HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2014M Design Review Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
March 25, 2014
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers (Located on the 2"d floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska and Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; Matt Falco, Plan Examiner and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
None
New Business
931 Douglas Ave.— Install windows
318 DuPage St. — Install front stairs and hand railings
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS ON THE TABLED:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
931 Douglas Ave.—Install windows
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to
replace the wood windows located on the second story level of the house. Eventually, the
property owner intends to replace all of the building's remaining windows. The property owner
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 2 of 6
has proposed Andersen Woodwright wood replacement windows to match the existing
windows' profiles in design and color. Although the existing windows are in good condition, the
property owner has identified maintenance and energy efficiency as the primary reasons for
their replacement. Specifically, the property owner has expressed concerns related to
maintenance, air infiltration and sash operability. The house has wood storm windows that
were installed approximately 28 years ago by the property owner.
On January 29, 2014, Staff conducted a site visit and confirmed that the windows are in
excellent condition. At that time, the property owner expressed a preference for replacing the
windows, but was also open to suggestions from the DRSC with regard to repair options that
would address energy efficiency concerns. The DRSC discussed the project on February 11,
2014 and upon review of the project, staff's assessment, the property owner's concerns and
the potential energy retrofitting options for the windows that would continue to preserve the
windows, it was agreed that it would be of benefit for a Commissioner to conduct a site
inspection to discuss the project with the property owner.
On March 5, 2014,Staff and Commissioner Savel conducted a site inspection of the windows.
At that time, Commissioner Savel and staff consulted with the property owner as to the options
available to address the property owner's energy efficiency concerns with the windows. The
property owner stated his preference to pursue window replacements-in-kind.
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—March 25, 2014
Page 3 of 6
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 "Significant" historic district survey
rating, and the excellent condition of the windows as well as the property owner's questions
regarding energy efficiency, and the Guidelines' emphasis on preservation, Staff would
recommend approval as submitted if the following conditions are met:
1. That rehabilitation suggestions to address the property owner's air infiltration and
window operation concerns are provided to the property owner for consideration.
2. In the event that energy retrofits for the windows are more costly than replacement,
that the window replacements fit the existing window openings and match the existing
windows' profiles which includes details such as size, design, dimension, and material.
3. Alternatively, should the Subcommittee approve the replacement of the windows, Staff
would recommend that the application be approved as submitted: window
replacements-in-kind (windows must fit the window opening and match the existing
windows' profile, design, and dimensions.)
Robert Bruskewitz(owner) was present for tonight's COA consideration. Homeowner
indicated the existing windows were difficult to clean and storm windows had to be installed
using a ladder for the second story. Request to install new windows which would tip in for ease
of cleaning.
Commission recommended windows to be repaired including: ropes, proper adjustments
within the sashes and weather striping. New multi-track storm windows should be considered
by homeowner, which could be left in place from season to season.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted (replacement of
existing windows).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion failed unanimously(0-5).
Appeal process was explained to the homeowner by Amy Munro. A letter of denial including
the appeal process will be sent to the homeowner.
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 4 of 6
318 DuPage St. —Install front stairs and hand railings
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to repair
the stairs located on the southwest front stoop entrance and to paint the house. The property
is in violation of work without COA permits for exterior paint, removal of the front stair hand
railing, and front stoop stair repairs. The property owner has filed a COA permit as a corrective
action for the violations.
Because the porch stairs have more than 3 risers, a hand railing will be required.
The 2008 Historic Survey shows that the front stoop had hand railings. A Google photo taken in
2012 shows that the handrails were still installed.
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
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 does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as
submitted. Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met:
1. The stair treads shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 lumber and the
treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang over the risers on three sides of the stair
tread, min. 10" wide.
2. That the handrail installation matches the 2008 survey photo (Exhibit B).
3. That the hand railing is installed no more than 30" above finished floor(AFF).
4. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail and bottom rail with chamfered edges, W cove, 2x2
square balusters, with a maximum of 2" on center(spacing suggested as per approved city
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 5 of 6
file drawings of building's other two porches), square corners.That the bottom rail is a
2x4 with chamfered edges, and installed 2" AFF.To ensure that the balusters have straight
corners rather than round corners, it is recommended that the balusters be cut from 4x4s.
5. That the newel posts are located on the bottom stair tread.
6. That the newel posts shall be 6x6, with pyramid caps with cove molding.
7. That the base of the newel post is wrapped in 1x and has cove molding.
8. That the newel posts shall not exceed 36".
9. That all stoop details, including the handrails and stairs, are primed and painted.
Matthew Schultz(owner)was present for tonight's COA consideration. Owner stated the
handrail was missing when he purchased the property, and he had replaced the treads and
risers. Willing to complete the work as required.
During the discussion, questions regarding Building Code requirements for handrails (height of
the top tread from grade level, and riser height: width of the risers must not exceed the width
of the stringer). Staff will work with plans examiner and homeowner for determination.
Due to the unknown factors of height from grade and riser dimensions, handrail requirement
could not be determined. Commission provided two motions as follows:
Motion#1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve stair replacement without handrail
providing bull nosed treads (overhang not to exceed 1-2" (maximum) over riser) and risers are
constructed in compliance with Building Code requirements.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion#2 made by Committee Member Savel to approve as noted in Motion #1 with hand
railing per staff's recommendations; with the following amendments:
• Design to match 2008 survey
• 2" separation of balusters (approximately 3.5" on center)
• Top rail constructed of 2x4 to be bevel top (not chamfered)
• Bottom rail constructed of 2x4 to be chamfered.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Elgin Porch Guidelines- Memo from Dan Miller(3-18-14)
Information was presented to the commission for guideline consideration.
Discussion regarding drainage of stair treads included options such as: split 5/4"x3", 2"x6" or
2'x8" boards; rather than 2"x 12" boards which tend to warp.
Propose listing true dimensions of construction materials. This would be done to eliminate
confusion of construction requirements and ease of purchasing the building materials for
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 6 of 6
historic districts projects. Example of balusters being cut square, in which two 2" balusters
could be cut from a 2x6 with minimal scrap. While cutting a 2x4 does not provide two true 2"
balusters.
Consideration of composite materials for treads. More products are being available which
would meet the character/design needs of the historic district.
Newel post constructed of a 4x4 is not appropriate, but could be wrapped with a 1 by; or a 6x6
could be used.
Amy Munro indicated the Elgin Heritage Commission would be provided the information
present tonight for consideration with other guideline updates.
Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
Steve Stroud presented police photos found during a renovation of the Elgin police department.
Several structures in background from various photos were located within the historic district.
Additional Staff Comments:
Building Code Review/COA Process- Matt Falco, Plans Examiner
Matt Falco expressed appreciation of the Design Review Subcommittee member's dedication.
Attending tonight's meeting assisted with understanding the process for the COA process.
General discussion of building code vs. preservation/Design Guideline Manual which included:
unique historical handrail designs, handrail height, accessory structure height and new
construction site plans.
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 7:40 p.m.
Respect Ily submitted,
Cind y A.A den Approved:
pp
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary