Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 Heritage Commission DRSC Agendas and Minutes 2013 MEETING SCHEDULE Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee The Elgin Heritage Commission holds its Regular Meetings on the 1st Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, second floor,North Tower of the Elgin Municipal Building. The Design Review Subcommittee are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday's of every month at 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, second floor,North Tower of the Elgin Municipal Building. First Tuesday Second Tuesday Fourth Tuesday Heritage Commission Design Review Design Review Regular Meeting Subcommittee Subcommittee 7:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. No Meeting**** January 8 No Meeting ** February 5 February 12 No Meeting ** March 5 March 12 March 26 April 2 April 9 April 23 No meeting * May 14 May 28 June 4 June 11 June 25 July 2 July 9 July 23 August 6 August 13 August 27 September 3*** September 10 September 24 October 1 October 8 October 22 November 5 November 12 November 26 No meeting * December 10 No meeting ** * Heritage Commission meetings will not be held in May and December; due to special events. ** Design Review Subcommittee will not meet on the 4th Tuesday in January, February or December unless multiple agenda items are brought forth for review. *** The September 3rd meeting will be relocated due to conflict with other meeting room schedules. Alternative location will be noted on the agenda. ****The January 2"d Heritage Commission meeting will not be held due to a lack of business. Each meeting is subject to change of location. The agenda will reflect the location for the current meeting. Note: COA applications and supporting information for Design Review Subcommittee meetings need to be submitted at least ten days prior to the meeting. Contact Person: Amy Munro Historic Preservation and Grants Planner (847)931-6004 Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,January 8, 2013- 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. November 13, 2012 2. November 27, 2012 3. December 11, 2012 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 932 Brook St—Install windows 2. 384 Raymond St— Install exterior siding G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) 2. 56 N. Channing- (9.25.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission January 8, 2013 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, Bill Ristow, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segal (6:02), Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 932 Brook St— Install windows 384 Raymond St— Install exterior siding (withdrawn by applicant from tonight's meeting) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of November 13, 2012, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). ITEMS TABLED: None • NEW BUSINESS: 932 Brook St— Install windows The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace all of the windows located on the southwest corner of the building's rear addition (see applicant's sketch, Exhibit D). The applicant has proposed Jeld-Wen aluminum clad wood awning windows for four of the windows (identified on the applicant's sketch, Exhibit D), with the remaining windows to be single light Jeld-Wen, aluminum clad wood windows. The applicant has also proposed the removal of the aluminum from the exterior walls and requested to replace it with a natural stone (Birchstone style)to complement the building's existing exterior brickwork. The applicant would also like to adjust the window height by 11" and use colored aluminum ("French Vanilla) as infill. All changes proposed by the applicant have been done in a manner to complement the house's existing architectural details and materials. 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 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. Design Review Subcommittee—January 8, 2013 Page 3 of 4 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: The Design Guidelines permit greater latitude for alterations that are not visible from the public right-of-way and for building additions. Because of the location of the proposed COA project on the building's rear elevation and its lack of public visibility together with the applicant's effort to make changes that contribute to preserving the cohesiveness of the rear addition's design and color, Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Dale& Pat Johnson (owners) were present for tonight's COA discussion. The existing windows are aluminum with wood supports between. The wood has rotted from water damage. New windows are wood interior with aluminum cladding. On each elevation, two awning style windows will be installed to allow air flow. On the south elevation there are a total of six windows; four will be stationary, and the two windows farthest east will have the awning style windows. On the west elevation there are a total of three windows; one will be stationary, and the two farthest north will be awning style. Vertical trim boards will be approximately 4 %2-5" wide. The trim board will go from the soffit to the floor every two windows on the south elevation. All trim boards will be covered with aluminum (painted French Vanilla to match house trim) for maintenance purposes. Above the windows, there will be an 11" drop of the soffit; which is needed to support the roof properly. Below the windows, currently is 22" wood base; which will be changed to stonework. Committee Comments: Below the window, the stonework will probably need to be raised to 36" to meet Code requirements; otherwise tempered glass will be required and the awing style window would need to be at the top portion of the window. Staff will work with applicant for final building requirements. Need to install a cap/sill below the window and above the stonework. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended (stonework to be 36" height to meet CODE compliance). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. Additional Staff Comments: 384 Raymond St—Staff explained the applicant requested the COA hearing be postponed until the February 2013 meeting; to allow additional time to provide complete details for review. Design Review Subcommittee—January 8, 2013 Page 4 of 4 CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Savel. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. 110ILen Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary C1�/y/ I Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, February 12, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. December 11, 2012 2. January 8, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 1028 Douglas Ave. — Reconstruct front porch columns 2. 514 Sherman Ave. —Install windows and doors 3. 358 Bent St. — Reconstruct rear staircase G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St— Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) 2. 56 N. Channing- (9.25.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Proposed — Minutes - Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission February 12, 2013 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:04 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Pat Segel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Briska, Bill Ristow and Scott Savel CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 1028 Douglas Ave. —Reconstruct front porch columns 514 Sherman Ave. —Install windows and doors 358 Bent St. —Reconstruct rear staircase APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the minutes December 11, 2012 and January 8, 2013, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Segel. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: None Desitin Review Subcommittee — February 12, 2013 Page2of7 NEW BUSINESS: 1028 Douglas Ave. — Reconstruct front porch columns The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace four deteriorating wood columns with replacements-in-kind. The columns have been destroyed by carpenter ants. The petitioner's proposed replacement includes four wooden columns with caps and bases. The columns will be primed and painted white. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. Porch Columns and Railing A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Thomas C. Rydell(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Committee members noted the existing columns have unique/ornate fluting at the about the ring at the top of the column. The design should be preserved or replicated. Composite bases with venting will benefit the replacement column; combating both moisture and the carpenter ants direct access to the wood. Soft pine material should not be used for replacement column, as they fail too quickly. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as amended by committee: 1) Custom wood replacement column replicating existing column details, or 2) Cut below existing fluting and ring, and replace lower portion of the round column in same style and size. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 514 Sherman Ave. —Install windows and doors The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement windows and doors and to remove the southeast (front) and east (side) entrances. The house is a two-unit building and the property owner is converting the building to a single family residence. The Design Review Subcommittee—February 12, 2013 Page 3 of 7 property owner will cover over the removed door openings with cedar shake siding to match the building's existing siding. The property owner has also requested the replacement of the majority of the building's windows. Upon review of the estimates and to assure the uniformity of the windows, the applicant's request is to replace all of the building's existing and missing double-hung windows as well as the basement windows, and to install aluminum clad wood replacement double-hung windows. In addition to the window specifications, the property owner has submitted cost estimates for the repair vs. the replacement of the windows. The following numbers reflect the associated window repair/replacement costs: 1. Complete window restoration - $38,900.00. 2. Partial window restoration (framing only) - $19,900.00. 3. Complete window replacement with double-hung, aluminum clad wood windows - $15,593.03. (To reduce the costs, the property owner would install the windows.) The property owner intends to rehabilitate the 1St story picture window (located on the south elevation) and two single light windows located on the west and east elevations. Due to Building Code and safety concerns, he would like to remove a single light 2nd story window opening entirely. This opening would be covered over by cedar shake siding. The property owner's preference is to replace the southwest enclosed porch windows; however, he is open to rehabilitating the windows upon recommendation of the DRSC. The applicant has discussed the front door replacement with Staff and per the Guidelines, would like to replace the existing door with a solid core fiberglass, % half light, 2 panel entry door. For the rear and side entrances, the applicant has proposed 6 panel steel entry doors. 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. Design Review Subcommittee — February 12, 2013 I'a�c 4 of 7 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. 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Although the Guidelines emphasize repair over replacement, factors to consider in window replacement include costs associated with the repair vs. replacement. Should the cost of window replacement outweigh the cost to repair the windows, replacement is viewed as an appropriate option. Given the cost estimates submitted by the property owner, the window replacement appears to be the more cost-effective alternative. Therefore, Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following condition: 1. That the front door specifications be approved by Staff prior to installation. Design Review Subcommittee— February 12, 2013 Page 5 of 7 Raoul Negron(contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion. Applicant explained majority of the windows were 50-60% damaged due to water seeping into the building during the foreclosure process. There are a few windows he would like to keep and maintain. A photo of the home from days gone by, indicate the left side of the front of the house was an open porch, and the right side was the main entrance. Committee is not inclined to approve the removal of the original right side entrance. Details were also discussed regarding the rear left side of the house, which at one time had a small open porch. A portion of the 2nd floor to the rear of the house appears to be an add-on for the existing bathroom. Tan existing small 2'x2' window is located on the 2nd floor rear right (north) side of the house about 6-8" from the floor. Committee felt the window may have been for a former interior stairway window (stairway eliminated over the years to make additional interior floor area). Committee discussed the style of the house and the types of windows and porches that would typically be appropriate for such homes. The front window was typically had a large single stationary pane with stained glass above or above and along the side of the single pane. Porch cover details (roofs and brackets)would range from very simple to slightly ornate. Chairman Stroud provided several images of other similar porch details from various homes in the area for the applicant and contactor to see (on the overhead projection). The request to remove the 2nd floor 2' x2' window and 1st floor doorway and roof cap on the north elevation did not meet opposition. Staggered cedar shake siding to be installed, and would be closely matched the existing profile and texture. The following windows are to be retained and restored: 1) front window (including the muntins for the 20 panes exposure); 2) two single pane windows along the existing interior staircase; 3) five windows on porch (left side of house) to have multi-muntins on top over single pane. The two outer windows will have 2 muntins; while the three inner windows will have 3 muntins. Both front doors should match and have 1/2 lites with two vertical panels; in either solid wood or fiberglass. South side entrance and rear entrance doors should not be 6 panels (steel or otherwise); a 4 panel fiberglass door would be more appropriate aesthetically. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve COA per amendments by the committee: 1) Rear and side to be 4 panel (either solid wood or fiberglass); 2) Front doors to match in design, %2 lite over 2 vertical panels; and 3) Windows to be restored (as noted above); remaining windows to be replaced per specifications submitted with COA application. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Segel. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee — February 12, 2013 Paw 6of7 358 Bent St.— Reconstruct rear staircase The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the building's rear deck and staircase. The dilapidated condition of the deck and staircase is not code compliant and the property owner has submitted an application to address the safety issues. The property owner has also submitted architectural drawings for the proposed deck and staircase reconstruction project. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Decks A. should be located at the rear of dwellings only, where they are not readily visible from the street. B. should be stained with an opaque stain or painted to blend with the colors of the dwelling. C. should be kept simple in design. Wood decks are recommended to have traditional style wood balusters complementary to the design of the building. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness if the following conditions are met: 1. The handrail shall have 2 x 4 top and bottom rails with chamfered edges, with 3/"cove molding. 2. The newel posts shall have 6" ball cap. 3. The stair tread shall be constructed in 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide. 4. Risers, max. 7 3/4", flush with stringer. 5. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the 1x6 frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 6. All deck and stair elements to be wood and stained or primed and painted (opaque stain is acceptable). 7. All remaining details shall match the architectural drawings. Casey Tomoen (contractor for Property Solutions)was present for tonight's COA discussion Proposed posts are 4x4, which would need to be wrapped the entire post trim to installing detail/trim work or installed as 6x6. Design Review Subcommittee—February 12, 2013 Page 7 of 7 By using a 6x6, the posts would only need to be wrapped at the top of bottom. Lower to be 8" high and beveled at the top. Top wrapping to be either a 1x3 or 1x4 and beveled on the lower portion of the wrap. Above the top wrapping, a 2 by flat cap beveled on the top edge; then top with a 6" ball. All skirt (rim joist) should 8" for consistency. The 12" treads have a tendency to warp. Treads should be two 6" boards (separated by a pencil width). Front board will need to be bull nosed with a 1" overhang on front and sides. Proposed 5/4" treated decking boards have the slightly rounded edges and would be allowable for a rear deck/porch (not visible from the street). Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as amended by staff and committee comments including: 1) 6x6 posts with trim details noted above; 2) skirting/rim joist to be 8"; and 3) treads to be two 6" boards with details as noted above. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. Additional Staff Comments: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. Walden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, March 12, 2013- 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. February 12, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 486 Park St— Install Garage Door 2. 446 Park St—Install Windows 3. 303 Douglas— Install Rear Deck/Stoop 4. 414 N. Spring St— Front Porch Repair 5. 384 Raymond St— Install Siding G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) 2. 56 N. Channing- (9.25.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission March 12, 2013 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: John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Bill Ristow, Pat Segel, Scott Save!, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Briska CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 486 Park St—Install Garage Door 446 Park St—Install Windows 303 Douglas—Install Rear Deck/Stoop 414 N. Spring St—Front Porch Repair 384 Raymond St—Install Siding APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve the February 12, 2013 minutes, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: 414 N. Spring St —Tabled due to non-representation. 384 Raymond St—Tabled for soffit removal and window restoration detailed information to be Design Review Subcommittee—March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 6 added to applicant's work plan proposal. NEW BUSINESS: 486 Park St—Install Garage Door The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the trim detail on the garage and to replace the garage overhead door. The existing garage door is deteriorating. To accommodate the replacement door installation and operation, the property owner has proposed the removal of the angled upper corners of the garage door frame by squaring the corners and would also like to repair other minor trim details around the opening. The proposed door specifications are attached (Clopay#4050). The proposed door will be white, short paneled (raised), solid-core metal and without windows. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Aaron Heider(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Mr. Heider noted the alterations to the garage door opening and explained why the squared corners needed to be modified to accommodate the garage door replacement Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 446 Park St. —Install windows The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace all of the windows on the house (20). Several of the existing windows are vinyl and the replacement Design Review Subcommittee—March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 6 windows have been proposed in an effort to preserve window uniformity. With the exception of the basement windows which will be wood awning, the remaining windows will be replaced with Pella Architect Series double-hung, aluminum clad wood windows. The project has been funded through Community Contacts Inc.'s Housing Rehabilitation Program. 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 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 Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the proposed replacement basement windows mimic the existing divided 3-light design. Design Review Subcommittee—March 12, 2013 Page 4 of 6 2. That the existing basement storm windows be repaired and re-installed. Richie Belcastro, Community Contacts(contractor)and Isabel and William Vega were present for tonight's COA discussion. Mr. Belcastro advised the Committee that with the exception of the basement wooden windows, the existing windows openings had either vinyl or storm windows installed. Although replacement windows for the basement were proposed, he expressed his willingness to follow the direction of the Committee's request with regard to their preservation. The Committee discussed the proposed front picture window replacement and noted that two double-hung windows, similar to those located on the house's side (east) elevation, be installed rather than the proposed single window. The Committee members also discussed the basement window styles and options for their preservation. It was recommended that efforts to repair the windows be pursued. If the basement window preservation is not possible, than the other option would be to install aluminum clad wood windows with three divided lights to match the existing windows' pattern. The Committee advised that snap in muntins are not permitted. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve COA per amendments by the committee: 1) Windows to be replaced and restored (as noted above); remaining windows to be replaced per specifications submitted with COA application. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. 303 Douglas Ave.— Install rear deck/stoop The property owners have submitted an application to install a rear deck/stoop. In May 2012, the property owners submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the rear deck, doors, repair the roof, and replace the basement windows. The application included blueprints for the deck installation which were approved by the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) on May 22, 2012. Since that time, the property owner has revised the rear deck/stoop plans and resubmitted a new drawing (attached). Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Decks A. should be located at the rear of dwellings only, where they are not readily visible from the street. B. should be stained with an opaque stain or painted to blend with the colors of the dwelling. C. should be kept simple in design. Wood decks are recommended to have traditional style wood balusters complementary to the design of the building. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. Design Review Subcommittee—March 12, 2013 Page 5 of 6 B. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. The decking shall be 1x4,wood preferred but composite material is acceptable (such as Azek, tongue and groove flooring) 2. The decking must run perpendicular to the house. 3. The handrail shall be at a minimum 30" but no more than 36" in height above finished floor. 4. The handrails shall have a 2x4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, 2" AFF. 5. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, %" cove, 2x2 square balusters, with a maximum of 3" on center, square corners, SFS. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 6. The newel posts shall have a top and bottom 4x4 wrapped square design with a 2x flat top, beveled edge, and 6" ball cap.The newel post top wrapping shall be either 1 x3 or 1 x 4 and beveled on the lower section. 7. The skirt frame shall have a 1x8 top board, 1x6 side boards, and a 1x4 lower board. 8. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 9. The stair tread shall be constructed in 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide. 10. That all other details to match the applicant's drawing. 11. That the deck/stoop details shall be primed and painted. 12. That all applicable permits will be obtained prior to beginning any work. Edgar Perez on behalf of Maria Cortez(Property Owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion The Committee discussed the applicant's submitted drawing. Questions were raised regarding the need for an extra tread and riser and staff was directed to verify whether an additional step is needed. Also, Committee members recommended that the newel post located by the entry door on the applicant's drawing be removed and that wrapping be added to the top and bottom of the newel post. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as amended by staff and committee comments including: 1) newel post should die at the house 2) vertical skirting should be added 3) wrapping should be added to the top and bottom of the newel posts 4) that the balustrade should die at the house and 5) construction should follow staff drawing. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—March 12, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Additional Staff Comments: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Ristow. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Approved: April 9, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, March 26, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 414 N. Spring St— Front Porch Repair (Tabled 3-12-14) 2. 384 Raymond St.—Install Siding (Tabled 3-12-14) F. New Business 1. 100 E. Chicago St—Stealth Wall Installation 2. 815 N. Grove— House Construction (Concept approval request) 3. 500 S. Liberty—Window Installation; Front Door Installation G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) 2. 56 N. Channing- (9.25.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Minutes- Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission March 26, 2013 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 Ristow, Dennis Roxworthy,Scott Savel, Pat Segal, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Briska and John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 414 N.Spring St—Front Porch Repair(Tabled 3-12-14) 384 Raymond St—Install Siding(Tabled 3-12-14) New Business 100 E. Chicago St—Stealth Wall Installation 819 N. Grove Ave (vacant lot directly north of 815 N. Grove Ave)—House Construction (Concept approval request of Prairie Style house) 500 S. Liberty St—Window Installation; Front Door Installation APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were presented for consideration. ITEMS TABLED: None OLD BUSINESS: Agenda Item El (414 N Spring St) was not heard tonight. Applicant had contacted staff prior to the meeting and requested the item be heard at the next DRSC meeting due to appointment conflict. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table item E2 for discussion (representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Segal. The motion passed unanimously. 384 Raymond St—Install Siding(Tabled 3-12-14) THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE MARCH 12,2013 MEETING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE OUTLINED WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S WORK PLAN PROPOSAL. THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW SPECIFICATIONS;HOWEVER,AN UPDATED VERSION WILL BE EMAILED ON MONDAY, MARCH 25,2013. The application to install James Hardie cement fiber siding with a 4" exposure on the house and garage was first brought before the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) on October 9, 2012. An on-site special meeting was conducted on October 15, 2012, with subsequent discussion taking place at the DRSC's October 23, 2012 and November 13, 2012 meetings. Upon review of the proposed project in conjunction with the Design Guidelines,the DRSC made the determination that over 50%of the building's original siding is intact and denied the application of the James Hardie cement fiber siding. The DRSC denied the applicant's request, but approved the COA based upon their October 23, 2012 and November 13, 2012 recommendations. Following the November 13, 2012 DRSC COA denial of the COA as submitted, the property filed filed an appeal request. A public hearing was conducted on December 20, 2012 by the Heritage Commission. Following the close of the public hearing,the Commission conducted a special meeting and voted unanimously to uphold the denial decision of the DRSC. Given the questions related to the percentage of intact siding,the Commission discussed a willingness to consider the application of the James Hardie Board siding in the event that the property owner provided a specific plan for the property that would address the window setback,window cap, historic architectural feature restoration as per the shadow lines, aluminum soffit removal, and other associated issues on the building. Staff communicated the Commission's discussion with the property owner and his contractor. On January 4, 2013, the property owner requested to withdraw his appeal, and authorized his contractor to pursue the submission of a new COA that would address the Commission's request for detailed specifications. The contractor has submitted a work plan (attached) which includes information pertaining to the restoration of the window hood architectural details. Previously,fiber cement board material was discussed for use in the restoration of the window • architectural details; however, the applicant has proposed that the details be reconstructed with wood. The contractor intends to subcontract the window restoration work to a historic preservation firm. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Wood Siding _ Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 3 of 11 A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary, wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the original in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should be repaired and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings,the original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed,these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced,they should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replication. B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable. C. Should have original asbestos shingles kept stained or painted. If asbestos shingle siding is deteriorated or poses a health hazard, it may be removed and replaced with wood or other substitute siding. Removal of asbestos siding should follow hazardous material guidelines. D. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonite, or aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed beneath wood-based materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. These materials generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if more than 50%of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, or missing, substitute materials may be applied if the following conditions are met: • the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the installation of substitute materials; • Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and should be smooth without knots and be accented with trim • Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continuous board stock is preferable for use as siding. The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or removal of original decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no trim or surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boards, molding and windows should be installed. Substitute materials should match the dimensions of the original wood siding as closely as possible. The cement board should abut the wood trim and be caulked to prevent moisture damage. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the COA to install siding on the house and garage together with painting the house if the following conditions are met: HOUSE SIDING INSTALLATION Staff has provided recommendations for two scenarios for the house siding installation: Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 4 of 11 1. Wood siding preservation. 2. Install fiber cement siding. Option#1— Wood siding preservation Entire House 1. That cedar be used for the window trim and hood restoration. 2. That the aluminum soffit is removed. 3. That the new siding beveled with reveal (approximately 4—5") to match the existing siding profile. 4. Appropriate trim boards shall be repaired or installed as necessary at the corners and around doors and windows, which includes but is not limited to the corner boards and front window caps. 5. Patch nail holes with putty, epoxy preferred. 6. Replacement corner boards must be 5/4 x 4(except front east porch) with% round in the corner. 7. Water tables and drip caps shall be replaced and/or installed as necessary. 8. Window infill must be staggered into existing siding. 9. All window trim, hoods, and drip edges that have been exposed shall be repaired/replaced with replacements-in-kind. 10. False window casing should be removed to expose missing details; repair/replaced with replacements-in-kind. 11. Window drip caps must be installed. 12. If existing%: round gutters are removed,they must be reinstalled. 13. All wood must be primed and painted. Front(East)Elevation 14. Porch siding must match existing siding, 1 x 3 corner board 15. A water table should be added. North Elevation 16. Interior corner board (5/4) should be installed to clearly delineate the house addition. The water table should be set slightly higher from the original section of the house. 17. Window hoods are not to be added. Rear(West)Elevation 18. Clapboard siding and water table to be exposed above the foundation line. 19. The property owner together with City staff shall choose one of the following three options for the siding installation (options are listed in order of priority). • Siding should be removed from below the water table to expose the concrete foundation. • Siding should be removed from below the water table and replaced with vertical bead board. • Siding installation should cover the entire elevation, extending to the ground level. South Elevation 20.The siding located on the south entry addition shall remain as is. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 5 of 11 Option#2-Fiber Cement Board Installation 1. That the fiber cement board be installed in a profile to match the existing original clapboard profile. 2. That the aluminum soffit be removed. 3. That the window historic architectural details be restored. 4. That all preceding steps identified in Option#1, with the exception of those related to the installation of cedar siding, be followed. 5. All wood must be primed and painted. 6. That all remaining details follow the applicant's submitted work plan. GARAGE SIDING INSTALLATION 1. New fiber cement siding shall be installed to match the house siding profile, material, and exposure and must run down each elevation. 2. Install corner boards and trim boards for windows,garage door opening and service door. SCRAPE AND PAINT: 1. No power washing. 2. Original clapboards should be lightly sanded and washed. It is recommended that TSP solution be used to clean the exterior siding. Rinse. Allow to thoroughly dry. 3. All wood must be primed and painted. 4. That all remaining details follow the applicant's submitted work plan. Daniel Raffo(representative for contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion. Under the aluminum soffit, no brackets were found. The bed molding will remain; replace as needed (in kind). Example images#1&2 provided to applicant of siding details lining up properly. Trim around the windows were discussed. Concern of hardy board being used for trim; and the need to have a minimum of 1/8" revel. Siding is not to project beyond the corner and/or trim boards. Interior corners to be 5/4 x 2.5". Drip cap/table to be replicated is a piece is found. If not, 1 x 4.5"with 1"tapered molding above. Molding projection to be a minimum of 1" past the table. Front windows to be flashed above. Corner boards to be hardy board or wood. Window trim boards to be wood. West elevation only: Siding will be divided by the water table. Lower portion can be either 4'x8' hardy board sheets or hardy board installed vertically. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff comments, as amended. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 6 of I I NEW BUSINESS: 100 E. Chicago St—Stealth Wall Installation The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install three stealth walls on the Tower Building (local landmark).The proposed antennas, in the form of a "stealth wall"will not greatly detract from the overall character of the building. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: New Commercial Construction A. should be at the rear of the building. B. should be compatible with the original building in scale, proportion and rhythm of openings, and size. D. should be of exterior materials similar to the existing building. E. should not be vertical. Rooftop penthouses and additional stories should not be constructed unless the addition will not be readily visible from the street or other pedestrian viewpoints. Roof additions should be set back from the main facade. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the COA as submitted with the following condition: 1. That the color and texture of the stealth walls match the color and material of the Tower Building's exterior. Wan Chayitmis (AT&T Mobile representative) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Example of stealth wall. The wall is to shield the antennas. Antennas are 6' high, and wall is 12'7". There are six (6) antennas on site currently. AT&T will be adding two (2) more. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve with staff comments. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Segal. The motion passed unanimously. Empty lot north of 815 N. Grove Ave—House Construction (Concept approval request) The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a house on the subject empty lot. This is for concept approval only. The owner will submit drawings with final design and dimension details based upon the recommendations of the DRS. The applicant is looking for suggestions and guidance on whether or not a project of this scope, on the front of the house, would be approved. Context: The area surrounding the subject lot is diverse in architectural style. Most notably, directly west of the lot is the classical revival style David C. Cook Building. Directly south of the property Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 7 of 11 is a vernacular cross gable farmhouse (815 Grove[C]). Directly east of the property is green space. Directly north of the subject property is green space. Other housing styles along the block include the following: 53 Slade Ave.—Side Gable Cottage, circa 1957 (NC) 853 Grove—Bungalow, circa 1915 (NC) 851 Grove—Ranch, circa 1951(NC) 845 Grove—Side Gable, 1902 (C) 811 Grove—Gabled Ell Cottage, 1959 (NC) 54 Lincoln—Spanish Eclectic, circa 1930(5) The applicant's proposed residential design is for a 1400-1600 sq.ft. single story prairie style house. The submitted sketch is based upon an online pattern found by the applicant.The intent of the applicant is to use brick that would match the David C. Cook Building's brick in color. The applicant also intends to incorporate the David C. Cook property's landscaping features within his residential landscaping. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Primary Buildings-New Construction A. should maintain, not disrupt,the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape.Variations of asymmetrical, rectangular, and square forms are most appropriate for the locally designated districts; 2. Scale(height and width). New construction should not vary more than one-half story from the predominate building height typical of dwellings along a block. In most blocks of the designated districts this would require new construction to be no more than two- and-one-half stories; 3. Orientation to the street. Most dwellings in Elgin's locally designated districts have their primary facades and main entrances oriented towards the street and this characteristic should be maintained in any new construction; 4. Roof shape and pitch. Roof slope ratio for new construction should be a minimum of 6:12 to a maximum of 12:12 (6:12 refers to six inches of rise to 12 inches of run in measuring slopes). Roof forms of gable and hipped variations are more common on most blocks than roof forms which are flat, mansard, or gambrel forms; 5. Placement on the lot. Front and side yard setbacks should respect the setbacks found along the block on which the building is sited. 6. Location and proportion of porches,entrances,and divisional bays. Porches should have roof forms of gable, hipped or shed design and at least cover the entrance. Porches extending partially or fully across the front of the building are recommended. Porches should have columns and railings with balusters that are traditional in design and compatible with the overall character of the building. 7. Location and proportion of windows. New window openings should be rectangular in shape. Window proportions on the main facade should not exceed three-to-one in the Design Review Subcommittee —April 23, 2013 Page 8 of 1 1 height/width ratio or be any less than two-to-one in the height/width ratio (two-to-one proportions are preferred). No horizontal sash, casement, or awning type windows should be placed on the fronts of buildings. Special window types (i.e. oriel, bay, stained, beveled glass) may be considered when compatible with the new structure's design as well as the surrounding area; 8. Foundation height. Height of foundations should generally be similar to foundation heights in the area. Foundation heights can increase along the sides or at the rear of a building if necessary to follow slope contours. No slab foundations or at-grade foundations should be utilized on the fronts or readily visible sides of buildings; 9. Porch height and depth. Porch heights and depths should be consistent with those of adjacent dwellings; 10. Material and material color. a. Foundations: Most historic dwelling foundations are of stone or cast concrete and new construction should continue the appearance of these foundation materials. Poured concrete, concrete block, and split faced concrete are acceptable foundation materials. Stucco or other finishes are recommended to provide a textured surface. b. Brick Dwellings: If the new construction is of brick,the brick should closely match typical mortar and brick color tones found in the locally designated districts and along the block. White or light mortars provide too much contrast with typical dark brick colors and should be avoided. c. Frame Dwellings: If the new construction is of frame,the preferred exterior material is wood or a material which is similar to original materials in the area like clapboard, shingle, stucco, etc.The use of cement board siding, or similar materials is acceptable if it meets size recommendations and proper construction detailing of traditional siding materials. If wood siding is used; its exposure should reflect the exposure of traditional wood siding. d. Windows:Wood construction is preferred for windows. However, the use of aluminum clad windows is also acceptable as long as they are sized to be compatible with historic window openings. The use of dark tinted windows, reflective glass and coatings for windows is discouraged on readily visible sides of buildings. 11. Details and texture.The details and textures of building materials should be applied in a manner consistent with traditional construction methods and compatible with surrounding structures. Staff Recommendation: Although the houses located to the north and south of the property together with the D.C. Cook building are of different styles, efforts to complement the commonalities of these houses and those within the neighborhood, e.g. roof pitch, window openings, material, color etc. should be reflected in the final drawing. Staff recommends consideration of the concept with the condition that the applicant will submit finalized drawings for approval by the DRSC. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 9 of 11 Doug Tomsha (prospective land buyer) was present to discuss the concept for new construction of a single family residence. Plans being considered are 2600sf to 3200sf"Wright" style,which can be modified to be much smaller. Architectural features from D.C. Cook building across the street might be used. Same or similar color brick with smaller mortar joints. Other"Wright" homes are found several blocks away from this lot. Proposing house without a garage. Staff explained city municipal code requires one off street parking must be provided within an enclosed structure. Single family with a loft (glass area) above. Final drawings would be brought back to the committee for final review of architectural features. Committee indicated the structure should have piers and/or sandstone(elements of other prairie style)from the neighborhood. Simplier design should be used for the prairie style (corner stones, add some wood possibly, appearance of wood banding). No action taken at this time. Applicant will need to return with complete design details for final review consideration. 500 S. Liberty—Window Installation; Front Door Installation The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to replace a door and install two windows.The COA has been submitted as a corrective action to the property owner's installation of two vinyl windows and a front door without a COA. To correct the violation, the applicant has proposed the removal of the vinyl windows and the installation of wood sash double-hung windows on the front bay window and rear 2"d story, bedroom window.The existing front door style is a % light door with a decorative glass. Staff has discussed the window detail with the applicant and advised that the curvilinear detail is not sympathetic to the bungalow style house. The applicant has expressed a willingness to replace the front door window with non-decorative glass. 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 Design Review Subcommittee— April 23, 2013 Page 10 of 1 1 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. 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the replacement windows are wood double-hung and installed to match the existing historic windows in size and dimension. 2. That the existing front decorative' light is removed and replaced with a plain % light. Tim Ramseyer(owner)was present for tonight's discussion. Front/bay window: Previously one very large two over one window. Vinyl windows were Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 11 of 11 recently installed without permit. Prefer a single fixed window; with a meeting rail added. Willing to install two double hung wood windows. Dimensions need to match opening. Fixed window is acceptable. Rear elevation: Operating window to be installed. Double hung one over one wood window to fit original opening dimension. Front door: Door installed without COA is not appropriate style. Need to install steel or aluminum full view or% lite with two vertical panels below. Inquiry of storm door: Full view style appropriate. Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve staff comments amended: 1)full view storm door; 2)front window rails and styles to match existing window dimensions/details. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. Additional Staff Comments: CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, S/Cindy Walden Cindy A.Walden Approved: May 28, 2013 Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,April 9, 2013-6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. March 12, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 414 N. Spring St— Front Porch Repair (Tabled 3-26-13) 2. 384 Raymond St.—Siding Installation COA Clarification F. New Business G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St— Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) 2. 56 N. Channing- (9.25.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission April 9, 2013 Minutes 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,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Bill Ristow, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Pat Segel CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 414 N. Spring St—Front Porch Repair 384 Raymond St—Install Siding New Business APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the March 12, 2013 minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention (Committee Member Briska). ITEMS TABLED: OLD BUSINESS 414 N.Spring St — Front Porch Repair(Tabled 3-26-13) THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE MARCH 26,2013 MEETING DUE TO LACK OF OWNER REPRESENTATION. The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the front porch.The application has been submitted to address the property Design Review Subcommittee—April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4 owner's front stair code violation. In addition to repairing the front stairs,the property owner's petition includes repairing the front stair handrails, porch decking, and porch balustrade. The proposed changes would be replacements-in-kind. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. C. should be screened only if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Screen panels should be placed behind the original features such as columns or railings and should not hide decorative details or result in the removal of original porch materials. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). E. should have poured concrete steps if the porch, patio or terrace floor is made of concrete (see section on Porch Steps). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. G. should have trellises made of wood, if trellises are appropriate. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Porch Columns and Railing A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. Should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircase and Steps A. Should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. Design Review Subcommittee—April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4 C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber.The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: In the event that the front stairs need to be completely reconstructed,Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. That the stair treads shall be 5/4x12 with bull-nose.Treads shall overhang riser by no less than 1". 2. That the front stair handrails match the existing porch balustrade in dimension and design. 3. That the stair handrail height is parallel to the porch handrail. 4. That the newel posts are attached to the bottom riser. 5. That the newel posts shall match the existing newel post located at the top of the stairs in design and dimension. 6. That the porch flooring is 1 x 4 tongue and groove, wood preferred but composite material is acceptable (such as Azek). 7. That all porch repairs and replacements match the porch's existing style and materials. Robert Plagemann (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Mr. Plagemann expressed his goal to rehabilitate all details of the porch as needed and with replacements-in-kind; however, he will need to conduct the project in stages. The first priority and to correct the Code issues, is the front steps. To address maintenance issues, Mr. Plagemann inquired about coating the stairs and the porch flooring with a vinyl topcoat that he observed on a house within his neighborhood; however,the Committee was unfamiliar with the project. More information is needed to confirm the material type and its ability to meet the Design Guidelines. Committee members suggested that the property owner provide staff with the specific address. The Committee discussed wood and wood composite options for the proposed project. Members approved the use of clear wood, no knot, pressure treated wood for the stairs. Wood composite was also approved; however, if used on the porch flooring, the floorboards the wood composite would only be permitted if used on the entire floor only. Wood replacement boards to match the existing flooring would be permitted. If using wood, Committee Members recommended the use of Douglas Fir. Members also noted the unique handrailings. Any replacement of balusters and other porch details must match the original style, profile, and dimension. Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve as submitted.The motion was Design Review Subcommittee—April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4 seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. 384 Raymond St—Siding Installation COA Clarification At the contractor's request, Staff requested clarification on the Committee's approval of the vapor barrier and A" fanfold installation. Previously, concern about the 1/8" reveal/minimum setback requirement, led the Commission to recommend one or the other, but not both; however, Ms. Munro advised that City Code requires the vapor barrier installation. The Committee discussed the project and in an effort to assist the applicant in assuring that the minimum setback was met, still advised against the fanfold installation. However, if the contractor wishes to pursue the fanfold installation,the COA was approved for the 1/8" minimum setback and therefore,the Commission said that the contractor may use his discretion with installing both; however, in the event that the 1/8" setback is not met, the project will need to be re-done. NEW BUSINESS: None. Additional Staff Comments: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson. The motion was seconded by Committee Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, KNYtkr— Amy Munro Approved: April 23, 2013 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, April 23, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. April 9, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 56 N. Channing— Front porch repair (9.25.12) F. New Business 1. 270 Lessenden PI—Garage demolition G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-56161 PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission April 23, 2013 Minutes 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 Ristow,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segal,Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Briska CITY STAFF PRESENT: Sarosh Saher Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 56 N. Channing—Front porch repair(9.25.12) New Business 270 Lessenden PI—Garage demolition APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve the minutes of April 9, 2013, as amended ("dimensions" bottom of page 3). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: None Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 2 of 5 OLD BUSINESS: Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table items El for discussion (representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 56 N. Channing—Front porch repair(9.25.12) This item was tabled on September 25, 2012 due to the DRSC's request for detailed drawings for the handrails. Prior to the September meeting,the applicant had appeared before the DRSC (August 28, 2012) had been advised by the DRSC,that in the event that the stair handrail was removed from the stairs, then new handrailings would be required that met the Design Guidelines.At the September meeting meeting,also discussed was the new siding that had been installed at the base of the columns without a Certificate of Appropriateness.The applicant was advised to remove the wood shingles to expose the base.This has not been done; however, Staff will obtain photos prior to the meeting. Staff has shared design options with the property owner(attached) and the property owner will install handrails to match the recommended drawings. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials,scale, and placement. C. should be screened only if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Screen panels should be placed behind the original features such as columns or railings and should not hide decorative details or result in the removal of original porch materials. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). E. should have poured concrete steps if the porch, patio or terrace floor is made of concrete (see section on Porch Steps). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. G. should have trellises made of wood, if trellises are appropriate. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood,glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Porch Columns and Railing A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. Should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles)should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the repairs with the following conditions: 1. That the stair handrail is parallel to the existing porch handrailing.That handrail is attached to the columns'face. 2. The handrail shall have 2 x 4 top and bottom rails with chamfered edges,with%"cove molding. 3. The newel posts shall be 4 x 4 wrapped lx or 6 x 6 (preferred as wrapping would only be necessary at the top and bottom).The base shall be 1 x 8, beveled at the top. The top wrapping shall be either 1 x3 or 1 x 4 and beveled on the lower section. 4. The newel posts shall have a 2x flat top, beveled edge, and 6" ball cap. 5. That the balusters are 2x2's with%" cove at top, and spaced no more than 3" on center. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round. corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 6. That the newel posts are attached to the bottom riser. 7. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 chamfered posts with 1x4 wrapping and have a ball cap, minimum of 5" (to match attached drawing). 8. All other details to match attached drawing 9. That the column base material be modified per the DRSC's recommendation. Felipe Loe(owner)and John& Rosa Martinez (translator)were present for tonight's COA discussion. Handrail at top of porch must elbow 90 degrees to the column. A small (block)foot would be needed below the lower railing. (example can be seen at 252 N. Liberty St). Under the siding was 2x4s; no column/pier. Need to build a column base with a flat panel. Raised or recessed detailing. Railings should be attached to the panel (if possible). Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve with staff comments and details listed above. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 4 of 5 NEW BUSINESS: 270 Lessenden PI—Garage demolition The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to demolish the garage. The garage has several structural issues, including a collapsing rear roof. The property owner is concerned about safety and vandalism to the building due to its existing condition as well its location on property that contains a vacant house. 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: 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: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Bob Trueblood (Fox River Water Reclamation District (FRWRD) representative) was present to discuss the COA request. Mr.Trueblood provided details regarding the future plans for underground water storage tanks. Not only would the underground tanks assist with storm water; FRWRD would provide a playground and open space for the community to use. In the future, FRWRD would propose giving away the existing home(s) within the project area to be relocated to other site(s). Anticipate 2-4 years to final project decisions. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—April 23, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Additional Staff Comments: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Briska. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. Walden Approved: May 28, 2013 Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, May 14, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. March 26, 2013 2. April 23, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 940 S Spring St- Fence 2. 115 Lincoln Ave-Gazebo G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission May 14, 2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, Bill Briska,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Save!, Pat Segel and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow CITY STAFF PRESENT: Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business New Business 1. 940 S Spring St- Fence 2. 115 Lincoln Ave-Gazebo APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were deferred to the following meeting as not all Subcommittee members had received them. ITEMS TABLED: No items were tabled. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. 940 S Spring St—Fence—Property owner: Cristina Castro Project Background: Design Review Subcommittee—May 14, 2013 Page 2 of 4 The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to construct a 4.4 foot high open picket fence in the side yard.The current height allowance for a fence of this type in this location is 3%feet high.The fence is proposed to connect to an existing 6 foot high fence located within the side yard of the property to the north.The length of fence proposed to be installed is approximately 8 feet. The property owner is proposing to install the fence to screen the stoop located at the side entrance of the house.The fence will also contain a gate to access the side yard. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: FENCES IN FRONT YARDS I.should be no higher than 36 inches with the posts being slightly higher and having caps J.should have pickets no wider than four inches with spacing between boards a minimum of one inch up to the width of the board depending on the design of the fence. FENCES IN REAR YARD L. built for privacy should not extend beyond the rear yard beginning at the back corner of the house. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted,since the impact of the added height of the fence(1 foot)is minimal on the overall character of the house. Questions were asked on what the design of the fence would be. Ms. Castro responded that the fence would be wood with an arched top.The highest portion of the fence would be 54 inches.The lower portions would be approximately 4 feet and would connect to the adjacent fence to the north. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request for a COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. 1. 115 Lincoln Ave-Gazebo Project Background: The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to construct a free standing gazebo at the rear of the house.The gazebo will be screened in,with an entrance door.The screen panels will sit on a sold balustrade clad in cedar siding.The slope of the gazebo roof is proposed at 12:4, with a 6 inch overhang. The gazebo is proposed to be constructed at a location that will not be visible at all from a right- of-way.The portion of this portion of property is surrounded by neighboring property. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Pergolas, Arbors, Gazebos, Fountains, Tree Houses, Ponds, And Statuary Design Review Subcommittee—May 14, 2013 Page 3 of 4 A. should be sited in rear yards or side yards B. should be of wood construction in designs appropriate for pre-1945 dwellings. Yard features constructed of materials such as glass, metal or brick can be placed in yards if situated near the rear of the lot and effectively screened by fencing or landscaping. C. should not be located in street yards. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The contractor for the project, Mr. Ron Dahl was present to represent the property owner. There was discussion on the structural construction of the gazebo. It was suggested that reducing the gazebo by two sides could possibly reduce the cost of construction of the structure.The contractor indicated that he would run this idea by the property owner. Additionally, it was also required that the entire structure be painted rather than be left natural. There was also discussion on the portion of the request that pertained to the fence. Staff indicated that the fence met the requirements of the guidelines and could be administratively approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Briska to approve the gazebo as submitted, or as modified to reduce the number of sides,with the additional condition that it be painted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. Passed unanimously. Additional Staff Comments: 1. City Gazebo at Observatory Park—Mr.Saher stated that the Parks Department had submitted a request to the Community Development Department to construct a new metal gazebo in Observatory Park. He provided the members with drawings, maps and views of the structure. If agreeable to the Subcommittee, he requested to be provided with authority to approve the design of the structure and issue a permit. There was brief discussion on the materials proposed to be used for the gazebo,the roof and cupola design. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to provide staff with the authority to review and approve the design of the gazebo in lieu of the fact that the structure met the requirements of the design guidelines. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. Passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: Design Review Subcommittee—May 14, 2013 Page 4 of 4 None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Briska. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, s/Sarosh Saher Approved: June 25, 2013 Senior Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, May 28, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. March 26, 2013 2. April 23, 2013 3. May 14, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 159 S. Channing Street— Demolish Garage 2. 730 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct side porch 3. 418 Lowrie Ct—Repair/replace front stairs G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St— Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission May 28,2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Briska, Pat Segel, and Bill Ristow CITY STAFF PRESENT: Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business New Business 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage 2. 730 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct side porch 3. 418 Lowrie Ct—Repair/replace front stairs APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the minutes from the Design Review Subcommittee meeting held on March 26, April 23 and May 14, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer and passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: The following items were tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage—the applicant approached staff just prior to the meeting to inform them that they were not the property owner and therefore could not request action to demolish the garage on the property. They indicated that the property owner was the bank that had acquired the property on the demise of the owner and had requested the applicant not to take any action on their behalf. Staff therefore requested that the Subcommittee table this application until a determination on the property owner could be made. 2. 730 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct side porch—the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. Design Review Subcommittee—May 28, 2013 Page 2 of 4 A.motion was made by Commissioner Roberson to table the two items until further information could be obtained, and until the property owner or a representative was present to discuss the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS: 418 Lowrie Ct—Repair/replace front stairs The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to install a new guardrail and handrail on the front and rear porch of the house, and to repair the roof overhanging the front porch of the house. On visiting the property, only the front porch could be inspected since the property is not occupied at this time, and the rear porch is contained within a locked fenced-in area. In inspecting the front porch, it appears that the level of deterioration extends beyond the just the hand and guard rails. It appears that the stair treads and risers, decking and skirting on the porch have suffered significant damage due to exposure to weather and staff would recommend their replacement. Staff would also recommend that the footings and framing of the porch be examined for structural integrity. The roof over the front porch is flat with its soffit and fascia missing. Additionally, staff noted two satellite dishes installed on the front elevation of the building without a COA. Staff has provided the applicant with notice to remove the dishes and relocate them, if required to the rear of the building. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. C. should be screened only if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Screen panels should be placed behind the original features such as columns or railings and should not hide decorative details or result in the removal of original porch materials. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). Design Review Subcommittee—May 28, 2013 Page 3 of 4 E. should have poured concrete steps if the porch, patio or terrace floor is made of concrete (see section on Porch Steps). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade, if the porch floor is made of wood. G. should have trellises made of wood, if trellises are appropriate. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Porch Columns and Railing A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a COA to replace the handrails, guardrails, stair treads and risers, decking and skirting be replaced to meet the requirements of the guidelines, and with the following conditions: 1. Use the details provided to the applicant in the attached drawing to complete the repairs to the front porch. Design Review Subcommittee—May 28, 2013 Page 4 of 4 2. Provide access to staff to inspect the rear porch in order to document the condition of the porch, determine the level of deterioration, and propose the scope of work necessary to meet the requirements of city codes and the guidelines. 3. The roof over the porch should be repaired structurally where necessary and the soffit should be reinstalled using bead board painted or stained, and a fascia board should be reinstalled to the width of the joists. ******** The property owner, Mr. Juan Estrada was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Staff indicated that since the gate was locked, an inspection to assess the conditions and take photographs could not be carried out. However, staff indicated that if the porch was designed in a simple style, that the standard details could be used in its reconstruction. Discussion also took place on the need for the overhanging roof above the front steps. There was discussion on whether it should be there or not. It appears to have been installed later than the date of construction of the house. However, to provide for the needed shelter from the elements, it was decided to allow it to remain, but repair it in accordance with the conditions in the packet. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request for a COA as submitted, with the conditions provided by staff. Additionally, staff was granted the authority to approve the rear porch based on an inspection and the details suggested by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. Passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roberson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, s/Sarosh Saher Sarosh Saher Approved: June 25, 2013 Senior Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 159 S. Channing Street— Demolish Garage 2. 730 Douglas Avenue— Reconstruct side porch F. New Business 1. 890 Douglas Ave. —Construct one-story rear addition 2. 150 N. Gifford — Repair/Reconstruct Windows G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) I. Staff Comments 1. COA Neighbor Notification Process J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 (TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. • Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission June 11, 2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, William Briska,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Save► MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: John Anderson (Representing 150 N. Gifford St.) PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 1. 159 S. Channing St—Demolish Garage 2. 730 Douglas Ave—Reconstruct side porch New Business 1. 890 Douglas Ave—Construct one-story rear addition 2. 150 N. Gifford St — Repair/Reconstruct Windows APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were not submitted for approval ITEMS TABLED: The following items were tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage—the property ownership is still under consideration. 2. 730 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct side porch—the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 2 of 7 Agenda Item El (159 S. Channing St.) was not heard tonight due to lack of owner representation. A motion was made by Commissioner Roberson to table Item 1E until further information could be obtained. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to un-table item E2 for discussion (A representative for the property was in attendance for tonight's meeting). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. 730 Douglas Ave—Reconstruct side porch The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to reconstruct the side porch on the house that faces south.The reconstructed porch will restore the porch to an open porch. The proposed work involves the following: • Demolish the existing porch decking,wall across the front of the porch that encloses the porch, all trim stairs and skirting. • Rebuild the structure of the porch including new footings, and framing. The area of the porch will not change; neither will it extend beyond the elevation of the house. • Support the new header with new 9' high decorative tapered porch posts supported on 3' high square bases.The cross-section dimension of the posts is not provided.Additionally, it appears that the posts on the front porch are turned, and those on the southeast corner of the front elevation are square, but not tapered. • Install new porch railing 36 inches high, with a diagonal lattice-like design (derived from the front porch, but not matching) consisting of two panels separated by an intermediate vertical support post. • No skirting is proposed at this time. • Construct new stairs to the porch with hand rails designed in a manner similar to the porch railing.The stairs to the porch will be wider than existing and be complementary to the character of the porch. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches(pertinent guidelines) B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. D.should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting,vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. Porch Columns and Railing(pertinent guidelines) Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 3 of 7 B.should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C.should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period.The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps(pertinent guidelines) B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber.The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D.should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction Staff Recommendation: The reconstruction of the porch will return its character to more closely resemble what was originally constructed on the house.Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following recommendations and conditions: Recommendations: 1. Staff was unable to determine the sill height of windows on the exterior wall opening into the porch (the porch is currently enclosed). However, staff recommends that if there are windows opening onto the porch that the applicant considers matching the railing height to the height of the window sills. However,the height of the railings as proposed does not significantly detract from the character of the house. 2. The columns currently proposed are tapered square columns on square bases 36 inches high. The design of these columns is more reminiscent of a craftsman style as opposed to the Queen Anne style of the house. Staff recommends that the design of the columns be derived from the style and design of columns that exist on the house, but with a simpler amount of detail, since this is a side porch. Conditions: 1. The porch is constructed with skirting whose design is derived from that of the existing porches but with a simpler amount of detail,since this is a side porch. 2. The design of the treads and risers of the porch stairs match the design of those on the front porches to the house. ******** The property owner, Ms. Nicole Brahms-Tuhy was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. She also distributed updated drawings to the Subcommittee. Discussion took place regarding the railing height, skirting, and post details. Ms.Tuhy confirmed that the posts will be similar to the front porch post details. She also confirmed that the columns as well as the railing height will match the front porch details. Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 4 of 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request for a COA as submitted, with the condition that the railing height be approved by staff prior to installation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. Passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 890 Douglas Ave.—Construct one-story rear addition The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a one-story addition to the property's rear (west) elevation. The submitted architectural drawings reflect the applicant's effort to construct an addition that will contribute to the building's historic character in material and architectural detail. To accommodate the new addition, the applicant intends to demolish the sun room and wood deck located on the building's rear elevation. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following condition: 1. That the casement windows proposed for the addition's west elevation be of a simulated double-hung 4/4 light pattern to match the house's existing historic window details rather than the proposed 6/6 pattern. (Similar style to the applicant's proposed east elevation window detail.) The property owner's representative, Mr. Amias Turman, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Turman distributed revised drawings to reflect a reduction of one Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 5 of 7 elevation of the addition by 3 feet and its adjacent side extension of approximately 18 inches. Mr.Turman also highlighted that the drawings had been corrected to reflect a change to the window light pattern on the addition's west elevation from 6/6 to 4/4 lights. Upon review of the drawings, Commissioners complimented the applicant's submitted drawings and their level of detail. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request for a COA as submitted, with the updated revisions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. Passed unanimously. 150 N. Gifford St The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for several projects. Several have been approved administratively; however, Staff is seeing the review of the Design Review Subcommittee for the property owner's window rehabilitation request. The property owner has requested approval to repair and as necessary, replace windows in disrepair. The property owner has indicated that the following windows may require replacement: 5 basement windows, two dormer windows. On May 31, 2013, Senior Planner, Sarosh Saher conducted a site visit and assessed the windows and confirmed that the sash of several windows is deteriorated. At that time, the applicant was advised that every effort should be made to repair the windows and in the event that windows are beyond repair, that windows to match the existing historic windows should be installed. Of particular note, Mr. Saher advised the property owner that the muntin details should be preserved. The property owner has indicated that he is willing and able to replicate the existing historic windows in material and design (including the muntins). The property owner will provide an example replacement window at the June 11, 2013 meeting. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 6 of 7 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the window rehabilitation as submitted. The property owner, Mr. Oscar Jimenez was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr.Jimenez provided the Subcommittee with an example of his proposed reconstructed window for the windows that are beyond repair. His reconstructed window showed the replication of the muntin detail that is found on the house's existing windows. Discussion took place regarding the windows that will be repaired versus replaced. Mr. Jimenez intends to replace the basement windows and dormer windows. The remaining windows will be repaired. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request for a COA as submitted, with the condition that new windows be installed with replacements-in-kind only. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Munro approached the Subcommittee to request administrative approval for an update to a COA that was approved by the Subcommittee on November 13, 2012 for garage repairs at 150 N. Gifford St. on November 13, 2012. The applicant,John Anderson, requested a revision to the COA to accommodate frame and siding issues. Mr. Anderson requested approval to install fiber cement board to match the house and to modify the garage door opening. Discussion took place regarding the request and the Subcommittee granted informal approval for the proposed revision, with formal approval to be provided a future meeting. Design Review Subcommittee—June 11, 2013 Page 7 of 7 CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roberson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Briska. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, iknr 1\1MAIktr-- Amy Munro Approved:July 23, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,June 25, 2013-6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. May 28, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 159 S. Channing Street— Demolish Garage (5-28-13) F. New Business 1. 543 E. Chicago St— Repair rear porch 2. 555 Douglas Ave—Install windows 3. 426 Prairie—Install windows; Replace front sidewalk and stairs 4. 359 Park St— Restore parade, front and side porch details G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 567 Park St—Reconstruct rear porch (7.10.12) I. Staff Comments 1. COA Neighbor Notification Process J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-56161 PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission June 25, 2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel,John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow, Pat Segel, and William Briska CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Bob Anderson PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 1. 159 S. Channing St—Demolish Garage New Business 1. 359 Park St— Restore parade porch, front and side porch details APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the minutes from the Design Review Subcommittee meeting held on May 28, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer and passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: The following item was tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 159 S. Channing Street— Demolish Garage—Staff contacted the applicant for an update and was advised that property ownership is still being determined. The applicant will contact staff upon property ownership confirmation. 2. 543 E. Chicago St— Repair rear porch -the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 3. 555 Douglas Ave—Install windows-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 4. 426 Prairie— Install windows; Replace front sidewalk and stair-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. Design Review Subcommittee—June 25, 2013 Page 2 of 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to table the four items until further information could be obtained, and until the respective property owner or a representative was present to discuss the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Save!and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: 359 Park St. — Restore parade porch, front and side porch details The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to reconstruct the property's parade porch.The porch will be reconstructed as per its historic photograph. The applicant has also proposed to match applique details located on the building's existing front and side (west) porches which are similar to details located on its "sister" house in Wheaton, Illinois.The property owners have proposed the use of Cyprus wood for the porch's reconstruction. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. C. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor (e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). D. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade, if the porch floor is made of wood. E. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. F. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. Porch Columns and Railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Staff Recommendation: Design Review Subcommittee—June 25, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. ******** The property owners, Maureen and Tom Lee were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. and Mrs. Lee confirmed that the restoration would be conducted in a manner to replicate an historic photograph of the house. The property owners clarified that the gingerbread trim details on the front and side porches would also be restored. Discussion also took place regarding the property owners' intent to paint the house with historically appropriate colors. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request for a COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Munro requested direction from the Subcommittee regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) adjoining neighbor notification process. Typically, COA neighbor notification notices for all properties identified on the Subcommittee's agenda. It was noted by Ms. Munro and Subcommittee members that only in rare instances, have neighbors addressed the COA projects relative to the actual project details. City staff receives very few phone calls, and the majority of them are inquiries related to incorrect addresses or incorrect assumptions about the COA project applicability to their property rather than the one identified in then notice. Subcommittee members discussed the neighbor notification and recommended that notices be mailed for COAs that are contentious, will change the overall context of the neighborhood such as demolitions and new house construction, or other projects as staff deems appropriate. Discussion also took place regarding exhibits that are included with the DRSC agenda packets. Subcommittee members agreed that maps are not necessary, with the exception of Sanborn maps when changes to a house's footprint are proposed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to revise the COA neighbor notification process and direct staff to mail notices only when COA applications are contentious, will potentially change the neighborhood context such as demolition or reconstruction, or as staff deems appropriate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. Passed unanimously. Discussion took place regarding COAs for projects that will replicate historic photographs which reflect the original building. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to direct staff to administratively approve COAs for projects that utilize historic photographic evidence to rehabilitate a house. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. Passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—June 25, 2013 Page 4 of 4 CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roberson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, )(,,1 KOvit.--' Amy Munro Approved:July 23, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,July 9, 2013- 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 16 N. Gifford— Reconstruct Garage (Update approved COA from 11-13-12; 6-11-13) 2. 815 Grove (empty lot)—Construct House 3. 543 E. Chicago St—Repair Rear Porch 4. 555 Douglas Ave—Install Windows 5. 426 Prairie—Install Windows; Replace Front Sidewalk and Stairs F. New Business 1. 525 E. Chicago St— Install Fence 2. 818 Brook St.—Install Garage Door 3. 1006 N. Spring St—Install Garage Door 4. 521 Villa St.— Install Windows G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage (5-28-13) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission July 9, 2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, William Briska, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segel, John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Kyle Tomsha, PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 1. 16 N. Gifford— Reconstruct Garage (Update approved COA from 11-13-12; 6-11-13) 2. 815 Grove (empty lot)—Construct House 3. 543 E. Chicago St—Repair Rear Porch 4. 426 Prairie— Install Windows; Replace Front Sidewalk and Stairs New Business 1. 525 E. Chicago St—Install Fence 2. 1006 N. Spring St—Install Garage Door 3. 521 Villa St. — Install Windows APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were not provided for approval. ITEMS TABLED: The following item was tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 818 Brook St. —Install Garage Door-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 2. 555 Douglas Ave. - the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 2 of 10 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to table the two items until the respective property owners or representatives were present to discuss the applications. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 16 N. Gifford—Reconstruct Garage (Update approved COA from 11-13-12; 6-11-13) The applicant,John Anderson, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Anderson explained project details and the need to revise the original COA garage door opening request. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request for a COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. The motion passed 7-0, with one abstention (Commissioner Save!). 815 Grove (empty lot)—Construct House The property owner, Douglas Tomsha and his contractor, David Jurina, were present to update the Subcommittee on the project. On March 26, 2013, the project received concept approval from the Subcommittee with the following conditions: 1. The final house design elements should incorporate details from other Prairie Style homes on Douglas Ave. 2. Final drawings showing all dimensions and specifications must be submitted for the Design Review Subcommittee's review and approval. Since that time, Mr. Jurina has been working with Mr. Tomsha to incorporate elements from neighboring Prairie Style homes and to modify the home per Mr. Tomsha's requested size reduction.The materials are still being determined. Potentially, the brick may not match the David C. Cook Building's brick, the siding will be reverse board and batten, and the house will not have gutters. The Subcommittee discussed the project and expressed concerns with several details, including the proposed loft design and chimney location. Additional details pertaining to its proportion as well as the potential need to lower the chimney were also discussed. The Subcommittee also requested additional detail work pertaining to the doors, windows and garage. In particular, the soffits should not be wrapped with aluminum. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to table further review of the item until additional project details are provided by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel and passed unanimously. 543 E. Chicago St—Repair Rear Porch Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 3 of 10 THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON JUNE 25, 2013 DUE TO LACK OF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION. The property owners have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the rear porch located on the southwest corner of their house. The property owners have proposed the installation of new wood flooring and replacements-in-kind of the columns (as needed). The applicants would also like to install tongue and groove Douglas Fir. At the time of their application submittal, the applicants indicated that the deteriorated condition of the columns would not be known until the flooring was removed. If the columns are salvageable, the property owners intend to repair the columns. If the columns require replacement, the property owners intend to replace the columns with replacements-in-kind. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches (pertinent guidelines) A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. D. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. Porch Column and Railings B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: 1. Should the columns' condition require replacement, that the new columns be replacements-in-kind to match the existing columns. The property owner, Anna Janus, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Ms. Janus has proposed the replacement of the rear porch flooring with 1" x 4" tongue and groove, Douglas floor flooring and also requested approval to repair and restore the columns as per details in an historic drawing that she presented to the Subcommittee. The drawing was made by a previous property owner and shows details once found on the columns. At this time, Ms. Janus expressed that until the flooring is removed, it is unclear as to whether the columns will need full replacement. A motion was made by Commissioner Ristow to approve the request for a COA as submitted and with the condition that all details match the historic drawing provided Ms. Janus. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 4 of 10 426 Prairie—Install Windows; Replace Front Sidewalk and Stairs THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON JUNE 25, 2013 DUE TO LACK OF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION. Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace two windows located on the 1st floor of the building's west elevation. The property owner has proposed the installation of double-hung wood windows (Pella, Architect Series) to match the house's existing windows. The proposed replacements are due to the windows' interior deterioration and inoperability. The property owner has also proposed replacing the concrete front sidewalk and stairs with brick pavers (Unilock, Hollandstone, Heritage Brown). 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. 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—July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 10 Sidewalks and Walkways A. should be preserved, if original to a dwelling or block B. should be constructed of smooth concrete poured in detail, dimension, and placement as that of original or early sidewalks. C. should not be of aggregate or pebble-surfaced concrete. Smooth poured concrete, flagstone pavers, brick pavers, or pavers that replicate brick such as stamped concrete can be used. D. should not be constructed of asphalt, if situated in the front yard, but may be permitted in less visible areas of the property. E. should not abut existing driveways and should be located a minimum distance of three feet from any existing driveway. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. ******** The property owner, Craig Dresang, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Dresang clarified his request for installing a brick veneer over the existing front concrete sidewalk stairs and sidewalk. Due to maintenance and economics, Mr. Dresang also proposed the installation of two fixed, single pane windows with snap-on muntins to mimic a double- hung window which would replace the existing double-hung windows which flank the bay window. The Subcommittee discussed the project and advised Mr. Dresang that either window repair or aluminum clad wood, double-hung windows are the accepted replacement and that the window project, as proposed does not meet the Guidelines. The Subcommittee clarified the sidewalk and staircase project as being brick veneer over the stairs to match the brick pavers proposed for the sidewalk. The Subcommittee suggested that a stair handrailing may be required for Code compliance. Staff was directed to confirm Code compliance. A motion was made by Commissioner Roberson to approve the request for a COA as submitted and with the conditions as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. Passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 525 E. Chicago St—Install Fence The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the property's rear yard chain link fence located on the west lot line. The applicant's fence request includes placement in the existing fence's location. The proposed replacement is a 6' cedar privacy fence (solid board, privacy louvered). Adjacent to the chain link fence is a 28' picket fence. Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 6 of 10 The property owner has also requested approval to replace the damaged picket fence located at the edge of the house and extending to the west lot line with a 4' ornamental metal fence. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Fences (applicable guidelines) A. Should be proportionate to the house and the design should be compatible with the character of the building and district. B. Should be painted white or a trim color related to the house, never left to weather or given a stain finish. E. If placed along common property lines should not be placed against another fence -double line fencing is not permitted. F. Should have posts that are set a minimum of 30 inches below grade and no more than eight feet apart. G. If wood, be of cedar, redwood or pressure treated pine, cypress or other rot resistant wood. Fences in Rear Yard L. Built for privacy should not extend beyond the rear yard beginning at the back corner of the house. M. Built for privacy should have a minimum of gate post, corner post, and end posts which are five to ten inches wide and taller than the pickets. N. Can be constructed in the same low fence design found in the front yard. 0. Of wood boards or planks for privacy should be located in rear yards and be no taller than six feet. Boards should be no more than six inches wide. P. Privacy fences of flat boards with flat tops in a single row are most appropriate for the historic districts. Vertical boards topped with lattice or picket are also appropriate as privacy fences. Staff Recommendation: Although the Design Guidelines do not permit the proposed fence location, the proposed location is a pre-existing condition that the property owners have requested to maintain. Staff does not believe that the proposed location detracts from the overall historic character of the house and neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the fence corner, gate and end posts are five to ten inches wide and taller than the pickets. 2. That the privacy fence is painted white or in a trim color that matches the house. Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 7 of 10 3. That the privacy fence boards/planks are no more than six inches wide. The property owner, Dan Coolidge was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Coolidge clarified that he intends to replace the existing chain link fence along the property's west line with a wood privacy fence and the he intends to replace the existing wood picket fence extending from the edge of the house to the west lot line with a 4' ornamental fence. The Subcommittee discussed the project and concurred with the applicant's request to stain, rather than to paint the privacy fence. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request for a COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. 1006 N. Spring St—Install Garage Door The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the property's garage door due to its inoperability. The property owner has proposed the installation of an overhead white, steel raised panel door, without windows (specifications attached, C. H. I., Model 2250, Short Panel). The existing garage door has recessed panels; however, the property owner is unable to confirm if it is original to the building. Staff has discussed the garage door specifications with the property owner and advised the property owner that a recessed panel garage door may be more appropriate. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following condition: Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 8 of 10 1. If the garage door is original to the building, that the replacement garage door be a recessed panel door to match the existing door (example specifications attached). The property owner, Radwan Abordan was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee inquired about his willingness to follow the Staff recommendation for installing a garage door with recessed panels to match the existing garage door. Mr. Abordan confirmed his agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request for a COA per Staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. 521 Villa St.—Install Windows The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace two windows. The windows are located on the first level of the property's east and west elevations. Upon Staff's site inspection of the building's front and side elevations, only three of the building's windows appeared to be historic (2/2, double-hung wood windows). The windows that are proposed for replacement do not appear to be original to the building. The applicant has proposed aluminum clad wood, double-hung replacement 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. 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 Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 9 of 10 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. Staff Recommendation: Given the building's alterations together with the fact that the majority of its windows have been replaced, including the subject two windows, and to maintain the overall cohesiveness of the building, Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owner, Scott Chiang, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee discussed the project and inquired about original windows on the building. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request for a COA as submitted and with the condition that the replacement windows fit the existing window openings. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff updated the Committee on the DRSC appointments. The historic district representatives, Steve Stroud, Pat Segel,John Roberson, and Dennis Roxworthy have agreed to serve another term. The Elgin Heritage Commission member representation is William Briska, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer. Bill Ristow will serve as an EHC representative until his vacancy is filled. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Savel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Design Review Subcommittee—July 9, 2013 Page 10 of 10 j)Qryi KVY11111 . Amy Munro Approved: August 27, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,July 23, 2013 - 6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. June 11, 2013 2. June 25, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 818 Brook St.—Install Garage Door 2. New Business 1. 150 N. Gifford St. —Rear Staircase and Porch 2. 376 S. Liberty—Replace Garage Door 3. 458 Arlington Ave.—Replace Concrete Sidewalls 3. Other 4. Tabled Items 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage (5-28-13) 5. Staff Comments 6. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission July 23, 2013 Minutes 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: Steve Stroud, Bill Ristow,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and Pat Segel MEMBERS ABSENT: William Briska and John Wiedmeyer CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business New Business 1. 150 N. Gifford St. —Rear Staircase and Porch 2. 458 Arlington Ave.— Replace Concrete Sidewalls APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Roberson to approve the minutes from the Design Review Subcommittee meetings held on June 11, 2013 and June 25, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy and passed 4-0 with one abstention (Commissioner Ristow). ITEMS TABLED: The following items were tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 818 Brook St.—Install Garage Door-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 2. 376 S. Liberty St.—Replace Garage Door. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to table the two items until the respective property owner or a representative was present to discuss the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson and passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—July 23, 2013 Page 2 of 5 NEW BUSINESS: 150 N. Gifford St.—Rear Staircase and Porch Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the building's rear deck and staircase. The property owner has submitted an application to address safety concerns. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Decks A. should be located at the rear of dwellings only, where they are not readily visible from the street. B. should be stained with an opaque stain or painted to blend with the colors of the dwelling. C. should be kept simple in design. Wood decks are recommended to have traditional style wood balusters complementary to the design of the building. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness if the following conditions are met: 1. That the decking shall be 1x4 wood, tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the house. (Wood composite is also acceptable.) 2. The handrails shall have a 2x4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, 2" AFF. 3. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, 3/" cove, 2x2 square balusters, with a maximum of 3" on center, square corners, SFS. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 4. The newel posts shall be either a top and bottom 4x4 wrapped square design or a 6 x 6 (preferred as wrapping would only be necessary at the top and bottom) with cove molding and square post cap. 5. The stair tread shall be two (2) 2 x 6 decking boards with no more than a pencil width in between and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide. 6. Risers, max. 7 3/4", flush with stringer. 7. All skirt boards (rim joist) shall be 1 x 8. 8. The skirting board shall be 1 x 4 vertical boards and installed behind the 1x6 frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. Design Review Subcommittee—July 23, 2013 Page 3 of 5 9. All deck and stair elements to be wood and stained or primed and painted (opaque stain is acceptable). 10. All remaining details shall match the submitted drawing. The property owner, Oscar Jimenez was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. He clarified that the project is for a rear stoop on the house rather than the existing rear staircase. The Subcommittee reviewed the submitted drawing and discussed the project. They suggested that the applicant consider a wood composite for the porch decking and stairs and agreed that stair decking is appropriate given the location of the porch. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request for a COA per staff recommendations and with the condition that railing height be staff approved, minimum 30" but not to exceed 36"and that the flooring be installed perpendicular to the longest wall of the house. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. 458 Arlington Ave.—Replace Concrete Sidewalls Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front stair knee walls. The property owner was cited for a paint code violation. Upon taking corrective actions to the violation, the property owner has proposed the replacement of the knee walls with poured concrete. The existing concrete stairs and knee walls are covered with a layer of plaster and exhibit signs of deterioration. The property owner has cited deterioration as the reason for the proposed COA request. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches (relevant guidelines only) A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. E. should have poured concrete steps if the porch, patio or terrace floor is made of concrete (see section on Porch Steps). Porch Staircase and Steps A. Should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. Design Review Subcommittee—July 23, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions and recommendation: Conditions: 1. That repair of the concrete be explored and take place if possible. 2. In the event that repair is not possible, that the replacement knee walls be installed according to the footprint, design and material of the existing walls. Recommendation: 1. That the concrete and stairs are painted in a color that complements the house. The applicant, Rosa Flores and property owner, Raymond Flores, were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Ms. Flores inquired about the possibility for installing a brick veneer over the concrete walls. She also indicated that at this time, it is unknown as to whether the stairs will be replaced. The Subcommittee discussed the project and stated that brick would not be an appropriate veneer, however, stucco would be an acceptable covering. The Subcommittee also recommended that the exposed concrete staircase remain unpainted. A motion was made by Commissioner Ristow to approve the request for a COA to replace the knee walls stairs with replacements in kind in the existing configuration and granted approval for the application of stucco to the concrete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Design Review Subcommittee—July 23, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Respectfully submitted, Airrvil MWMC--- Amy Munro Approved: August 27, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, August 13, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 818 Brook St.—Install Garage Door (7-2-13) 2. 376 S. Liberty St.—Install Garage Door(7-23-13) F. New Business 1. 158 N. Liberty St.— Install front stair handrail 2. 162 College St. —Rehabilitate front, south, and west porches 3. 435 Raymond St.— Install windows and front and rear doors 4. 145 Hill Ave.—Install front porch hand railings 5. 473 S. Liberty St.—Install retaining wall G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 159 S. Channing Street— Demolish Garage (5-28-13) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. POSTED:AUGUST 9, 2013 Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission August 13, 2013 Minutes The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud, William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business New Business 1. 158 N. Liberty St.— Install front stair handrail 2. 162 College St. —Rehabilitate front, south, and west porches 3. 435 Raymond St. —Install windows and front and rear doors 4. 145 Hill Ave. —Install front porch hand railings 5. 473 S. Liberty St.— Install retaining wall APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. ITEMS TABLED: The following items were tabled due to the reasons contained therein: 1. 818 Brook St. —Install Garage Door-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 2. 376 S. Liberty St.—Replace Garage Door. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to table the two items until the respective property owner or a representative was present to discuss the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson and passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 2 of 12 NEW BUSINESS: 158 N. Liberty St.—Install One Front Handrail Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to install a handrail on the front porch. Due to the location of the door opening, the applicant has requested permission to install only one handrail to the left of the door opening (porch faces east). Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, %" cove, 2x2 square balusters, with a maximum of 3" on center, square corners. That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges, 2" AFF. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 2. That a newel post is added to the bottom of the stairs. 3. That the newel post shall be 4 x 4 and have a post ball cap. 4. That all other details match the attached drawing. 5. That the handrail shall be primed and painted. The property owner, Kathleen Reichert, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. She has agreed to install a handrail similar to the handrail recommended by Staff as per the Design Guidelines. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 3 of 12 The Subcommittee reviewed the project and recommended that the handrail be mounted at the edge,just slightly to the side rather than mounted at the side. The Subcommittee confirmed that the newel post will be either a 4x4, wrapped lx or a 6x6. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request for a COA per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. Passed unanimously. 162 College St.—Rehabilitate front, south, and west porches Project Background: The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the following projects: 1. Front Porch Handrail Reconstruction (Faces East):The property owner has proposed a rehabilitation of the porch balustrade. The repair involves the reconstruction of the balustrade to match the south porch balustrade. 2. South Porch Reconstruction:The property owner has proposed the reconstruction of the stairs to replace the temporary stairs. 3. West Porch Reconstruction: The proposed rehabilitation will be conducted in a manner sympathetic to the south porch architectural details. The porch will be reconstructed. The applicant has also proposed the removal of the existing awning and the installation of a roof to match the south elevation porch. 4. Scrape and Paint Exterior. 5. Gutters:The owner has proposed half-round aluminum gutters. 6. Shutters:The property owner has proposed removal. 7. Scrape and Paint:The color scheme will match the existing house colors. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Architectural Details and Features A. 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. Porches Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 4 of 12 A. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. B. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor (e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). C. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. D. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. Porch Columns and Railings A. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. B. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Gutters (Relevant Guidelines) B. should be located away from significant architectural features on the front of the building. C. should provide proper drainage through use of downspouts and splash blocks to avoid water damage to the building. Round downspouts are more appropriate than rectangular forms; however, rectangular forms are also acceptable. D. should be designed to channel the water as far away from the dwelling as possible. Downspouts should extend at least 4 to 6 feet, or utilize a splash block. E. should be half-round rather than "K" or ogee, is of hang-on type. Ogee is permissible if fascia is vertical F. should have straps nailed under, not on top, of roofing material. Metal flashing should also be properly installed so as not to conceal any crown molding in the roof eaves. G. should not result in the removal of existing eave features. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 5 of 12 H. should be sized proportionate to the building. Gutters and downspouts should not exceed 6". Shutters C. should not be added unless there is physical or photographic evidence that the dwelling originally had them. Paint Removal and Surface Preparation A. should be performed by manual scraping or by using appropriate chemical removers. A paint shaver may be used, but with caution so as to avoid removal of wood siding B. should be performed cautiously when removing paint through heat plates or heat guns to avoid unnecessary damage to the wood through charring or fire. C. should not be removed by abrasive techniques such as sand or water blasting since this can damage the wood and introduce moisture into the building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted for the following projects: 1. Gutters. 2. Shutter Removal. 3. Scrape and Paint. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with conditions for the following projects: 4. Front Porch Balustrade • The balustrade should match the attached City file photos. • The balusters should be installed no more than 3" on center. The bottom handrail must be 2" above finished floor. 5. South Porch • Although a photograph was provided, Staff was unable to access the rear of the property to inspect the porch. In order to document the condition of the porch stairs, and propose the scope of work necessary to meet the requirements of city codes and the guidelines. 6. West Porch • The wood decking (composite is acceptable) shall be 1 x 4 tongue and groove and be installed perpendicular to the house. • The handrail shall be at a minimum 30" but no more than 36" in height above finished floor. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 6 of 12 • The handrail shall have a 2 x 4 top rail with chamfered edges, %" cove, the spindles shall match the spindles on the front and south porches no more than 3" on center. • The handrails shall have a 2 x 4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, 2" above finished floor. • The newel posts shall have a top and bottom 4 x 4 wrapped square design with cove molding and cap. • The skirt frame shall be 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. • The skirting board shall be 1 x 4 and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. • The stair tread shall be constructed in 2 x 12 lumber and the treads shall be bull- nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide, and overhang the risers by 1". • That the new roof match the existing south porch roof material and design details. The applicant,John Boline, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Boline confirmed that he intends to install the front and west porch balusters as exact replicas to the existing south porch balusters. He also confirmed that his proposed flat roof for the west porch will have a flat roof with dentil molding to match the south porch details. Mr. Boline further confirmed that the west porch columns will match the front and south porch columns exactly. The Subcommittee discussed the project and asked questions confirming the fabrication of the architectural details. Mr. Boline confirmed that the all architectural details will be custom fabricated. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request for the COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. Passed unanimously. 435 Raymond St. —Install windows,front and rear doors Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the vinyl basement windows and to replace the front doors. The property owner recently purchased the property and installed the basement vinyl windows without a COA. The house also has existing vinyl windows on its upper levels, but at this time, Staff has been unable to determine their installation date. Staff has advised the applicant of the City's Design Guidelines expectations for historic district residents. Staff has also advised the applicant that vinyl windows are not permitted. The applicant has requested the installation of aluminum clad wood windows as a corrective action to the vinyl window installation. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 7 of 12 The applicant has also requested approval to replace the front doors. Staff recommended the installation of a 1/2 light, Queen Anne style front door. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation. 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 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. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 8 of 12 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. That the new windows are aluminum-clad or wood windows to fit the existing openings. 2. That the door shall have a half-light, and be constructed of solid wood or smooth, solid core fiberglass. 3. That the specifications of the new door be provided to staff prior to obtaining the permit for the door replacement. The property owner, Ignacio Perez was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. A new owner of the subject property, Mr. Perez expressed that he was unaware of the City's COA process and due to the economics of replacing the windows, requested permission to retain the existing vinyl basement windows which he installed without a COA. Additionally, Mr. Perez requested permission to install Colonial style doors with decorative windows. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and advised Mr. Perez that vinyl windows are not permitted in the historic district. Questions were raised pertaining to the existing upper level vinyl windows. At this time, based upon the survey conducted in 1997 and the corresponding photos of wood windows, it appears that the vinyl windows were installed without a COA. The date is unknown, but pre-dates Mr. Perez's ownership.The Subcommittee discussed Mr. Perez's options as per the Design Guidelines as to his right to appeal their decision. Mr. Perez advised the Subcommittee that he would like to move forward with his application as submitted. The Subcommittee also discussed Mr. Perez's request to install Colonial style doors and advised Mr. Perez that his proposed door style is not appropriate for his house style. Mr. Perez advised the committee that he would like to move forward with this request, but would consider the door option recommended by staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request to retain the vinyl basement windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. A roll call vote was taken and the request failed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 9 of 12 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request to install Colonial style front and rear doors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. A roll call vote was taken and the request failed unanimously. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve a COA to install Queen Anne style, 1/2 light,two recessed panel door for the front and rear entrances. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. Passed unanimously. 145 Hill Ave.—Install front porch hand railings Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the front porch hand railings. In July 2013, the applicant submitted a COA to repair the porch damage caused by an accident. At that time, the applicant provided photos of the damage and it appeared that the repairs would not involve the full replacement of the porch handrailing. Therefore, upon discussion with the contractor, Staff approved the repairs to the handrailings (replacements-in-kind) as necessary, repairs to the column bases, front stair treads, and southwest corner porch skirting. (Permit attached.) Staff's administrative approval specified that any repairs that took place must match the existing porch details. On July 29, 2013, Staff was contacted by the property owner who expressed concerns regarding the project. Staff conducted a site visit on July 29, 2013 and noted issues with the COA approved project. Approximately 75%of the balustrade had been replaced and did not match the existing handrailing.There were also front stair replacement issues. A major portion of the skirting had been replaced as well.. Staff has consulted with both the property owner and the contractor and advised each party of the corrections that should take place. The contractor is correcting the stairs and column base items. However, rather than re-building the handrail to match the existing balustrade, the applicant has requested that the replacement handrailing be permitted for the entire porch. The contractor has also requested approval to replace the skirting that was installed in error. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 10 of 12 window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following specifications: Balustrade: 6. That the handrail height is parallel to the porch handrail. 7. That the handrail is 2x4 with chamfered top. 8. That the balusters are 2x2's with %" cove at top, and spaced no more than 3" on center. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 9. That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges, 2" AFF. 10. All other details to match existing porch rail in design and dimension. Skirting: 1. That the existing skirting lattice is removed. 2. That the new skirting be 1 x 4 vertical boards with 1" spacing. 3. That the skirting boards are installed behind the frame. 4. That the skirt frame shall have 1 x 6 top and corner boards and a 1 x 4 lower board. The applicant,James Carrigan, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Carrigan provided an overview of the project and clarified issues with installation of the hand railings, skirting, and columns. He advised the Subcommittee that the column base will match the porch's historic columns. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and inquired about details related to the hand railings and column bases. Mr. Carrigan advised the Subcommittee that the property owner's concerns are due to unfinished aspects of the project and that the identified issues expressed by the applicant are related to finishing details which will be resolved upon project completion. Mr. Carrigan is also correcting issues related to the stair treads and porch skirting. Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 11 of 12 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. Passed unanimously. 473 S. Liberty St.—Install retaining wall Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to maintain an existing retaining wall located in his rear yard. The concrete retaining wall was installed without a COA in 2012. Since that time, the applicant has obtained zoning and building approval for the wall. The existing wall height varies from 24" to 42". Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Retaining Walls 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. Staff Recommendation: The Design Guidelines indicate that a front yard retaining wall should be constructed using up to two courses with an additional cap course, not to exceed 20"; however, it does not specify a height requirement for the rear yard. In some instances, the DRSC has approved retaining wall heights of 24" in rear yards. Although portions of the retaining wall exceed 24", given the wall's location and lack of visibility, Staff does not believe that the height variation significantly compromises the historic integrity of the property. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owner, Efrain Zepeda, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and discussed the height of the wall. The Subcommittee also discussed the lack of visibility of the retaining wall and agreed that due to this, the wall height does not negatively impact the property's historic character. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: Design Review Subcommittee—August 13, 2013 Page 12 of 12 None. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Savel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iirw- Amy Munro Approved: August 27, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday,August 27, 2013 -6:00 p.m. `� Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. July 9, 2013 2. July 23, 2013 3. August 13, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 458 Arlington Ave. —Install Front Stair Handrail r2. 416 Park St.—Reconstruct front porch G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage (5-28-13) 2. 818 Brook St.—Install Garage Door (7-2-13) 3. 376 S. Liberty St. —Install Garage Door (7-23-13) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. r Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission August 27, 2013 Minutes The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2"d floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud, William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business New Business APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the minutes from the Design Review Subcommittee meetings held on July 9, 2013,July 23, 2013, and August 13, 2013, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel and passed 6-0 for the July 9, 2013 and August 13, 2013 minutes and 5-0 with one abstention for the July 23, 2013 minutes (Commissioner Wiedmeyer). ITEMS TABLED: None. NEW BUSINESS: 458 Arlington Ave.—Install Front Stair Handrail Project Background: On July 23, 2013, the Design Review Subcommittee approved the property owner's request to replace the front knee walls and stairs as necessary, with replacements-in-kind. The DRSC recommended that the concrete remain exposed, but also approved the installation of stucco Design Review Subcommittee—August 27, 2013 Page 2 of 5 or plaster as a covering. Subsequent to the meeting and upon additional staff review, it was determined that handrails are required and must be installed. Staff has discussed this Code requirement with the property owner. The property owner has consented to the installation of hand railings per the Design Guidelines and staff recommendation. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railings A. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. B. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps (relevant Guidelines) D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. That the handrail shall match the attached Staff drawing. 2. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top and bottom rail with chamfered edges, 34" cove, 2x2 square balusters, with a maximum of 2.5" on center.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 3. The newel posts shall be 4 x 4 wrapped lx or 6 x 6 (preferred as wrapping would only be necessary at the top and bottom). 4. The newel posts shall have a top and bottom 4x4 wrapped square design with cove molding and cap. 5. That the newel posts are attached to the bottom riser. 6. That the handrails are primed and painted. ******** The applicant, Rosa Flores, and property owner, Raymondo Flores were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The property owner has agreed to install a handrail similar to the handrail recommended by Staff as per the Design Guidelines. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and inquired about the Code requirement for the handrailing. Discussion regarding the negative visual impact of the handrailing took place. The applicant would prefer not to install a handrailing. The Subcommittee directed staff to look into whether a waiver may be possible for the handrailing. In the event that the handrailing is required, then the Subcommittee recommends that a pipe handrail be installed. Design Review Subcommittee—August 27, 2013 Page 3 of 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to direct staff to inquire about a Code waiver for the handrailing installation and if a waiver is not possible, to approve the installation of a pipe handrail to be located on the interior sides of the knee walls. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. Passed unanimously. 416 Park St. — Reconstruct Front Porch Project Background: The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to rehabilitate the front porch. Rehabilitation efforts include the following: 1. Demolish the existing porch, concrete foundation, and stairs. 2. Dig and pour 12" x 42" concrete pier 3. Frame new porch with 2x 6 treated wood. 4. Install 5/4" x 12" Douglas Fir Flooring. 5. Install skirting: vertical boards with diamond and circular cut outs. 6. Install hand railing to match existing railing in design, material and height of 28". 7. Replace existing porch column to match attached specifications (Urban 5 %" x 51/4"). 8. Replace balusters with replacements-in-kind (to match existing balusters exactly). 9. Install new wood stairs. 10. Install new wood ceiling. The property owner would like to install exact replicas or if not available, as close to possible replacements of the existing porch architectural details. Upon Staff's site visit, the handrail is currently 34" AFF. The balusters appeared to be in fair to good condition. The porch column is deteriorating. Upon consultation with building staff, the proposed height of 28" would be acceptable. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. B. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor (e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). C. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. D. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. Porch Columns and Railings A. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Design Review Subcommittee—August 27, 2013 Page 4 of 5 B. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the flooring is installed perpendicular to the front door entrance. 2. That the skirting board design proposed by the applicant is installed behind the skirt frame. 3. That the skirt frame is 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. 4. That the existing balusters be preserved and replaced only as necessary with exact replicas. 5. That the stair tread shall be constructed in 2" x 12 lumber and that the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide, and overhang the risers by 1". 6. That the handrail matches the existing handrail in design and is installed 2" above finished floor (AFF) with a minimum height of 28". 7. That all wood is primed and painted. The property owner, Michael Buechner, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. He confirmed that the proposed column replacements will be cedar. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and given the maintenance issues, suggested that the applicant consider composite material for the porch flooring, stairs, and column. The Subcommittee also made the following recommendations: • That the flooring is installed perpendicular to the long wall. • That the skirting board design proposed by the applicant is installed behind the skirt frame. • That the skirt frame is 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. Design Review Subcommittee—August 27, 2013 Page 5 of 5 • That the existing balusters be preserved and replaced only as necessary with exact replicas. • That the stair tread should be constructed in 2 x 12 lumber (5/4 x 12 is preferred) and that the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides (except on the tread that is directly adjacent to the building), min. 10" wide, and overhang the risers by 1". Douglas Fir or composite material is acceptable. • That the handrail matches the existing handrail in design and is installed 2" above finished floor (AFF) with a minimum height of 28". • That all wood is primed and painted. • That all other details match the applicant's submitted photos/specifications. • The ceiling wood should be tongue and groove, installed perpendicular to the long wall preferred, but not required. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request as submitted and with the Subcommittee's amendments as outlined above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. Passed unanimously. Chairman Stroud facilitated a discussion regarding Commissioner recommendations of product materials versus specific product brands to property owners, and while specific brands may be seemingly superior to others, there are potential liabilities associated with brand endorsements. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Approved: September 10, 2013 Historic Preservation & Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, September 10, 2013-6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. August 26, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 815 Grove—New House Construction (Tabled 7-9-13) F. New Business 1. 435 Raymond St.—Install windows 2. 490 Division St.—Install front door; install front porch balustrade 3. 353 Spring St.—Replace front porch balustrade and columns 4. 407 Arlington—Install siding (Concept Approval) G. Other H. Tabled Items 1. 159 S. Channing Street—Demolish Garage (5-28-13) I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 (TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission September 10, 2013 MINUTES The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers(Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud,William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy,Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation &Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Kyle Tomsha PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS 819 N. Grove—New House Construction (Tabled 7-9-13) NEW BUSINESS 435 Raymond St.—Install windows 490 Division St.—Install front door; install front porch balustrade 353 Spring St.—Replace front porch balustrade and columns APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wiedmeyer noted an amendment pertaining to incorrect property information under"New Business"to the August 27, 2013 minutes. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the minutes as amended from the Design Review Subcommittee meetings held on August 27, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Briska and passed 6-0. ITEMS TABLED: The following item was tabled due to the reason contained therein: 401 Arlington—Install siding (Concept Approval)—the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. OLD BUSINESS: Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 2 of 10 819 N.Grove[Empty Lot]—New House Construction Project Background: This item was tabled at the July 9, 2013 meeting until revised drawings showing all dimensions and specifications could be provided by the applicant. On March 26, 2013,the Design Review Subcommittee reviewed the property owner's conceptual plan for new residential construction. The proposed building will be constructed on an empty lot.At the March meeting,the Subcommittee requested that the building's design incorporate Prairie style elements that are found throughout the neighborhood (i.e., piers and/or sandstone, corner stones and wood banding). Based upon these recommendations,the Subcommittee granted conceptual approval,with final project approval contingent upon the property owner's submittal of final drawings for their review. At the March meeting,the property owner was advised that the City requires that a garage be constructed on the property. The property owner's submitted drawings also include a garage drawing. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Primary Buildings-New Construction A. should maintain, not disrupt,the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape.Variations of asymmetrical, rectangular, and square forms are most appropriate for the locally designated districts; 2. Scale (height and width). New construction should not vary more than one-half story from the predominate building height typical of dwellings along a block. In most blocks of the designated districts this would require new construction to be no more than two- and-one-half stories; 3. Orientation to the street. Most dwellings in Elgin's locally designated districts have their primary facades and main entrances oriented towards the street and this characteristic should be maintained in any new construction; 4. Roof shape and pitch. Roof slope ratio for new construction should be a minimum of 6:12 to a maximum of 12:12 (6:12 refers to six inches of rise to 12 inches of run in measuring slopes). Roof forms of gable and hipped variations are more common on most blocks than roof forms which are flat, mansard, or gambrel forms; 5. Placement on the lot. Front and side yard setbacks should respect the setbacks found along the block on which the building is sited. 6. Location and proportion of porches,entrances,and divisional bays. Porches should have roof forms of gable, hipped or shed design and at least cover the entrance. Porches extending partially or fully across the front of the building are recommended. Porches should have columns and railings with balusters that are traditional in design and compatible with the overall character of the building. 7. Location and proportion of windows. New window openings should be rectangular in shape.Window proportions on the main facade should not exceed three-to-one in the Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 3 of 10 height/width ratio or be any less than two-to-one in the height/width ratio (two-to-one proportions are preferred). No horizontal sash, casement, or awning type windows should be placed on the fronts of buildings. Special window types(i.e. oriel, bay, stained, beveled glass) may be considered when compatible with the new structure's design as well as the surrounding area; 8. Foundation height. Height of foundations should generally be similar to foundation heights in the area. Foundation heights can increase along the sides or at the rear of a building if necessary to follow slope contours. No slab foundations or at-grade foundations should be utilized on the fronts or readily visible sides of buildings; 9. Porch height and depth. Porch heights and depths should be consistent with those of adjacent dwellings; 10. Material and material color. a. Foundations: Most historic dwelling foundations are of stone or cast concrete and new construction should continue the appearance of these foundation materials. Poured concrete, concrete block, and split faced concrete are acceptable foundation materials. Stucco or other finishes are recommended to provide a textured surface. b. Brick Dwellings: If the new construction is of brick,the brick should closely match typical mortar and brick color tones found in the locally designated districts and along the block. White or light mortars provide too much contrast with typical dark brick colors and should be avoided. c. Frame Dwellings: If the new construction is of frame,the preferred exterior material is wood or a material which is similar to original materials in the area like clapboard, shingle, stucco, etc.The use of cement board siding, or similar materials is acceptable if it meets size recommendations and proper construction detailing of traditional siding materials. If wood siding is used; its exposure should reflect the exposure of traditional wood siding. d. Windows:Wood construction is preferred for windows. However,the use of aluminum clad windows is also acceptable as long as they are sized to be compatible with historic window openings.The use of dark tinted windows, reflective glass and coatings for windows is discouraged on readily visible sides of buildings. 11. Details and texture.The details and textures of building materials should be applied in a manner consistent with traditional construction methods and compatible with surrounding structures. Staff Recommendation: Upon review of the drawings, the applicant has incorporated several DRSC suggestions, most notably, the proposed loft design and chimney location as well as the exterior material. The Subcommittee also requested additional detail work pertaining to the doors,windows and garage. The applicant has addressed these issues in their application. Staff would recommend approval based upon the following conditions: 1. That the eaves and fascia boards are not wrapped with aluminum. Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 4 of 10 2. That the solar panel tube panel be less pronounced in visibility. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to un-table to the item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Briska. The motion passed unanimously. The property owner, Doug Tomsha together with his architect, David Jurina,were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr.Tomsha presented the committee with a sample of steel roofing material which mimics architectural shingles that he is considering for his building. Subcommittee members discussed the roofing appearance and the material's durability. Although more expensive than asphalt shingles, Mr.Tomsha is considering them for maintenance members. Should he prefer to install the steel shingles,the Subcommittee requested the Mr.Tomsha return to them for approval. Mr.Tomsha also provided a sample of the brick that he intends to use. The Subcommittee reviewed the applicant's submitted drawings. At issue was the aluminum wrapped fascia and soffit. The Subcommittee recommended that the applicant use pvc composite material for these building features. Mr.Jurina confirmed that the building exterior texture will be simulated stucco with a smooth finish. The Subcommittee also inquired about the solar dome. Mr.Jurina confirmed that the dome will not be visible from the street. Due to this,the Subcommittee did not have a concern with the dome. Should materials change from the drawing,the Subcommittee requested that Mr.Tomsha return to the Subcommittee for approval. Motion made by Committee Member Briska to approve the COA as submitted and with the Subcommittee's recommended amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 435 Raymond St.—Install Windows Project Background: The request to install/maintain vinyl basement windows that were installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)was denied by the Design Review Subcommittee on August 13, 2013. At that time,the applicant was advised of his right to appeal the Subcommittee's decision. Per the Municipal Code,a written request must be submitted within ten (10) days following the DRSC's decision. The applicant was advised of this requirement via certified mail and also by phone.Staff did not receive a written request. Recently, however, Staff was contacted by the applicant who expressed his intent to appeal the DRSC's August 13, 2013 decision. Given the expired timeframe,the applicant was advised that he would need to re-appear before the DRSC to submit his COA request. Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 5 of 10 The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the vinyl basement windows.The property owner recently purchased the property and installed the basement vinyl windows without a COA. The house also has existing vinyl windows on its upper levels, but at this time,Staff has been unable to determine their installation date. Staff has advised the applicant of the City's Design Guidelines expectations for historic district residents. Staff has also advised the applicant that vinyl windows are not permitted.The applicant has requested the installation of aluminum clad wood windows as a corrective action to the vinyl window installation. 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 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 10, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted.Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness if the following condition is met: 1. That the new windows are aluminum-clad or wood windows to fit the existing openings and that the specifications are approved by Staff prior to installation. The property owner, Ignacio Perez was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Ms. Munro explained that the applicant's deadline to submit an appeals request expired and as a result, he needed to appear before the Subcommittee to move forward with his intent to appeal the DRSC's August 13, 2013 decision to deny his vinyl window installation request. The Subcommittee asked Mr. Perez if he still wanted to maintain his vinyl basement windows. Mr. Perez confirmed that he wished to do so. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request to retain the vinyl basement windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy.A roll call vote was taken and the request failed unanimously. 490 Division St.-Install front door;install front porch balustrade Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to restore the front porch balustrade and to install a front door. The applicant's COA request also includes repairs to the porch columns, roof,window trim, siding, soffit,fascia, and cellar door. Currently,the front porch does not have hand railings; however,the applicant's 1960s photograph of the house as well as the City's 2008/2009 historic survey/inventory photos show hand railings. (The front porch also exhibits shadow lines from the hand railing placement.) At that time,the hand railing design was not appropriate for the building. The applicant has submitted a photo of the proposed balustrade which exists at the adjacent property at 488 Division and would be appropriate for the style of the building. Both houses were built by John Fluck.The railing at neighboring property appears to be original and therefore,the applicant has requested permission for installing an exact replica at 490 Division. The applicant has also submitted a request to install a salvaged full-view,wood replacement front door(photo attached). Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 7 of 10 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railing(Applicable guidelines only) A. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. B. Should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Doors and Door Features(Applicable guidelines only) 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owner, Scott Savel, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Savel provided additional information for the Subcommittee regarding the handrails. The Subcommittee discussed the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Briska to approve the request as submitted The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed 5-0, with one abstention (Commissioner Save!). 353 Spring St.—Replace front porch balustrade and columns Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to replace the front porch balustrade and columns. The existing railings and columns are wrought iron.Staff has discussed the Design Guidelines with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to Staff's recommended drawings (attached). Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 8 of 10 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railings(Applicable Guidelines) A. should be preserved and maintained.Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles)should be appropriate for the building's style and period.The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps(Applicable Guidelines) A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: Porch Columns 1. The porch columns should be wood or composite material. 2. The porch column design should be a Tuscan porch column as identified in the attached drawing. Porch Balustrade 1. That the handrail shall match the attached Staff drawing. 2. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top and bottom rail with chamfered edges,%" cove, 2x2 square balusters spaced no more than 3" on center.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. Front Stair Hand Railings 1. Per Code requirements,the stairs will require a hand railing. 2. That the stair handrail height is installed parallel to the porch handrail. 3. That the handrail and newel posts are installed parallel to the porch hand railing. 4. That the handrail is attached to the columns'face 5. The newel posts shall be 4 x 4 wrapped lx or 6 x 6(preferred as wrapping would only be necessary at the top and bottom) and have a top and bottom 4 x 4 wrapped square design with cove molding and cap. Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 9 of 10 6. That the newel posts are attached to the bottom riser. 7. All other details to match porch balustrade in design and dimension. The property owner's representative, Freddy Rogel,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee reviewed the project and given the maintenance issues, suggested that the applicant consider composite material for the porch flooring, stairs, and column. The Subcommittee also made the following recommendations: Columns • New columns shall be Tuscan style (round, 8") and tapered to match the submitted drawing. Columns should be treated wood (composite material is acceptable). Balustrade • That the balustrade be installed to follow curve of the porch. • That the top rail is 2x4 with chamfered top. • That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges, and installed 2" (AFF). • That the balusters are 2x2's with %" cove at top, and spaced no more than 3" on center.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. Front Stair Handrailing • The hand railing top and bottom railings and balusters must match the porch balustrade in size and dimension. • That the stair handrail height is installed parallel to the porch handrailing. • That the handrail is attached to the columns'face. • That the newel posts are attached to the bottom riser. • To match the existing columns(8" round),the front porch newel posts shall be half- height columns and constructed to match the porch's full-length columns. • The front porch newel posts shall have a flat top with 6" ball cap. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request as submitted and with the Subcommittee's amendments as outlined above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. Passed unanimously. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CORRESPONDENCE: None. Design Review Subcommittee—September 10, 2013 Page 10 of 10 ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Approved: October 8, 2013 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner rElgin Heritage Commission 2013 Historic Rehabilitation Grant Application Grant Review Subcommittee Meeting Thursday,September 19,2013- 8:30 a.m. City Hall Community Development Department Conference Room 150 Dexter Court, Elgin,IL 60120 AGENDA A. Welcome B. Selection of Subcommittee Chairman C. Review of 2013 Historic Rehabilitation Grant Applications, Round 3 a. 50/50 Application Review and Grant Recommendation 1. 413 Douglas Ave. 2. 733 Douglas Ave. 3. 711 Douglas Ave. 4. 844 Brook St. 5. 134 Hinsdell PI. 6. 16 Rugby PI. C 7. 600 Margaret Pl. 8. 40 N. Gifford St. b. 75/25 Application Review and Grant Recommendation 1. 427 St. Charles St. 2. 357 St. Charles St. 3. 712 Brook St. 4. 564 N.Spring St. D. Other E. Adjournment POSTED: September 16,2013 THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT(847) 931-5620 (TDD (847) 931-5616) PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. r Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, September 24, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 205 N. Gifford— Install Siding 2. 141 Hill Ave.— Demolition of Rear Addition and Side Entrance Re-Location 3. 16 Rugby PI. —Install Window 4. 55 S. Liberty St.— Install Windows G. Other H. Tabled Items I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission September 24, 2013 MINUTES The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud,William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy,Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson and Dennis Roxworthy CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation &Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Judy Van Dusen,Julie Schmitt PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 205 N. Gifford—Install Siding 141 Hill Ave.—Demolition of Rear Addition and Side Entrance Re-Location 16 Rugby PI.—Install Window 55 S. Liberty St.—Install Windows APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were not submitted for approval. ITEMS TABLED: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 205 N. Gifford—Install Siding Project Background: Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 2 of 10 The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the following projects:gutter installation, paint,and siding replacement. The property owner intends to install half-round gutters and to scrape and paint the entire house. The applicant has also requested approval for the removal of the existing siding and in his project summary(attached) identified the following issues and proposed rehabilitation plan for the siding. Siding Issues • Cupped boards: much of the existing cedar clapboard siding is severely cupped far beyond facilitating the ability to pull it back into its original position • Brittle boards: attempts to replace the existing damaged boards(both by myself and by a professional siding company), resulted in the cedar boards above and/or below the cupped boards to split rendering themselves damaged and themselves in need of replacement • Broken boards: some planks have sections(chunks), broken off of the exposed portion resulting in the under portion exposed to the weather • Split boards: many of the boards are split resulting in varying degrees of gaps and weather exposure • Siding misalignment: many of the inside comers are misaligned to the adjacent wall.This does not result in a potential integrity risk to the structure, it does however reveal an issue of quality that I believe, is not in keeping with the desired outcome that the Heritage Commission is hoping to create for the City of Elgin. Rehabilitation Plan • Retain all of the existing trim on and around the windows and doors • Retain most the existing trim on the corners of the house where the siding butts into the corners. However,six corner faces would be replaced • Replace all the existing cedar clapboard siding with new cedar clapboard siding. • All siding will be 6"x1/2" beveled cedar siding.All exposure to the weather will be 4-1/2". • All siding will be primed and painted. • House wrap will be applied before siding installation. • Leveling and plumbing the siding will be accomplished with a transom. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Gutters A. Should be repaired rather than replaced if possible. B. Should be located away from significant architectural features on the front of the building. C. Should provide proper drainage through use of downspouts and splash blocks to avoid water damage to the building. Round downspouts are more appropriate than rectangular forms; however, rectangular forms are also acceptable. D. Should be designed to channel the water as far away from the dwelling as possible. Downspouts should extend at least 4 to 6 feet, or utilize a splash block. Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 3 of 10 E. Should be half-round rather than "K" or ogee, is of hang-on type. Ogee is permissible if fascia is vertical. F. Should have straps nailed under, not on top, of roofing material. Metal flashing should also be properly installed so as not to conceal any crown molding in the roof eaves. G. Should not result in the removal of existing eave features. H. should be sized proportionate to the building. Gutters and downspouts should not exceed 6". Paint Removal and Surface Preparation A. Should be performed by manual scraping or by using appropriate chemical removers. A paint shaver may be used, but with caution so as to avoid removal of wood siding. B. Should be performed cautiously when removing paint through heat plates or heat guns to avoid unnecessary damage to the wood through charring or fire C. Should not be removed by abrasive techniques such as sand or water blasting since this can damage the wood and introduce moisture into the building. Wood Siding(Applicable Guidelines) A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary, wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the original in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos,or vinyl should be repaired and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings,the original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed,these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced, they should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replication. B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable. C. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonite, or aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed beneath wood- based materials such as particleboard,gyp board, or pressboard. These materials generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if more than 50%of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, or missing, substitute materials may be applied if the following conditions are met: • the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the installation of substitute materials; • Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and should be smooth without knots and be accented with trim • Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continuous board stock is preferable for use as siding. Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 4 of 10 The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or removal of original decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However,if no trim or surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boards, molding and windows should be installed. Staff Recommendation: Upon a site visit conducted on September 20, 2013, it did not appear that over 50%of the original siding was damaged and beyond repair. Therefore,while Staff recommends approval of the applicant's paint and gutter request, staff does not recommend approval of the COA siding request as submitted.Staff would recommend approval and with the following conditions based upon one of two options: Option 1 If the Design Review Subcommittee determines that less than 50%of the siding is intact,that the existing siding is preserved and that boards are replaced only as necessary with a profile to match the existing material, size, and dimension.Siding must be primed and painted. Option 2 If the Design Review Subcommittee determines that over 50%of the siding is beyond repair, that the exterior siding is installed as per the details outlined in the applicant's request. Siding must be primed and painted. *************************************** The property owner, Mark Graves, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Graves highlighted issues with the existing siding and the reasons therein for requesting the replacement of all of the exterior siding. The Subcommittee discussed the project and agreed that over 50%of the siding was deteriorated. The Subcommittee recommended that the replacement siding be installed as follows: all exterior siding should be replaced with clear cedar(no knots) installed smooth side out,follow existing horizontal lines(line up with the windows rather than the corners), and that the visible (outside) corner siding line up.All other details should match the property owner's submitted specifications. Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the COA as submitted and with the Subcommittee's recommended amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 141 Hill Ave.—Demolition of Rear Addition and Side Entrance Re-Location Project Background: The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the rear addition of the house. The Commission previously approved the demolition of the addition Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 5 of 10 on March 9, 2010.At that time, the demolition request was put forward with anticipation that the rear addition would be reconstructed.Since that time,the property has changed ownership, and the current owners have proposed the demolition to allow for a patio. (Please see attached project description.) The applicant has proposed the creation of an entrance on the east elevation and in doing so has requested approval for the removal of the existing north door entrance and closing it over with an exterior wall. Due to time and expenses associated with repairing the property's garage doors as well and in an effort to create easier accessibility,the applicant has also proposed the installation of overhead steel garage doors for the structure's three bays. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the overhead garage doors match the applicant's submitted specifications(CHI Model 5250). 2. That the overhead garage door windows be installed per the CHI Stockton window design and match the existing doors' divided lite patterns. The property owners,Jean and Paul Bednar were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. and Mrs. Bednar explained the reasons for the proposed re-location of the north elevation's entrance(to the rear elevation of the property). They also clarified that although the rear addition would be demolished, a roof overhang would be installed to cover a patio.The Bednars also discussed the economic hardship involved with repairing the garage door versus installing their proposed overhang garage doors. The Subcommittee discussed the project and determined that the property owners should return to the Subcommittee for approval of the rear roof overhang.The Subcommittee also suggested that photographs be taken of the existing garage doors for documentation purposes. Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request to demolish the rear elevation, to cover over and relocate the north side entrance to the rear of the building, to install garage doors as per Staffs recommendation, and to require the applicant to return to the Subcommittee with drawing of the proposed rear roof overhang. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. The motion passed unanimously. 16 Rugby PI.—Install Window Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the 2"d floor window opening on the building's north elevation. The request has been made due to interior renovations that have presented issues with the practicality of the window's existing location and the property owner's effort to accommodate the interior design.As a result,the applicant has proposed changing the window opening from that which fits a double- hung window to fitting a horizontal window.The applicant has proposed the installation of a stained glass window whose color will complement another stained glass window located on the building. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications Windows Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 7 of 10 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owners,Jean and Paul Bednar were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The proposed window replacement and redesign of the opening is to accommodate interior bathroom rehabilitation efforts. The Subcommittee discussed the project. Questions were raised regarding the impact of the altered window opening to the existing rhythm of the building's windows' placement. The Subcommittee recommended that the altered window opening should center align with the two lower level windows. To make the window appear longer and to fit in better with the elevation's overall window placement and design, the Subcommittee recommended that a Design Review Subcommittee—September 24,2013 Page 8 of 10 curved element(similar to 653 Douglas Ave.) be added below the lower sill.Several suggestions were provided and the applicant was requested to obtain final staff approval for the design. A motion was made by Commissioner Briska to approve the request as submitted and as per the amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Save!. The motion passed unanimously. 55 S. Liberty St.—Install Windows Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair and/or replace the windows located on the building's northwest and southwest turrets and to install curved wood storm windows on the building's northwest turret.The property owner has proposed replacement windows with appropriate jambs and curved wood sashes for the double-hung windows. The applicant's request also includes the repair of the crown molding between the 2nd and 3rd floor on the northwest turret and to repair or replace rotted sills,trim, shingles, and siding on the building's turret,tower, northeast and southeast alcoves. Replacement siding,window sills, corner trim, drip cap, and water table board on the first floor below the bay windows facing south have been proposed. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 9 of 10 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. Wood Siding(Applicable Guidelines) D. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary,wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the original in size, placement,and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos,or vinyl should be repaired and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings, the original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed,these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced, they should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replication. E. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable. The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or removal of original decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no trim or surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boards, molding and windows should be installed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owner's representative,John Wiedmeyer,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Wiedmeyer described the project. The Subcommittee discussed the project and clarified which windows would be repaired versus replaced.They also confirmed that the proposed siding replacement would be clear cedar. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as submitted The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. The motion passed 4-0, with one abstention (Commissioner Wiedmeyer). STAFF COMMENTS: Design Review Subcommittee—September 24, 2013 Page 10 of 10 Prior to the meeting, Staff received a Certificate of Appropriateness request from the property owner of 137 N. Channing St.to install newel posts.The applicant and property owner,Julie Schmitt was present at the meeting and requested approval for her proposed replacement newel posts. The Subcommittee discussed the project and determined that more review time was needed and that the newel post project should be placed on the October 8,2013 agenda. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Briska. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, n — Amy Munro Approved: October 8, 2013 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner PUBLIC HEARING October 1, 2013 City Council chambers 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 AGENDA Meeting Commences 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: New Business: 1. Appeal of Design Review Subcommittee decision:435 Raymond St. A. Welcome B. Introduction of the members of the Commission C. Explanation of Procedures: D. Information on the property at 435 Raymond St. E. Closing Comments: Adjournment r • r Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 8,2013 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers(Located on the 2"d floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: William Briska CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation &Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Betsy Couture, Krissy Palermo PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. 137 N. Channing—Install front porch staircase newel posts 2. 111 N. Liberty—Install windows; remove front entrance 3. 605 Grace St.—Rehabilitate Siding 4. 356-358 N. Spring —Install side porch handrails 5. 644 Douglas Ave.—Install rear stoop 6. 435 Raymond St.—Install basement windows APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were not submitted for approval. ITEMS TABLED: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 137 N. Channing—Install front porch staircase newel posts Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 2 of 13 Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to install newel posts for her front porch.The existing newel posts are deteriorated and in disrepair. The applicant has submitted specifications for the newel posts(attached). The applicant's selected newel posts have been proposed to complement the front porch turned balusters. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Stairs and Steps(Applicable Guidelines) D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: At the time of Staff's review,the circumference of the newel post and ball cap was unknown and staff is confirming the details with the applicant. Should the post dimensions meet the Design Guidelines Standards, Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. ****************************s********** The property owner,Julie Schmitt,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. In an effort to match the porch's balusters, Ms. Schmitt advised the Subcommittee that her requested replacement newel posts will be special ordered. Ms. Munro presented emailed comments from local resident, Dan Miller,who suggested that the posts should match the columns rather than the balusters and requested the Subcommittee to consider this suggestion.The Subcommittee discussed the comments and also addressed them with Ms.Schmitt who indicated that her preference was for her proposed newel posts. Upon further discussion, it was determined that Ms.Schmitt's proposed newel posts satisfactorily met the Design Guidelines. Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the COA as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed 5-0-1(Commissioner Wiedmeyer). 111 N. Liberty—Install windows; remove front entrance Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement windows,to remove one of the two front entrances and the respective concrete entryway stairs(southwest entrance), and to enlarge the remaining front entryway on the multi-unit building. The house is a two-unit building and clad with aluminum siding. It was identified as non- contributing in the Elgin Historic District Survey. The applicant has proposed the installation of Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 3 of 13 an aluminum clad bay or bow style window to replace the front picture window. The applicant has proposed the installation of a double-hung aluminum clad wood window as a replacement to the removed front entryway.The double-hung design of the window has been proposed to match the existing double-hung 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 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. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 4 of 13 B. Should be constructed of solid wood panels,such as the four-panel Homestead or ltalianate 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted with the following condition: 1. Pending the light configuration of the proposed bay window, new muntins shall not be snap-on muntins. Instead, the muntins shall be installed on both sides of the window. 2. That the proposed new double-hung window opening dimensions match the existing double-hung window openings. The property owner,Juan Zuniga,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Zuniga requested to install double doors for his existing single-door front entrance. For concept approval, he presented the Subcommittee with photographs of doors he took from around the historic district. Mr.Zuniga also advised the Subcommittee that he intends to remove the siding from the house in the future. The Subcommittee discussed the project and addressed the following items as follows: Removal of southwest front entrance and concrete stoop The of southwest front entrance and concrete stoop is approved.The infill/patched siding to cover over the entrance must match the existing siding and be staggered. Window replacement • All replacement windows must be wood or aluminum clad wood windows. • The picture window will be replaced with a bay window flanked by two double-hung windows (1/1 light)to fit the existing opening.Trimwork must match the existing window trim details on the house. • A double-hung(1/1 light)window will be installed to replace the removed front entrance (southwest location).The replacement window opening height must be parallel to the picture window height. The width of the opening and trim work must match the building's existing double-hung window openings. Shutters that match the existing shutters must be added to the window. • All window awnings must be removed. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 5 of 13 • The light fixture located at the southwest front entryway must be relocated to the south side entrance. Front door replacement. Victorian double doors similar to doors found within the historic district may be installed; however,the width of the door entrance must not exceed 54" and the door entrance height may not exceed 84". The Subcommittee recommended that the applicant consider exploring salvaged doors for replacement options. The awning must be removed. Final approval for the doors may be approved by staff. Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as submitted and with the Subcommittee's recommended amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 605 Grace St.—Rehabilitate Siding Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to rehabilitate the siding on the house.The house was formerly clad with aluminum siding.The applicant obtained a COA for the removal with the condition that Staff conduct a site inspection following the completion of the siding removal.The applicant intends to repair the existing siding. The applicant has requested permission to remove the siding which partially encloses the side porch located on the northeast corner of the building. Upon staff's site inspection,the siding appears to be in good to fair condition. Of significance, is that the shadowlines of the window hoods are visible. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Wood Siding A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary, wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the original in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos,or vinyl should be repaired and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings,the original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed, these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced,they should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replication. B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 6 of 13 C. Should have original asbestos shingles kept stained or painted. If asbestos shingle siding is deteriorated or poses a health hazard, it may be removed and replaced with wood or other substitute siding. Removal of asbestos siding should follow hazardous material guidelines. D. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonite, or aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed beneath wood- based materials such as particleboard,gyp board,or pressboard. These materials generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if more than 50%of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair,or missing, substitute materials may be applied if the following conditions are met: • the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the installation of substitute materials; • Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and should be smooth without knots and be accented with trim • Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continuous board stock is preferable for use as siding. The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or removal of original decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no trim or surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boards, molding and windows should be installed. Substitute materials should match the dimensions of the original wood siding as closely as possible. The cement board should abut the wood trim and be caulked to prevent moisture damage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. Damaged siding shall be repaired, epoxy preferred 2. Nail holes must be patched with putty,epoxy preferred. 3. New siding shall be installed only as necessary with replacements-in-kind to match the original siding profile and exposure. 4. All replacement wood material shall be clear(no knots), cedar preferred and installed smooth side out. 5. All missing window hoods to match shadows must be installed (design should be similar to 205 N. Gifford and 256 Division—photos attached). 6. Appropriate trim boards shall be repaired or installed as necessary at the corners and around doors and windows,which includes but is not limited to the corner boards and front window caps. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 7 of 13 7. Siding shall be sanded, primed and painted. The property owner representative and contractor,Juan Robillard was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Robillard provided a brief overview of the siding project. The Subcommittee discussed the project and suggested that the following items take place: • Damaged siding shall be repaired, epoxy preferred. • A drip cap shall be added above the water table. • All bed molding,window trim,window hoods, and corner boards shall be repaired/replaced with replacements-in-kind. • Shadow lines indicating window hoods and trim and other details must be replaced with exact replicas in size and dimension. The Subcommittee recommended that the final design have staff approval. • A half post should be added to the porch.The metal hand railings shall be removed; however, replacement handrails will need final approval of the Design Review Subcommittee prior to installation. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as per staff recommendations and as per the amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. 356-358 N.Spring —Install side porch handrails Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install handrails on the stoop located on the building's south elevation.The applicant has installed temporary handrails for safety reasons. However,the temporary handrails were installed without an approved COA. The applicant has submitted a drawing for the handrails. Upon Staffs site visit, Staff assessed minor repairs to the siding(approximately 4-5 replacement boards approved under a previous COA). Staff has advised the applicant that the siding is not appropriate as its profile and exposure does not fit the existing dimensions. Staff has advised the applicant that the siding will need to be removed and replaced with replacements-in-kind. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and railings A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 8 of 13 C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period.The height of the railing should be in line with the window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Stairs and Steps D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges,%" cove,2x2 square balusters,with a maximum of 3" on center,square corners.That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges, 2"AFF.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 2. That a newel post is added to the bottom of the stairs. 3. Newel posts to be 8" round columns, half height,with 6" ball caps. 4. That the handrails shall be primed and painted. 5. Should the stair treads require replacement that the treads be constructed in 2x12 lumber and bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10"wide. 6. That the infill siding is replaced with smooth cedar siding, no knots installed smooth side out to match the building's existing(original) clapboard profile and exposure. The property owner, Reena Mohan,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Local neighborhood residents, Betsy Couture and Krissy Palermo discussed concerns with the 2- unit building and changes that have been taking place on the property, including window and front door replacements.Several of the changes that appear to have been conducted without the required COAs. Ms. Munro addressed the concerns and said that Code Enforcement had assessed the property and determined that the front doors had not been replaced and also that the property owner had been advised of the City's COA process. Ms. Munro also updated the Subcommittee regarding the window concerns on site and her conversation with the property owner. At that time, Ms. Munro had been advised by the property owner that the windows had only had the panes replaced. However, due to the pending concerns and respective alteration clarifications needed, Ms. Munro said that she would follow-up with Code Enforcement and the property owner to address the issues involved. The Subcommittee inquired about the window and door alterations and Ms. Mohan stated that it was only window repairs of new panes that had taken place and that the front doors had not been replaced. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 9 of 13 The Subcommittee discussed the subject COA request and made the following recommendations: • The newel posts shall be 4 x 4 wrapped lx square design with cove molding and pyramid cap. • The handrail shall be installed directly below the newel post cap. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request as submitted and with the amendment above to Staff's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 644 Douglas Ave.—Install rear stoop Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to reconstruct the property's rear stoop. The COA was filed upon City staffs notification that the rear stoop new construction had begun with an approved permit.The applicant has advised Staff that the former stoop was deteriorating(photo attached) and unsafe. Upon Staffs inspection,the new decking and stoop handrails do not meet the guidelines. The flooring has not been installed perpendicular to the house and the balustrade is not appropriate. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting,vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Porch Columns and Railing A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 10 of 13 B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles)should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Due Staff recommends the approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions: • The wood decking shall be 1 x 4 tongue and groove and be installed perpendicular to the house. • The handrail shall be at a minimum 30" but no more than 36" in height above finished floor. • The handrails shall have a 2 x 4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, 2" above finished floor. • The handrail shall have a 2 x 4 top rail with chamfered edges,%" cove,2 x 2 square balusters, 3" on center.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4 x 4s. • The newel posts shall have a top and bottom 4 x 4 wrapped lx square design (6x6 is also acceptable)with cove molding and cap. • The skirt frame shall be 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. • The skirting board shall be 1 x 4 and installed behind the frame, 1"spacing with 8" header. • The stair tread shall be constructed in 2 x 12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10" wide, and overhang the risers by 1". • All other details to match the attached Staff recommended drawing. The property owner's representatives, Donna Middleton and Adam Kylconen were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Ms. Middleton advised the Subcommittee that the project had proceeded without a COA as she was unaware that projects located on the rear of Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 11 of 13 the house required the COA. She further advised the Subcommittee that the stoop required replacement due to its deterioration and the respective safety concerns. The Subcommittee discussed the project and made the following amendments to the request: • Due to the absence of a roof overhang,the flooring may be 5/4" decking and be installed perpendicular to the house. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request as submitted as per Staff recommendations and with the amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. 435 Raymond St.—Install basement windows The request to install/maintain vinyl basement windows that were installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)was denied by the Design Review Subcommittee on September 10, 2013. At that time,the applicant was advised of his right to appeal the Subcommittee's decision. Per the Municipal Code, a written request must be submitted within ten (10) days following the DRSC's decision.Staff received the request to appeal the DRSC's Decision and a public hearing was scheduled for October 1, 2013. Unfortunately,the applicant did not appear and the public hearing was not conducted. Because the public hearing was not opened,the DRSC must render a new decision to the applicant's request to install the vinyl windows and the corresponding request to appeal the decision must be re-submitted to comply with the Code required timeline. The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the vinyl basement windows.The property owner recently purchased the property and installed the basement vinyl windows without a COA. The house also has existing vinyl windows on its upper levels, but at this time,Staff has been unable to determine their installation date. Staff has advised the applicant of the City's Design Guidelines expectations for historic district residents. Staff has also advised the applicant that vinyl windows are not permitted.The applicant has requested the installation of aluminum clad wood windows as a corrective action to the vinyl window installation. 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 Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 12 of 13 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted.Staff would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness if the following condition is met: 1. That the new windows are aluminum-clad or wood windows to fit the existing openings and that the specifications are approved by Staff prior to installation. The property owner, Ignacio Perez was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee asked Mr. Perez as to whether he still wished to pursue the retention of the vinyl basement windows. Mr. Perez indicated his willingness to install aluminum clad wood windows; however,for economic reasons, he is unable to do so all at once. He inquired about the length of time allotted for installing the windows. The Subcommittee identified a six month period as the expected project completion expectation. Upon hearing this, Mr. Perez indicated that he would be able to install the aluminum clad wood windows and that he would not appeal the DRSC's decision. Because the DRSC previously made the decision (9-10-13)denying Design Review Subcommittee—October 8, 2013 Page 13 of 13 the vinyl windows, but approving the aluminum clad wood window installation, a vote was not required. STAFF COMMENTS: CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Segel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A01 1WWWW5--- Amy Munro Approved: 10-22-13 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, October 8, 2013-6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. October 8, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business F. New Business 1. 115 Hill Ave. —Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing 2. 141 Hill Ave.—Install windows 3. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage 4. 490 Division—Install garage door G. Other H. Tabled Items I. Staff Comments 1. Administrative Approval for Replacement Windows J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 22, 2013 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: Steve Stroud,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy,Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: William Briska, Pat Segel CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation &Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller was present to request the Subcommittee's consideration of his proposed visual porch guidelines.The visual guidelines would provide historic district residents with specific images that clearly communicate the Guideline specifications. He requested to be placed on a future meeting's agenda to discuss in greater detail. He also distributed his guidelines to the Subcommittee members and expressed his willingness to share them in electronic format as well.The Subcommittee discussed Mr. Miller's porch guidelines' proposal and also identified their long time goal to produce a visual field guide for all of the Guidelines' specifications.The Subcommittee thanked Mr. Miller for sharing his ideas and directed staff to place his item on a future agenda. PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. 115 Hill Ave.—Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing 2. 141 Hill Ave.—Install windows 3. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage 4. 490 Division—Install garage door APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the minutes October 8, 2013 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 2 of 7 ITEMS TABLED: 1. 115 Hill Ave.—Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. 2. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage—the request was tabled until revised garage drawings are submitted. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 141 Hill Ave.—Install windows Project Background: The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace three windows located on the south elevation of the building's second story bay window, and an additional second story window on the located to the west of the bay window.The proposed window replacements are replacements-in-kind (wood, double-hung, 1/1). 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. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 3 of 7 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 Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. The property owners,Jean and Paul Bednar were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. and Mrs. Bednar presented their proposed window replacement project, which includes special ordering a sash kit to match the existing windows. The Subcommittee discussed the project and advised that the proposed replacements as submitted do not contribute to the rounded/arched detail of the bay window opening.To assure that the arched shape is maintained,the Commissioners requested that corner pieces be added to maintain a continuous appearance of the window openings. Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as submitted and with the amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxowrthy. The motion passed unanimously. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct demolish the existing one-story,two car garage and to replace it with a two-story garage,two car garage. The applicant has proposed a garage that will have a tower feature. The applicant's drawings indicate that the wood siding will match the house's existing wood siding profile. (Currently,the house and garage are clad with synthetic siding.) At the time of COA submittal, staff received drawings for the south and west elevations only. Staff has requested drawings for the north and east elevations but to date, has not received them. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition 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. Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 4 of 7 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. Secondary Buildings:Garages,Sheds,Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. B. Should be simple in design but reflecting the general character of the associated dwelling. For example, use gable roof forms if the dwelling has a gable roof, hipped roof forms if the dwelling has a hipped roof etc. C. Should be built at traditional locations for outbuildings in the locally designated districts.These include at rear lot lines,adjacent to alleys, and at the back side of a dwelling; D. Should be compatible in design, shape, materials,and roof shape to the associated dwelling; E. Should be of an exterior material to match the associated dwelling such as clapboard, stucco, or brick. However, if not readily visible from the street,secondary buildings may have exterior substitute siding materials such as cement fiber board with appropriate trim and exposure and cementitious materials. F. Should be of traditional materials if readily visible. For garages, wood paneled doors are more appropriate than paneled doors of vinyl, aluminum,or steel.Wood paneled overhead roll-up doors are widely available and are appropriate for new garages. For two car garages the use of two single doors instead of one larger double door is more appropriate for use in a historic district. However, one double is unacceptable for garages of less than twenty-two feet. G. Should have windows in the garage doors are recommended, but windows may not be appropriate in every case for garage doors. H. Should have raised panel steel doors are acceptable and should be painted to match the house and set off the relief of the panels. I. Should be in designs that are more appropriate for use with traditionally designed structures, if prefabricated sheds are proposed to be used. 1. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Staff Recommendation: Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 5 of 7 Staff recommend does not recommend approval as submitted. Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met: 1. That drawings for the north and east elevations be submitted for approval. 2. That garage's tower feature be removed from the drawing and that the proposed design be simplified to match the house's architecture. Staff does not believe that the tower architectural detail of the building complements the house's architecture. Per the Guidelines, garages should be simple in design to match the character of the house. 3. That the specifications for the garage service and overhead doors be submitted for approval. 4. That the proposed garage siding material will be clear cedar, no knots and installed smooth side out in a profile and exposure to match the house's existing wood siding. The applicant,Javier Alfaro was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr.Alfaro discussed his project and requested concept approval for the proposed garage design. He indicated his willingness to modify the design according to the Subcommittee's recommendation. The Subcommittee discussed the project and agreed with the Staff recommendation that the tower was not appropriate for the building, and suggested that the garage drawing should incorporate additional details that complement the house, including the gable ornament and cross gables.The Subcommittee recommended several historic district garages that that Mr. Alfaro may want to consider for ideas. Mr.Alfaro will work with staff to revise his drawings to meet the Design Guidelines. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to table further consideration of the request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. 490 Division St. -Install garage door The property owner has submitted a request to amend his previously submitted application for garage door installation (COA Approved by DRSC: 12-11-12; Building Permit No. 12-21435). In December 2012,the property owner submitted an application to restore the garage's original doors; however, since that time,the property owner has amended his request due to installation issues.The amended Certificate of Appropriateness request is to install a steel, overhead garage door(specifications attached: Model MSST, 6 panels, no windows). Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Secondary Buildings:Garages,Sheds, Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 6 of 7 B. Should be simple in design but reflecting the general character of the associated dwelling. For example, use gable roof forms if the dwelling has a gable roof, hipped roof forms if the dwelling has a hipped roof etc. C. Should be built at traditional locations for outbuildings in the locally designated districts.These include at rear lot lines, adjacent to alleys, and at the back side of a dwelling; D. Should be compatible in design, shape, materials,and roof shape to the associated dwelling; E. Should be of an exterior material to match the associated dwelling such as clapboard, stucco, or brick. However, if not readily visible from the street,secondary buildings may have exterior substitute siding materials such as cement fiber board with appropriate trim and exposure and cementitious materials. F. Should be of traditional materials if readily visible. For garages, wood paneled doors are more appropriate than paneled doors of vinyl, aluminum, or steel.Wood paneled overhead roll-up doors are widely available and are appropriate for new garages. For two car garages the use of two single doors instead of one larger double door is more appropriate for use in a historic district. However,one double is unacceptable for garages of less than twenty-two feet. G. Should have windows in the garage doors are recommended, but windows may not be appropriate in every case for garage doors. H. Should have raised panel steel doors are acceptable and should be painted to match the house and set off the relief of the panels. I. Should be in designs that are more appropriate for use with traditionally designed structures, if prefabricated sheds are proposed to be used. 1. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted. The property owner, Commissioner Savel recused himself from the Subcommittee and presented his project. The Subcommittee discussed the project and inquired as to reasons for replacing the garage door with a new door, rather than an original as intended.After considerable thought, due to the installation issues, Mr. Savel determined that an overhead door was a better option. A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed 4-1-0(Abstention: Commissioner Savel). Design Review Subcommittee—October 22, 2013 Page 7 of 7 STAFF COMMENTS: Recently, Staff has received several window replacement requests and inquired as to the Subcommittee's preference for administrative approval versus Subcommittee approval. In the past,staff has approved window replacements located on the elevations that lack visibility from the street and on the rear elevation that meet the Guidelines. The Subcommittee advised staff that unless a COA is submitted that replaces a significant amount of windows, that Staff should provide administrative approval for requests that clearly meet the Guidelines in that are either in-kind or aluminum clad wood window replacements. Additionally,the Subcommittee directed staff to provide administrative approval for garage doors, but recommended that staff encourage applicants to pursue carriage house door designs as appropriate for the building's design. CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Segel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Approved: November 26, 2013 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, November 12, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 115 Hill Ave.— Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing (Tabled 10-22-13) 2. 398 Bent St—Garage Construction (Tabled 10-22-13) F. New Business 1. 851 N. Spring St— Install windows 2. 10-12 Geneva St— Install front porch balustrade and stairs 3. 330 Division— Install windows 4. 369 May St—Install two front entrance stoops, remove west elevation entrance 5. 711 Douglas Ave— Rehabilitate front porch G. Other H. Tabled Items I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. • Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee Tuesday, November 26, 2013 -6:00 p.m. Elgin City Council Chambers, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120 Agenda A. Call Meeting to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. October 22, 2013 D. Recognize Persons Present E. Old Business 1. 851 N. Spring St—Install windows (Tabled 11-12-13) 2. 398 Bent St—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 10-22-13; 11-12-13) F. New Business 1. 605 Grace St- Install rear porch hand railings 2. 163 N. Channing St. —Install rear porch 3. 109 Hill Ave. —Reconstruct Garage G. Other 1. Design Guideline Porch Drawing Discussion H. Tabled Items I. Staff Comments J. Adjournment THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQUIRED CERTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, OR WHO HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (847) 931-5616} PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS. Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission November 26,2013 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers(Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Stroud, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Pat Segel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: William Briska CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation &Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS 1. 851 N. Spring St—Install windows—Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing(Tabled 10-22-13) 2. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage NEW BUSINESS 1. 605 Grace St- Install rear porch hand railings 2. 163 N. Channing St.—Install rear deck 3. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were submitted for approval. ITEMS TABLED: 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage-the property owner or a representative was not present to discuss or answer questions of the Subcommittee. Motion made by Committee Member Savel table the item.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Segel. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable the items.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 851 N.Spring St.—Replace stair treads and second floor front hand railing THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON NOVEMBER 12,2013 DUE TO LACK OF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace eight double-hung(1/1) wood windows with eight double-hung(1/1) aluminum clad wood windows to match the existing windows in size,design, and dimension. Three windows are located on the building's south(1)and rear(2)elevations and five windows on the 2"d story front(faces west) elevation. On October 25, 2013,Staff inspected the windows.The sash of several of the windows exhibits signs of disrepair, much of which may be due to the absence of storm windows. Many of the windows would also need to be re-glazed and re-roped.The windows are repairable; however, the applicant has submitted cost estimates which show the repair costs at$22,000 and replacement costs at$9,500. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 3 of 11 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. Staff Recommendation: The Subcommittee has authorized staff to provide administrative approval on a case by case basis. With regard to the subject COA request, due to the property's "Significant"survey rating as well as the number of proposed replacement windows and visibility,Staff is placing this application before the DRSC for review and consideration. Although the optimal preservation treatment for the windows is repair, upon review of the applicant's submitted cost estimates and the applicant's proposed replacement of aluminum clad wood windows which meets the Guidelines' standards,Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: 1. That the proposed aluminum clad wood replacement windows fit the existing opening, match the original windows in size, design, shape and profile, and that the proposed low-E glass does not contain tint. The property owner, Cindy Kundrat, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Due to the costs associated with the window repair versus their replacement, Ms. Kundrat requested permission to install eight aluminum clad wood windows. The Subcommittee recognized the historic significance of the house and also that the windows appeared to be repairable. Several Subcommittee members had concerns about the proposed estimate and suggested that there were various details that could be removed, which would reduce the costs. Additionally, discussion took place regarding the installation of wood storm windows and the energy benefits. The Subcommittee asked Ms. Kundrat if she would consider obtaining additional estimates that better reflect the repairs that need to be done. It was suggested that she contact contractors who specialize in historic window repair. Ms. Kundrat stated that she would like to proceed with her request to install replacement windows. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion failed (0-5: Roberson, Roxworthy, Savel, Segel, Wiedmeyer). Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 4 of 11 Following the Subcommittee's decision, Ms. Munro advised Ms. Kundrat of her right to appeal the Design Review Subcommittee's decision. 398-400 Bent St.—Reconstruct garage THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE NOVEMBER 12, 2013 MEETING DUE TO LACK OF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION. Project Background: This item was tabled at the October 22, 2013 meeting until revised drawings showing all dimensions and specifications could be provided by the applicant. For the Design Review Subcommittee's concept approval,the applicant submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct demolish the existing one-story, two car garage and to replace it with a two-story garage,two car garage. At that time,the applicant proposed a garage that would have a tower feature. The applicant's drawings also indicated that the wood siding would match the house's existing wood siding profile and that the new windows would match the house. (Currently,the house and garage are clad with synthetic siding.) At the October 22, 2013 meeting,the Design Review Subcommittee suggested the removal of the tower as pictured in the original drawing and also recommended that the property owner evaluate local historic district garages for conceptual design ideas,consult with Staff on potential ideas,and then re-submit drawings based upon his assessment. The applicant has re- submitted drawings which reflect the Commission's recommendations. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition 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. Secondary Buildings:Garages,Sheds,Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 5 of 11 B. Should be simple in design but reflecting the general character of the associated dwelling. For example, use gable roof forms if the dwelling has a gable roof, hipped roof forms if the dwelling has a hipped roof etc. C. Should be built at traditional locations for outbuildings in the locally designated districts.These include at rear lot lines, adjacent to alleys, and at the back side of a dwelling; D. Should be compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape to the associated dwelling; E. Should be of an exterior material to match the associated dwelling such as clapboard, stucco, or brick. However, if not readily visible from the street, secondary buildings may have exterior substitute siding materials such as cement fiber board with appropriate trim and exposure and cementitious materials. F. Should be of traditional materials if readily visible. For garages, wood paneled doors are more appropriate than paneled doors of vinyl, aluminum, or steel.Wood paneled overhead roll-up doors are widely available and are appropriate for new garages. For two car garages the use of two single doors instead of one larger double door is more appropriate for use in a historic district. However,one double is unacceptable for garages of less than twenty-two feet. G. Should have windows in the garage doors are recommended, but windows may not be appropriate in every case for garage doors. H. Should have raised panel steel doors are acceptable and should be painted to match the house and set off the relief of the panels. I. Should be in designs that are more appropriate for use with traditionally designed structures, if prefabricated sheds are proposed to be used. J. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met: 1. That the proposed garage siding material will be clear cedar(no knots) and installed smooth side out in a profile and exposure to match the house's existing wood siding. 2. That the proposed windows match the house's original window dimension details, including the trim work(the aluminum wrapped window trim would need to be removed to identify the appropriate measurements/dimensions). 3. That the window pattern on the upper north elevations reflect the south elevation's pattern. 4. That final specifications for the garage overhead and service doors be provided for staff approval. 5. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 6 of 11 The property owner, Leobardo Rodriguez,was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee complimented Mr. Rodriguez on the drawings. The Subcommittee also discussed the project and expressed concern with the height and specific details regarding dimensions of the window trim, soffit, corner boards,overhead and service doors. Ms. Munro stated that the plans had been submitted for conceptual approval and that following the Design Review Subcommittee's approval, Mr. Rodriguez' contractor will submit detailed plans. A motion was made by Commissioner Roberson to approve the request as a concept with the condition that the applicant must re-appear before the Subcommittee upon obtaining Code review of the height as well as specific details regarding the dimensions of architectural features of the garage including but not limited to the window trim, soffits, corner boards, overhead and service doors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 605 Grace St-Install rear porch hand railings Project Background: The applicant submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA)to rehabilitate the siding on the house.The COA for the siding removal was approved that the October 8, 2013 meeting with the condition that the applicant return to the Subcommittee for approval for the rear porch balustrade installation. As per the discussion at the Subcommittee's October meeting,the applicant has found pre- fabricated porch balustrade details that he would like to propose for installation.Additionally, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing porch posts,the applicant has also proposed replacements-in-kind for the post. The applicant has also constructed example windows hoods as per his approved COA and is seeking the Subcommittee's direction. He will present the specifications at the meeting. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railing A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 7 of 11 C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff is unable to provide a recommendation as the applicant has not submitted the requested specifications. The property owner's contractors,Juan Robillard and Roberto Lagares,were present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Robillard inquired about whether the front and rear porch posts need to be identical and if so,which posts the Subcommittee would prefer that he select. The Subcommittee advised Mr. Robillard that the rear porch posts should be similar to the front porch but that historically,front and rear porch posts were not necessarily identical.The Subcommittee also asked Mr. Robillard to consider stick style balusters for the rear porch balustrade. They suggested that he work with staff on an appropriate style. Mr. Robillard agreed to install the stick style balusters. The Subcommittee also proposed the following changes to the COA request: Replace rear porch balustrade and posts • Porch balusters must be stick style and match the attached drawing. • Porch posts/columns must be similar to the front porch posts/columns. • Handrail shall not exceed 30". The top rail shall terminate in the square base of the column, not the turned portion. • The handrail shall have a 2 x 4 top rail with chamfered edges,3/" cove molding. • The handrails shall have a 2 x 4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, %" cove molding and installed 2" above finished floor. • That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height. • That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts with 5" ball caps (must match attached photo). • 1 x 4 vertical skirt boards with 1" air gap. • Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 8 of 11 • 1 x 6 side skirt frame board, with 1x4 lower skirt frame boards,containing 1x4 boards spaced at 1 inch. • Prime and paint. Window hood and trim details • The drip cap should extend over the window molding a minimum of h"to%". • The drip cap should be rounded over on the bottom. • The window crown shall be installed to the edge of the casing'A"to%". • The window hood shall extend past the casing'A"to%". Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the request as submitted and with the amendments as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel. The motion passed unanimously. 163 N. Channing St.—Install rear porch Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA) reconstruct the property's south elevation porch (closest to the rear of the building).The existing porch is in disrepair and will need full replacement. The applicant has specified his intent to follow the Design Guideline specifications for the rear porch reconstruction. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting,vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood,glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Porch Columns and Railing D. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. E. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 9 of 11 F. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. That the decking shall be 1x4 Douglas Fir(pressure treated wood or composite also recommended),tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the house. 2. That newel posts are installed at the top of the stairs and on top of the bottom stair tread. 3. The handrails shall have a 2x4 bottom rail with chamfered top edge, 2"AFF.The handrail height shall not exceed 30"AFF. 4. The handrail shall have a 2 x 4 top rail with chamfered edges,3/" cove, 2 x 2 square balusters, 3" on center.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4 x 4s. 5. That the newel posts shall be 4x4 posts wrapped lx (or 6x6 is also acceptable)with 5-6" ball caps. 6. That the newel posts are located at the top of the stairs and on the bottom stair treads. 7. The skirt frame shall be 1x6 with a 1x4 lower board. 8. The skirting board shall be 1x4 and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 9. The stair tread shall be constructed in 2x12 lumber or 5/4 x 12" and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10"wide. 10.That the porch shall be primed and painted. ******** The property's representatives, Brian Faber and Rich Smith were present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Faber described the project and stated that the rear porch needed replacement due to its deteriorated condition. Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 10 of 11 The Subcommittee discussed the project and confirmed that the flooring would be pressure treated 5/4 decking board that would run perpendicular to the house.The Subcommittee also recommended that the newel post caps be square hipped caps and due to the location of the stairs to the driveway, suggested that the bottom posts be located in the center of the bottom stair tread. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the request as submitted with Staff recommendations and the changes as outlined above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER: Mr. Dan Miller shared his recent database project which includes porch details identified from Chairman Stroud's pictorial history books. Details can be sorted by type, architectural style etc. Mr. Miller also shared his revised pictorial porch guidelines. He asked the Subcommittee to consider incorporating this into the existing Design Guidelines. The Subcommittee discussed the Guidelines and agreed with Mr. Miller that this is an important tool for Elgin's historic district property owners. The Subcommittee expressed their appreciation to Mr. Miller for drafting the Guidelines and recommended that he continue to work on the details with the goal that this will be submitted to the Elgin Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Design Guidelines. Ms. Munro shared Subcommittee and Elgin Heritage Commission Chairman William Briska's emailed comments that perhaps the Heritage Commission could underwrite some of the printing costs for the project. In conjunction with this project, Chairman Stroud proposed that the Subcommittee consider taking fifteen to twenty minutes at the close of each meeting to view historic photos of Elgin's historic district properties. In doing so, opportunities to further enhance the porch pictorial Guidelines Mr. Miller has put together as well as other house detail guidelines would be increased. The intent of the historical viewing would be to pull sample historical photos for staff to recommend and applicants to consider for their Certificate of Appropriateness requests. STAFF COMMENTS: CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Segel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Briska. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Design Review Subcommittee—November 26, 2013 Page 11 of 11 API 1w Amy Munro Approved: 02/11/2014 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission December 10, 2013 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: Steve Stroud, William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson and Pat Segel CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: rb. OLD BUSINESS 1. 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 11-26-13) NEW BUSINESS 1. 559 Wellington Ave. — Reconstruct front porch 2. 366 May St. — Reconstruct roof and install siding APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wiedmeyer recommended an amendment to the minutes regarding clarification on the 10-12 S. Geneva St. property handrail dimensions and baluster spacing. A motion was made by Commissioner Savel to approve the November 12, 2013 minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Commissioner Segel. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: 109 Hill Ave.— The item was tabled so additional information could be obtained. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. l 559 Wellington Ave. — Reconstruct front porch : The item was tabled so additional information could be obtained. Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 2 of 10 Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer table the item. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 109 Hill Ave.— The item was tabled so additional information could be obtained. Motion made by Committee Member Savel table the item.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 366 May St—The item was tabled so additional information could be obtained. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable the item.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 109 Hill Ave.— Construct new garage THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON NOVEMBER 26,2013 DUE TO LACK OF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION. Project Background: The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new garage. The property's garage was demolished in 2012. (This demolition was approved by the Design Review Subcommittee on December 13, 2011.) Since that time the applicant has submitted drawings based upon a Home Depot pattern titled, "Cape Cod." The applicant has proposed the following a garage that will follow a similar footprint to the demolished garage's. features of the proposed garage include the following: wood construction,two dormers on the front and rear elevations, carriage style overhead doors, Queen Anne Style service door, and vinyl windows. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Secondary Buildings:Garages,Sheds, Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. B. Should be simple in design but reflecting the general character of the associated dwelling. For example, use gable roof forms if the dwelling has a gable roof, hipped roof forms if the dwelling has a Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 3 of 10 hipped roof etc. C. Should be built at traditional locations for outbuildings in the locally designated districts.These include at rear lot lines, adjacent to alleys, and at the back side of a dwelling; D. Should be compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape to the associated dwelling; E. Should be of an exterior material to match the associated dwelling such as clapboard, stucco, or brick. However, if not readily visible from the street, secondary buildings may have exterior substitute siding materials such as cement fiber board with appropriate trim and exposure and cementitious materials. F. Should be of traditional materials if readily visible. For garages, wood paneled doors are more appropriate than paneled doors of vinyl, aluminum, or steel. Wood paneled overhead roll-up doors are widely available and are appropriate for new garages. For two car garages the use of two single doors instead of one larger double door is more appropriate for use in a historic district. However, one double is unacceptable for garages of less than twenty-two feet. G. Should have windows in the garage doors are recommended, but windows may not be appropriate in every case for garage doors. H. Should have raised panel steel doors are acceptable and should be ' painted to match the house and set off the relief of the panels. I. Should be in designs that are more appropriate for use with traditionally designed structures, if prefabricated sheds are proposed to be used. J. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met: 1. That the proposed garage siding material will be clear cedar(no knots) and installed smooth side out in a profile and exposure to match the house's existing wood siding. 2. That the garage door windows have a linear rather than arched design. 3. That the windows are double-hung 1/1, wood or aluminum clad wood windows to match the dimensions of the existing double-hung windows on the house. 4. To further complement the house, that the garage design has only one center dormer on the front and rear elevations. 5. That the proposed windows match the house's original window dimension details. 6. That the brackets not be included on the overhead garage door. 7. That the %2 light Queen Anne Service door has two recessed panels. 8. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations. r • Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 4 of 10 The property owner, Richard Hirschberg, was present to answer questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Hirschberg acknowledged agreement with several staff recommendations; however, he had concerns about staff recommendations for the windows as well as the center dormer. The Subcommittee discussed the design as submitted by Mr. Hirschberg.The drawing submitted by the applicant reflects its Cape Code style. It was suggested that the two dormer appearance be modified to a single dropped dormer similar to the original garage dormer. The Subcommittee recommended that Mr. Hirschberg look at other garages within the historic district, including Commissioner Briska's. Mr. Hirschberg agreed to modify his submitted drawing and will-resubmit the drawing for concept approval at a future meeting. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to table further review of the COA until revised drawings are submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch Project Background: The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to reconstruct the front porch of the house. The existing porch was recently replaced without a COA permit. As a corrective action, the property owner submitted this request to retain the existing porch. The property owner has expressed that he was unaware that he needed to replace the porch if the replacement matched the current porch.Also, he installed the new porch to address safety concerns due to the former porch's deterioration. Staff has advised the applicant of the City's Design Guidelines expectations for historic district property owners. Staff has also advised the applicant that the newly constructed porch does not meet the Design Guidelines. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. D. should have steps of the same material as the porch floor(e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). F. should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade, if the porch floor is made of wood. H. should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting,vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 5 of 10 I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Porch Columns and Railing A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters(also called spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. The height of the railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no greater than 30 inches in height. Porch Staircases and Steps A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend COA approval to retain the existing porch. However, should the applicant pursue the reconstruction of the porch, staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The wood decking shall be 1 x 4 tongue and groove (Douglas fir, pressure treated or composite) and be installed perpendicular to the house. 2. That the porch columns are turned posts. 3. The balustrade shall be at a minimum 30" but no more than 36" in height above finished floor(AFF). 4. The handrail shall have 2 x 4 top and bottom rails with chamfered edges, with %"cove molding.The top rail shall terminate in the square base of the column, not the turned portion.The bottom rail shall be installed 2" AFF. 5. That the balusters are 2x2's with %" cove at top, and spaced no more than 3" on center. To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round. corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 6. That the newel post shall be a 6x6 post, have a 2x flat top and have a 5"ball cap. 7. That the newel post is attached to the bottom stair tread. 8. The skirt frame shall be 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 6 of 10 9. The vertical skirting board shall be 1 x 4 and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 10. The stair tread shall be constructed in 5/4 or 2 x 12 lumber and the treads shall be bull- nosed with 1" overhang on two exposed sides, min. 10" wide, and overhang the risers by 1". 11. Wood shall be used for the porch features and architectural details. The porch shall be primed and painted. The property's representative, Anthony Simmons was present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Simmons advised the Subcommittee that the existing stairs and porch were installed to address safety concerns. The Subcommittee discussed the project and identified several concerns with the existing staircase and porch. Due to the design and building code issues,the Subcommittee advised Mr. Simmons that he should re-build the porch and stairs to reflect compliance with the Design Guidelines and with Code. Mr. Simmons agreed that he would submit drawings for approval at a future meeting date. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to table further review of the COA until revised drawings are submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. rib' The motion passed unanimously. 366 May St. - Reconstruct roof and install siding Project Background: The applicant has submitted a COA to reconstruct the house's roof. Due to fire damage, the roof was destroyed. The applicant has proposed a roofline to match the original roof. Additionally, a significant amount of siding was destroyed and will require replacement. The existing siding is aluminum and the applicant has requested the installation of fiber cement siding.The building's skirt boards will also require replacement. Staff has consulted with the applicant. The drawings show lattice skirting; however, staff recommended vertical 1x4 boards and the applicant has agreed to this. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Roof replacement A. Should be retained in their original shape and pitch, with original features (such as cresting, chimneys,finials, cupolas, etc.), and, if possible, with original roof materials. B. Should be re-roofed with substitute materials such as asphalt or fiberglass shingles if the original materials are no longer present or if the retention of the original roof material is not economically feasible. r Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 7 of 10 (14 C. Should be in appropriate colors such as dark grey, black, brown or \shades of dark red; red or green may also be appropriate for Craftsman/Bungalow period dwellings for new asphalt or fiberglass shingled roofs. D. Should have sawn cedar shingles added only after a complete tear-off of the existing roof materials is completed.This is necessary to provide adequate ventilation and proper drying of the roof during wet conditions. E. Should have soldered metal panels added as the surface material, if the roof is flat. If not readily visible, rolled composition or EPDM (rolled rubber) roofing materials are acceptable. F. Should have proper water-tight flashing at junctions between roofs and walls, around chimneys, skylights, vent pipes, and in valleys and hips where two planes of a roof meet. 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. G. should not have new dormers, roof decks, balconies or other additions introduced on fronts of dwellings.These types of additions may be added on the rear or sides of dwellings where not readily visible. H. should not have split cedar shakes, in most cases. Wood Siding(Applicable Guidelines) A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary, wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the roriginal in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should be repaired and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings, the original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed, these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced, they should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replication. B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable. C. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonite, or aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed beneath wood-based materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. These materials generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if more than 50%of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, or missing, substitute materials may be applied if the following conditions are met: • the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the installation of substitute materials; • Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and should be smooth without knots and be accented with trim • Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continuous board stock is preferable for use as siding. r Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 8 of 10 rJ. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Porches (Applicable Guidelines) A. Should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. Should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. C. Should have steps of the same material as the porch floor (e.g. porches with wood floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick). F. Should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade, if the porch floor is made of wood. H. Should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, or with decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundation exist. I. Should not be removed if original to the dwelling. J. Should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the porch's open appearance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and as per the following conditions: Roof 12. That the shingles are architectural shingles. Skirig 1. That the replacement skirting boards shall be vertical 1 x 4 and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing. 13. If the skirt frame and trim boards are replaced, that the skirt frame shall be 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board. The skirting shall have an 8" header. Siding 1. Due to the fire damage, the siding will require compete replacement. Although ssmooth cedar(no knots) in a profile to match the building's existing wood siding and installed smooth side out is preferred, cement fiber board is acceptable in a profile to match the existing clapboard profile. 2. Should new cement board siding be installed, proper trim around windows, corner boards, base boards, fascia boards and soffits under roof overhangs must be installed. 3. Nail holes must be patched with putty, epoxy preferred. 4. Windows may not be wrapped with aluminum. 5. Siding shall be (sanded, if wood replacement) primed and painted. All other details to follow applicant's submitted drawings and Code requirements. r Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 9 of 10 The property's representative, Karolina Boldyrew was present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Ms. Boldyrew provided an overview of the project and reviewed the submitted drawings. Windows located on the upper level of the east elevation are being considered for removal. The Subcommittee discussed the project and agreed with the raised roof. Discussion took place regarding the existing windows. The two second story windows should be two double-hung windows and located side-by-side. Window trim and caps should be installed and the aluminum wrapping should be removed from the existing windows.The window hood with flat top should be similar to the front door. Additionally, the rafter tails should be trimmed and the fascia tails should be square cut rather than plumb cut, quarter round should be added to the corner board to give it definition. Due to the amount of detail that was not included on the drawings, the Subcommittee requested that the applicant return to the January meeting with detailed drawings. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to grant concept approval for the structural roof component of the project, but to table further review of the COA until revised detailed drawings are submitted for the remainder of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer. The motion passed unanimously. r OTHER: Mr. Dan Miller shared his recent database project which includes porch details identified from Chairman Stroud's pictorial history books. Details can be sorted by type, architectural style etc. Mr. Miller also shared his revised pictorial porch guidelines. He asked the Subcommittee to consider incorporating this into the existing Design Guidelines. The Subcommittee discussed the Guidelines and agreed with Mr. Miller that this is an important tool for Elgin's historic district property owners. The Subcommittee expressed their appreciation to Mr. Miller for drafting the Guidelines and recommended that he continue to work on the details with the goal that this will be submitted to the Elgin Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Design Guidelines. Ms. Munro shared Subcommittee and Elgin Heritage Commission Chairman William Briska's emailed comments that perhaps the Heritage Commission could underwrite some of the printing costs for the project. In conjunction with this project, Chairman Stroud proposed that the Subcommittee consider taking fifteen to twenty minutes at the close of each meeting to view historic photos of Elgin's historic district properties. In doing so, opportunities to further enhance the porch pictorial Guidelines Mr. Miller has put together as well as other house detail guidelines would be increased. The intent of the historical viewing would be to pull sample historical photos for staff to recommend and applicants to consider for their Certificate of Appropriateness requests. r Design Review Subcommittee—December 10, 2013 Page 10 of 10 STAFF COMMENTS: CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Savel. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Munro Approved: February 11, 2014 Historic Preservation &Grants Planner r r