and streetscapes. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted with the following conditions: a. The replacement features match the existing configuration, design, style and to the greatest extent possible, the material, textures and colors of the existing features. Maria Speda(owner): Was present for discussion and vote of this COA request. Robert Moreno(son- in-law)was present to translate as needed. Stroud: Approval of roof and "K' style gutters are reviewed and approved by staff. Windows and siding are not permitted in vinyl material. Replacement windows must be wood or wood with aluminum clad exterior. Wiedmeyer: Regarding the roof shingles, 3-tab would be more appropriate for this structure; not architectural shingles. Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 'Page 7 of 8 Briska: Do we know if the existing siding is original? Stroud: It's too new to be on any of the surveys. Roberson: Any idea regarding an overhang? We would like to have the same put back. Stroud: Is the overhang being replaced? Any intention to increase the overhang? Roxworthy: From staff photo, the overhang should be plywood with no knots needs to be installed to match existing. Stroud: Need to replace all portions of the plywood that have indications of rot. Wiedmeyer: What material are the existing doors made of? Robert Moreno (translator): Both the garage and front door are metal. Wiedmeyer: Door replacements will need to be either solid wood or fiberglass to match the period; preferably a 6 panel door style. Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve as amended: 1) 3-tab roof shingles; 2) replacement windows must constructed of wood or wood with aluminum clad exterior, style to match; 3) Door to be solid wood or fiberglass. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 55 S Liberty Street—replace garage door The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the garage door on the property. The garage is not original to the house and is constructed in hollow core concrete masonry with a flat roof containing a terrace protected by a wrought iron railing. The garage was constructed in an unobtrusive manner to appear like an extension of the foundation of the house. The existing door is wood panel door with a row of windows in it. The proposed replacement door will be a steel raised panel door with no windows in it. The garage door is not visible from a public right-of-way. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Garage Doors: C. 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. D. 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. E. If windows are necessary, they should be simple in design with clear glass. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—December 13, 2011 'Page 8 of 8 F. Should have painted metal panel doors to match the house in a color appropriate to the period of the house. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. John Wiedmeyer(contractor): The owner has requested one change since the submittal of COA. Owner would prefer to have a row of windows (full pane) within the top panel of the garage door. The panels are elongated, not square. Stroud: This garage door is not visible from Liberty Street, and very limited visibility along Eastview Street. Motion made by Committee Member Couture to approve as amended: full pane windows along top panel. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed 6-0; and 1 abstain. Yea: Briska, Couture, Roberson, Roxworthy, Segal, Stroud Abstain: Wiedmeyer Additional Staff Comments: r None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respe/ Ily submitted, { Cindy I. alden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary February 14, 2012 r