Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2014M Design Review Design Review Subcommittee Of the Elgin Heritage Commission March 11, 2014 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: Steve Stroud, William Briska, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Pat Segel CITY STAFF PRESENT: Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: OLD BUSINESS 1. 398 Bent St. —Garage reconstruction (Tabled 11-12-13) NEW BUSINESS 1. 413 Douglas Ave.—Front porch rehabilitation 2. 564 N. Spring Ave.— Install windows 3. 223 Michigan Ave.—Front porch rehabilitation; side stoop rehabilitation 4. 162 Seneca St. — Install front door APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the minutes from the Design Review Subcommittee meetings held on November 26, 2013, December 10, 2013, and January 14, 2014. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer and passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: 398 Bent St. —Garage reconstruction .The item was tabled due to the DRSC's request for additional detailed drawings 223 Michigan St.—Rehabilitate front porch; rehabilitate side stoop.The item was tabled due to the DRSC's request for additional drawings Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 13 OLD BUSINESS: 398 Bent St. —Garage reconstruction (Tabled 11-12-13) Project Background: 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. 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 Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 13 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. Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable the items. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 4 of 13 The property's owner, Leobardo Rodriguez as well as his contractor,Javier Alfaro, were present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Alfaro advised the Subcommittee that the garage design was based upon his assessment of other garages within the city's historic districts. Mr.Alfaro also had questions pertaining to the house and concept approval. The Subcommittee discussed the proposed garage. The new garage will be reconstructed on the same footprint as the existing garage. The Subcommittee did not oppose the demolition. The Subcommittee recommended that the third story window be removed and that a simple gable ornament (not as ornate as the house) be installed. In the event that the house is not constructed according to the submitted concept, it was suggested that the garage roofline be lowered by approximately 3-4 ft. Detailed drawings should be provided for the garage which show the requested changes. Aside from minor specifications for the house and garage drawings, as a design concept both drawings satisfy the Design Guidelines; however, there is concern that the garage exceeds the maximum height required by the Building Code. The Subcommittee suggested that Mr. Rodriguez move forward on submitting detailed drawings which depict exact dimensions/materials pertaining to the soffit, window hoods, frieze boards, corner boards, and trim.The house should have bed molding that is 1 x10 or 1x12 at a minimum. Additionally,the subcommittee recommended the number of windows on the west elevation be reduced. It was recommended that only one elevation of detailed drawings would be required and the Subcommittee suggested that the applicant provide drawings for the front facade of the house. Given the potential impact of the scale of the garage design to the Subcommittee's review of the garage and house as well as the request for detailed drawings, the Subcommittee recommended that the item be tabled. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Roberson.The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 413 Douglas Ave. Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to rehabilitate the front porch balustrade, columns, stairs, and skirting and to install half-round gutters. The applicant's proposed porch balustrade is a gooseneck railing with turned spindles. The balustrade has been proposed as per the applicant's assessment of markings on the porch where the balustrade may have been originally installed. Following the applicant's COA submittal, staff found an historic photograph of the house. Although exact date of the photo is unknown at the time of this staff report, the porch Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 5 of 13 balustrade does not appear to be a gooseneck railing. Staff has advised the applicant of this and the applicant has indicated his willingness and preference to install an historically appropriate railing. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the project with the amendments as stated above and all other details to follow staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson.The motion passed unanimously. 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 fagade, 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 Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 6 of 13 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 conditions: Porch Balustrade 1. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top and bottom rail with chamfered edges, %" cove. 2. Should the Subcommittee determine that turned spindles are not appropriate for the building,that 2x2 square balusters are spaced no more than 3" on center and installed at a 45 degree angle.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 3. The hand railing shall be installed 2" above finished floor and not exceed 30" in height. Porch floorinp, 1. The flooring shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir and installed perpendicular to the house. Porch and stair newel posts 1. The newel posts shall be half-round columns with width dimensions to match the existing columns and have a 6" ball cap. 2. A porch newel post shall be installed at the top of the stairs. 3. The stair newel posts shall be installed on the bottom riser. Front Stairs and Stair Handrails 1. That the handrail is attached to the porch newel post and column faces 2. That the handrail and newel posts are installed parallel to the porch hand railing. 3. The stair tread shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended)or 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang on three sides, min. 10"wide. Porch skirtinp, 1. That the replacement porch skirting boards are 1 x 4 with 1" spacing. 2. That the skirt frame shall have 1 x 6 top and corner boards and a 1 x 4 lower board. 3. That the skirting boards are installed behind the frame. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 7 of 13 Gutters 1. That the replacement gutters shall be half-round and constructed of a metal material. The porch, including all architectural features, shall be primed and painted. All other details to match applicant's submitted specifications. The property's representative, Paul Haske, was present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Haske confirmed dimensions of the porch relative to the proposed rehabilitation project. Discussion took place regarding the railing height and design. Hand railings change over time, and the consistency of their design is not always the same. Chairman Stroud confirmed that the historic photo included with the staff report was from the 1950s or 1960s. The pictured square balusters may not be original. Because the historic balustrade design is unknown, DRSC members concurred with the applicant's proposed gooseneck railing design. The DRSC also agreed that the height of the handrailing should be parallel to the bottom of the window glass, although pending Building Code Requirements, it is preferred that the height of the railing is parallel to the window sill -the current height is 26 W. Additionally, DRSC members requested that the gooseneck portion of the railing not exceed 4" and that the width of the lower square section of the balusters be 2" in width. It was also recommended that the massing of the railings in the applicant's submitted drawing be reduced by approximately 2/3 (approximately 4.5—5"). The DRSC also recommended that composite material be used for the flooring rather than the Douglas Fir. Mr. Haske inquired about options aside from composite material that would be more resilient than the Douglas Fir. Commissioners recommended IPE or pressure treated tongue and groove. Local resident, Dan Miller, presented his concerns regarding the city's Design Guidelines for porches and recommendations. Of particular concern are recommendations for chamfered handrails, proposed 2x2 balusters cut from 4x4s, among other items. Chairman Stroud requested that Mr. Miller's recommendations be deferred to the Porch Guideline discussion scheduled for discussion later on the agenda. Motion made by Commissioner Roxworthy to approve the project with the amendments as stated above and all other details to follow staff recommendations.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberson.The motion passed unanimously. 564 N. Spring St. Project Background The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to rehabilitate the siding and trim located on the south side of the house. The proposed new siding and trim will be wood with a profile to match the existing siding. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 8 of 13 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. 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. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 9 of 13 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 condition: 1. The replacement siding match the existing siding's profile in design, dimension and material and be sanded, primed and painted in a color to match the other house elevations. The property's representative, Dale Moorhouse was present to address questions of the Subcommittee. Mr. Moorhouse confirmed that only the shingle siding and trim will be replaced with in-kind replacements. The Subcommittee requested that the siding is re-squared and re-butted (bottom cut flat; sides cut square). They also suggested roof and felt for the siding liner. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the project as amended above and per staff recommendation.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel. The motion passed unanimously. 223 Michigan St.—Rehabilitate front porch; rehabilitate side stoop. Project Background: The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install new front stairs and hand railing. The existing stairs were installed without a COA and the applicant has submitted a COA as a corrective action. Upon a recent site inspection of the property, the following COA(work without permit)violations were observed: front porch balustrade, skirting, satellite dishes, and side entrance stoop. Staff has consulted with the property owner on all of the violations and explained the Design Guidelines. Staff has reviewed the Design Guidelines with the applicant and offered recommendations for the stairs and railings.The applicant has agreed to comply with staff recommendations, pending Design Review Subcommittee approval and conditions. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porch Columns and Railing D. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimensions and detailing. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 10 of 13 E. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or replaced. 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 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. C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/412 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 conditions: Front Stairs and Stair Handrails 4. The stair tread shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended)or 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang the risers on three sides of the stair tread, min. 10" wide. For the stair treads that are immediately adjacent to the house,only the two exposed (front and opposite from the house) stair treads shall be bull-nosed. 5. That the newel posts are half-round column with a circumference to match the existing porch columns and installed on the bottom riser. 6. That the balusters are 2 x 2s and spaced no more than 2.5" on center. 7. The replacement stair hand railings shall be lowered from the current railings' existing position so that the height is parallel to the porch railings. 8. The newel posts shall have a flat top with 6" ball cap. 9. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top and bottom rail with chamfered edges and V cove molding. 10.That the spindles be 2x2 square balusters spaced no more than 3" on center and installed at a 45 degree angle.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s. 11. Although the Guidelines recommend that the porch hand railing height is level with the window sills or not exceed 30" in height, due to the elevated height of the front porch and to address safety concerns, staff is proposes that the porch railing is installed 2" above finished floor and that it does not exceed 36" in height. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 11 of 13 Porch flooring(if replacement is necessary) 2. Shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir and installed perpendicular to the house. Porch Skirting: 1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x8 top board, 1x6 side boards,and a 1x4 lower board. 2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 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. With the exception of the removal of the 1x6 board drawn below the 1x8 top board, all other details to match the applicant's drawing. 5. That the skirting is primed and painted. Side Entrance Stoop (Hand and Guardrail recommended, but not required for three risers or less 1. All details shall match the front porch hand rail and stair details. 2. The stoop handrail shall be installed 2" above finished floor and not exceed 30" in height. 3. The flooring shall be installed perpendicular to the house. 4. staff would recommend that the newel post is installed on the bottom tread and that it is a square 4x4 with 4" ball cap (similar to newel post at 859 N. Spring St.). 5. All porch details shall be primed and painted. Side entrance stoop skirting 1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x8 top board, 1x6 side boards, and a 1x4 lower board. 2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing with 8" header. 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. With the exception of the removal of the 1x6 board drawn below the 1x8 top board, all other details to match the applicant's drawing. 5. That shall stoop details are primed and painted. Satellite Dish 1. That the satellite dishes located on the front of the building are removed entirely or re- located on the building's rear elevation in an area with the least amount of visibility. The property's owner, Miguel Torres was present to address questions of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee discussed the porch details. Staff provided historic photos of similar porches and recommended square balusters.Also, due to the porch height and front yard incline, staff recommended that the porch balustrade be installed at 36" (installed 2" above finished floor). Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 12 of 13 The Subcommittee concurred with the square balusters and with the proposed height. The Subcommittee requested additional drawings for the proposed porch rehabilitation project. Additionally, the Subcommittee inquired about the concrete block wall. Mr.Torres installed this due to privacy concerns. The Subcommittee advised that the wall will need to be removed as it does not conform to the Guidelines. A retaining wall also exists and Ms. Munro confirmed that the retaining wall received an approved COA. The Subcommittee requested additional drawings for the porch design and recommended that further review be tabled until the drawings are provided. Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item.The motion was seconded by Committee Member Commissioner Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. 162 Seneca—Install front and side doors Project Background: The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace a front and side door. The property owner recently purchased the property, and has submitted the application as a corrective action for the doors which were installed without a COA permit. The doors were installed prior to Mr. property ownership.The property owner has proposed the installation of fiberglass Queen Anne, % light (clear glass) doors with two vertical recessed panels. 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. G. should not be added at locations where they did not originally exist. If needed to meet safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added at the rear or sides of dwellings where they would not be readily visible. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014 Page 13 of 13 The property owner, Mr. Aguilera was unable to be in attendance at the meeting due to health concerns and provided written authorization for Staff representation. Ms. Munro provided an overview of the specifications of the doors. The Subcommittee clarified the location of the side entrance door. Ms. Munro confirmed its visibility from the public right of way. Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Savel.The motion passed unanimously. OTHER: Porch Guidelines -Presenter, Dan Miller Mr. Miller presented his proposed porch design amendments to the Design Guidelines. He suggested that professional drawings with specific details be drafted and that the amended Guidelines be adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the current Guidelines. The Subcommittee offered suggestions regarding clarifications needed, but agreed with some of the proposed amendments such as stair tread installation and newel post dimensions. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs) None. STAFF COMMENTS: None. 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 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A-rn7 �Ww— Amy Munro Approved: bttI DOS Historic Preservation & Grants Planner