HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Heritage Commission DRSC Agendas and Minutes Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,January 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
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 366 May St.—Reconstruct roof and install siding (Tabled 12-10-13)
F. New Business
G. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
I. Staff Comments
J. Adjournment
THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITI S ACT OF 1990.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REWIRED CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS M ETING, OR WHO
HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, AR: REQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT(847) 931-5620 {TD ID (847) 931-5616}
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOS: PERSONS.
CDesign Review Subcommittee
Of the Elgin Heritage Commission
January 14, 2014
MINUTES
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:04 p. . in the City
Council Chambers (Located on the 2' floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Stroud, William Briska, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmey:r
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:
OLD BUSINESS
1. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 366 May St. — Reconstruct roof and install siding (Tabled 12-10-13)
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were submitted for approval.
ITEMS TABLED:
The following items were tabled due to the reasons contained therein:
109 Hill Ave. — The property owner or a representative was not present to discu.s or answer
questions of the Subcommittee.
559 Wellington Ave. —The property owner or a representative was not present t 9 discuss or
answer questions of the Subcommittee.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel table the two items. The motion wa. seconded by
Committee Member Commissioner Roxworthy.
' Design Review Subcommittee—January 14, 2014
Page 2 of 5
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
366 May St—Reconstruct roof and install siding.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable the item. The moti n was
seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
Project Background:
This item was tabled at the December 10, 2013 meeting due to the DRSC's request for a•ditional
information.
The applicant has submitted a COA to reconstruct the house's roof. Due to fire •amage, 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 replac-ment. The
existing siding is aluminum and the applicant has requested the installation of flier cement
siding. The building's skirt boards will also require replacement. Staff has consult-d with the
applicant. The drawings show lattice skirting; however, staff recommended vert cal 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 (s ch as
cresting, chimneys, finials, cupolas, etc.), and, if possible, with original roof m:terials.
B. Should be re-roofed with substitute materials such as asphalt or fiberglass sh ngles if the
original materials are no longer present or if the retention of the original roo material is
not economically feasible.
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 fir new asphalt
or fiberglass shingled roofs.
D. Should have sawn cedar shingles added only after a complete tear-off of the -xisting roof
materials is completed. This is necessary to provide adequate ventilation an• proper drying
of the roof during wet conditions.
E. Should have soldered metal panels added as the surface material, if the roof s 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 . roof meet.
Metal flashing should be used instead of the application of caulking material •r bituminous
coating, which can deteriorate due to weathering and allow moisture damag-.
G. should not have new dormers, roof decks, balconies or other additions intro•uced on fronts
of dwellings. These types of additions may be added on the rear or sides of d ellings where
not readily visible.
Design Review Subcommittee—January 14, 2014
Page 3 of 5
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 necess:ry, 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 bene:th synthetic
sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should be repaired and the synt etic sidings
removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings, the original siding sho Id be repaired
to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or outlines of dec.rative missing
features are revealed, these should generally be replicated and reinstalled. I 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 alterat ons to the
siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptabl-.
C. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonit-, 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 no' possess
textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if m re than 50%of
the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, or missing, substitute aterials 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 sh I uld be smooth
without knots and be accented with trim
• Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural contin ous board
stock is preferable for use as siding.
J. 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 ood floors
should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick).
F. Should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the f..cade, 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 d:corative wood
framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the foundatio 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
• Design Review Subcommittee—January 14, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and as per the following co ditions:
Roof
1. That the shingles are architectural shingles.
Skirting
1. That the replacement skirting boards shall be vertical 1 x 4 and installed behind the
frame, 1" spacing.
2. If the skirt frame and trim boards are replaced,that the skirt frame shall b: 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. Alt ough smooth
cedar (no knots) in a profile to match the building's existing wood siding .nd installed
smooth side out is preferred, cement fiber board is acceptable in a profit:to match the
existing clapboard profile.
2. Should new cement board siding be installed, proper trim around windo s, 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 requirement.
********
The property's representative, Karolina Boldyrew was present to address questions of the
Subcommittee. Ms. Boldyrew provided presented the updated drawings which i corporated
the Subcommittee's requested information.
There was no discussion.
Motion made by Commissioner Savel to approve the project as per the revised d awings.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Segel.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
None.
OTHER:
Chairman Stroud shared historic photographs of Elgin homes. Commissioners co mented on
significant details on each property. Staff will create a database as per the Comm ssioners
comments.
C
Design Review Subcommittee—January 14, 2014
Page 5 of 5
r STAFF COMMENTS:
CORRESPONDENCE:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Roberson.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ayni IlAwmos—
Amy Munro Approved: February 11, 2014
Historic Preservation & Grants Planner
r
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, February 11, 2014-6:00 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 26, 2013
2. December 10, 2013
3. January 14, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
F. New Business
1. 515 Douglas Ave. - Install Siding
2. 432 Division St. —Install Windows
3. 564 Douglas Ave.—Install Windows
4. 733 Douglas Ave.—Reconstruct Garage
5. 931 Douglas Ave.— Install Windows
G. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 398 Bent St. —Reconstruct garage (Tabled 11-26-13)
I. Staff Comments
J. Adjournment
THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIE ACT OF 1990.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQ IRED CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEE ING, OR WHO
HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE "EQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (:47) 931-5616}
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE 'ERSONS.
,
rDesign Review Subcommittee
Of the Elgin Heritage Commission
February 11, 2014
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:
Steve Stroud, William Briska,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Save!, Pat S-gel, and
John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation & Grants Planner
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
r OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. 515 Douglas Ave. - Install Siding
2. 432 Division St.—Install Windows
3. 564 Douglas Ave. —Install Windows
4. 733 Douglas Ave.—Reconstruct Garage
5. 931 Douglas Ave. —Install Windows
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, ond January
14, 2014.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiedmeyer and passed unanimously.
ITEMS TABLED:
The following items were tabled due lack of property owner representation:
1. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 398 Bent St. —Reconstruct garage (Tabled 11-26-13)
r
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 2 of 12
C
Motion made by Committee Member Savel table the three items. The motion wa. seconded
by Committee Member Commissioner Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
515 Douglas Ave. - Install Siding
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to rehabilitate the siding on
the house.The house is clad with vinyl siding.The applicant has requested approv..Ito remove
the siding and to replace the siding with new fiber cement siding.
Staff has advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines permit the installation o new siding
over the entire building only if more than 50%of the siding is damaged and beyon• repair.
Once removed, Staff has also advised the applicant that any architectural features that can be
restored as per the building's shadow lines will be required. Staff has further advi•ed the
applicant of the city's substitute siding removal grant program as well as eligibility or the 2014
historic rehabilitation grants.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Wood Siding
A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is n-cessary,
wood siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board o shingles to
match the original in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been oncealed
beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should b- repaired
and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic .idings, 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 •hould
generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replac:d, they
should be recorded through photographs or drawings for future replica ion.
B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in al erations 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 asbes os shingle
siding is deteriorated or poses a health hazard, it may be removed and eplaced with
wood or other substitute siding. Removal of asbestos siding should foil mw
hazardous material guidelines.
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 3 of 12
C
D. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Ma onite, or
aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed ben-ath wood-
based materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. Thes- materials
generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match origi al wood
siding. However, if more than 50%of the original siding material is da aged beyond
repair, or missing, substitute materials may be applied if the following onditions are
met:
• the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the ins iallation of
substitute materials;
• Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and sho Id be smooth
without knots and be accented with trim
• Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continu•us board
stock is preferable for use as siding.
The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or remo al of original
decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if n. trim or
surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base bo.rds, molding
and windows should be installed.
Substitute materials should match the dimensions of the original wood siding as c osely as
possible. The cement board should abut the wood trim and be caulked to preven moisture
damage.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the approval of the COA for the removal of the vinyl siding as s bmitted and
with the following conditions:
Option 1
1. Upon removal of the siding, that Staff be consulted to conduct a condition a•sessment
and make a determination as to the percentage of damaged siding.
2. If more than 50%appears to be damaged, that replacement siding in a profil- to match
the existing wood siding be installed.
Option 2
1. Upon removal of the siding, that Staff be consulted to conduct a condition a-sessment
and make a determination as to the percentage of damaged siding.
2. If less than 50%is damaged than the existing siding shall be preserved/reha•ilitated.
3. Damaged siding shall be repaired, epoxy preferred
4. Nail holes must be patched with putty, epoxy preferred.
5. New siding shall be installed only as necessary with replacements-in-kind to atch the
original siding profile and exposure.
•
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 4 of 12
6. All replacement wood material shall be clear(no knots), cedar preferred and installed
smooth side out.
7. All missing window hoods to match shadows must be installed.
8. Appropriate trim boards shall be repaired or installed as necessary at the cor ers and
around doors and windows, which includes but is not limited to the corner beards and
front window caps.
9. Siding shall be sanded, primed and painted.
The property's representative,Jairo Gomez, was present to address questions oft e
Subcommittee. Mr. Gomez explained that his parents, the property owners, are in the process
of reviewing their options for an insurance claim for hail damage to their exterior •iding. Before
accepting the claim, Mr. Gomez is seeking DRSC recommendations as they assess 'he costs
associated with the repair versus the replacement of the siding. The Gomez's pref-rence is to
replace the siding with fiber cement board.
The Subcommittee advised Mr. Gomez as to the Guidelines' requirements regardi g the
replacement of the original siding only if over 50%is damaged and beyond repair. Additionally,
Commissioners advised Mr. Gomez that evidence of architectural features as provided by the
building's shadow lines will need to be restored, which may result in additional ex•enses.
Mr. Gomez inquired as to whether he would be permitted to remove a portion of 'he aluminum
siding to reveal the condition of the original siding. The Subcommittee recommen.ed that this
would be permissible as long as only a small portion is removed from the rear elev:tion's upper
level of the second story. Local resident, Dan Miller, offered to assist Mr. Gomez i his effort to
evaluate the siding. The Subcommittee also recommended that Mr. Gomez withd aw the COA
until the property owners make a final determination as to the siding replacement project.
Mr. Gomez withdrew his COA request and will contact staff upon such time as the •roperty
owners make a decision.
432 Division St.—Install Windows
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace nine een vinyl
windows located on the house. The applicant has indicated that only two of the b ilding's
windows will remain (a laundry room window and small bathroom window locate• on the
building's upper level).The property owner recently purchased the house and as p:rt of the
transfer agreement, is in the process of correcting a code violation for windows th.t were
installed without a COA. The property owner has requested approval to install whi e aluminum
clad wood, double-hung windows.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 5 of 12
Staff conducted a site inspection on February 7, 2014. At that time, staff observe I that the
enclosed front porch on the building still possesses two original windows (double-hung, 4/1
vertical divided lights).
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and •esign
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 secon•ary facades
where readily visible.
C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, t e
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in ma erial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable .s
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be considered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires re•lacement
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 inse t 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 r•pair the
windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation •f appropriate
replacement windows.
D. Which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials o 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, .s 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 mu tins are
preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appear:nce as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window s.sh 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 L•w-E glass
that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glass hat does not
contain a tint should be used.
Staff Recommendation:
The Design Guidelines recommend that additions to buildings be compatible with he historic
design of a building, but also differentiated from the original section of a building. he
building's enclosed front porch is not original to the building. The house's front cir a 1950's
porch enclosure (as identified by the 2008 Survey) possessed windows with a 4/1 I ght pattern
which differed from the original section (circa 1882) of the house's 1/1 double-hu g windows.
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 6 of 12
Although the light pattern was different, the vertical divided light pattern comple ents the
house's narrow double-hung window openings. Therefore, Staff recommends app oval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition for the windows locat d on the
building's front addition:
1. That the windows located on the building's first level addition be replaced ith wood
windows to match the addition's existing wood windows' profiles in dimen.ion and
design, double-hung, 4/1 vertical divided lights. Alternatively, if wood wind.ws are not a
viable option, that the replacement windows be aluminum clad wood win.ows to
match the existing addition windows' profile.
********
The property's representative,Jon Soderstrom was present to address questions •f the
Subcommittee. Mr. Soderstrom expressed the property owners willingness to co ply with the
DRSC's recommendations.
The Subcommittee inquired about the existing original windows. Mr. Soderstrom onfirmed
that in addition to the porch entry way window observed by staff,two additional indows
remain. The Subcommittee also inquired about the enclosed porch and Mr. Soder.trom
confirmed that the porch now functions as an extension of the living room.
Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the project as per staff's
recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
564 Douglas Ave.—Install Windows
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriaten-ss (COA) to
replace the vinyl windows. A recent purchaser of the property, the owner installed the vinyl
windows without a COA. On January 17, 2014, a stop work order was issued by Code
Enforcement. At that time, Code advised of corrective actions to address the wind•w
installation without a COA violation and also advised the contractor that the original windows
needed to be stored until the Design Review Subcommittee's review of the projec 1. Also, at that
time, it was discovered that the front door had been replaced.The contractor was advised that
the original front door needed to be retrieved and re-installed.
On January 31st, Staff conducted a site visit and evaluated the building's original wood
windows.The windows appeared to be in good condition. Staff has advised the ap•licant that
vinyl windows are not permitted by the Design Guidelines. The applicant has requ:sted
approval for the installation of aluminum clad wood windows as a corrective actio to the vinyl
window installation. In discussions with the property owner and contractor, Staff
r
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 7 of 12
recommended that the windows be repaired and that the property owner obtain estimates for
window repair and the aluminum clad wood window replacement.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and •esign
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 secon ary facades
where readily visible.
C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary,t e
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in ma'erial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable .s
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be cons dered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires rep acement
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 inset attack, and
cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular w ndow may
be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to r:pair the
windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation if appropriate
replacement windows.
D. Which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials 'o match the
original. If repair is not feasible, replacement should be with new windows o match the
original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extru•ed 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 mu tins are
preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appear.nce as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window s.sh 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 L•w-E glass
that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glass hat does not
contain a tint should be used.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the followin: condition:
1. That the cost estimates be obtained for the window repair vs. aluminu clad wood
replacement windows.
2. If the repair estimate is higher than the replacement costs,that the applicant
provide specifications for staff approval for aluminum clad wood, doubl--hung (1/1)
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 8 of 12
rwindows to fit the existing opening and with a profile to match the size, design, and
shape of the original wood windows.
3. That the original front door is re-installed.
The property's representative, Robert Kopp, was present to address questions of she
Subcommittee. The installation of the vinyl windows and front door without a CO, was an
oversight of the contractor who is no longer associated with the project. As a cor ective action,
Mr. Kopp has requested permission to install aluminum clad wood windows and trn replace the
front door.
Discussion took place regarding the condition of the windows. Ms. Munro confirm-d that the
windows are in good condition.The Commission inquired as to the property own.r's
willingness to repair the windows. Mr. Kopp confirmed that the property owner's preference is
to install new windows.
Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the project as per the app icant's
request for aluminum clad wood windows. The motion was seconded by Commis.ioner
Roxworthy. A roll call vote was taken with 1—yes (Segel) and 5 nays (Briska, Rox orthy,
Roberson, Savel, Wiedmeyer. The motion failed thereby denying the request.
Ms. Munro explained the appeals process. Mr. Kopp inquired as to window repai contractor
suggestions. Ms. Munro will email Mr. Kopp the list of contractors (not endorsed •y the city)
on file with the city.
Additionally, the front door was replaced without a COA permit. File records indic.te that the
former door did not meet the Guidelines. Ms. Munro advised the Subcommittee t at an
original door is on the side entrance and recommended that the new front door r:flect this
design. The Subcommittee suggested that the new front door be administratively approved.
Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the front door installation
administratively.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy.The motion passed
unanimously.
733 Douglas Ave.—Reconstruct Garage
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to onstruct a
new garage. The proposed gable-roof garage will replace the existing pyramidal re of garage.
The proposed garage dimensions show an increase in area and height. This projec is a 2013
Historic Architectural Rehabilitation grant project.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Secondary Buildings:Garages, Sheds, Other Outbuildings
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 9 of 12
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.
J. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following condition:
1. That the newel post caps are 4 x 4 wrapped lx square design with cove molding and a
pyramidal cap.
In order to represent the property owner, Commissioner Roberson recused himself from the
meeting discussion, and provided an overview of the project.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 10 of 12
Subcommittee discussion took place.The west elevation drawings should be revis d to include
a center window on the lower building section as well as window and door caps. 4dditionally,
as a city grant funded project, the proposed fiber cement siding material does not meet the
grant program guidelines. Mr. Roberson confirmed that the siding will be wood in : profile to
match the house.
Motion made by Commissioner Wiedmeyer to approve the project with the amen•ments as
stated above and with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Com issioner
Roxworthy.The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention (Commissioner Roberson)
931 Douglas Ave.—Install Windows
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriaten-ss (COA) to
replace the wood windows located on the upper level of the house. Eventually, th- property
owner intends to replace the remaining windows.The property owner's has prop•sed
Andersen Woodwright wood windows to match the existing windows' profiles in design and
color. Although the existing windows are in good condition, the property owner h.s identified
maintenance and energy efficiency as the primary reasons for their replacement. 'pecifically,
the property owner has expressed concerns related to air infiltration and sash ope ability.
On January 29th, Staff conducted a site visit and confirmed that the windows are i excellent
condition.The property owner has expressed a preference for replacing the wind•ws, but is
also open to suggestions from the DRSC with regard to repair options that would address
energy efficiency concerns.
At the time of Staff's site inspection, the property owner advised staff that the exi•ting wood
storm windows were installed by him approximately twenty-eight years ago.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and •esign
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 secon•ary facades
where readily visible.
C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary,t e
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in mat-rial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable as
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be cons dered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires rep acement
shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive eathering,
loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or inse attack, and
rcost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular window may
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 11 of 12
rik
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 o match the
original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extru oed windows
are an acceptable replacement substitute for original steel sash windows, a• 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 mu tins are
preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appear.nce as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window s.sh 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 L w-E glass
that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glass hat does not
contain a tint should be used.
Staff Recommendation:
The Subcommittee has authorized staff to provide administrative approval on a ca.e by case
basis. With regard to the subject COA request, due to the "Significant" historic dis urict survey
rating, and the excellent condition of the windows as well as the property owner's s uestions
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 consid:ration.
2. In the event that energy retrofits for the windows are more costly than repl.cement,
that the window replacements fit the existing window openings and match the existing
windows' profiles which includes details such as size, design, dimension, an. material.
Ms. Munro presented concerns expressed by the property owner regarding the en-rgy
efficiency and maintenance benefits of new windows. The property owner was un:ble to
attend the meeting due to a scheduling conflict with being out of town. The prope y owner is
open to consider retrofitting the existing windows and requested that staff presen i the
proposed project to the Subcommittee for window retrofitting suggestions. The S bcommittee
suggested ideas related to assuring that the windows fit well, storm windows, wea her
stripping, storm windows, and making the upper window sash immoveable. Corn issioner
Savel expressed a willingness to meet on site with the property owner. Ms. Munro will
coordinate a site inspection with the property owner.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—February 11, 2014
Page 12 of 12
No action taken.
OTHER:
Chairman Stroud shared historic photographs of Elgin homes. Commissioners commented on
significant details on each property. Staff shared a database as per the presentati n which
reflected the Commissioners' comments pertaining to significant architectural fea ures on each
building. Staff requested that Commissioners provide feedback on the database a it is a work
in progress and will need to be refined as to how to best meet the Commission, St ff and public
needs for design review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
CORRESPONDENCE:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Briska.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1\Amy
Amy Munro Approved: March 4, 2014
Historic Preservation &Grants Planner
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, March 11, 2014- 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 11, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 398 Bent St. —Garage reconstruction (Tabled 11-12-13)
F. New Business
1. 413 Douglas Ave.—Front porch rehabilitation
2. 564 N. Spring Ave.—Install siding
3. 223 Michigan Ave.—Install windows
4. 162 Seneca St. —Install front door
G. Other
1. Porch Guidelines - Presenter, Dan Miller
2. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
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 RE0UIRED 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, AR REQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 (TDB (847) 931-5616)
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THO E PERSONS.
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.min the City
Council Chambers (Located on the 2"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, nd 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
r 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
r
OLD BUSINESS:
398 Bent St. —Garage reconstruction (Tabled 11-12-13)
Project Background:
For the Design Review Subcommittee's concept approval, the applicant submitted .n
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 dra ings also
indicated that the wood siding would match the house's existing wood siding profi e and that
the new windows would match the house. (Currently, the house and garage are cl:d 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 prop-rty owner
evaluate local historic district garages for conceptual design ideas, consult with Sta f on
potential ideas, and then re-submit drawings based upon his assessment. The app icant 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 visibl: areas of the
sides of dwellings.
B. should be secondary(smaller and simpler)than the original dwelling in scal-, 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, -tc.
D. should impact the exterior walls of the original dwelling as minimally as po sible. When
building additions use existing door and window openings for connecting t e addition to
the dwelling.
E. should be constructed to avoid extensive removal or loss of historic materi.ls 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.
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 nstalled
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 el:vation'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 recommend.tions.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable the items. The motio was
seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
r
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 Subcommitte= that the
garage design was based upon his assessment of other garages within the city's hi•toric
districts. Mr. Alfaro also had questions pertaining to the house and concept appro al.
The Subcommittee discussed the proposed garage. The new garage will be recons ructed on
the same footprint as the existing garage. The Subcommittee did not oppose the •emolition.
The Subcommittee recommended that the third story window be removed and th.t a simple
gable ornament(not as ornate as the house) be installed. In the event that the ho se is not
constructed according to the submitted concept, it was suggested that the garage oofline be
lowered by approximately 3-4 ft. Detailed drawings should be provided for the ga age which
show the requested changes.
Aside from minor specifications for the house and garage drawings, as a design co cept both
drawings satisfy the Design Guidelines; however, there is concern that the garage xceeds the
maximum height required by the Building Code. The Subcommittee suggested tha Mr.
Rodriguez move forward on submitting detailed drawings which depict exact
dimensions/materials pertaining to the soffit, window hoods, frieze boards, corne boards, and
trim.The house should have bed molding that is 1 x10 or 1x12 at a minimum. Add tionally,the
subcommittee recommended the number of windows on the west elevation be re•uced. 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' review of
the garage and house as well as the request for detailed drawings, the Subcommit ee
recommended that the item be tabled.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item.The motion was s conded 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 he 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 th• porch
where the balustrade may have been originally installed.
Following the applicant's COA submittal, staff found an historic photograph of the ouse.
Although exact date of the photo is unknown at the time of this staff report,the perch
Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014
Page 5 of 13
rbalustrade 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 de ailing.
B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, s ale, and
placement.
C. should be screened only if the structural framework for the screen panels i minimal and
the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Screen panels should be laced behind
the original features such as columns or railings and should not hide decor tive 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 wit 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. 1
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 f•undation
exist.
I. should not be removed if original to the dwelling.
J. should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would a ter 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 hay: 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
r
Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014
Page 6 of 13
A. Should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to he
property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to m tch the
original.
B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch flo r is made
of wood.
C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber.The e ds 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 orch
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, 3/" cove.
2. Should the Subcommittee determine that turned spindles are not appropri.te for the
building, that 2x2 square balusters are spaced no more than 3" on center a d installed
at a 45 degree angle.To ensure that the balusters have straight corners rat er 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 flooring
1. The flooring shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir and installed perp:ndicular to
the house.
Porch and stair newel posts
1. The newel posts shall be half-round columns with width dimensions to mat,h 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 r.iling.
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 skirting
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.
C
Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014
Page 7 of 13
Gutters
1. That the replacement gutters shall be half-round and constructed of a met,l material.
The porch, including all architectural features, shall be primed and painted. All othr 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 pro•osed
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 confi med that
the historic photo included with the staff report was from the 1950s or 1960s. Th: 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 II RSC also
agreed that the height of the handrailing should be parallel to the bottom of the indow glass,
although pending Building Code Requirements, it is preferred that the height oft e railing is
parallel to the window sill -the current height is 26%". Additionally, DRSC memb:rs 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 massin: of the
railings in the applicant's submitted drawing be reduced by approximately 2/3 (ap o roximately
4.5—5"). The DRSC also recommended that composite material be used for the fl 0 oring rather
than the Douglas Fir. Mr. Haske inquired about options aside from composite mat:rial that
would be more resilient than the Douglas Fir. Commissioners recommended IPE o pressure
treated tongue and groove.
Local resident, Dan Miller, presented his concerns regarding the city's Design Guid-lines for
porches and recommendations. Of particular concern are recommendations for c amfered
handrails, proposed 2x2 balusters cut from 4x4s, among other items. Chairman St oud
requested that Mr. Miller's recommendations be deferred to the Porch Guideline 1,iscussion
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 w.s 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 he siding
and trim located on the south side of the house. The proposed new siding and tri will be
wood with a profile to match the existing siding.
r
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 n cessary,
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 Ioncealed
beneath synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should b: repaired
and the synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic idings, the
original siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and pai ted. If the
"ghosts" or outlines of decorative missing features are revealed, these s ould
generally be replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replac-d, 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 al erations to
the siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not .cceptable.
C. Should have original asbestos shingles kept stained or painted. If asbes los shingle
siding is deteriorated or poses a health hazard, it may be removed and r-placed with
wood or other substitute siding. Removal of asbestos siding should foil ow
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 bene:th wood-
based materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. These materials
generally do not possess textures or designs which closely match origin.l 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 continuo s board
stock is preferable for use as siding.
The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or remova of original
decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no grim or
surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boar's, molding
and windows should be installed.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014
Page 9 of 13
Substitute materials should match the dimensions of the original wood siding as cl sely 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, dimensi.n 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 if 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 ut 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 aove 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 ront stairs
and hand railing. The existing stairs were installed without a COA and the applica t has
submitted a COA as a corrective action. Upon a recent site inspection of the prop:rty, the
following COA(work without permit)violations were observed: front porch balust ade, skirting,
satellite dishes, and side entrance stoop. Staff has consulted with the property o ner on all of
the violations and explained the Design Guidelines.
Staff has reviewed the Design Guidelines with the applicant and offered recomme dations for
the stairs and railings.The applicant has agreed to comply with staff recommends lions,
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 materi:ls to match
the original in dimensions and detailing.
r
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 hei ht 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 he
property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to m:tch 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 e ds 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 •orch
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 tair tread,
min. 10" wide. For the stair treads that are immediately adjacent to the ho se, only the
two exposed (front and opposite from the house) stair treads shall be bull- osed.
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 railin;:s' 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 an %" cove
molding.
10.That the spindles be 2x2 square balusters spaced no more than 3" on cente and
installed at a 45 degree angle. To ensure that the balusters have straight co ners 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 le el with the
window sills or not exceed 30" in height, due to the elevated height of the f ont porch
and to address safety concerns, staff is proposes that the porch railing is ins ailed 2"
above finished floor and that it does not exceed 36" in height.
r
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 Ihe house.
Porch Skirting:
1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x8 top board, 1x6 side boards, and a 1x4 lowe board.
2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the fra e, 1" spacing
with 8" header.
3. The stair tread shall be constructed in 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be •ull-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 to p board, all
other details to match the applicant's drawing.
5. That the skirting is primed and painted.
Side Entrance Stoo• Hand and Guardrail recommended but not re•uired for thre: 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 tre.d 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 lowe board.
2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards and installed behind the fra e, 1" spacing
with 8" header.
3. The stair tread shall be constructed in 2x12 lumber and the treads shall be ull-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 e tirely or re-
located on the building's rear elevation in an area with the least amount of isibility.
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 si ilar porches
and recommended square balusters. Also, due to the porch height and front yard i cline, staff
recommended that the porch balustrade be installed at 36" (installed 2" above fini.hed floor).
Design Review Subcommittee—March 11, 2014
Page 12 of 13
rThe Subcommittee concurred with the square balusters and with the proposed hei ht. The
Subcommittee requested additional drawings for the proposed porch rehabilitatio 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 r moved as it
does not conform to the Guidelines. A retaining wall also exists and Ms. Munro co firmed that
the retaining wall received an approved COA. The Subcommittee requested additi nal
drawings for the porch design and recommended that further review be tabled un it the
drawings are provided.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy table the item.The motion was s-conded 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 repla e a front and
side door. The property owner recently purchased the property, and has submitte• the
application as a corrective action for the doors which were installed without a CO A permit. The
doors were installed prior to Mr. property ownership.The property owner has pr•posed the
installation of fiberglass Queen Anne, %2 light (clear glass) doors with two vertical r.cessed
panels.
Doors and Door Features
A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period of he dwelling.
Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style,glazi g (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 Homes lead 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 base' materials, if
applicable.
E. should not be removed or altered.The original size of the door opening she uld not be
enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height.
F. should not be replaced by doors with new designs, especially those at the 'ront
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 nee•ed to meet
safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added a 1 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.
r
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 con`irmed 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 :mended
Guidelines be adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the current Guid dines. The
Subcommittee offered suggestions regarding clarifications needed, but agreed wit 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,
Amy Munro Approved: 091 09 1�
Historic Preservation &Grants Planner
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, March 25, 2014- 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. 931 Douglas Ave. —Install windows
2. 318 DuPage St. —Install front stairs and hand railings
G. Other
1. Elgin Porch Guidelines - Memo from Dan Miller (3-18-14)
2. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 398—400 Bent St.— Reconstruct Garage; Rehabilitate House (Tabled 03-11-14)
I. Staff Comments
1. Building Code Review/COA Process - Matt Falco, Plans Examiner
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 REQU RED CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEE ING, OR WHO
HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, ARE •EQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TDD (:.47) 931-5616}
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE P RSONS.
Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
March 25, 2014
The meeting Design the Desi n 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, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeye
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska and Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; Matt Falco, Plan Examiner and Cindy Walden, JRSC 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 Appropriateress (COA)to
replace the wood windows located on the second story level of the house. Eventu Ily, the
property owner intends to replace all of the building's remaining windows. The pr perty owner
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 2 of 6
Chas proposed Andersen Woodwright wood replacement windows to match the existing
windows' profiles in design and color. Although the existing windows are in good c ndition, the
property owner has identified maintenance and energy efficiency as the primary r asons for
their replacement. Specifically, the property owner has expressed concerns relate to
maintenance, air infiltration and sash operability. The house has wood storm wind ws 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 a e in
excellent condition. At that time, the property owner expressed a preference for r placing the
windows, but was also open to suggestions from the DRSC with regard to repair op ions that
would address energy efficiency concerns. The DRSC discussed the project on Feb uary 11,
2014 and upon review of the project, staff's assessment, the property owner's con erns and
the potential energy retrofitting options for the windows that would continue to p eserve the
windows, it was agreed that it would be of benefit for a Commissioner to conduct 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 t• the options
available to address the property owner's energy efficiency concerns with the win•ows. The
property owner stated his preference to pursue window replacements-in-kind.
CElgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and d-sign
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 mat•rial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable a
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be consi•ered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires rept:cement
shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive eathering,
loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or insec attack, and
cost to repair.As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular wi dow may
be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to re•air the
windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation o appropriate
replacement windows.
D. Which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials ti match the
original. If repair is not feasible, replacement should be with new windows 'o match the
original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extru•ed windows
are an acceptable replacement substitute for original steel sash windows, a. 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 appear nce as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window s sh 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 L w-E glass
that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glass hat does not
contain a tint should be used.
Staff Recommendation:
The Subcommittee has authorized staff to provide administrative approval on a ca e by case
basis. With regard to the subject COA request, due to the "Significant" historic dis rict 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 w uld
recommend approval as submitted if the following conditions are met:
1. That rehabilitation suggestions to address the property owner's air infiltrat on and
window operation concerns are provided to the property owner for consid.ration.
2. In the event that energy retrofits for the windows are more costly than rep acement,
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 th- existing
windows' profile, design, and dimensions.)
Robert Bruskewitz(owner) was present for tonight's COA consideration. Homeo ner
indicated the existing windows were difficult to clean and storm windows had to b- installed
using a ladder for the second story. Request to install new windows which would lip in for ease
of cleaning.
Commission recommended windows to be repaired including: ropes, proper adjus ments
within the sashes and weather striping. New multi-track storm windows should b considered
by homeowner, which could be left in place from season to season.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted (replac ment 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.
r
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 (CO ) to repair
the stairs located on the southwest front stoop entrance and to paint the house. T e property
is in violation of work without COA permits for exterior paint, removal of the front tair 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 pI oto 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 he
property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to m.tch the
original.
B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch flo•r is made
of wood.
C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber.The e ds 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 ""orch
construction.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriate ess 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 lum er and the
treads shall be bull-nosed with 1" overhang over the risers on three sides of t e 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, 3 " cove, 2x2
square balusters, with a maximum of 2" on center(spacing suggested as per pproved city
Design Review Subcommittee—March 25, 2014
Page 5 of 6
Cfile drawings of building's other two porches), square corners.That the bottolm 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 lx 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 exceeJ the width
of the stringer). Staff will work with plans examiner and homeowner for determin tion.
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
r 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 liminate
confusion of construction requirements and ease of purchasing the building mater als 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 availabl 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 edication.
Attending tonight's meeting assisted with understanding the process for the COA rocess.
General discussion of building code vs. preservation/ Design Guideline Manual wh ch included:
unique historical handrail designs, handrail height, accessory structure height and ew
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,
CindyA. den D //a, /j�
Approved:
rib* Design Review Subcommittee Secretary
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, April 8, 2014- 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 10, 2013 (as corrected)
2. March 11, 2014
3. March 25, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 398—400 Bent St. —Reconstruct Garage; Rehabilitate House (Tabled 3-11- 4)
2. 223 Michigan Ave.— Rehabilitate front porch and stairs; rehabilitate side st op (Tabled
3-11-14)
F. New Business
1. 118 N. Gifford St. —Install windows
2. 440 Fulton St— Install Front and Rear Doors
3. 305-307 North St— Install windows; Reconstruct rear porch stairs and han rail
4. 711 Brook St.—Demolish garage; reconstruct carriage house
G. Other
1. Elgin Porch Guidelines Update
2. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. — Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
I. Staff Comments
J. Adjournment
THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILIT ES ACT OF 1990.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO RE UIRED CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS EETING, OR WHO
HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING OR THE FACILITIES, AR REQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR AT (847) 931-5620 {TD (847) 931-5616)
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THO E PERSONS.
.,. Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
April 8, 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 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Briska,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
398—400 Bent St. —Reconstruct Garage; Rehabilitate House (Tabled 3-11-14)
223 Michigan Ave. —Rehabilitate front porch and stairs; rehabilitate side stoop (Tabled 3-11-14)
New Business
118 N. Gifford St. — Install windows
440 Fulton St— Install Front and Rear Doors
305-307 North St—Install windows; Reconstruct rear porch stairs and hand rail
711 Brook St. —Demolish garage; reconstruct carriage house
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the amendment of minutes dated
December 10, 2013, (clarification of the motion to approve November 12, 2013 inutes); and
to approved the minutes of March 11, 2014 and March 25, 2014, as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
ITEMS TABLED:
None
r
Design Review Subcommittee—April 8, 2014
Page 2 of 10
OLD BUSINESS:
Items El and E2 remained on the table; due to non-representation at tonight's rlieeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
118 N. Gifford St.—Install windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all of th vinyl windows
on the house. The applicant has proposed double-hung, 1/1, aluminum clad wo d replacement
windows for the first and second floor windows and slider windows for the attic nd basement
windows.
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 seco dory facades
where readily visible.
C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, he
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in ma,erial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable as
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be con idered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires re.lacement shall
include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive wea hering, loss of
soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or insect attaik, and cost to
repair.As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular window ay be
permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to rep.ir the
windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installation if 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 extr ded windows
are an acceptable replacement substitute for original steel sash windows, .s 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 mu tins are
preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appear nce as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window s sh 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 nd fit within
the window frames.
H. that are approved for replacement may be fitted with new double-paned L w-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—April 8, 2014
Page 3 of 10
[ Staff Recommendation:
1. Staff recommends of approval of the COA with the following conditions:
Should the DRSC not approve the sliding windows for the attic and basement,then the
attic and window replacement windows shall have vertical divided lights. True muntins
shall be installed to achieve a two light or three light pattern, pending DRSC approval.
Matt Kovacs (project manager for Rogeris Holdings LLC) was present for tonight' COA
discussion.
Mr. Kovacs stated the existing wood attic and basement windows will remain; th y will not be
changed out. Mr. Kovacs estimated that 60%of the windows on the house is no vinyl.
Commissioners stated side styles/rails should be at least 2 'A" —2 %"; while the b ttom rail/sash
should be 3—3 %" minimum.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as amended: 1) basement and
attic windows remain; 2) side styles to 2 %"—21/2" minimum; 3) bottom rail/sash to be 3"- 31/2"
minimum.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
r
440 Fulton St—Install Front and Rear Doors
The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CO ) to replace
the property's front and rear doors. The COA was submitted to correct a code vi lation for
installing the doors without a COA. The property owner advised Staff that the do rs were
replaced without a COA due for security reasons due to damage to the prior doo s.
The existing replacement doors do not meet the Design Guidelines Requirement and Staff has
advised the applicant of this. Although Staff has reviewed an appropriate door st le with the
applicant, is requesting approval to keep the existing door.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Doors and Door Features
A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period o the dwelling.
Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style, gla ing (type of
glass and area) and lights (pane configuration). Wood or solid core fiberg ass 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
rhouse, if applicable.
Design Review Subcommittee—April 8, 2014
Page 4 of 10
D. should only involve artificial materials such as "lexan" or other acrylic ased materials, if
applicable.
E. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door openin should not be
enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height.
F. should not be replaced by doors with new designs, especially those at he front
entrance or at side entrances which are readily visible from the street.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness ass bmitted.
Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met:
1. That the existing doors are removed.
2. That the new front door is a wood or solid-core, smooth fiberglass •ueen Anne style
with either a 1/2 or% light (non-decorative glass) and two vertical r:cessed panels.
3. That the rear door matches the DRSC approved front door.
Maria Acuna (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion.
Steve Stroud indicated the house was built in 1891.
Front door and side doors would not close properly. Owner had that the repl,:cement front
door was made of wood. Side door has not been changed out.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
An individual vote was taken. The motion failed unanimously (0-6).
Appeal process was explained to the homeowner. Alternatively, should the o ner comply with
a door replacement per Staff Recommendation, the permit can be approved over the counter
by staff.
305-307 North St—Install windows; Reconstruct rear porch stairs and hand ail
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to recons ruct the
property's rear stoop. The COA application has been filed as a corrective act on to the
following violations:
1. Installation of vinyl windows without a COA on Unit#307
2. Replacement front door installation on Unit #307, and rear doors on nit#305 & #307
3. Unit#307 rear porch stair installation without a COA.
The applicant recently purchased the property and in doing, acknowledged t e above
referenced violations, and is seeking to correct the building's existing code violations. Vinyl
windows were installed on the Unit #307; however, the building's original wi dows remain on
the building's Unit #305. The applicant has expressed an interest in replacing the windows on
Design Review Subcommittee—April 8, 2014
- Page 5 of 10
the entire building. Staff has advised the applicant that the Guidelines permit the installation of
wood or aluminum clad replacement windows for the existing vinyl windows. Staff has advised
the applicant that the window wrapping will also need to be removed. The property owner
inquired as to the possibility for installing wood storm windows to conceal the vinyl windows;
however, staff has advised the applicant that this proposal would not conform to the Guidelines
as the Guidelines do not permit vinyl windows.
Additionally, staff has advised the applicant as to the Design Guidelines pertainin to the
replacement doors and the rear porch stairs.
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 seco dary facades
where readily visible.
C. Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, he
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in m.terial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable as
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be con.idered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires re•lacement
shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessiv• weathering,
loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or ins:ct attack, and
cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular indow may
be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to epair 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 material,to match the
original. If repair is not feasible, replacement should be with new window. to match the
original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extr ded 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 m ntins are
preferred over these types of muntins which do not have the same appea ance as
historic windows. New muntins which are an integral part of the window ash and
installed on both sides of the glass are preferable to snap-on simple grille.
G. screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized aluminu and fit
within the window frames.
H. that are approved for replacement may be fitted with new double-paned ow-E glass
that will improve the energy conservation on the interior. Only low-e glas that does not
contain a tint should be used.
Doors and Door Features
Design Review Subcommittee— April 8, 2014
Page 6 of 10
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
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 "Texan" 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 t e 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 eeded 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.
Porch Columns and Railing
A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use m.terials to match
the original in dimensions and detailing.
B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings ave been
removed or replaced.
C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (:Iso called
spindles) should be appropriate for the building's style and period. Th: height of the
railing should be in line with the windowsill level, if present, and no gr-ater than 30
inches in height.
Porch Staircases and Steps
A. should be retained in their original location and configuration, if origin..I to the property.
Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match t e original.
B. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the por.h floor is made
of wood.
C. should have their tread constructed in either 5/4x12 or 2x12 lumber. he ends of the
treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 in h.
D. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match ori:inal porch
construction.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the COA with the following conditions:
Windows
1. Unit#307
All vinyl windows must be replaced with either wood windows or alu inum clad wood
windows. With the exception of the basement windows, all other win ows shall be
Design Review Subcommittee—April 8, 2014
' Page 7 of 10
rdouble-hung, 1/1. The basement windows may not be sliding windows. Instead,the
windows must be single light windows.
The replacement windows must fit the existing openings and match the indow profile
of the windows located on Unit#305 (with the exception of the basemen windows
which are closed over on Unit#305).
Windows must fit the existing openings.
The window wrapping must be removed from all windows.
2. Unit#305
Staff was unable to access the interior of this unit. From the exterior,the windows
appear to be original to the building; however, the sash exhibited signs of deterioration.
Should the windows require replacement, all windows should match the RSC approved
window specifications for#307.
Doors
1. Front Door, Unit#307
The front door shall match the front door of Unit#305 in design and fit th existing
opening. Wood is preferred for the replacement door. However, if the a plicant is
unable to find a wood replacement door, the Guidelines permit the solid ore fiberglass
material for replacement doors, and staff recommends that the solid cor fiberglass in
an exact replica of the Unit#305 front door be approved. The storm door shall be
removed as it does not meet the Design Guidelines.
2. Rear doors Unit#305 and Unit#307
rDue to the lack of public visibility, Staff recommends that the applicant b permitted to
retain the existing 6-paneled fiberglass doors.
Rear Porch Stairs and Handrails
1. Unit#307
• That the newel posts are attached to the bottom tread.
• That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts and have a 6" ball cap (to match photo).
• That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height.
• That the newel posts are located on the bottom stair tread.
• That the stair treads are constructed in 5/4 x12 lumber, minimum of 10", bull-
nosed and overhang the riser a minimum of 1" on three sides.
• That all other details match the attached drawing.
Maggie Guo (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion.
Unit#307 All windows to be aluminum clad double hung windows; except basement which
should be a single pane (piano or hopper style) window. Hand railing design should not be
ornate; and should have a chamfered top & bottom rail.
Commission agreed with staff recommendation regarding the rear doors; which re not visible
from public right of way, and therefore the 6 panel style can remain.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by staff; wit the revision
to the railing drawing to be amend as "chamfered top & bottom rail".
Design Review Subcommittee—April 8, 2014
Page 8 of 10
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
711 Brook St.— Demolish garage; reconstruct carriage house
The applicants have submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriate ess to demolish
their existing garage and to rebuild 2-story garage/carriage house. Although the drawings show
that the proposed height is 26', Staff has consulted with the city's Plans Examiner and based
upon the calculations related to the Code's maximum 25' height requirement the proposed
garage height meets the Code requirements.
The applicant intends to pursue an historic architectural rehabilitation grant application for the
proposed project. Although the submitted architectural drawings do not prov de specific
dimension details for the bed molding, fascia, window, and door trim, the ap.licant has
confirmed that all details will match the house. Additionally, the siding profile will match the
house.
The applicant has requested approval for two different scenarios, pending gr nt funding.
Should the application receive funding, the grant guidelines fund traditionalaterials and do
not permit the installation of substitute material, and therefore, any funded f atures such as
the siding, windows, and doors would need to be wood and new gutters wo Id need to be half-
round.
Scenario #1:
Siding will be fiber cement board in a profile to match the house siding, wind ws will be
aluminum clad, double-hung; the garage overhead doors will be steel; the ga age service entry
door will be a fiberglass or steel door.
Scenario#2:
Siding will be clear cedar installed smooth side out in a profile to match the h use. That all
other details, including the windows and all doors are wood.
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
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—April 8, 2014
Page 9 of 10
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.
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 recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following condition:
1. That the profiles of the siding and windows (including the window trim) rnatch the
house details.
2. That the final design and specifications for the garage service entry door be approved by
Staff.
Maureen Kehoe (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion.
Overall, commission liked the style of the proposed carriage house. Indicated fe tures of the
old carriage and/or house should be repeated. Dimensional details will need to e submitted
for final review of accent features such as: corners, soffit, frieze and molding bo rds.
Overhead garage door trim should be similar to house (wide flat boards). Hardy board would
be allowed for siding with real wood for trim.
Garage door and carriage door should have windows are could be painted to look like glass
(mimic window panes). An example can be seen at 110 Slade.
Design Review Subcommittee— April 8, 2014
Page l 0 of 10
Motion #1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve as carriage house as CONCEPT,
with final details to be submitted by the Design Review Subcommittee.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion #2 made by Committee Member Savel to approve the demolition of the existing
garage; for the construction of a carriage house.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
CORRESPONDENCE:
General information regarding porch guidelines for applicant handouts was discussed. Staff will
continue to review handouts with applicants prior to COA submittals for style and dimensions.
Additional Staff Comments:
Staff sought the Design Review Subcommittee's approval for staff to grant admi istrative
approval for the removal of substitute siding. The Subcommittee concurred that Staff should
administratively approve substitute siding removal. This approval would be cont ngent upon
the applicant's appearance before the DRSC for the approval of their plan for the rehabilitation
or replacement of the original siding (if existing) and any missing architectural features.
Handrail height waiver was confirmed regarding variance of Building Code stand:rds. If any
portion of the deck height is above 40" from grade, Building Code requirements .re mandated.
Handrail height will be reviewed on a case by case application submittal for heig is between
30"-40".
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 7:18 p.m.
Respectful) ubmitted,
Cindy A. Wale Approved: May 27, 2014
Design Revie ubcommittee Secretary
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 -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 8, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 223 Michigan Ave. — Rehabilitate front porch and stairs; rehabilitate side stoop (Tabled
3-11-14)
F. New Business
1. 821 Brook St.—Replace Windows
2. 303 Douglas Ave—Replace Windows
3. 398 St. Charles St— Replace Windows
4. 309-311— Replace Garage Siding
5. 621 Douglas Ave. —Reconstruct Front Porch
6. 323 Lake St— Rehabilitate Front Porch
7. 564 Douglas Ave. —Replace Windows
G. Other
1. Elgin Porch Guidelines -Square Baluster Specifications (Memo from Dan Miller, 4-14-14)
2. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
I. Staff Comments
J. Adjournment
THE CITY OF ELGIN IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIE. ACT OF 1990.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND WHO REQ IRED CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO OBSERVE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS ME TING, 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 22, 2014
The meetingof the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:05 p.T. in the City
g p �
Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska,John Roberson and Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
223 Michigan Ave—Rehabilitate front porch and stairs; rehabilitate side porch (tables 03/11/14)
New Business
821 Brook St— Replace Windows
303 Douglas Ave— Replace Windows
398 St Charles St—Replace Windows
309-311— Replace Garage Siding
621 Douglas Ave— Reconstruct Front Porch
323 Lake St—Rehabilitate Front Porch
564 Douglas Ave— Replace Windows
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for review.
ITEMS TABLED:
303 Douglas Ave—Due to non-representation
r
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 2 of 16
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.
223 Michigan Ave— Rehabilitate front porch and stairs; rehabilitate side porch (tabled 03/11/14)
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to install nevifront stairs
and hand railing. The existing stairs were installed without a COA and the applic nt has
submitted a COA as a corrective action. Upon a recent site inspection of the pro erty, the
following COA (work without permit) violations were observed: front porch balu trade, skirting,
satellite dishes, and side entrance stoop. Staff consulted with the property own r on all of the
violations and explained the Design Guidelines.
Staff also reviewed the Design Guidelines with the applicant and offered recom endations for
the stairs and railings. The applicant agreed to comply with staff recommendatio s, pending
Design Review Subcommittee approval and conditions. The project was reviewe• by the DRSC
at their March 11, 2014 meeting. At that time, because of the incline below the •orch, although
the preferred height porch railings for historic homes is a maximum of 30", given the safety
concerns, Staff has advised that a maximum height of 36" be considered. The Su•committee
concurred with the height. Additionally, Staff proposed square balusters for the •orch
balustrade, and the Subcommittee concurred with the baluster design as well. U son review of
the current photographs, the existing concrete block wall (not the retaining wall) lining the
lower portion of the porch skirting was not approved. The applicant was advised hat the wall
will need to be removed.
Following the March 11, 2014 meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss th, proposed
drawing and details.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porch Columns and Railing
A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use mate ials to match
the original in dimensions and detailing.
B. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings ha e been
removed or replaced.
C. Should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (als. 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— April 22, 2014
Page 3 of 16
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. Th ends of the
treads should be bull-nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inc .
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
1. The stairs must be reconstructed. To accommodate the installation of th- proposed
stair handrail, the stairs shall be shifted such that the handrail can be inst.11ed in the
face of the column.
2. The stair tread shall be a min. of 10" wide and constructed in 5/4 x 12 an u that the
treads shall be bull-nosed and overhang the risers a minimum of 1" on th ee sides.
3. The balusters shall be square 2 x 2s, turned 45 degrees, and spaced no mere than 2.5"
on center.
4. Upon discussion with the Plans Examiner, only one stair handrail is requir-d by Code.
The replacement stair hand rail shall be located in the face of the column with a starting
height of 36"above the porch's finished floor (so that it is parallel to the porch railing).
5. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges and 3" cove olding. The
handrail shall have a 2x4 bottom rail with chamfered edges.
6. The newel post shall be a half-height round column that matches the exis ing porch
columns in dimension. The newel post shall be similar to the newel post a 241 Michigan
St.
7. The newel post shall not exceed 36" and shall be installed on the bottom read.
8. Should the applicant request to have an additional railing an additional h.lf height
round column newel post shall be installed at the top (porch floor) and bo torn of the
stairs (bottom tread). All other details to follow above referenced handrail specifications.
9. The porch handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges and 3%" ove molding.
The handrail shall have a 2x4 bottom rail shall be with chamfered edges. he porch
handrail shall be installed 2" above finished floor. The handrail shall not e ceed 36" in
height.
(Although the Guidelines recommend that the porch hand railing height dies exceed
30" in height, due to the elevated height of the front porch as well as the 'ront yard
incline and to address safety concerns, staff recommends that the railing eight does
not exceed 36" in height.)
10. All other details to match staff drawing.
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 4 of 16
Porch flooring (if replacement is necessary)
1. Shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir or composite material (recommended) and
installed perpendicular to the house.
Porch Skirting:
1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x6 top board, 1x6 side boards, and a 1x6 lover board (to
match 221 Michigan skirting).
2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards, with 1" air space and installed behind
the frame.
Side Entrance Stoop (Hand and Guardrail recommended, but not required for three risers or
less)
1. If installed,that the stoop guardrail shall be installed 2" above finished fl or and not
exceed 30" in height. (The guardrail height will require the applicant to si n a City
waiver.)
2. The flooring shall be installed perpendicular to the house.
3. The stair tread shall be a min. of 10" wide and constructed in 5/4 x 12 an that the
treads shall be bull-nosed and overhang the risers a minimum of 1" on th front and
exposed sides.
4. With the exception of the newel posts, all details shall match the front p rch hand rail
and stair details.
5. That the newel post shall be a 6x6 (to match attached photo) and have a all cap of 6".
6. All porch details shall be primed and painted.
Side entrance stoop skirting
1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x6 top board, 1x6 side boards, and a 1x6 lovier board (to
match 241 Michigan skirting).
2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards, with 1" air spacing and installed behind
the frame.
3. The stair tread shall be constructed in 5/4" x 12 lumber and the treads shall be bull-
nosed and overhang the risers on three sides, min. 10" wide.
ALL PORCH AND STOOP DETAILS MUST BE PRIMED AND PAINTED.
Satellite Dish
1. That the satellite dishes located on the front of the building are removed entirely and
re-located on the building's rear elevation in an area with the least amount of public
visibility.
Concrete Block Wall
1. Concrete block wall in front of the skirting must be removed. The retaining wall may
remain due to prior COA approval.
Dan Miller(contractor)and the homeowner(Miguel Torres) were present for tonight's COA
discussion:
Due to the amount of soil under the porch (behind the retaining blocks) and the concrete
within the cinder blocks,the homeowner stated he would not want to remove wily courses. 4)
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 5 of 16
Mr. Miller expressed opposition of the 36" railing height requirement; and requ sted a 30"
railing be approved since the distance between the face of the porch and the to er retaining
wall was separated by 58".
Railingheight waivers can onlybe considered when the distance between rade'Iand all
g g i
portions of the decking is 30" or less (Building Code requirement would prevail otherwise).
Commission would prefer 30" railing height if possible, should it meet building code
requirements. Alternative is a black piping above the railing could be used if needed.
Wide boards to replicate the appearance of support of the front porch, below the decking.
Motion#1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve side stoop with staff
recommendation and the following amendments: 1) square post (4x4 post wrap ed with 1 by
max. 51/2"), and 2) 30" railing (if allowed by building code). 1
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion #2 made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the cinder wall s submitted
(as constructed already).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. I
An individual vote was taken. The motion failed unanimously (0-4).
Appeal process was explained to the homeowner and contractor. 11
Motion#3 made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommend tion and the
following amendments: 1) New strings to be installed, 2) 30" railing (if allowed b building
code), 3) square posts (4x4 post wrapped with 1 by max. 51/2"), and 4) skirting to inished level.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
821 Brook St—Replace Windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate two indow
openings located on the north elevation of the house (please see applicant's atta hed project
description which identifies the impacted windows). The proposed request is to odify
windows that are located on the first and second floor eastern section of the subj ct side
elevation (within close proximity to the rear of the building).
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 6 of 16
The applicant has proposed reducing the window opening on the first floor from its existing 60"
width dimension to 30". Currently, two double-hung windows fill the opening, and the
applicant's expressed intent is to keep one set of windows. To accommodate the space
reduction, the applicant has proposed infill brickwork to match the existing brick Additionally,
due to interior bathroom modifications, the applicant has requested approval toremove a
second story window and to cover over the opening with siding to match the building's existing
siding.
The windows are somewhat visible from the public right-of-way; however, staff does not
believe that the proposed request will pose a significant compromise to the building's historic
integrity.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
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 m terial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptabl as
replacement windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be co sidered in
determining whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires r placement
shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessi a weathering,
loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or ins ct attack, and
cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular indow 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 installatio of appropriate
replacement windows.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
That one original window is retained for the first floor window opening and centred below the
second floor window.
1. That any infill siding and brick work matches the profiles of the existing brick and siding
in material, color, design, and dimension.
Jim Stendler(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Sill will need to be reduce to compliment the 30" width window opening.
Bricks to be weaved in where the window is removed.
Shingle siding to be offset when installed.
Design Review Subcommittee— April 22, 2014
Page 7of16
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve per staff recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
303 Douglas Ave—Replace Windows
g p
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to table item F-2, due to non-represe,ntation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
398 St. Charles St—Replace Windows
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriate ess (COA)to
maintain the building's existing vinyl windows. The property owner recently purc ased the
property and installed vinyl windows on the entire house without a COA permit. taff has
advised the applicant that window installation of windows without an approved OA is a Code
violation and also that vinyl windows are not permitted in the historic district. St ff also
advised the applicant that wood or aluminum clad wood replacement windows t match the
original windows would comply with the Design Guidelines. At the time of applica ion, the
applicant decided to pursue a request to maintain the existing vinyl windows. Sta f has advised
the applicant of the appeals process should the DRSC deny the request.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Windows
A. which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and dsign and with
their original materials and numbers of panes (glass lights). 1
B. which are not original should not be added to primary facades or to second ry facades
where readily visible.
C. should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary, th
recommended replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in mat rial and
design. Windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum are acceptable a replacement
windows for use throughout the structure. Factors to be considered in dete mining
whether the severity of deterioration of windows requires replacement sha I include but
not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessive weathering, loss f soundness
or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or insect attack, and cost t repair. As
to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular window may be per itted 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—April 22, 2014
Page 8 of 16
D. which are original of steel or aluminum should be repaired with materials to match the
All)
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 If.ow-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 vinyl windows are removed and that the replacement windows re wood or
aluminum-clad wood windows that fit the existing openings and match t e original
window pattern (as pictured in the survey photos), i.e. double-hung, 3 v rtical lights
over one light (15t floor), Single window with three true divided vertical Ii hts (dormer
and basement windows). (Snap-on muntins are not permitted. True mu tins must be
installed on both sides of the glass.)
2. That the window specifications are approved by Staff prior to installation.
Beatriz Guzman(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
3 over 1 style should be installed on 1St floor and dormer window openings. Basement should
be awning or hinged style windows.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted (retain vin\l windows
installed).
1
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
An individual vote was taken. The motion failed unanimously (0-4).
Appeal process was explained to the homeowner and contractor.
1
Design Review Subcommittee— April 22, 2014
Page 9 of 1 6
309-311— Replace Garage Siding
I
The applicant had submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CA)to
replace the exterior aluminum siding the garage. The garage does not have any u derlying
siding. The applicant is seeking permission to install wood or fiber cement siding. Although the
applicant prefers to install fiber cement siding, due to his interest in applying for tbe city's
Substitute Siding Removal Grant Program and the corresponding wood siding inst nation within
the historic district, he has proposed cedar siding (specifications attached) as an al ernative.
The applicant is seeking approval for both options, pending approval of a grant.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Wood Siding
A. should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is nece Bary, 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 be eath
synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should be repaired nd the
synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings,th original
siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If th "ghosts" or
outlines of decorative missing features are revealed,these should general y 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 alte ations 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 asbesto. 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 hazard.us material
guidelines.
D. should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, maso ite, or
aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed benea h wood-based
materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. These materi.ls generally do
not possess textures or designs that closely match original wood siding. owever, if
more than 50% of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, .r 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 contin9ous board
stock is preferable for use as siding.
The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or rempval of original
decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no trim or
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 10 of 16
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 approval with the following conditions:
1. That the new siding is clear cedar, no knots, installed smooth side out or fiber cement
board.
2. That the new siding has a 6" exposure.
3. That the new siding is installed to abut the corner boards. (If the applicant installs fiber
cement board, it is recommended that the corner boards be wood.)
4. The profile of the siding boards is set back from the profile of the corner boards.
5. Should fiber cement board be approved by the DRSC, it is recommended hat the corner
boards are wood.
6. That the existing fascia board is repaired or that any replacement fascia be wood with
dimensions to match the existing fascia board.
Abelino Gallegos (owner) and Frank Betaneort (nephew and translator)were kesent for
tonight's COA discussion:
Masonite material is probably original; and quite deteriorated.
Sheeting will need to be trimmed out; 4" wide trim.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff recommendations and
the following amendment: 1) 4" wide trim.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
621 Douglas Ave—Reconstruct Front Porch
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to replaCe the front
stoop. The existing stoop is concrete and in a state of disrepair. The applicant ha consulted
with staff regarding a replacement that would meet the Design Guidelines. Upo consultation
with Staff,the applicant has agreed to install a wooden stoop replacement to m tch Staff's
recommended drawing.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porch Columns and Railing
A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use material to match the
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 11 of 16
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 tlo 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 incht
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 wild with the
following conditions:
Front Stoop/Porch
1. The stair tread shall be a min. of 10" wide and constructed in 5/4 x 12 and that the
treads shall be bull-nosed and overhang the risers a minimum of 1" on three sides.
2. The porch handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges and %"icove molding.
The handrail shall have a 2x4 bottom rail shall be with chamfered edges. i-he porch
handrail shall be installed 2" above finished floor. The handrail shall not exceed 30" in
height. The city's Residential Code permits an exemption to the minimum 36"height
requirement(provided that the porch floor is no more than 40 inches above grade)for
guardrail requests to re-build a porch railing to its original height or in a t,aditional
designed height. The applicant will be required to sign a waiver regarding the 30"railing
height.
3. The stoop handrails shall be installed in the column faces.
4. The handrail balusters shall be square 2 x 2s and spaced no more than 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 4 x 4s.
5. The newel posts shall be as follows: may be 6 x 6 or 4x4 wrapped with lx edar with 3/4"
cove molding and pyramid cap and may not exceed 36".
6. The newel posts shall be installed on the bottom tread.
7. All other details to match staff drawing.
8. The stoop shall be primed and painted.
r
Design Review Subcommittee— April 22, 2014
Page 12 of 16
Porch flooring
1. Shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir or composite material (recomriended) and
installed perpendicular to the house.
Porch Skirting:
1. The skirt frame shall have a 1x8 header, 1x6 top, side, and lower boards.
2. The skirting board shall be 1x4 vertical boards with 1" air gap and installedbehind the
frame.
Matt Kovac(project manager) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Contractor would prefer concrete replacement. However it appears than more than 50%would
need to be removed. Therefore the wood replacement is appropriate.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff recommendation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
323 Lake St— Rehabilitate Front Porch
In July 2010, the property owner's project to restore the house's front porch and to replace the
window trim was approved. The project received funding from the city's 75/25 Historic
Rehabilitation Grant Program. Since that time, the property owner has encountered various
issues which have resulted in unanticipated project delays. In December 2013, city staff were
approached by the property owner regarding a request to revise the COA specifi ations for the
turned balusters. Upon review of the COA file and COA permit specifications whi h permitted
staff to finalize the baluster design, the side porch details (also funded by an Hist ric
Rehabilitation Grant Project in , the Design Guideline requirements, and discussi ns with the
property owner, it was determined that balusters would be an appropriate modi ication.
The property owner moved forward with the project in early April and recently, aff conducted
a final inspection on April 11, 2014. At that time, Staff noted that the following details did not
comply with the issued COA. The stairs were not completely bull-nosed on three sides, the
handrails were not chamfered, but had a bevel cut instead, and the top railings ere missing
the required %" cove molding. Staff advised the contractor of the missing detail• and that the
revisions to the permit would need to be corrected or approved by the Design R:view
Subcommittee. The contractor has requested approval from the Design Review ubcommittee
to maintain the existing porch details.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porches
A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and etailing.
B. should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale, and
placement.
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 13 of 16
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.
Porch Columns and Railings
A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use mate6als to match
the original in dimensions and detailing.
B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings halve been
removed or replaced.
C. should have new balusters for the railing, if required. Porch balusters (alp 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 inchL
D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch
construction.
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 EiIlow them to
be added to the house. These features should match the original in materials scale,
location, proportions, form, and detailing.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the revision to the Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
1. The handrails shall have %" cove molding added to the top rails.
2. Stair treads must overhang risers and stringer by 1" with bull-nose on three sides.
Agustin Figueroa (owner) and Carlos Rivera (contractor) were present for toniglft's COA
discussion:
Handrail should be chamfered, not beveled.
Design Review Subcommittee— April 22, 2014
Page 14 of 16
True 1 %" square balusters (not turned).
Cove molding to be 1 1/8".
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended: 1) 1" overhng per staff
comments, 2) chamfered handrail with 1 1/8" cove molding, and true 1 %" squart balusters.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
564 Douglas Ave—Replace Windows
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
replace the vinyl basement windows. A recent purchaser of the property, the owiher installed
the vinyl windows without a COA.
On January 17, 2014, a stop work order was issued by Code Enforcement. At that time, Code
advised of corrective actions to address the window installation without a COA violation and
also advised the contractor that the original windows needed to be stored until the Design
Review Subcommittee's review of the project. Also, at that time, it was discovered that the
front door had been replaced. The contractor was advised that the original front door needed
to be retrieved and re-installed.
On January 31St, Staff conducted a site visit and evaluated the building's original ood
windows. The windows appeared to be in good condition. Staff advised the applicant that vinyl
windows are not permitted by the Design Guidelines. The applicant has requeste approval for
the installation of aluminum clad wood windows as a corrective action to the viny window
installation. In discussions with the property owner and contractor, Staff recommended that
the windows be repaired and that the property owner obtain estimates for window repair and
the aluminum clad wood window replacement.
On February 11, 2014, the DRSC denied the applicant's to replace the windows an
recommended that the applicant pursue window repair. At that time, the applica t was
advised of the appeals process. In lieu of appealing the DRSC's decision, the appli ant pursued
obtaining estimates for the window repair; however, Staff has been advised that t e estimates
are cost prohibitive. Due to this and because the period of time to file an appeal hs expired,
the applicant is re-submitting a request for the aluminum clad wood window insta lation.
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).
Design Review Subcommittee— April 22, 2014
Page 15 of 16
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 mOterial 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 ins ct attack, and
cost to repair. As to the factor of the cost to repair windows, a particular indow may
be permitted to be replaced rather than repaired if the estimated cost to epair 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 window to match the
original as closely as possible in materials and dimensions. Aluminum extr ded 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 COA as submitted. Staff would recommend approval
if the following condition is met:
1. That the original windows are restored to the building.
Robert Kopp (representative of property owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Discussion regarding repair of original windows vs vinyl, vs replacement aluminum,clad
windows. Total of 21 windows were replaced in vinyl without permit; and the original windows
are still on site although in multiple parts.
Design Review Subcommittee—April 22, 2014
Page 16 of 16
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the replacement of the original
wood windows (replaced in vinyl without permit) with new aluminum clad wood windows.
The motion was seconded by Committee MemberSavel.
An individual vote was taken. The motion failed unanimously (0-4).
Appeal process was explained to the homeowner and contractor.
Additional Staff Comments:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
Square porch style designs were discussed.
Style of post caps need to considered too when looking a porch designs.
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 8:15 p.m.
Respect Ily submitted,
Cindy A.ea en Approved: May 27, 2014
Design R• iew Subcommittee Secretary
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, May 13, 2014-6:00 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 8, 2014
2. April 22, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 303 Douglas Ave. — Install windows
F. New Business
1. 507 Raymond St. —Demolish garage
2. 222 S. Channing St. —Install windows
3. 621 Douglas Ave. —Install windows; install porch posts
4. 605 Grace St.— Install rear and front porch posts
5. 305 North St. —Install windows
6. 320 N. Spring St.— Install rear porch stair hand railings
G. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave. —Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
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
May 13, 2014
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:
Bill Briska, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
John Roberson and Pat Segel
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller, Robert Schuman
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
303 Douglas Ave. —Install windows
New Business
507 Raymond St. —Demolish garage
222 S. Channing St. —Install windows
621 Douglas Ave. —Install windows; install porch posts
605 Grace St.— Install rear and front porch posts
305 North St. —Install windows
320 N. Spring St. —Install rear porch stair hand railings
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Copies of the minutes from 04/08/14 and 04/22/14 were provided to committee rpembers just
prior to meeting. Minutes will be reviewed and considered at the next meeting.
ITEMS TABLED:
507 Raymond St—Due to non-representation
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table item El for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee— May 13, 2014
Page 2 of 10
303 Douglas Ave. — Install windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows on the house.
With the exception of the kitchen and basement windows, all remaining windowsihave been
proposed for replacement. The applicant has proposed the installation of doublethung, 2/2,
aluminum clad wood windows to replace the existing vinyl windows. The applicant has advised
staff that he currently has a double-hung, 1/1 attic aluminum clad wood window to replace the
existing glass block window. He has requested permission to install this double-hung window in
the attic. Additionally, the applicant has advised staff that several of the windows will require
custom fitting, and due to the expense involved with replacing the windows, the applicant's
intent is to replace the windows in phases.
In 2012, the building's existing aluminum clad wood kitchen and basement windows were
approved by the Design Review Subcommittee. Staff has advised the applicant that the
replacement windows must be wood or aluminum clad wood windows. The appl cant has had
difficulty in obtaining specifications and at the time of staff's submittal of this report,
specifications were unavailable.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, anc 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 secgndary 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 raeplacement
shall include but not be limited to the following factors: damage, excessilve 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 tp repair the
windows is more than the estimated cost of the purchase and installatidn of appropriate
replacement windows.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
1. Should the DRSC approve the installation of aluminum clad wood windows (double-
hung, 1/1), that the final specifications be approved by staff.
2. That the windows fit the existing openings.
3. That the existing window wrapping is removed.
4. That window wrapping is not installed.
Martin and Susan Saldana (owners)were present for tonight's COA discussion:
Existing vinyl windows are very drafty. Want to replace with wood windows wlith aluminum
clad. Dormer windows would be similar to the north side dormer window (double hung style).
Design Review Subcommittee—May 13, 2014
Page 3 of 10
From the 1960 image of the house, the dormers were two 1 over 1 windows, split by sashes.
The front windows are a 1 over 1 with approximately 2/3 glass above the rail and 1/3 glass
below the rail. Commissioners considered a single hung window with a top fixed sash would be
an option for this window. All other windows have center meeting rails on the home.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff recommndation and
the following amendments: 1) dormer window to two 1 over 1 windows; and 2)front windows
to be either double or single hung with meeting rail in the center.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
507 Raymond St.—Demolish garage
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table COA due to non-representation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
222 S. Channing St.—Install windows
The applicant has also requested approval to install aluminum clad wood replacement windows
and to demolish the rear exterior staircase and rear enclosed porch.
On May 12, 2014, Staff inspected the windows. The building's windows are in various stages of
disrepair. Several of the window profiles differ from one another, and two some instances,
windows are missing. The property owner has proposed the retention of the kitchen windows
(located on the rear elevation) and basement windows, but has requested permi$sion to
replace the remaining windows with double-hung, 1/1 aluminum clad wood windows. Of note,
the front addition has windows that are 3/1 double-hung windows. To maintain the window
uniformity,the property owner has requested permission to install all new winddws with the
exception of the basement and kitchen windows.
Additionally, the building was formerly a two-unit building. The property owner lips requested
approval for removing the rear stairwell and to cover over the door entrance with siding. The
property owner has also requested approval to remove the enclosed (non-original)first level
rear porch.
r
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications(as applicable):
Windows
A. Which are original should be preserved in their original location, size, and ',design
Design Review Subcommittee— May 13, 2014
Page 4 of 10
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 inset 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 mntins 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 ash and
installed on both sides of the glass are preferable to snap-on simple grilled.
G. screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized aluminurh 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.
Demolition
A. should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building.
B. should not occur, unless:
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.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:
1. All windows must fit the original window openings.
2. Windows may not be wrapped.
3. Window glass may not be tinted.
4. Infill siding over the rear second story instance must fit the profile of the'i existing siding.
The impacted section of the house is localized and clad with substitute suing. The Design
Guidelines allow for a localized portion of a house with pre-existing conditions to be
repaired or replaced with a similar material, and therefore, staff would recommend
approval for the replacement siding to match the pre-existing substitute siding.
Matt Kovacs (contractor) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Staff estimated 60-70% of the windows are original, remainder is vinyl; in a variety of styles.
The kitchen windows are to be kept (fairly new).
Design Review Subcommittee—May 13, 2014
Page 5 of 10
Replacing all sills (2x), cutting back the siding; casings will set proud of the siding.
Front addition has 3 over 1 double hung windows; style should remain.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendation and the
following amendments: 1) 2x sill replacements; 2) front porch windows to be 3 over 1 double
hung; 3) 5/4 x 4" casing with a cap/crown (staff to approve style)to be installed above the
casing.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
621 Douglas Ave.— Install windows; install porch posts
On April 22, 2014,the Design Review Subcommittee approved the applicant's request to
replace the front porch stoop. Since that time,the applicant has revised the prc ject's scope of
work to include the replacement of the porch columns/posts and porch roof overhang molding.
The front porch was a later addition to the building and the applicant has proposed posts to
match the former square posts for the front porch columns. The applicant has also proposed
replacement in-kind crown molding for the porch roof overhang.
The applicant has also requested approval to install aluminum clad wood replacrament windows
for all windows except for the basement, kitchen and one 2nd floor rear addition)window. Two
of the impacted windows proposed for replacement have arched openings. The''applicant has
proposed the installation of single panes for the windows. All other windows will be double-
hung, 1/1 windows.
Many of the proposed window replacements are in disrepair, missing, or vinyl. To ensure
uniformity,the applicant has proposed the replacement of the remaining winddws and window
sills.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications(as applicable):
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.
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).
C. 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, excessij✓e weathering,
Design Review Subcommittee— May 13, 2014
Page 6 of 10
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 ash 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 aluminunii 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 follows:
Porch Columns and Roof Overhang
1. Approve as submitted.
Windows
1. With the exception of the two arched windows, all windows shall be 1/1 double-hung,
aluminum clad wood and must fit original window openings.
2. Single panes shall be installed behind the arch window frames.
Matt Kovacs (contractor) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Staff estimates 55-60 of windows being original; many different manufacturers, styles, and vinyl
windows on structure too. Exterior trim found to be rotted on many of the windows.
New windows are complete with sashes, rails, etc.
Arched windows need a wood reveal made to mimic other window within the staircase. A 2
1/4" reveal on the top and side; and 3 X" —3 A" bottom rail. Stops to hold sash iin place (field
decision, staff to approve over the counter).
Posts for porch should be 6x6 chamfered not to exceed %", not to extend beyond railing height.
Header of posts will be bull-nosed with cove molding. A block maybe needed td attach to
structure.
Crown molding replacement should mimic existing.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendation and the
following amendments: 1) arch windows as noted in comments; 2) 6x6 chamfer post as noted
• Design Review Subcommittee—May 13, 2014
Page 7 of 10
in comments; 3) crown replaced in kind; and 4) cut block to mount railing to (if needed).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
605 Grace St.—Install rear and front porch posts
The applicant submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the front and rear
porch posts/columns. On November 26, 2013, the DRSC approved the applicant's request to
replace the rear porch posts with posts similar to the existing front porch posts. Since that time,
the applicant attempted to find replacement columns for the rear porch, and has advised staff
that due to challenges in finding affordable porch posts to match the front posts, is seeking
permission to instead replace the front and rear porch posts to match the attached
specification.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
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 as submitted.
Juan Robillard (contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Original posts are 6".
Discussion on whether two or three posts would be required for rear porch. Solid wood post
can typically carry a 6,5001b load. Bottom portion of post should not be square more the 36",
turned, then squared to the top.
Gutters could be tied into the corner boards accordingly to allow for drainage and least amount
of visual impact.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as follows: 1) two replacement
posts to match recently installed front posts; and 2) gutters to be tied to the cornier boards.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
r
Design Review Subcommittee— May 13, 2014
Page 8 of 10
305 North St. — Install windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace all of the
windows (with the exception of the only remaining wood basement window located on the side
elevation) located at 305 North St. The applicant has proposed window replacements to match
the window replacements at the adjoining unit, 307 North St. (The window replacements for
307 North St. were approved by the DRSC on April 22, 2014.)
Staff conducted an interior inspection of the windows on May 9, 2014. All of the windows have
several layers of paint, and many of the windows have missing rope as well as glass that will
need to be re-glazed. Additionally, the window sash of several windows has varying degrees of
deterioration.
Rather than repair, because the windows will be replaced at 307 North St., the applicant has
requested approval to replace all of the windows on the entire building, including, 305 to
further ensure the windows' uniformity.
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, excessiv$ weathering,
loss of soundness or integrity of the wood, deterioration due to rot or ins4t 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 window 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 appear';ance 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—May 13, 2014
Page 9 of 10
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 COA with the following conditions:
1. The window replacements must fit the original window openings and match the profile
of the existing windows.
Maggie Guo (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Several windows are missing ropes and some are painted shut. Staff's opinion is 70-75%of
windows are repairable.
Basement window should be operational for ventilation. Awning or hopper style with a fixed
center mutton. Slider style is not appropriate.
Symmetry is important between the two units on the same structure. Wood sash replacements
should match (unit to unit) in style. 2%" side rails, 3 %" -3 31/2" bottom rail; if not staff to
review for approval.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendation and the
following amendments: 1) window styles to match both units (305 & 307) as ndted above :
a) basement window to be functional in awning or hopper style with a fixed center mutton;
b)All other window replacements must have matching wood sashs/rails- 2 %" side rails, 3 %"
to 3 %" bottom rail; if not staff to review for approval.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
320 N. Spring St.—Install rear porch stair hand railings
On June 22, 2010, the applicant's COA for a rear porch design was reviewed and approved by
the Design Review Subcommittee with the condition that a drawing be submitted for the stair
hand rails for review by the DRSC. To fulfill the DRSC's request, the applicant has submitted a
photo which shows her proposal to install wrought iron railings to match the existing front stair
handrails. (The project is a city grant funded project.)The rear porch has not been constructed;
however,the applicant is in the process of project commencement.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
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
Porch Columns and Railings
A. should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to match the
original in dimensions and detailing.
Design Review Subcommittee— May 13, 2014
Page 10 of 10
B. should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been removed or
replaced.
Staff Recommendation:
Given the location of the proposed railings on a less visible elevation of the property, Staff
recommends approval as submitted. Alternatively, there are two other options the DRSC may
want to consider (the applicant has been made aware of both options):
1. That drawings be submitted for wood stair handrailings;
2. To minimize the visual impact to the rear porch design, that pipe stair handrailings be
installed.
*****
Chrissy Palermo (owner) and Scott Savel and Robert Schuman (contractors) were present for
tonight's COA discussion:
Metal styling proposed is not appropriate for an Italianate style home. Hand rail designs
constructed of wood, various post placement and other factors were also discussed. None of
the additional considerations brought the committee to a new conclusion for handrail system.
Applicant requested the vote be taken on her submittal of the metal handrail details.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxwothy to approve as submitted by the applicant.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Briska.
The motion failed 1-4-1. (Yea: Wiedmeyer; Nay: Briska, Roxworthy, Stroud; Abstain: Savel)
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
Note: Due to the lengthy meeting, no photos were shared after tonight's meeting.
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 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy A. Walden Approved:July 8, 2014
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, May 27, 2014-6:00 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 8, 2014
2. April 22, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
F. New Business
1. 433 Villa St - Install retaining wall (front yard)
2. 133 College St—Rehabilitate front porch
3. 320 N. Spring St.— Install rear porch handrails
4. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
5. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
6. Staff Comments
7. 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 kEQUESTED 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 27, 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:
Dennis Roxworthy,John Roberson, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska, Pat Segel, and Steve Stroud
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
New Business
1. 433 Villa St - Install retaining wall (front yard)
2. 133 College St—Rehabilitate front porch
3. 320 N. Spring St. —Install rear porch handrails
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for review.
ITEMS TABLED:
1. 398 Bent St—Reconstruct garage; Install house addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave. —Reconstruct garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave.—Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
433 Villa St- Install retaining wall (front yard)
Project Background:
r
Design Review Subcommittee —May 27, 2014
Page 2 of 6
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 20"
granite retaining wall on the property's front yard (drawing and photos of stonework attached).
The applicant has proposed the installation of the wall approximately 6 inches south of the
property line (the proposed retaining wall will still be within the owner's property line).
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:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted.
Mace Mludoch (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Mr. Mludoch confirmed that
the location of the proposed wall will be behind the property line. A drawing of the proposed
wall was also presented for the Subcommittee's review.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
133 College St. — Rehabilitate Front Porch
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the front porch
balustrade, flooring, and stair treads.The applicant has proposed a balustrade with a 2x6" top
and bottom rails, 3x3 turned balusters (specification attached), and stair treads that will be bull-
nosed.The applicant has also proposed the installation of the porch balustrade at 24" above
finished floor.The existing porch balustrade is 31" in height (AFF), with 2x4 top and bottom
rails. To be parallel to the window sill, the railing height would need to be approximately 25".
To be parallel to the bottom of the window glass, the railing would need to be approximately
28".
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porch Columns and Railing
Design Review Subcommittee—May 27, 2014
Page 3 of 6
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 nhatch 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.
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 2x6 top and bottom rail with chamfered edges, W cove
molding, 3x3 turned balusters (to match applicant's submitted specifications, Menard's
3"x3"x 36" Colonial Spindle, Model Number 113501) with 2-2.5" of air spate (not on-
center) between each baluster.
2. Pending the DRSC's recommendation as well as the Code requirements, that the railing
height not exceed 30".
Porch flooring
1. The flooring shall be 1x4 tongue and groove, Douglas Fir or composite material
(recommended) and installed perpendicular to the house.
Front Stairs
1. Should the front stair handrails require replacement, that all design dimensions and detail
match the porch balustrade.
2. That the newel posts match the existing porch newel post and be installed on the bottom
tread.
Design Review Subcommittee—May 27, 2014
Page 4 of 6
3. That the stair treads are a minimum of 10" wide and constructed from 2x12 or 5/4x 12
(recommended) Douglas Fir, pressure treated or composite material (recommended) and
bull-nosed with 1" overhang the riser on three sides.
Todd R. VonOhlen (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion.
Discussion took place regarding the porch balustrade height, foundation work, and ispindles.
Mr. VonOhlen confirmed that the columns will remain.
The Subcommittee determined that the existing porch newel post is likely not original to the
porch and recommended that a round half column with a ball cap replace the existing newel
post and also be installed on the stairs. Three or four newel posts are permitted with staff
administrative approval required upon final determination of width and the appropriate newel
post installation. The handrail as proposed is too wide and the 2x6 top and bottom rail should
be cut down to 4-4.5" and be chamfered and have 3A" cove molding. The balusters,should be
turned balusters with a width not to exceed 1.5" and the square height on each end of the
turned portion of the baluster should be 4-5" in height. The air space between the balusters
shall equal the width of the balusters (not to exceed 1.5"). The porch railing height should be
parallel to the bottom of the front porch window glass and not exceed 28". Mr.VonOhlen
confirmed that the porch columns will remain. Should the front stair handrails require
replacement, all design dimensions and detail match the porch balustrade. The sOir handrail
details shall match the front porch balustrade details.The newel posts shall be installed on the
bottom tread. The handrail should be installed at the face of the column (or alternatively, at a
90-degree angle from the side of the column). Mr.VonOhlen presented issues with the
foundation and the Subcommittee granted staff administrative approval to approve parging the
foundation in a manner that will match the existing foundation material.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve with staff recommendations and as
per the Subcommittee's amendments. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
320 N. Spring St. —Install rear porch handrails
Project Background:
On May 13, 2014, the applicant's request to install wrought iron handrails was denied. At the
meeting, the necessity for hand rails was discussed. The project has been reviewed by Building
Code staff and it has been determined that hand rails are required. Because the request was
denied, the applicant is submitting a new COA request to install rear porch handrails.
The design proposed by the applicant is for the railings to be installed from a 90 degree angle
from the porch columns, with newel posts that will be installed on the bottom tread. With the
exception of the existing front porch handrail, all handrail details will match the front/rear
porch details (front porch picture attached).
r
Design Review Subcommittee—May 27, 2014
Page 5 of 6
C
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
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
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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval as submitted.
Commissioner Savel recused himself from the meeting due to his contractor representation for
the property owner. Krissy Palermo (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion.
Mr. Savel described the proposed handrails. The handrail design will be similar to the front
porch. The Subcommittee recommended that the newel posts terminate as rounded off. Any
deviations from the post cap design can be approved administratively by staff. The
Subcommittee also clarified that the newel posts should be 6x6 and mimic half of the bottom
panel of the front porch columns.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve with staff recommendations and
with the Subcommitee's amendments. The motion was seconded by Committee Member
Roxworthy. The motion passed 3-0 with one abstention (Savel).
Additional Staff Comments:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
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 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Design Review Subcommittee—May 27, 2014
Page 6 of 6
AYri 1\AWYK,r—
Amy Munro Approved: July 8, 2014
Historic Preservation and Grants Planner
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, June 10, 2014-6:00 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 13, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 372 N. Spring St—Install second floor balcony balustrade (Tabled 7-10-12)
2. 141 Hill Ave—Rehabilitate rear porch (Tabled 9-25-13)
F. New Business
1. 153 Hill Ave— Install windows
2. 456 Mary PI —Install front stair handrails
3. 72 N. Liberty St—Remove side stoop; install side entrance canopy above rear door
entrance
4. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
5. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave. — Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
6. Staff Comments
7. 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 {TDP (847) 931-5616}
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS.
r
(111.64 Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
June 10,2014
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:
Dennis Roxworthy,John Roberson, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska and Pat Segel
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller, Christen Sundquist-Martin, and Matthew Martin
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
1. 372 N. Spring St—Install second floor balcony balustrade (Tabled 7-10-12)
2. 141 Hill Ave—Rehabilitate rear porch (Tabled 9-25-13)
New Business
1. 153 Hill Ave—Install windows
2. 456 Mary PI —Install front stair handrails
3. 72 N. Liberty St—Remove side stoop; install side entrance canopy above rear door
entrance
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for review.
ITEMS TABLED:
The following items were tabled due to lack of property owner representation:
1. 153 Hill Ave—Install windows
2. 456 Mary PI—Install front stair handrails
3. 72 N. Liberty St—Remove side stoop; install side entrance canopy above rear door
entrance
OLD BUSINESS:
fib* Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to untable all items under Old Business. The
Design Review Subcommittee —June 10, 2014
Page 2 of 6
motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously.
372 N. Spring St—Install second floor balcony balustrade (Tabled 7-10-12)
Project Background:
On July 10, 2012, the Design Review Subcommittee approved the petitioner's request to
rehabilitate the side porch. The request included approval for the porch's balustrade, flooring,
and stairs. At that time, the applicant also sought DRSC approval for the construction of an
upper level balcony and upon discussion, it was determined that the petitioner she uld return to
the DRSC with a drawing for approval. Minutes from the July 12, 2012 meeting with the
approval are as follows:
"Joaquin & Rosalia Cornejo (owners); and Jennifer Fritz (consultant) were present for
tonight's COA discussion.
Existing front porch is not original; was a full porch. Spindles are interior spindles.
Existing side porch was much smaller in 1913. Porch was altered to its currOnt state in
1950's. Steps maybe repaired if possible(in concrete). Adding 5 newel posts, lowering
railing to 30"on lower and 34"for the 2"d floor deck(if allowed); without a roof. Owners
were looking for concept approval of an upper floor deck.
There is a room under the concrete of the side porch.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously."
To date, work has not begun on the project and the petitioner is currently seeking approval for
an amendment to their original COA request as well as approval for their proposed second
story balcony. The applicants have submitted a drawing for the upper level balcony. Initially,
the petitioner intended to design the balcony balustrade to match the porch balustrade;
however, since that time, the petitioner has requested a change to the newel post cap and
baluster design. Originally, the owners requested the installation of balusters to match the
front of the house and square newel posts with a pyramid post cap. The applicants are
currently seeking approval to install 2x2 square balusters rather than turned balusters and to
install a flat top post cap as per the attached specification. Additionally, the petitioner is
requesting approval to replace the existing column caps with replacements-in-kind The
petitioner has expressed an intent to remove the existing front porch/stoop in the future and to
replace it with a full-width porch.
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).
Design Review Subcommittee—June 10, 2014
Page 3 of 6
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 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 the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:
1. That the existing columns be used and that the replacement column caps match the
existing caps.
2. That bases that match the column caps be added to the existing columns.
3. That the porch balusters match the front porch blusters and that the handrails and
newel posts be installed as per the attached drawing.
4. That the flooring be wood tongue and groove 1 x 4.
5. That the stairs have treads constructed from either 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12
lumber (pressure treated or composite acceptable), are bull-nosed and overhang the
riser by no less than 1 inch on three sides.
6. Top and bottom rails shall be 2x4 chamfered and installed at 2" AFF.
7. The porch balustrade shall not exceed 30" in height from the floor.
8. The balusters shall be square 2"x 2" and spaced no more than 3" O.C.
9. If a stair handrail is required, all handrail details shall match the porch balustrade and
newel post details.The newel post shall be installed on the bottom tread.
Design Review Subcommittee—June 10, 2014
Page 4 of 6
10. The balcony balustrade shall be installed at a height of 36".
11. Newel posts shall be 4x4 with lx wrap at bottom and top and square caps.
12. All other details to match applicant's submitted drawing and specifications.
13. All wood shall be primed and painted.
Rosalia and Joaquin Cornejo (owners) were present for tonight's COA discussion.
Discussion took place regarding the proposed porch and balcony spindle details.The property
owners have modified their initial (and previously approved request) request for turned
spindles and instead proposed square 2x2's.The Subcommittee suggested that the spindles be
turned at a 45 degree angle. Mr. and Mrs. Cornejo inquired as to whether this would be
required as they were unfamiliar with this type of design. The Subcommittee stated that while
preferred, it would not be a requirement.The Subcommittee also recommended full wrapping
for the newel post to match the section drawing and also suggested that the column caps be
1x8 with 1x4 wrapping.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as per the Subcommittee's
amendments as stated above and with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by
Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
141 Hill Ave—Rehabilitated rear porch (Tabled 9-25-13)
Project Background:
On September 25, 2013, the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) approved the applicant's
request to demolish the building's rear addition. Following demolition, the applicant expressed
his intent to construct a 1st floor roof overhang/second floor balcony. At that time, the
Subcommittee approved the demolition, but requested that the applicant return to the Design
Review Subcommittee (DRSC) with a drawing. The applicant has submitted a drawing for the
DRSC's review. With the exception of the proposed 36" height, the balcony balustrade design
will match the front porch details.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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, ete.
tr
Design Review Subcommittee—June 10, 2014
Page 5 of 6
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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted.
Paul Bednar(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion. Mr. Bednar described his
project.
Discussion took place regarding the balcony's height, newel posts, and columns. The balcony
balustrade height will be 36". It is preferred that only two newel posts be installed and that
they line up with the porch columns. A third newel post may be installed only if the Code
requires it mid-span. The balcony architectural details will match the front porch details. Mr.
Bednar confirmed that the proposed columns will differ from the front porch columns as they
will not have a mid-post cap and that brackets will not be installed.The Subcommittee
recommended that the 2x4 lower board of the railing should not exceed the colunin base and
that the bottom rail should have a 6" reveal.The roof, fascia, crown and soffit should be similar
to the front porch.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and with
the Subcommitee's amendments as stated above.The motion was seconded by Committee
Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
The property owners and/or their representatives were not present for any items under new
business.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table all items under New Bu$iness. The
motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously.
Additional Staff Comments:
None
CORRESPONDENCE: None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
Design Review Subcommittee—June 10, 2014
Page 6 of 6
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
AYmi \AWYVtdr—
Amy Munro Approved:
Historic Preservation and Grants Planner
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,June 24, 2014-6:00 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. 109 Hill Ave. —Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
2. 456 Mary PI—Install front stair handrails (Tabled 06-10-14)
3. 72 N. Liberty St—Remove side stoop; install side entrance canopy above rear door
entrance (Tabled 06-10-14)
F. New Business
1. 129 N. Porter St— Install dormer(south elevation)
2. 114 N. Channing St—Rehabilitate siding; Replace windows
3. 650 Park St—Install Windows
4. 437—439 Fulton St— Install windows
5. 156 Hill Ave. —Install front and rear stoop hand railings
6. 844 Brook St. —Install siding
G. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
H. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 153 Hill Ave. — Install Windows (Tabled 6-10-14)
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 METING, 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 24, 2014
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:
John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyejr
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Briska and Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
109 Hill Ave.— Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
456 Mary PI—Install front stair handrails (Tabled 06-10-14)
72 N. Liberty St—Remove side stoop; install side entrance canopy above rear door entrance
(Tabled 06-10-14)
New Business
129 N. Porter St—Install dormer (south elevation)
114 N. Channing St—Rehabilitate siding; Replace windows
650 Park St—Install Windows
437—439 Fulton St—Install windows
156 Hill Ave.— Install front and rear stoop hand railings
844 Brook St. —Install siding
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS TABLED:
437-439 Fulton St—Due to non-representation
650 Park St—For additional information on repair of windows
156 Hill Are—For additional information on rear porch reconstruction
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 2 of 14
OLD BUSINESS: 4)
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table item El only for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
109 Hill Ave.—Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a
new garage. The proposed project was initially reviewed by the Design Review Sjubcommittee
(DRSC) on December 10, 2013 (staff report attached). At that time, the applicant requested
approval for a "Cape Cod" style garage. Upon consideration of the proposed design and review
of the former garage style as well as the house's architecture, the DRSC suggested design
revisions that would further complement the property's historic character. (It was suggested
that the two dormer appearance be modified to a single dropped dormer similar to the original
garage dormer.) Given the applicant's expressed goals for a 1 1/2 story garage, the DRSC
suggested that the applicant look at garages (including 470 Park St.)throughout the historic
district for additional concept ideas. The applicant agreed to modify his submitted drawing and
to re-submit a drawing for concept approval at a future meeting.
Although the applicant is finalizing building plans with an architect, the attached 'drawing
reflects the applicant's effort to address the DRSC's design revisions. The most notable changes
are in the cross gable roof line and in the window dimension. The drawing also incorporates
staff's recommendations from the initial concept design.
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 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
• Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 3 of 14
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. Fiber cement
board in a profile to match the existing house siding profile is also acceptable; however, it is
recommended that building and window trim details (such as the corner boards) are wood. (LP
Smartside siding is not permitted.)
2. That roof, garage trimwork dimensions and details such as the fascia, soffit, frieze boards,
garage door trim, corner boards, and gutters (half-round) should be added to the drawings.
With the exception of the gutters which should be metal, all other details should be cedar.
3. That the upper story window opening is re-designed to fit one door or double-hung window
rather than the proposed double door/window design.
4. That the garage door window openings/dimensions match the upper story window/door
combination.
5. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations.
Richard Hirschberg(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Loft door should be narrower (maximum of 4' width opening) with one or two doors.
Maximum 22" double hung windows with trim at and center rail, maxing at 56".
Many details (trim, corners, etc) are missing from the illustration and will need to be brought
back to the committee for further review. Photo measurements could be submitted of the
existing carriage house. Structure should be similar/mimic the house, but not replicated.
Overhead door more like 1x6 trim. Corner boards should be 1x4. Trim and corner boards need
to set proud of the sideing.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as a concept only; details needed
for loft door, windows,trim, overhead door style, service door style, etc for further review.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
Items E-2 and E-3 remained on the table, due to non-representation.
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 4 of 14
NEW BUSINESS:
129 N. Porter St—Install dormer(south elevation)
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to expand an existing window
dormer located on the south elevation of the house. The existing dormer has a gable roof
pitch; however, the proposed dormer has a shed roof pitch. The dormer design has been
proposed to accommodate Code requirements for an interior bathroom renovation project.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications
Dormers
F. should be over skylights in highly visible portions of the roof.
G. should be constructed as two gables and a connector, if larger in volume.
H. should not occupy more than fifty percent of the slope of the roof of which is being
constructed and should be trimmed out in the style of the house. They should be designed
and located for as not to detract from the character of the roof.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposed design does not complement the style of the building (a gable pitch roof
would be the preference), Staff has consulted with the Plans Examiner and given the nature of
the project and Code requirements, the proposed shed roof pitch is the only option. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the COA with the following condition:
1. That the proposed dormer location is re-configured so that the dormer window is in
alignment with the south elevation's center window.
*****
Will Flaman (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Prefer dormer/shed roof dropped about 6" from the ridge line.
Roof could be rubber rolled, sealed and with architectural shingles.
Due to interior floor plan, re-aligning of dormer will not work.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted; with roof dropped 6"
from the ridge line.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
114 N. Channing St—Rehabilitate siding; Replace windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the house siding
and windows, to remove one of the front entrances, and to reconstruct the front and side
porch balustrade and stair handrailings.
Siding
A COA permit was issued to remove the transite siding on April 25, 2014. Upon removal, staff
• Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 5 of 14
has assessed the original siding condition of portions of the house and consulted with the
applicant's project manager. The siding that was exposed appears to be in fair to good
condition; however, the applicant has expressed concerns with the existing areas of
deterioration on several boards which has resulted or may result in additional split and broken
boards. With regard to the repair of the boards and high potential for needing to install infill
siding,there are also alignment concerns with the new siding.
Staff has advised the applicant that substitute siding is only permitted if over 50%of the wood
is damaged and beyond repair.
The applicant has proposed the restoration of architectural details (such as the window hoods,
fascia, soffits frieze board, and corner boards) as per the building's existing features and
shadow lines. The material proposed for the restoration of these features is wood.
Front Entrance Removal and Window Replacement
The building was originally a lawful non-conforming three-unit building and the applicant is
rehabilitating it to be a single-family residence. To accommodate the changing use,the
applicant has proposed the removal of one of the front door entrances and to install a window
in its place.
The condition of the building's windows range from good to poor. The windows are a variation
of replacement (including vinyl) and original windows. The applicant has proposed the
preservation of the building's four decorative, cut glass windows and to replace the remaining
windows with wood, double-hung, 1/1 windows on the first and second floors, and wood
awning basement window with a divided, vertical 1/1 light pattern. (Please see applicant's
attached window rehabilitation/replacement plan.)
To maintain the overall consistency of the window profiles, the applicant has requested that
replacement of all of the windows be permitted.
The applicant has included the replacement costs and at the time of this staff report submittal,
was still waiting for the repair estimates.
Porch Reconstruction
The applicant has requested to reconstruct the front and side porch balustrade and hand
railings with details to match the existing side porch details. The applicant has proposed a
balustrade height of 36" for both porches. Staff has discussed the porch balustrade height with
the applicant and concurs that the 36" may be appropriate for the side porch, given its
elevation; however,Staff advised the applicant that the front porch balustrade height should be
30". For liability concerns, the applicant has requested permission to install the front porch
height at 36" as well.
i
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 6 of 14
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: AI
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.
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.
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 41111)
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 7 of 14
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.
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 the approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
Siding
1. The Guidelines require that substitute siding be permitted only if over 50%of the siding is
damaged and beyond repair.
There are two options the DRSC should consider for the subject request:
A. 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
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 8 of 14
profile to match the existing material, size, and dimension. Siding must be primed and painted.
B. 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. The
substitute siding 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.
Front Entrance Removal and Window Replacement
1. Due to the variation of old and replacement windows, to further maintain the consistent
appearance of window profiles as the fact that the proposed windows will be wood, approval is
recommended for replacement wood windows that will be installed to fit the existing openings.
2. The front entrance (south end of the porch) shall be removed and replaced with a window
to match the adjacent window.
Porch Reconstruction
1. That the flooring shall be 1x4 Tongue and Grove, (Douglas Fir, pressure treated or wood
composite) and installed perpendicular to the house.
2. That the top and bottom handrails shall be 2x4 and chamfered and installed 2" above
finished floor.
3. All other column and handrail details match the existing balustrade and column details.
4. That the balusters shall be square 2x2's and spaced no more than 3" O.C.
5. That the front porch balustrade height shall not exceed 30".
6. That the side porch balustrade height shall not exceed 36".
7. 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.
8. That the side porch has a 1x6 skirt frame with 1x4 vertical skirt boards with 1" air space and
installed behind the frame.
Gutters
1. That the replacement gutters shall be half-round or K-style and constructed from a metal
material.
ALL OTHER DETAILS SHALL MATCH SUBMITTED DRAWINGS. ALL PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILS
SHALL BE PRIMED AND PAINTED.
Travis Juracek and Dan Jensen (Habitat representatives)was present for tonight's COA
discussion:
Staff comment: Siding around the windows is quite bad.
Additions were made over the years to the structure.
Front porch is solely decorative with only one step Porch would be a complete tear off and
rebuild. Base/post should be 1x6 square. Railing of 30" would be agreeable by the committee
and the applicant, but not required.
. Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 9 of 14
Side porch railing to be 36" in height; due to the drop off on one side. Top rail and bottom rails
to be chamfered. Cove molding (3/4") below the top rail. Spindle length of 28 %"; add wood
(3/4— 1") below top and bottom rail as needed to reach the 36" height.
Bead board on porch to be perpendicular.
Siding currently has a 4" reveal. Replacement siding 4-41/2" reveal to be lined up with sill at
bottom; and match up with caps. Corner boards should be almost even.
Windows to have crown detailing except for the attic and front 2"d story right windows.
Cut glass windows to be exposed and retained.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by staff with the following
changes: 1) No balustrade required for front porch, 2) side porch handrail amended as noted,
3) bead board on porch to be perpendicular, 4) siding replacement amended as noted, 5)
demolition of the rear addition, 6) window hoods to be installed for windows with shadow
lines, and 7) wood window replacements per application details.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
650 Park St—Install Windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace five double-hung wood
windows with five aluminum clad wood windows to match the existing windows in size, design,
and dimension. The windows are located on the building's secondary elevations:three
windows on the east elevation and two windows on the rear (north) elevation. The applicant is
seeking approval for the replacement windows due to issues with energy efficiency (air
infiltration). The applicant has provided an estimate for the replacement windows which
includes the exact specifications for the windows. The applicant has advised Staff that upon
consultation with his contractor,the repair of the windows would not be practical.
On May 2, 2014, Staff inspected the windows. The windows are in fair to good condition and
repairable. At the time of inspection, Staff suggested that the applicant consider repairing the
windows rather than replacement. Staff also advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines
recommend that 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. Interior window photos will be provided at
the June 24, 2014 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
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 10 of 14
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
411)
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 Recommendations
Staff would recommend approval of the COA as submitted if the following condition is met:
1. That the repair estimates exceed the replacement costs.
Peter Cottone (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Five windows in total; 2 on the side, 1 inside the mud room, and 2 in the kitchen.
Windows replacements are Pella aluminum clad thermal pane.
Radiator in the kitchen provides limited heat.
Windows are loose and drafty. You can feel the air coming thru.
All windows are original, except the bathroom. Sashes are solid, windows are loose.
Wood storm windows would increase efficiency too. Profile of windows would be the same
with double track storms.
Recommend obtaining quotes for repair, rather than replacement.
4)
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 11 of 14
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to table for additional information of repairs to
existing windows and storm installation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
437—439 Fulton St—Install windows
*****
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table due to non-representation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
156 Hill Ave.—Install front and rear stoop hand railings
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install
a handrail on the front porch. The COA has been submitted as a corrective action to handrails
that were recently installed without a permit. New stair treads were also added and staff has
advised the applicant of the Design Guidelines requirements.
The applicant has proposed the installation of handrails for the front and rear porches.
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. That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges,
installed 2" AFF.
•
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 12 of 14
2. That the stair treads shall 5/4" x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 and bull-nosed on 3 sides and
overhang the risers a minimum of 1". Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite
material is acceptable.
3. That the newel posts are added to the bottom of the stairs.
4. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 and have a pyramid cap.
5. That all other details match the attached drawing.
6. Should the rear deck be replaced, all balustrade and handrail details shall match the front
porch and also incorporate the following:
a. The flooring shall be 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the house.
Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite material (recommended) is acceptable.
b. The rear porch balustrade height should not exceed 36".
c. The rear porch skirting should be installed as follows: 1x6 skirt frame with 1x4 vertical
skirt boards with 1" air space installed behind the frame.
d. The stairs do not currently have risers. The new stairs shall comply with the Building
Code (risers will be required at maximum of 7 %" in height).
e. 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. Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite material is acceptable
7. All front and rear porch details shall the attached drawing.
8. All front and rear porch details shall be primed and painted.
Trinidad Jones (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Front railings should be brought out to the edge.
Block attached to the house to attach the railing to the home.
Drawings of the rear porch are needed for review; attachment to structure, staircase
placement, etc.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to 1) approve the front handrails per staff
recommendations, and 2) table rear porch reconstruction for additional details/drawings.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
844 Brook St.—Install siding
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace building's siding
and trim. With the exception of the fish scale detail, the applicant has proposed to replace the
remaining siding. The applicant has proposed the siding replacement in an effort to restore the
building's mitered corners. The building currently has corner boards Evidence of the mitered
corners can be found on the building's upper front corners. The exact date of the existing
corner board installation is unknown.
4)
•
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 13 of 14
The existing siding is in good condition; however, due to the construction and installation
technique involved with restoring the building's mitered corners and bell skirt, the applicant is
requesting full replacement of siding that will match the existing siding profile. The applicant's
request also includes the replacement of rotted trim boards around the front and rear second
floor windows, and to scrape and paint the soffits, fascia, frieze boards, and house.
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.
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—June 24, 2014
Page 14 of 14
Staff Recommendation:
Given the technical conditions with restoring the siding to its original historic character, Staff
recommends the approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
1. That the front siding located on the upper portion extant mitered corners is preserved.
2. That the new siding shall be clear cedar and installed smooth side out.
3. The replacement siding match the existing siding profile in design, dimension and material
4. That any replacement of rotted details be cedar and match the existing trim design and
dimensions.
5. That all other details, such as the repair of rotted trim, work, mitered corners, and paint
follow the applicant's submitted specifications.
Perry& Karen Pollock(owners) were present for tonight's COA discussion:
This is a grant recipient.
Sister house located at 904 Cedar Avenue.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve as submitted with staff
recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
Individual roll call was requested.
The motion passed 3-0-2.
(Yeas: Roxworthy, Roberson &Stroud. Abstain: Savel, Wiedmeyer)
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
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 8:18 p.m.
Respectf Ily submit -d,
Cindy A. den Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary August 12, 2014
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,July 8,2014- 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 13, 2014
2. May 27, 2014
3. June 10, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 153 Hill Ave - (Tabled 6-10-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave—(Tabled 6-24-14)
3. 156 Hill Ave - (Tabled 6-24-14)
F. New Business
1. 463 E. Chicago Ave—Install fence
2. 305 Fulton St— Install garage service door
3. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
4. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St—Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave. —Reconstruct Garage (Tabled 12-10-13)
3. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
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) 931-56161
PROMPTLY TO ALLOW THE CITY OF ELGIN TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THOSE PERSONS.
Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
July 8 , 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:
Rebecca Hunter,John Roberson, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dennis Roxworthy and Pat Segal
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller and Judith Rivera
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
153 Hill Ave—Install windows (Tabled 6-10-14)
109 Hill Ave—Reconstruct garage (Tabled 6-24-14)
156 Hill Ave—Reconstruct rear porch (Tabled 6-24-14)
New Business
463 E Chicago St—Install fence
305 Fulton St—Install garage service door
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve the minutes of May 13, May 27
and June 10, 2014, as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
ITEMS TABLED:
153 Hill Ave—Additional information on repair costs and interior inspection of windows
109 Hill Ave—Additional details for consideration of the overhead garage door, service door
and loft door.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 2 of 11
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table items El, E2 and E3 for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
153 Hill Ave—Install windows (Tabled 6-10-14)
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install
fifteen double-hung pocket replacement windows. On June 3, 2014, Staff conducted a window
inspection. At that time, staff noted that the windows are in repairable condition. While
similar in style (1/1 light), the sash dimensions are varied and the applicant has also confirmed
that several of the existing windows were installed at different times. The window profiles vary
in dimension. The applicant has proposed new windows due to energy efficiency, maintenance
and cost effectiveness. Staff advised the applicant that vinyl windows are not permitted in the
historic district and that wood windows are preferred over aluminum clad wood windows. Staff
has further advised the applicant that the Guidelines permit replacement windows if the cost to
repair windows exceeds the replacement window costs.
The applicant also intends to replace several of the storm windows.
The applicant is seeking concept approval from the Design Review Subcommittee.
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
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 3 of 11
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 would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness if the following
condition is met:
1. That the repair estimates exceed the replacement costs.
*****
Doug Little (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Discussion regarding repairs with storm windows vs. replacement windows. Current storm
windows are triple track; would like to replace with double track.
Various interior window styles.
Need to provide quotes for repairs vs. replacement.
Interior inspection needed to determine condition, if there are ropes or weights present, etc.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to table for additional information and interior
inspection of existing windows.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
109 Hill Ave—Reconstruct garage (Tabled 6-24-14)
Concept approval was granted by the DRSC for this project, however,final approval for this item was
tabled at the June 24, 2014 meeting due to the DRSC's request to review the applicant's architectural
drawings. As of the date of this report submittal, staff had not received the drawings.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a
new garage. The proposed project was initially reviewed by the Design Review Subcommittee
(DRSC) on December 10, 2013 (staff report attached). At that time,the applicant requested
approval for a "Cape Cod" style garage. Upon consideration of the proposed design and review
of the former garage style as well as the house's architecture,the DRSC suggested design
revisions that would further complement the property's historic character. (It was suggested
that the two dormer appearance be modified to a single dropped dormer similar to the original
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 4 of 11
garage dormer. Given the applicant's expressed goals for a 1 1/2 story garage, the DRSC
suggested that the applicant look at garages (including 470 Park St.)throughout the historic
district for additional concept ideas. The applicant agreed to modify his submitted drawing and
to re-submit a drawing for concept approval at a future meeting.
Although the applicant is finalizing building plans with an architect, the attached drawing
reflects the applicant's effort to address the DRSC's design revisions. The most notable changes
are in the cross gable roof line and in the window dimension. The drawing also incorporates
staff's recommendations from the initial concept design.
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 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. Fiber cement
board in a profile to match the existing house siding profile is also acceptable; however, it is
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 5 of 11
recommended that building and window trim details (such as the corner boards) are wood.
(LP Smartside siding is not permitted.)
2. That roof, garage trimwork dimensions and details such as the fascia, soffit, frieze boards,
garage door trim, corner boards, and gutters (half-round) should be added to the drawings.
With the exception of the gutters which should be metal, all other details should be cedar.
3. That the upper story window opening is re-designed to fit one door or double-hung window
rather than the proposed double door/window design.
4. That the garage door window openings/dimensions match the upper story window/door
combination.
5. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations.
Rich Herchberg(owner)and John Hrivnear(architect)were present for tonight's COA
discussion:
Owner has not determined door styles (overhead, service or loft).
Committee members indicated overhead door should not have straps/staple hinges; one row of
windows maximum, handles (if any) should be simple in design; service door with or without
glass window.
Upper banding can be added to the "break up"the monotony of siding. Banding maximum of
10-12" in height. This will allow the top and bottom portion of the carriage house to be
different colors, should the owners choose to do so.
Double hung 1 over 1 windows constructed of either solid wood or wood with aluminum clad
would be allowable. Window caps to be installed.
Service door style has not been confirmed by owner. Will need to install cap to match window
design.
Dormer is replicating the simplest dormer located on the house.
Frieze board should be 1x8 with a lx on top; no 1/4 round; frieze board is not to exceed 10".
Clear cedar siding or horizontal cement siding boards are allowable material for siding.
Alignment will vary slightly around windows. Must align siding with top and low boards of each
window on each side of the structure.
Wood corner boards are required; which will hide the slight inconsistency of the siding
alignment.
Trim around doors and windows should be 5/4; which must set proud from the siding. Pad out
trim (if lx is used for trim) with thin trim board (if necessary).
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 6 of 11
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve the discussed amendments of carriage
house concept; however final style/details must be brought back for consideration of:
1) service/man door, 2) loft door, and 3) overhead garage door.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
156 Hill Ave—Reconstruct rear porch (Tabled 6-24-14)
This item was tabled at the June 24,2014 meeting due to the DRSC's request for a drawing of the
proposed rear porch. The applicant has reviewed the Design Guidelines with staff and submitted a
drawing(city recommended) that will incorporate architectural details to match the front stair handrails.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
reconstruct the rear porch/stoop.The COA has been submitted as a corrective action to
handrails that were recently installed without a permit. New stair treads were also added and
staff has advised the applicant of the Design Guidelines requirements.
The applicant has proposed the installation of handrails for the front and rear porches.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porch Columns and railings111)
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. That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered
edges, installed 2" AFF.
2. That the stair treads shall 5/4" x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 and bull-nosed on 3 sides and
overhang the risers a minimum of 1". Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite
material is acceptable.
3. That the newel posts are added to the bottom of the stairs.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 7 of 11
4. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 and have a pyramid cap.
5. That all other details match the attached drawing.
6. Should the rear deck be replaced, all balustrade and handrail details shall match the front
porch and also incorporate the following:
a. The flooring shall be 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the house.
Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite material (recommended) is
acceptable.
b. The rear porch balustrade height should not exceed 30".
c. The rear porch skirting should be installed as follows: 1x6 skirt frame with 1x4 vertical
skirt boards with 1" air space installed behind the frame.
d. The stairs do not currently have risers.The new stairs shall comply with the Building
Code (risers will be required at maximum of 7 %" in height).
e. 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. Douglas fir, pressure treated wood or composite material is acceptable
7. All front and rear porch details shall be primed and painted.
Trinidad James(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Stairs will run parerall to the house.
Board behind the tall table board needs to be same height as the side of the house.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff comments and the following
amendment: 1)three newel posts.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
463 E Chicago St—Install fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install a 6' solid
wood privacy fence on the east and west sides of the property. The applicant is seeking a
variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that privacy fences should terminate at
the rear corner of a house. Instead, the applicant is seeking approval to extend the privacy
fence to the mid-point building line of the house (at the point where what is believed to be an
addition ends). The applicant's proposal also includes a similar transition of the privacy fence to
the front yard on the west side of the property (gates would be located where the front yard
fence ends at the sidewalk as well as at the east and rear sections of the privacy fence. Please
see attached Plat of Survey).
The request has been proposed due to the applicant's desire for additional privacy given that
the existing building line of the subject building is not parallel to the neighboring east and west
rear property building lines. Sanborn maps indicate that what is assumed to be an addition to
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 8 of 11
the house may likely be original (see Exhibit G). If not original, the addition may have been
constructed shortly after the house was built.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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 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.
K. If applicable to the layout, should have a minimum of corner posts, end posts and gate
posts which are slightly taller than the fence and five to ten inches thick with a cap and
finial. Line posts can be visible and decorative to compliment the main posts or be hidden
behind the picket design. Fences which cross a driveway or walkway should have gate posts.
Gates should be designed to swing onto the private walkway or driveway, not onto the
public sidewalk.
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 Guidelines recommend against extending a fence in the rear yard beyond the rear
corner of the house, given the existing building line characteristics of the neighboring
properties' and subject property, Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted with the
following condition:
1. That the applicant provides the fence style specifications for the proposed 3' and 6' fences.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 9 of 11
Benjamin Eubank (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owner was requesting to install a 6' lattice style fence within the side yard of the property.
Discussion of fence placement and various fence styles occurred.
Fence would need to have corner and gate posts of either 6x6 or 4x4 wrapped, with a cap.
Owner indicated the proposed caps would be similar to the cap on the rear porch newel post.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as follow: 1) 3' lattice fence (horizontal
and vertical boards) or 42" (50%open) picket style fence; 2) 6' fence as proposed in COA; and
3) Gate post and corner posts to be 6x6 or wrapped 4x4 with cap design replicated from back
porch newel post.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
305 Fulton St—Install garage service door
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
replace the property's garage service door. The existing door is a salvaged door. The COA was
submitted to correct a code violation for installing the door without a COA. The property owner
is new to the historic district and has advised Staff that she was unaware of the COA process for
the door installation. The property owner has advised staff that the former door was a plain
flat panel entry door (non-original) and in a state of disrepair. Due to the condition,the
property owner replaced it with the existing door.
The existing door does not meet the Design Guidelines and Staff has advised the property
owner of this. Although Staff has reviewed the Guideline specifications for doors, due to the
costs involved with replacement,the applicant is seeking approval to keep the existing door. In
discussions with the applicant, Staff noted that in addition to the panel design, the decorative
glass is not appropriate. As a compromise, the property owner has proposed replacing the
decorative glass pane/light with a plain glass light. The property owner has also sought other
options for the door and found a door with one light and recessed horizontal panels at Restore.
Staff has advised the applicant that a door which complements the front storm door's (3-
divided light with horizontal recessed panels) would be a preferred option.
The subject property is located on a corner. The property owner has received a COA to install a
fence on the property; however, even with the 3' ft. fence installation, the garage door would
still be visible.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page l0of11
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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:
Given the visibility of the garage service entry door, Staff does not recommend approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Staff would recommend approval if the applicant
replaces the existing door with one that has horizontal recessed panels to complement the
building's front storm door.
Maria Alverez (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
The door that has been installed is white and stands out. The decorate glass in the door does
not fit the style of the house.
Typically the service door would have been a 1/2 lite glass over 2 horizontal panels; or 4
horizontal panels.
Option #1: Door installed can remain with the following conditions:
1) glass need to be changed out to "clear" glass
2) door would need to be painted the same colors of the house details
3) staff must confirm the door opening has not been modified (original door opening
dimension has not been altered)
Option #2: Alternative door to be approved by staff if:
1) door style is a % lite over 2 horizontal panels or door style has 4 horizontal panels
2) door fits the original door opening
3) material (wood or fiberglass) of door is approved by staff
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by "option #1" or "option #2).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
j Design Review Subcommittee—July 8, 2014
Page 11 of 11
r
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respe Ily submitted,
Cindy A. den Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary 0,g7/4/
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,July 22, 2014-6:00 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. 153 Hill Ave.—Install windows (Tabled 7-8-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave. — Install garage doors (Tabled 7-8-14)
3. 437-39 Fulton St— Install windows (tabled 6-24-14)
4. 621 Douglas Ave— Install window (DRSC Approved 5-13-14; project amendment
request to install stained glass window)
5. New Business
1. 507 Raymond St. —Garage demolition
2. 821 Brook St—Install windows
3. 903 Douglas Ave— Remove window opening
6. Other
1. Elgin Historic House Design Review Presentation (Historic Photographs)
7. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St— Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
8. Staff Comments
9. 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.
Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
July 22, 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 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Steve Stroud, Christy Sundquist and John
Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Scott Savel
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
I
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
1. 153 Hill Ave.—Install windows (Tabled 7-8-14)
2. 109 Hill Ave.— Install garage doors (Tabled 7-8-14)
3. 437-39 Fulton St—Install windows (tabled 6-24-14)
4. 621 Douglas Ave—Install window (DRSC Approved 5-13-14; project amendment request to
install stained glass window)
New Business
1. 507 Raymond St. —Garage demolition
2. 821 Brook St—Install windows
3. 903 Douglas Ave—Remove window opening
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS TABLED:
437-439 Fulton St—to provide: 1) repair vs. replacement costs of windows and 2) if replaced,
the details regarding the window style and dimensions
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014 f
Page 2 of 14
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table items E1-E4 for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
153 Hill Ave—Install windows
This item was tabled at the July 8,2014 meeting to obtain a more detailed condition assessment of the windows
proposed for the replacement windows.
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install
fifteen double-hung pocket replacement windows. On June 3, 2014, Staff conducted a window
inspection. At that time, staff noted that the windows are in repairable condition. While
similar in style (1/1 light), the sash dimensions are varied and the applicant has also confirmed
that several of the existing windows were installed at different times. The window profiles vary
in dimension. The applicant has proposed new windows due to energy efficiency, maintenance
and cost effectiveness. Staff advised the applicant that vinyl windows are not permitted in the
historic district and that wood windows are preferred over aluminum clad wood windows. Staff
has further advised the applicant that the Guidelines permit replacement windows if the cost to
repair windows exceeds the replacement window costs.
On July 15, 2014, Commissioners Savel and Wiedmeyer together with Staff conducted a site
inspection. At that time,the applicant modified his initial request from replacing fifteen
windows to fourteen windows. The fourteen windows were inspected and it was determined
that the majority of the windows had been replaced (circa 1970s) and that the windows that
were original to the building would require extensive and costly repair work to the original
pulley/rope mechanisms. As a result, due to the condition of the windows, a desire for window
profile uniformity, and repair costs, the property owner has proposed approval as per the
following:
• Replacement aluminum clad wood sashes for all windows (Double-hung, 1/1). The sash
replacement kits will include new upper and lower sashes, vinyl jamb liners, and
associated hardware.
• The existing storm windows will be removed and not replaced.
•
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
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 3 of 14
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 COA and with the following conditions:
1. Window glass may not contain tint.
2. Replacement sash must fit the existing window openings.
Doug Little(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Aluminum clad wood windows for symmetry of the house. Fifteen (15)windows would be
replaced. All 1st floor windows are replacement. Upper windows were trimmed down. Sash
liner are really tight; stops are missing.
Commission likes to see the cost to repair original windows vs. repair; however symmetry
would not be provided if repairs only were to be completed.
Replacement windows would need to have specific details for sashes and meeting rails. Should
be 2-2 %" top and side sashes; 1-1 X" meeting rail; and 3-3 %" bottom sash.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve with staff comments and amended
by committee as follows: 1) 2-2%"top and side sashes; 2) 1-1 1/4" meeting rail; and 3) 3-3 'A"
bottom sash.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 4 of 14
1
109 Hill Ave—Install garage door
On July 8, 2014, COA approval was granted by the DRSC for all details of this project with the
exception of the garage doors(overhead, loft, and service doors). Approval for the doors project was
tabled until the applicant submitted specifications for review. The applicant has submitted the
attached specifications for the doors.
The applicant has submitted garage door specifications for an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to construct a new garage/carriage house. The attached specifications reflect
the applicant's effort to address the DRSC's design suggestions. With regard to the overhead
garage door,the applicant gathered several ideas; however, to further complement the hay loft
door (drawing attached), he has proposed garage doors#6 and #8. The applicant has also
stated that he will install a Queen Anne Style Service door—1/2 lite with 2 vertical recessed
panels.
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
hipped roof etc. 4)
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
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 5of14
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 recommends approval of the COA a submitted and with the following condition:
1. That the applicant's selected overhead garage door as approved by the DRSC does not
have straps.
*****
Rich Hirshberg(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Loft door has been reduced to 4'x6'.
Overhead door with recessed panels or plain door with molding attached to appear to be
recessed. Prefer to use door#7, 9 or 10 as shown in attachment provided in packet.
Style rail across the loft door, similar to the style of the overhead door.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve per staff comments with the
following committee amendments: 1) Garage door style#7, 9 or 10 without straps; 2) loft doors
to have style railing; and 3) elongated windows.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
437-439 Fulton St—Install windows
This item was tabled at the June 24,2014 DRSC meeting due to lack of property owner representation.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all of the windows (31)
on the building.
Staff first conducted a site inspection in 2012. At that time, Staff assessed the window condition
and determined that several of the first floor windows were repairable. The second story
windows were more deteriorated and although not beyond repair, were in fair to poor
condition. At that time, Staff advised the applicant that window estimates for the repair and
replacement windows should be submitted. Estimates were not submitted. Since that time,the
applicant has requested re-submitted a COA to replace the windows. To maintain the overall
consistency of the windows,the applicant has requested approval to replace all of the existing
windows. On June 13, 2014, Staff conducted another condition assessment of the second floor
windows. The windows are in varying stages of disrepair and in fair to poor condition. Staff has
advised the applicant that estimates need to be submitted.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 6 of 14
Additionally, a COA was previously approved for the applicant's newly constructed garage.
There are concerns pertaining to the project's incorporation of the COA specifications. Staff has
advised the applicant that corrective actions may be required.
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:
Based upon the recent site inspection and the deteriorated condition of the windows, Staff
would recommend approval for window replacement of the second story windows. Should the
DRSC concur that the overall consistency of the window profiles would be best served by the
replacement of all of the windows, then staff would recommend approval for the first floor
windows with the condition that the windows specifications be submitted. At this time,
however, staff is unable to fully recommend the replacement without the applicant's submittal
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 7 of 14
of the project repair/replacement cost estimates.
Rosa Torres (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Ms. Torres brought additional photos for review by committee. From the photos, many of the
windows need new glass.
Committee needs to see estimates for repair vs. replacement. Scrapping, painting and caulking
with the new glass may be sufficient.
If a replacement window if to be proposed they would need to be either solid wood or wood
with exterior clad material. Details to include for review would be the manufacture and style.
Brochure submittal would be helpful, since it would also provide sash dimensions (to[p/side,
meeting rail and bottom sash) in addition to how the joints of the window are constructed.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table item for additional details to be
submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed 5-0-1
Abstain: Wiedmeyer.
621 Douglas Ave—Install window
On May 13, 2014,the Design Review Subcommittee approved the applicant's request to
replace the building's windows. At the meeting, upon review of the condition of the building's
windows, the DRSC approved the applicant's request to replace the building's double-hung
wood windows with aluminum clad wood windows and to replace the arched window sash in a
manner that would mimic the window sash of the building's original wood double-hung
windows and be installed as follows: wood sash with 2%"wide top stile with an arched reveal,
2%" wide side stiles, 3 ''A" -31/2" bottom rail. Given the arch style of the window opening,
during the discussion, there was thought that perhaps at one time, stained glass may have been
installed.
Since that time, the applicant has submitted an amendment to the original COA request and is
requesting approval to install a stained glass window to fit the existing arched window opening.
The applicant has submitted two window design concepts (drawings attached).
On July 18, 2014, while conducting a site inspection, staff observed details pertaining to a
previous COA that was issued for the front porch rehabilitation (5-13-14) that do not follow the
COA specifications:treads are not bull-nosed and the chamfering of the posts did not end at the
point where the handrails begin. Due to the permanence of the chamfered post design, DRSC
approval is also requested for to keep the chamfered posts as is.
it
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 8 of 14
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications(as applicable):
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.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the full chamfered posts and also for the stained glass window
Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition:
1. Due to its simplicity and the style of the building,that Design B is installed.
Matt Kovacs (representative for property owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Lead or stain glass would be installed. Plain glass was previously approved on 05/13/14.
New glass should be installed with framing trim to allow for cleaning. Requiring 2 '4" at top,
sides and bottom stops.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as staff comments as amended by
committee: 1) style A or B; 2) lead or stain glass with framing (2 %" at top, sides and bottom).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 9 of 14
NEW BUSINESS:
507 Raymond St—Garage demolition and new construction
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
demolish the property's existing garage. The garage in in a state of disrepair and the applicant
has proposed demolition due to safety concerns.The applicant is also seeking approval for a
proposed replacement garage (required by City Code).
The applicant has submitted a drawing for approval. The applicant has proposed a simple
garage design similar to the existing garage.
The applicant's initial drawing featured siding that was installed horizontally; however,the
materials specifications did not meet the Design Guidelines. The applicant's final submitted
drawing incorporates materials that would meet the guidelines; however,the siding application
was revised from a horizontal installation to vertical. Staff has advised the applicant that the
cement fiber board siding should be installed on a horizontal, rather than vertical line.
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
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
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014 i
Page 10 of 14
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 recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
1. That the siding in the garage drawing be installed horizontally rather than vertically.
2. That the cement fiber board siding surface is smooth with a 6-inch exposure.
3. That wood (not fiber cement) 4" corner boards be added and that the siding is installed
so that the corner boards stand proud of the siding.
Dan Gilman (Crosstown Property Management) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Existing garage to be replaced due to safety concerns. New construction would be done on the
existing foundation.
Committee comments: Fiber cement board siding must be with horizontal lines, smooth
exposure of siding, corner boards and roof pitch details needed.
Per Mr. Gilman the house has aluminum soffit, vinyl windows and vinyl siding. The garage is
almost non-visible from the street.
Various committee comments: Exposed cement board to be smooth. Roof pitch to be 6/12.
Architectural shingles preferred. No crown molding. Overhead door with panels (with or
without single row of windows). Service door to be a 4 panel (steel or fiberglass). Round door
knob. Trim of door, overhead door and windows to be 1x4 flat stock, sitting proud of siding.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff comments and the
following committee amendments: 1) roof pitch 6/12; 2) all corner and trim boards to be proud
of the siding; 3) staff to provide final approval of service and overhead door style.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
821 Brook St—Install window
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install aluminum clad wood
windows to replace three first floor windows located on the north and east elevations of the
house (please see applicant's attached project description which identifies the impacted 41)
windows). Previously, the DRSC approved the applicant's request to reduce the window
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 11 of 14
opening and to remove one of the two existing windows; however, since the time of the
request, the applicant has re-evaluated the project. Due to aesthetics and the window framing,
rather than using the existing window, the applicant has proposed the installation of an
aluminum clad wood window that would simulate the existing window's profile. The proposed
window replacement is for the window. To further ensure the uniformity of the kitchen
windows, the applicant is seeking approval to replace two rear facing windows (east elevation).
The side (north) elevation window has limited visibility from the public right-of-way; however,
staff does not believe that the proposed request will pose a significant compromise to the
building's historic integrity. The rear (east) elevation windows are not visible from the public
right-of-way.
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—July 22, 2014
Page 12 of 14
411)
Staff Recommendation
Although the guidelines recommend repair over replacement, given the applicant's interior
rehabilitation project details and the concerns for uniformity as well as the limited visibility of
the windows, Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following
conditions:
1. That the windows are double-hung aluminum clad wood windows to match the window
light pattern (6/6) and sash dimensions of the existing windows.
2. That the window glass does not contain any window tint.
3. That the muntins are true divided lights and installed on both sides of the glass.
Jim Stendler (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
North elevation window to be center the existing opening. Both back windows to be replaced
too; neither window is visible from the street.
Window style of 6 over 6; wood or wood with aluminum clad exterior.
Trim the exterior of the window should be trimmed out same as the other lower level windows
(wood style, sill).
Back windows are okay to be replaced too, to work with the interior design.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff comments and the
following amendments by commit: true divided lights or double sided (in/out)trim in wood or
wood with aluminum clad.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
903 Douglas Ave—Reduce window opening
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to reduce the window opening
located on the north (side) elevation of the house. The subject window is a kitchen window and
the applicant has proposed the reduction in the window opening height to further
accommodate the kitchen interior renovations. The existing window opening contains three
casement windows that are not original to the building. The applicant has proposed reducing
the window opening so that the bottom of the window is parallel to the window line of the
building's addition (see photo); however, the applicant is still considering the actual dimensions
needed. The proposed window opening is not visible from the public right-of-way.
The applicant will submit the replacement window specifications for the DRSC's review at the
July 22, 2014 meeting. 111)
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 13 of 14
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications (as applicable):
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.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted and with the following condition:
1. That the proposed replacement window is wood or aluminum clad wood and is
submitted for review and approval by the DRSC, or if directed by the DRSC, by staff.
Jeff and Kim Pelletier(owners) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Interior modification to the kitchen is why the window height needs to be reduced. Area to be
eliminated is approximately 6' wide and 16-18" high. The window trim will be parallel with the
existing two windows of the adjacent porch.
The existing crank out window is not typical and customary for a historical home.
Historic museum may have original construction plan and window details.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to approve with staff comments and
amended by committee as follows: 1) siding to match existing (profile and smooth); and 2)
need material to be weaved in.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
Design Review Subcommittee—July 22, 2014
Page 14 of 14
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy A. alden Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary 3, //
4)
4)
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, August 12, 2014- 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 24, 2014
2.July 8, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 437-39 Fulton St—Install windows (Tabled 07-22-14)
2. 903 Douglas Ave—Remove window opening (Tabled 07-22-14)
F. New Business
1. 33 River Bluff Rd. —Remove front portico and install window shutters
G. Other
H. Tabled Items
1. 398 Bent St—Reconstruct Garage; Install House Addition (Tabled 03-25-14)
2. 559 Wellington Ave. —Reconstruct front porch (Tabled 12-10-13)
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
August 12, 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 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Stroud.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter,John Roberson (6:20), Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Steve Stroud, Christen
Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
437-439 Fulton St—Install windows (Tabled 07-22-14)
903 Douglas Ave—Remove window opening (Tabled 07-22-14)
New Business
33 River Bluff Rd—Remove front portico and install window shutters
559 Wellington Ave - Reconstruct front porch
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the amended minutes of June 24,
2014 (page 3—"1x6"), and July 8, 2014 (pg 5—"trim (if lx is used for trim)and pg 9—"6' fence
per COA request".
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
ITEMS TABLED:
559 Wellington Ave—Due to non-representation
Design Review Subcommittee—August 12, 2014
Page 2 of 4
OLD BUSINESS:
Due to non-representation,the items E-1 & E2 remained tabled.
NEW BUSINESS:
33 River Bluff Rd
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to remove the subject
building's front portico and to install window shutters.
The applicant began efforts to remove the front porch entry in August 2013 without a COA. As a
corrective action, the applicant has filed a COA. The applicant has requested permission to
remove the portico completely. This request is based upon a 1950 photograph that the
applicant discovered in the book, Modern Elgin, which shows the house without a portico.
The city's historic district survey of the property places the construction date of the property as
1938. The applicant has also requested approval to install window shutters. The house had
shutters that were removed by the applicant.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porches
A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. 4)
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 facade, 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.
Porch Column 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.
Shutters
A. should be preserved and maintained, if original.
B. should be of louvered or paneled wood construction and the shutters should fit the window
opening so that if closed they would cover the window opening.
C. should not be added unless there is physical or photographic evidence that the dwelling
originally had them.
Design Review Subcommittee—August 12, 2014
Page 3 of 4
D. should not be of vinyl or aluminum construction. These shutters generally have dimensions
or textures which are not compatible with historic dwellings.
Staff Recommendation:
Although the front portico is a common element of the Colonial Revival architectural style and
several such examples can be found throughout the city,there are subtypes of the style that do
not have the front portico. Given the applicant's submitted 1950 documentation, Staff
recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following conditions:
1. That the shutters are of louvered wood construction.
2. That the height of the shutters matches the height of the window opening.
3. That the shutter dimensions fit the window opening so that if closed,the shutters cover the
window opening.
Dan and Michelle(owners) were present for tonight's COA discussion:
As mentioned in staff's report,the portico was non-existing in the 1950's photo; and
restoration to the house would be preferred without the portico.
The photo also indicated shutters on the front & driveway (north &west) side of the home.
Shutters would be installed on the original structure, but not the addition. No shutters are
proposed on the south or east elevation.
Homeowners asked for general information regarding a storm door to be installed, if the
portico was permitted to be removed. A brief discussion occurred. The request will need to be
submitted for consideration by staff and/or committee, depending upon design.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted per staff recommendation
with the following conditions: 1) 5 sets of shutters to be installed on the front of the house;
and 2) removal of the portico.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
559 Wellington Ave - Reconstruction Front Porch
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—August 12, 2014
Page 4 of 4
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.
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to table item due to non-representation by
homeowner or contractor.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Thank you to Chairman Steve Stroud for his many years of service to Elgin's Historic
Preservation. Tonight was Mr. Stroud's last night of on the committee.
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy A. a den Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary September 9, 2014
4)
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,August 26, 2014- 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 22, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
F. New Business
1. 421 Douglas Ave. - Install rear stairs
2. 600 Margaret PI. — Install front stairs and handrails
3. 398 Bent St. —Install porch overhang, reconstruct side porch overhang; install windows
(second story); demolish and rebuild rear addition
4. 566 Park St.— Install Front Doors
5. 166 Seneca St.—Install windows
G. Other
1. DRSC Election of Officers: Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
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
August 26, 2014
Minutes
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 staff(Amy Munro).
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel and John
Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Christen Sundquist
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON and VICE CHAIRPERSON:
Scott Savel nominated John Wiedmeyer to be Chairperson of the Design Review Subcommittee.
The motion was seconded by Bill Ristow.
The nomination was accepted by John Wiedmeyer.
The passed unanimously (Wiedmeyer abstained).
r
Rebecca Hunter nominated John Roberson as Vice-Chairperson of the Design Review
Subcommittee.
The motion was seconded by Dennis Roxwothy.
The nomination was accepted by John Roberson.
The passed unanimously (Roberson abstained).
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
None
New Business
421 Douglas Ave. - Install rear stairs
600 Margaret Pl. —Install front stairs and handrails
398 Bent St. — Install porch overhang, reconstruct side porch overhang; install windows
(lik
(second story); demolish and rebuild rear addition
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 2 of 14
566 Park St.—Install Front Doors
166 Seneca St. —Install windows
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS TABLED:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
421 Douglas Ave. -Install rear stairs
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the rear stairs
located on the east elevation (south entrance) on her house and to install a handrail. The
concrete stairs are in poor condition and are not Building Code compliant. The property owner
has requested approval to install a stair railing to match the front handrail details exactly(COA
approved for front handrails on October 25, 2011). The property owner's intent is to rebuild
the stairs over the existing concrete stairs.
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 request as submitted and with the following conditions:
1. The stair handrail details shall match the front railings exactly(specifications
attached).
2. The newel post shall not exceed 36" and shall be installed on the bottom stair tread.
3. The stairs shall be installed as follows:
The stair tread shall be wood (or composite material) and constructed in 5/4 x 12
(recommended) or 2 x 12 lumber. The treads shall be bull-nosed with a 1" overhang
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 3 of 14
r on three sides, min. 10" wide, and the stair risers shall be a maximum of 7 3/" in
height.
4. The skirt frame shall be 1 x 6 with a 1 x 4 lower board.
5. The skirting board shall be 1 x 4 and installed behind the frame, 1" spacing.
6. All project details shall be primed and painted.
Anastacia Rios(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
The two sets of stairs are on the back of the house.
Skirting will be installed to "hide"the concrete; which could be painted black to "disappear"
behind the skirting.
Committee noted that should homeowners wanted to install a landing (which would allow for a
step out), the drawing could be modified with staff's approval.
Additional newel post is needed at the top of the steps. Need to have molding under the cap
and top rail.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve per staff comments and the
following committee amendment: landing could be installed if desired by homeowner with
staff approval.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
rk
600 Margaret PI.—Install front stairs and handrails
The applicants have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to rehabilitate the front
porch. The project will include reconstructing the stairs, installing a new porch balustrade
design, replacing the flooring, installing handrails, and replacing the porch skirting. Although
the porch does not currently possess handrails, to comply with the Building Code, the
installation of handrails is required. To accommodate the Code requirements, the applicant has
provided a stick style design based upon the house's interior stair balustrade (photo attached).
The applicant has also advised staff that due to the retention of several, but not all of the
existing decorative skirting boards,the proposed replacement skirting boards shall match the
existing skirting boards.
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
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 4 of 14
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.
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:
1. That the porch balustrade height does not exceed 30".
2. That the newel posts shall not exceed 36" in height (rather than 42" as pictured).
3. That beadwork to match the interior spindle details shall be an optional feature.
4. That the spindle spacing meets Building Code requirements.
1
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 5 of 14
r 5. That the porch flooring is 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the
front of the house (as per the existing configuration).
6. That the stair treads shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 lumber,
that the treads overhang the risers and stringer by 1" with bull-nose on three sides.
7. All other details shall match the drawing.
8. The porch shall be primed and painted.
Cheryl Kuta (owner) and Bill Bisbikis (contractor) were present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owner would prefer not to install handrail. Building code regulates requirements for railing and
handrail height.
An option from senior staff to eliminate the need for handrail is to install a concrete landing
and to have only three steps.
A new skirting design was presented by applicant just prior to the meeting.
Skirting to be horizontal boards.
Railing and handrail needs to tie into the post. Handrail should have the bead/bevel, but not
required on the balusters. Handrail "ladder" design should remain parallel to the ground.
Newel post should be a square design with cap and ball.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve per staff comments and the
following amendments: 1) skirting with horizontal boards, 2) square newel post with cap and
ball, 3) "laddering" of handrail parallel to grade, and 4) bead/bevel on railing top rail.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion failed 0-4-2.
Abstain: Hunter and Ristow.
Appeal process was explained to the applicant by staff.
398 Bent St. —Install porch overhang, reconstruct side porch overhang; install windows
(second story); demolish and rebuild rear addition
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness request to install a front porch
overhang, reconstruct the side porch overhang, and replace two front windows and one
bathroom window (all windows are located on the second floor).
Front Porch Handrail (south elevation, west entrance): new handrail.
Front Porch Overhang (south elevation, east entrance): Due to roof slope issues, the applicant
has advised staff that water run-off has presented issues especially during the winter with ice.
To address the water issues,the applicant is seeking DRSC approval to install a roof overhang.
Staff has recommended that the roof overhang design be similar to the other roof overhang
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 6 of 14
design. The applicant is also seeking approval to install new porch posts, balustrade, and stairs.
The existing concrete stairs will remain.
Side Porch Overhang(east elevation): The existing overhang is in poor condition. The applicant
is seeking approval to replace the existing overhang with an exact replica. The applicant is also
seeking approval to install new porch posts and balustrade. The existing concrete stairs and
porch floor will remain.
Windows: The existing windows proposed for replacement are in fair to poor condition. The
applicant is seeking approval to install 1/1 double-hung, aluminum clad wood windows to
match the aluminum clad windows that were approved by the DRSC in 2005 (located on the
second floor). In 2005,the DRSC approved the installation of the seven aluminum clad wood
windows located on the building's side elevations. The applicant has replaced one of the seven
windows. At the time of staffs 2005 report,the Design Guidelines only permitted the
installation of aluminum clad wood windows at the rear or sides of dwellings which were not
readily visible from the street. The 2008 update to the Design Guidelines permits the
installation of aluminum clad wood windows throughout the structure. On August 15, 2014,
staff inspected the windows. Given the nine-year passage of time from the DRSC's initial
review, the front elevation windows exhibited significant deterioration. The front windows
appeared to be in fair to poor condition. The bathroom window is in fair condition; however,
based upon the design, it is a later replacement window and does not complement the
building's historic character. (It should also be noted that the bathroom window was approved
for replacement in 2005.)
Rear addition demolition/reconstruction:The applicant has advised staff the construction the
addition allows water to enter into the building which has contributed to significant water
seepage and ice issues. The applicant has requested permission to re-build the addition with
same floor layout but different roof line. The applicant has also requested approval to install
stairs to the addition.
Additionally, upon staff's August 15, 2014 site inspection, satellite dishes located on the front of
the building were observed. The extant satellite dishes are in violation of the Design Guidelines
and will need to be located to the rear of the property or in a location with that is not readily
visible from the public-right-of-way.
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
A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing.
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 7 of 14
rB. 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
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.
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 5/4x12 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.
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 8 of 14
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
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.
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—August 26, 2014
Page 9 of 14
r 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.
Staff Recommendation:
On August 25, 2014, the applicant submitted drawings for the front and side porch roof
overhang details, stairs, handrails and mudroom addition.
Staff would recommend approval for each COA request as follows and with the following
conditions:
Front/Side/Rear Porch Handrails:
1. The handrail shall have a minimum 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, %" cove. That the
bottom rail is a minimum 2x4 with chamfered edges, installed 2" AFF.
2. That the balusters (spindles) are turned to match attached specifications and installed
with a maximum of 2-2.5" of air space (not on-center) in between each baluster.
3. That the balustrade is installed 2" above finished floor and shall not exceed 30" in
r height.
4. That the upper newel post located at the front door as drawn is omitted.
5. That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height.
6. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts with 5-6" ball caps.
7. That the newel posts are placed on the bottom stair tread.
8. All other details to match drawing.
9. All stoop details shall be primed and painted.
Rear/Mud Room Addition:
1. The siding shall match the profile of the building's original siding clapboard siding in
dimension and material. Final siding dimensions shall be approved by staff prior to
installation.
2. That the windows are aluminum double-hung 1/1 windows to match the profile of the
subject COA's replacement windows.
3. That the porch flooring is 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the
house.
4. That the stair treads shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 lumber,
that the treads overhang the risers and stringer by 1" with bull-nose on three sides.
5. The handrail shall have a minimum 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, %" cove. That the
bottom rail is a minimum 2x4 with chamfered edges, installed 2" AFF.
6. That the balusters (spindles) are turned to match attached specifications and installed
with a maximum of 2-2.5" of air space (not on-center) in between each baluster.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 10 of 14
7. That the balustrade is installed 2" above finished floor and shall not exceed 30" in I
height.
8. That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height.
9. That the newel posts located at the door entry as drawn are omitted.
10. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts with 5-6" ball caps.
11. That the newel posts are located on the bottom stair tread.
12. All other details shall match the drawing.
13. All stoop details shall be primed and painted.
Roof Overhang Details:
1. The roof shingles shall match the building's existing shingle color. The soffit and fascia
may not be clad with aluminum.
2. All other details to match drawing.
Windows:
1. That the proposed aluminum clad wood replacement windows fit the existing opening,
are as close of a match as possible to the original windows in size, design, shape and
profile. The applicant shall provide the manufacturer specifications for staff approval.
The three replacement windows shall 1/1, double-hung aluminum clad windows that fit
the existing openings and should have dimensions which are as close as possible to the
following:
a. Top of upper sash and side stiles upper and lower sashes shall be 2-2 1/4".
b. Bottom of lower sash shall be 3-3 1/2".
c. Meeting rail shall be 1-1/4".
2. The windows may be double-pane, low-E glass, but may not contain tint.
Leobardo Rodriquez (owner) and Javier Alfaro were present for tonight's COA discussion:
Front of house:
Cements stairs will remain and handrails will be installed for both front porches.
Windows:
Front windows and bathroom window are not in good condition. Sills are very bad. The DRSC
previously approved other replacement windows on the house as wood with aluminum clad.
These windows would also be wood with aluminum clad for uniformity.
Rear of house:
Mud room is not built on a slab, it has a foundation wall.
South upper window would be eliminated. Staff will need to find out if Building Code requires
the window for ventilation or light requirements.
Rear porch roof is metal. Porch ceiling should be bead board and perpendicular to the house
with a bed molding.
Motion#1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve as the three windows (two front and
bathroom) as submitted. t
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 11 of 14
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion#2 made by Committee Member Savel to approve concept of mud room replacement
and porch constructions.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
566 Park St.—Install Front Doors
The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace
the property's front door located on the south elevation, east entrance. (There are two front
entrances. The west entry door will be repaired.) The COA was submitted to correct a code
violation for installing the door without a COA. The property owner advised Staff that the door
was replaced without a COA due its deteriorated condition and also the applicant was unaware
that a COA needed to be filed. (The building also has windows that have been covered with
boards and were also in violation of the Code. As a corrective action, the applicant submitted a
COA application and received administrative approval to remove the boards and to repair the
windows.)
The 2008 survey photo shows that the original door was a Queen Anne style door with one
horizontal recessed panel above two vertical recessed panels. Due to the existing door's steel
material and decorative glass, the door does not meet the Design Guidelines requirements and
Staff has advised the applicant of this. Staff has reviewed an appropriate door style with the
applicant, and has requested that the applicant provide the manufacturer specifications for
approval. On Friday,August 22, 2014, a property owner representative showed staff a photo
which proposes a Queen Anne Style, solid core fiberglass replacement door with two recessed
panels.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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 are
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.
r
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 12 of 14
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 if one of the following two conditions is met:
1. That the new front door is a wood or solid-core, smooth fiberglass Queen Anne style
with a % light (non-decorative glass) with two vertical recessed panels; or
2. That the new front door is a wood or solid-core, smooth fiberglass Queen Anne style
with a % light (non-decorative glass) with a horizontal recessed panel above the two
vertical recessed panels to match the former door.
Carmelo Morales(representative/home owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Door that was installed is steel with decorate glass. Steel is not in the guidelines for a front
door material. Clear glass should be used.
Door should fit the original opening. Fiberglass doors give more depth to the details.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as follows: 1) smooth fiberglass door
with 1/2 lite and two lower vertical panels, and 2) must fit original door opening.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
166 Seneca St.—Install windows
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness two double-hung(1/1)wood
windows with two double-hung (1/1) aluminum clad wood window units to match the existing
windows in size, design, and dimension and to repair twenty-two windows located on the
house and garage. The proposed replacement windows are for windows located on the front
elevation, second story. This project is administered through Kane County's Office of
Community Reinvestment's Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program, a joint partnership
among Kane County,the City of Elgin, and the City of Aurora.
On August 15, 2014, Staff inspected the windows identified in the COA request. At that time,
staff determined that all but two of the building's windows were in repairable condition. The
two subject replacement windows are in a state of disrepair. The attached window inspections
show a window profile with an arched exterior casing; however, Staff has confirmed with Kane
County that the window casing will be flat.
' Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 13 of 14
r 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
rtheir 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:
The Subcommittee has authorized staff to provide administrative approval on a case by
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:
2. That the two proposed aluminum clad wood replacement windows fit the existing
openings and are as close of a match as possible to the original windows in size, design,
shape and profile. The two replacement windows shall 1/1, double-hung aluminum clad
windows that fit the existing openings and should have dimensions which are as close as
possible to the following:
a. Top of upper sash and side stiles upper and lower sashes shall be 2-2 'A".
b. Bottom of lower sash shall be 3-3 1/2".
Design Review Subcommittee—August 26, 2014
Page 14 of 14
c. Meeting rail shall be 1-1/4".
The windows may be double-pane, low-E glass, but may not contain tint.
Staff was representive for tonight's COA discussion:
Total of 22 are to be repaired with jamb liners. Only two upper window to be replaced.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve per staff comments and the
following amendment: Window opening should not be reduced more than %" on each side.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Savel.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitte
Cindy ' den Approved:
Design • ew Subcommittee Secretary October 14, 2014
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, September 9, 2014- 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 22, 2014
2. August 12, 2014
3. August 26, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 398 Bent St. —Install porch overhang, reconstruct side porch overhang; install windows
(second story); demolish and rebuild rear addition (Tabled 8-26-14)
2. New Business
1. 164 N. Channing St.—Install fence
2. 432 Sherman Ave. —Install front stoop
F. Other
G. Tabled Items
H. Staff Comments
I. 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
September 9, 2014
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS PRESENT: :
Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow,John Roberson (6:12), Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Christen
Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN:
Reminder to committee members, staff and audience members to keep discussion during
reviews to one person at a time, to ensure details are heard by all. Audience need to be
acknowledged, prior to speaking regarding items for discussion.
Note: Committee member Ristow provided a copy of Roberts Rules of Order to those present.
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
398 Bent St
New Business
164 N Channing St—Install fence
432 Sherman Ave—Install front stoop
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of July 22 and August 26 require additional information and will be brought back to the
commission on September 23rd
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of August 12, 2014, as
submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
r
ITEMS TABLED:
432 Sherman Ave; due to non-representation
Design Review Subcommittee—September 9, 2014
Page 2 of 9
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to un-table item El for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
309 Bent Street—
This item was tabled on August 26, 2014 due to the DRSC's request for detailed drawings pertaining to
the roof overhang(material:shingles or flat roof), rear demolition/reconstruction specifications(such as
windows,frieze board, and siding specifications). The applicant submitted revised drawings on
September 3,2014.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness request to install a front porch
overhang, reconstruct the side porch overhang, and replace two front windows and one
bathroom window(all windows are located on the second floor). The replacement windows
were approved by the Design Review Subcommittee on August 26, 2014.
Front Porch Handrail (south elevation, west entrance): new handrails.
Front Porch Overhang (south elevation, east entrance): Due to roof slope issues,the applicant
has advised staff that water run-off has presented issues especially during the winter with ice.
To address the water issues,the applicant is seeking DRSC approval to install a roof overhang.
Staff has recommended that the roof overhang design be similar to the other roof overhang
design. The applicant is also seeking approval to install new porch posts, balustrade, and stairs.
The existing concrete stairs will remain.
Side Porch Overhang(east elevation): The existing overhang is in poor condition.The applicant
is seeking approval to replace the existing overhang with an exact replica. The applicant is also
seeking approval to install new porch posts and balustrade.The existing concrete stairs and
porch floor will remain.
Rear addition demolition/reconstruction:The applicant has advised staff the construction the
addition allows water to enter into the building which has contributed to significant water
seepage and ice issues. The applicant has requested permission to re-build the addition with
same floor layout but different roof line. The applicant has also requested approval to install
stairs to the addition.
Additionally, upon staff's August 15, 2014 site inspection, satellite dishes located on the front of
the building were observed. The extant satellite dishes are in violation of the Design Guidelines
and will need to be located to the rear of the property or in a location with that is not readily
visible from the public-right-of-way.
Design Review Subcommittee— September 9, 2014
Page 3 of 9
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
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.
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.
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—September 9, 2014
Page 4 of 9
D. should have newel posts and balusters,treads and risers,to match original porch
construction.
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
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 9, 2014
Page 5 of 9
'' 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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff would recommend approval for each COA request as follows and with the following
conditions:
Front/Side/Rear Porch Handrails:
1. The handrail shall have a minimum 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, 3/" cove. That the
bottom rail is a minimum 2x4 with chamfered edges, installed 2" AFF.
2. That the balusters (spindles) are turned to match attached specifications and installed
with a maximum of 2-2.5" of air space (not on-center) in between each baluster.
3. That the balustrade is installed 2" above finished floor and shall not exceed 30" in
height.
4. That the top rail shall terminate in the square base of the column, not the turned
portion.
5. That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height.
6. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts with 5-6" ball caps.
7. That the newel posts are placed on the bottom stair tread.
8. All other details to match drawing.
9. All stoop details shall be primed and painted.
Rear/Mud Room Demolition/Reconstruction:
1. The siding shall match the profile of the building's original siding clapboard siding in
dimension and material. Final siding dimensions shall be approved by staff prior to
installation.
2. That the windows are aluminum double-hung 1/1 windows to match the profile of the
subject COA's replacement windows.
3. That the porch flooring is 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the
house.
4. That the stair treads shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 lumber,
that the treads overhang the risers and stringer by 1" with bull-nose on three sides.
5. The handrail shall have a minimum 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, 3/" cove. That the
eh' bottom rail is a minimum 2x4 with chamfered edges, installed 2" AFF.
6. That the balusters (spindles) are turned to match attached specifications and installed
with a maximum of 2-2.5" of air space (not on-center) in between each baluster.
Design Review Subcommittee— September 9, 2014
Page 6 of 9
7. That the balustrade is installed 2" above finished floor and shall not exceed 30" in
height.
8. That the newel posts are no more than 36" in height.
9. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 posts with 5-6" ball caps.
10. That the newel posts are located on the bottom stair tread.
11. That the proposed new aluminum clad wood windows shall be as close of a match as
possible to the building's original windows in size, design, shape and profile. The four
new windows shall be 1/1, double-hung aluminum clad windows and should have sash
dimensions which are as close as possible to the following:
a. Top rail of top sash and side stiles shall be 2-21/4".
b. Bottom rail of lower sash shall be 3-3 1/2".
c. Meeting rail shall be 1-1/4".
2. The windows may be double-pane, low-E glass, but may not contain tint.
12. All other details shall match the drawing.
13. All stoop details shall be primed and painted.
Roof Overhang Details:
1. The roof shingles shall be architectural shingles. The soffit and fascia may not be clad
with aluminum.
2. All other details to match drawing.
The front satellite dishes must be re-located.
Javier Elfaro(architect)and Leobardo Rodriquez(owner) was present for tonight's COA
discussion:
Rear door specifications were not shown on the drawings. Committee recommended the door
be constructed of smooth fiberglass with % lite and panels in a Queen Anne style.
Railing profile details is not provided. Chamfered top rail (4.5-5" width)with cove moulding.
Spindles shown on revised page A-3 are to be true 21/2" spindles. Spacing between each spindle
to equal to the width of the spindle. Spindle length will need to take into account of having 4"
above and 4" below the turned section of each spindle.
Skirting of the porches need to be framed out proud of the 1x4 skirting boards. Top board,
board covering the pier, and board closest to the house to 1x6. Lower frame board to should
by only 1x4. Framing must set proud of the skirting boards. Spacing of 1" between the 1x4
skirting boards.
Covered porch ceiling to be 1x4 tongue and grooved bead board.
Decking of the uncovered (open to the element) porch at the back of the structure can be made
of composite material for durability. Decking should be perpendicular to the building.
Open
'' Design Review Subcommittee— September 9, 2014
Page 7 of 9
'' Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff comments; and amended by
the committee as follows: 1) Rear door 1/2 lite with 2 vertical panels, 2) Decking on open porch
(rear of structure) to be 1x4 tongue and grove composite material or 5/4 x4 or 5/4x6 treated or
cedar lumber, which is to be installed perpendicular to the house, 3) Turned spindle to have 4"
square length above and below the turned portion of the baluster, 4) Spacing of baluster the
width of the baluster, 5) porch skirting to be 1x4 with framing of 1x6 except lower board of 1x4,
and 6) final hand rail details to be approved by staff.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
164 N. Channing St—Install Fence
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to install a 6' solid
wood privacy fence on the south and west sides of the property. The applicant is seeking a
variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that privacy fences should terminate at
the rear corner of a house. Instead,the applicant is seeking approval to extend the privacy
fence close to the mid-point building line of the house. (Please see attached Plat of Survey).
The request has been proposed due to the applicant's desire for additional privacy as the
privacy fence would terminate at the corner of the rear enclosed porch. The applicant has
proposed a solid wood fence with a lattice header.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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.
Design Review Subcommittee— September 9, 2014
Page 8 of 9
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:
Staff would recommend approval if the following conditions are met:
1. That the fence is painted white or a trim color related to the house.
Reyna Wagner(owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Clarification of location of fence was provided by homeowner. Sections of the fence would be
along the property line; not across the yard. Style of fencing: 6' high solid privacy fence
including lattice top.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve per staff comments and to be painted
to compliment the house colors (staff to review).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
432 Sherman Ave
This item was tabled at the September 9, 2014 meeting due to lack of property owner representation.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
remove the existing primary entrance front concrete stoop and to replace it with a wood stoop.
Staff reviewed and provided the Design Guidelines to the applicant and the applicant has
proposed a sketch for the proposed project. The applicant has also been advised that detailed
drawings showing the exact height dimensions and framing plan will need to be submitted to
the Plans Examiner. The proposed stoop will have 5 stairs and a 4' by 5.5' landing.
Staff has also provided a city recommended drawing which shows additional recommended
details for the porch.
*****
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to table due to non-representation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
1
•
Design Review Subcommittee- September 9, 2014
Page 9 of 9
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
7/' ,.• , ,
Cindy A. alden Ap4,-!_,prroved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary -( ,', )/
r
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,September 23,2014-6:00 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 22, 2014
2. August 26, 2014
3. September 9, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 650 Park St.—Install windows(Tabled 6-24-14)
2. 432 Sherman Ave.—Install front stoop (Tabled 9-9-14)
F. New Business
1. 506 St. Charles St.—Install front door
2. 320 North St—Replace front stoop
3. 585 Park St.—Install fence
4. 600 Margaret PI.—Install front stairs and handrail
5. 484 Division St.—Repair siding; install windows; install front porch
6. 150-152 S. Gifford St. —Install fence
G. Other
1. Memo from Dan Miller, 9-13-14
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 23, 2014
Minutes
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 Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS PRESENT: :
Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow,John Roberson, Scott Savel, Christen Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dennis Roxworthy
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Amy Munro, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
650 Park St— Install windows (tabled 06-24-14)
432 Sherman Ave—Install front stoop (tabled 09-09-14)
New Business
506 St Charles St— Install front door
320 North St—Replace front door
585 Park St—Install fence
600 Margaret PI—Install front stairs and handrail
484 Division St—Repair siding; install windows; install front porch
150-152 S Gifford St—Install fence
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve the minutes of July 22, 2014, and
September 9, 2014, as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
ITEMS TABLED:
432 Sherman Ave—Remained on the table; due to non-representation
150-152 S Gifford St—Install fence; due to non-representation
r
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 2 of 15
1
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to un-table item El for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
650 Park St—Install windows
Exhibit A: Current Photos (This property was designated a local landmark on April 23, 2003)
Exhibit B: COA Application
Exhibit C: Applicant Window repair/replacement estimates
This DRSC tabled consideration of this item at the June 24, 2014 meeting due to their request
that the applicant obtain window repair/storm window estimates for the proposed
replacement windows.
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace five double-hung wood
windows with five aluminum clad wood windows to match the existing windows in size, design,
and dimension. The windows are located on the building's secondary elevations:three
windows on the east elevation and two windows on the rear(north) elevation. The applicant is
seeking approval for the replacement windows due to issues with energy efficiency (air
infiltration). The applicant has provided an estimate for the replacement windows which
includes the exact specifications for the windows. The applicant has advised Staff that upon
consultation with his contractor,the repair of the windows would not be practical.
On May 2, 2014,Staff inspected the windows. The windows are in fair to good condition and
repairable. At the time of inspection, Staff suggested that the applicant consider repairing the
windows rather than replacement. Staff also advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines
recommend that 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. Interior window photos will be provided at
the June 24, 2014 meeting.
Staff report revision: 9-19-14
On September 9, 2014, the applicant submitted estimates for window repair and storm window
installation. The applicant has also revised the initial request to replace five windows and
reduced it to four windows (the mud room window replacement has been removed). The
following replacement windows have been proposed:two windows on the east elevation and
two windows on the rear (north) elevation. The window repair estimate is $2,200.00 and the
metal storm window installation is $820.00 for a total project cost of$3,020.00. The
1
replacement window estimate is$2,599.70. Given the costs comparison,the applicant is
requesting approval to install the replacement windows.
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 3 of 15
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:
Upon consideration of the submitted repair/storm window installation and replacement
estimates and the location of the windows on the rear and side (northeast rear corner)
elevations, staff would recommend approval for the aluminum clad wood replacement
windows as submitted.
Peter Cottone (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Total of four windows to be replaced: a) bathroom window 2 over 1, b) window inside mud
room 3 over 1, c) windows 3 &4 east elevation are 3 over 1. Replacement would be done in
wood with aluminum clad.
Commission would prefer to have original windows retained. Applicant provided adequate
documentation to prove repairs exceed the cost of repairs.
Design Review Subcommittee—September 23, 2014
Page 4 of 15
Concerns regarding narrow window designs were expressed by commissioners.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve replacement windows with the
following conditions: 1)wood or wood with aluminum clad exterior; 2) bathroom (2 over 1)
and east elevation windows (3 over 1)to match existing window design; 3) design of windows
within the mud room can be either 1 over 1 or match existing window design; 4) 2-2.5"top and
side sashes, 1-1 1/4" meeting rail, 3-31/2" bottom sash.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
432 Sherman Ave (Item E2)—no representation; item was not removed from table.
NEW BUSINESS:
506 St Charles St—Install front door
Project Background:
The owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace
the property's front door.The city's architectural survey indicates that the house was built circa
1970. The existing door does not comply with the Design Guidelines. Upon review of several
examples of mid-century modern and contemporary residential styles,the submitted door
design complies with the Design Guidelines specification that the door be appropriate for the
style and period of the dwelling.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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 are 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.
, Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 5 of 15
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval as submitted and with the following conditions.
1. The door shall be smooth fiberglass, solid core.
2. The door shall fit the existing opening.
Sylvester Brzoza (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Homeowner has tried various methods of weather sealing. Was still having large amount of air
flow thru the door entrance. Would like to install a new storm door too; although it was not
submitted on this COA application.
Commission was unsure if this is an original exterior door. House has been modified over the
years (siding, garage overhead, awnings, etc).
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve the COA request with staff comments.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
320 North St—Replace front door
Project Background:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to
remove the existing primary entrance front concrete stoop and to replace it with a concrete
stoop. Staff reviewed and provided the Design Guidelines to the applicant and the applicant
has proposed a sketch for the proposed project. The proposed stoop will have a 3'x4' landing
and three stairs. Upon review of the project,the Plans Examiner has determined that a
handrail is not required.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following condition:
1. The stair risers shall be a maximum of 7 %" in height.
*****
Tom Kresback(contractor) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
The starts will be installed in concrete, not wood. Height to threshold is only 2'6". Additionally,
there will only be 2 steps/risers.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve amendment by applicant: concrete
landing (3'x4') with two steps.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
Design Review Subcommittee—September 23, 2014
Page 6 of 15
The motion passed unanimously.
585 Park St—Install fence
Project Background:
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace sections of
the properties rear and side yard fence located on the south and east sides of the property.
The request has been submitted due to storm damage to the fence. The applicant is seeking a
variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that privacy fence rear building line
termination point. Instead,the applicant is seeking approval to extend the length of the privacy
fence to the east corner of the building line. (Please see attached Plat of Survey).
The request has been proposed due to the applicant's desire for additional privacy as the
privacy fence would terminate at the corner of the rear enclosed porch.The applicant has
proposed replacement fence that will match the existing fence design. Staff has advised the
applicant as to the Design Guideline height requirements for rear and street yard fences.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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.
O. 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.
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 7 of 15
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted. Staff would recommend approval if the
following conditions are met:
1. The fence height in the street yard shall be no more than 36" if less than 50%open and
no more than 42" if more than 50% open.
2. That the fence is painted white or a trim color related to the house.
Jairo Gomez (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Difficult to replace only sections of the fence. Would prefer to replace the entire fence. The
section than needs to be less than 6' high, would like the boards to be closer together. Have a
small dog that currently is getting thru the small gaps of the damaged fence in addition to
privacy. All replacements would be done in the arch design.
Zoning would allow the 48" high with 40% open in the "street yard" and 6' in the rear and side
yards. Historic district allowed 42" high with 50% open.
Fence installed west of porch addition, commission felt a fence at 42" fence would be
acceptable based on the limited open area of the zoning lot.
Typically corner posts should exceed the fence height; but commission feels it would be
inappropriate with the arch design.
rSolid stain would be permitted. Translucent stain is not to be used.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve wood arch style fence with the
following conditions: 1) 6' solid arch design is not to exceed into the street yard; 2) 42" arch
design with 50%opening, provided the boards are 3" wide or narrower; 3) paint or solid body
stain; and 4) posts are not to exceed height of adjacent placement of fence.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Save!.
The motion passed unanimously.
600 Margaret PI—Install front stairs and handrail
Project Background:
The applicants have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to rehabilitate the front
porch. The project will include reconstructing the stairs, installing a new porch balustrade
design, replacing the flooring, installing handrails, and replacing the porch skirting. Although
the porch does not currently possess handrails, to comply with the Building Code,the
installation of handrails is required. To accommodate the Code requirements, the applicant has
provided a stick style design based upon the house's interior stair balustrade (photo attached).
The applicant has also submitted a skirting design based upon skirting boards that the applicant
rhas discovered as an original design to the house and also incorporated suggestions from the
Design Review Subcommittee's initial review of the proposed project on August 26, 2014.
r
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 8 of 15
Two options have been submitted for the newel posts. One would mimic the existing carving on
the porch posts. For this project,the contractor has indicated that the property owner would
need to decide whether or not stenciling or carving would be the preferred option. Staff has
advised the contractor that a stenciled design would not be appropriate. Option two would be
a 4x4 wrapped with lx and ball cap. (See attached drawing.)
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. i
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.
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 i
construction.
•
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 9 of 15
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following conditions:
1. That the porch balustrade height does not exceed 30".
2. That the newel posts shall not exceed 36" in height (rather than 42" as pictured) and be
constructed as per the DRSC's approval. If the DRSC approves the square newel post, it is
suggested that the post cap be a 4" ball cap.
3. That beadwork to match the interior spindle details shall be an optional feature.
4. That the spindle spacing meets Building Code requirements.
5. That the porch flooring is 1x4 tongue and groove and installed perpendicular to the
front of the house (as per the existing configuration).
6. To address the Code requirements, the balusters shall be installed with less than 4" of
spacing (such that a 4" sphere is unable to pass through at any point between the balusters).
7. That the stair treads shall be constructed in 5/4 x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 lumber
(composite material is also acceptable), that the treads overhang the risers and stringer by 1"
with bull-nose on three sides- min. 10"wide, and that the stair risers shall be a maximum of 7
%" in height.
8. All other details shall match the drawing.
9. The porch shall be primed and painted.
Cheryl and Marc Kuta (owners) and Bill Biskikis (contractor)were present for tonight's COA
rdiscussion.
Contractor brought photo images indicating where the various heights (24" 30" and 36") of the
handrail would encounter the post.
Much discussion was completed by commissioners, homeowner and contractor regarding the
placement of the handrail and railings, and newel post design. Homeowner prefers to have the
design carved into the wood instead of painting the details.
The concept was originally proposed with the handrail tying into the "banding" of the post. At
30" height, a handrail waiver would be required from the homeowners.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve the COA with staff comments and the
following amendments by the commission: 1) Railing and handrail minimum of 30" with a
maximum of 36"; 2) newel post style to mimic the existing etched post (carved wood detailing),
round taper with flat board with domed cap; 3) balustrade to have a bead down the center (rip
2x to make square corners)—similar to interior staircase design; 4) balustrade must not permit
a 4" sphere to pass thru.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
484 Division St—Repair siding; install windows; install front porch
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 10 of 15
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the repair the
exterior siding, replace twenty-one windows, replace front and rear doors, and to reconstruct
the front porch balustrade and stair handrailings, and to scrape and paint the garage.
Siding
A COA permit was issued to remove the transite siding on April 25, 2014. Upon removal,the
applicant and staff determined that the siding was in repairable condition.
The applicant has proposed the restoration of architectural details (such as the window hoods,
fascia, soffits frieze board, and corner boards) as per the building's existing features and
shadow lines. The material proposed for the restoration of these features is wood.
Window Replacement
On June 13, 2014, Staff conducted site inspection to assess the condition of the building's
windows. At that time,Staff determined that the windows ranged from good to poor condition,
with the majority of windows in fair to poor condition. Due to rot, missing sashes, and other
deterioration issues,the applicant has removed the window sashes, and placed them in
storage.To maintain the overall consistency of the window profiles,the applicant has
requested that replacement of all of the windows be permitted. The applicant has proposed an
raising the front second story window sill 4"to install flashing and to alleviate the potential
future rotting of the sill as has been the case for the existing rotted sill.
Porch Reconstruction
The applicant has requested to reconstruct the front porch. Upon review of the project
specifications and the Building Code, due to the number of risers the stair railing as submitted
in the architectural drawing is not required (the Code does not require handrails for three or
less risers). Staff has advised the applicant as to this detail. With regard to the porch guardrail,
due to the porch's varying height dimensions ranging from 22"to 33",the guardrail has been
proposed by the applicant to address safety concerns. At the time of staff report submittal,the
applicant was still making a determination as to whether or not Staff's recommended height of
30" versus 36" would be a viable option.
Front and Rear Door Replacement
The proposed doors are for wood or fiberglass Queen Anne style doors, single light with two
vertical recessed panels.
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
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 11 of 15
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.
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
Design Review Subcommittee—September 23, 2014
Page 12 of 15
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.
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.
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 recommends the approval of the COA as submitted and with the following conditions:
Siding
1. Approval as submitted and with the following condition:
a. All existing shadow lines of architectural features shall be restored as per the existing
dimensions.
Window Replacement
Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 13 of 15
1. Approval is recommended for wood windows that will be installed to fit the existing
openings and with dimensions as follows:
a. Top rail of top sash and side stiles shall be 2-2 %" .
b. Bottom rail of lower sash shall be 3-3 1/2".
c. Meeting rail shall be 1 -1/4".
2. Exterior window casings shall be 5/4" x4 and must sit proud of the siding.
3. Exterior window crown shall sit above trim with a 4" reveal and flat cap. Window cap
must be approved by staff.
4. Exterior window sills shall be 2x.
Doors
1. Approved as submitted and with the following conditions:
a. Doors shall be of wood or smooth fiberglass (solid-core) material.
Porch Reconstruction
Approved as submitted and with the following conditions:
1. That the flooring shall be 1x4 Tongue and Grove, (Douglas Fir, pressure treated or wood
composite) and installed perpendicular to the house.
2. Should the Design Review Subcommittee approve the guard and stair railings as an
option, that the top and bottom handrails shall be 2x4 and chamfered and installed 2" above
finished floor.
3. That the balusters shall be square 2x2's and spaced no more than 3" O.C.
4. That the front porch balustrade height shall not exceed 36".
5. That the newel posts are 6x6 with pyramid caps and shall not exceed 36".
6. That 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.
7. The skirt frame shall have 1x6 top and corner boards and a 1x4 lower board. The skirt
boards shall be 1x4 vertical skirting boards with 1" air space and installed behind the frame.
Gutters
1. That the replacement gutters shall be half-round or K-style and constructed from a metal
material.
Garage Scrape and Paint
1. Approved as submitted. (No power washing or heat guns.)
ALL OTHER DETAILS SHALL MATCH SUBMITTED DRAWINGS. ALL PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILS
SHALL BE PRIMED AND PAINTED.
Travis Juracek (Habitat for Humanity representative) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Due to the multiple components in this COA request, the commission suggested taking various
elements as separate considerations.
WINDOWS: Solid wood windows with fixed screens will be installed; same windows as
previously approved on other projects within the historic district.
Bottom sills of three windows will be raised about 4" above the lower roof. This will help to
eliminate potential rotting due to snow.
Design Review Subcommittee—September 23, 2014
Page 14of15
Window cap details were found when the siding was removed (item #10). Shadows will be
replicated.
Motion#1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve window replacement per staffs
comments and the following amendment by the commission: three windows to be raised
approximately 4" above the lower roof line..
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
FRONT PORCH: Porch frame is short. Front left side is kicking out. Bottom right side is sagging.
Wanting to save the porch roof if possible; will sure up while working on project. Decking is 24-
26" by the stairs, 31" at right front corner and 33" at the right corner against the house.
Habitat would consider having the homeowner/family partner sign waiver for handrail under
36" height. Recommend railing at 30", but not to exceed 36". Handrail would not be required.
Ceiling to have bead board with %" moulding.
Four columns are 6x6 with 1x4 wrap.
Commission suggested turned posts or square with chamfered design. Examples of two similar
porch projects (205 N Gifford St and 141 Hill Ave) have turned columns beginning 16-18"from
the top to just above the railing height. Lower portion of post should be wrapped in 1x6.
Motion#2 made by Committee Member Ristow to approve porch design per staffs comments
and the following amendments by the commission: 1) Turned columns as described above, 2)
handrail to be 30-36" height (dependent on whether the 30" waiver can be accepted by the city
from the family partner/future homeowner).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
150-152 S Gifford St—Install fence
Motion made by Committee Member Hunter to table due to non-representation.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
. Design Review Subcommittee— September 23, 2014
Page 15 of 15
CORRESPONDENCE:
Document submitted by Dan Miller regarding fencing.
Picket fencing should be primed and painted. If not painted, then a solid full body stain should
be applied. Picket fencing should not be left untreated indefinitely.
Owners should read information regarding the type of wood being installed. Various
timeframes are required prior to priming/staining based on the treatment to the wood product.
Commissioners recommend that staff indicate on all picket fence COA approvals the
requirement of a) prime and paint OR b) use full body stain application. Semi or transparent
stains are prohibited.
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy A W. den Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary October 14, 2014
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,October 14,2014-6:00 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, 2014
2. September 23, 2014—to be sent separately
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 150-152 S. Gifford Street—Install fence (tabled 9-23-14)
F. New Business
1. 819 N. Grove Avenue—Install roof(concept approval)
2. 851 N. Grove Avenue—Install rear yard fence
3. 484 North Street—Rehabilitate front porch
4. 314 Raymond Street—Rehabilitate Front Porch
5. 653 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct dormers; rehabilitate front porch
6. 834 Brook Street—Install rear windows
7. 711 Douglas Avenue—Install rear yard fence
8. 11 N. Liberty Street—Replace existing privacy fence
G. Other
1. Fence Design Guidelines
a. Fence Permit Requirement Update
b. Memo from Dan Miller
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
October 14, 2014
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 2"d floor of City Hall) by Chairman Wiedmeyer.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow,John Roberson (6:12), Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, Christen
Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
r RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
150-152 S Gifford Street—Install fence (tabled 9-23-14)
New Business
819 N Grove Avenue— Install roof(concept approval)
851 N Grove Avenue—Install rear yard fence
484 North Street—Rehabilitate front porch
314 Raymond Street—Rehabilitate front porch
653 Douglas Avenue— Reconstruct dormers; rehabilitate front porch
834 Brook Street—Install rear windows
711 Douglas Avenue— Install rear yard fence
11 N Liberty Street—Replace existing privacy fence
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve the minutes of August 26 and
September 23, 2014, as amended (August: Pages 5, 10 & 13 and September: Pages 2 &9).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
ITEMS TABLED:
None
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 2 of 15
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to un-table items E1 for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Save!.
The motion passed unanimously.
150-152 S Gifford Street—Install fence (tabled 09-23-14)
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the entire
fence on the property. The request has been submitted due to storm damage to the portion of
the fence located along the north lot line in the street yard.
The existing fence is 6 feet high in the street and side yard, and was approved through a COA in
1989.The applicant is seeking a variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that
only allows 6 foot high privacy fences in the rear yard. Instead,the applicant is seeking approval
to replace the fence in exactly the same location and configuration. The zoning ordinance
allows for the construction of the fence in its proposed location as long as it is behind the
building line, which, in this case, is at the street lot line.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 3 of 15
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted as it does not meet the guidelines. Should the
Subcommittee approve the fence as proposed, staff would recommend approval if the
following conditions are met:
1. The fence is reconstructed in approximately the same location as existing—but located
behind the building line.
2. That the fence is painted white or in color that compliments the house.
Jamie Garcia (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owner is concerned security for the two dwelling units on site, due to location of basement
access location. Fence proposed will provide some privacy on site for the tenants.
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve COA with staff comments.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed 6-1.
Nay: Hunter
819 N Grove Avenue—Install roof(concept approval)
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to request approval
of a roof material on the new house being built on the vacant property.
The applicant received COA approval for the construction of a new house on the property on
September 20, 2013. A condition of approval required that the applicant return to the Design
Review Subcommittee to request final approval of the roof material.
The applicant has proposed two roof material alternatives—metal (steel) and slate tile.
The steel roofing is proposed in two formats—exposed fastener and hidden fastener. The
exposed fasteners provide more relief(vertical lines) on the roof surface as opposed to the
hidden fastener option.The material is available in a number of pre-determined colors.
The slate tile material is manufactured using synthetic materials with a design, color and
texture to mimic slate. The material is available in three pre-determined colors.
Approved drawings of the proposed elevations of the new house are attached for reference.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Roofs
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014 ,
Page 4 of 15
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.
Staff Recommendation:
In reviewing the two material options provided for review, staff feels that the slate tile is more
in keeping with the overall character of architecture within the historic district—based on
existing instances of slate in the neighborhood. Additionally,there are no instances of standing
seam metal used as a primary roof material in the area.
*****
Doug Tomsha (owner)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
The steel seamed roof material is primarily seen on accessory structures, not the principle
building. However, the NoviSlate proposed tile roofing system provides the appearance of
"slate tiles", which is more traditional to the historic district.
Owner is agreeable to installing the NoviSlate roofing.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by the property owner to
install the NoviSlate roofing.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
851 N Grove Avenue—Install rear yard fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the entire
fence on the property. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 4' high open picket fence I
with a new split rail fence.The applicant has cited difficulties in maintaining a picket fence as
opposed to a split rail fence.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 5 of 15
In reviewing the trend of fences in the area, staff has not seen split rail fences along the portion
of the alley to the rear of the subject property. However, there is a split rail fence that is
currently located on the vacant lots on either side of Esmerelda Place at its intersection with N.
Grove Avenue. These fences pre-date the designation of the historic district.
At this time, no plat of survey has been submitted. However, depending upon the decision of
the Subcommittee, staff will request a plat of survey to be submitted at the time of issuing a
permit.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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
rk 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:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted as it does not meet the guidelines. Staff
recommends the construction of a fence in one of the approved styles in the guidelines.
Ron Range (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
This ranch style home was construction in 1951. The existing fence is 40+years old. Along the
northern property line, majority of the fence is adjoining garages. There is roughly a distance of
1 %' between the proposed split face fence and the existing neighbors fence, making it difficult
to install any type of fence. Fence is decorative only with posts and two vertical rails.
Commissioners felt the rail fencing would have been typically installed and appropriate for that
time period. To contain any type of pets, additional wire screening would be needed.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 6 of 15
Homeowner indicated he had no need for wire screening; want to install the rough split rail
fencing only.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted with no wire screening.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
•
484 North Street—Rehabilitate front porch
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to complete a
number of exterior maintenance improvements to the house and site. The improvements are
required as a result of a property maintenance code inspection that was recently completed.
The work involves the following:
1. Repair front concrete stairs that lead up to the front of the house from the street -
patch the broken areas to match the existing as closely as possible
2. Replace two porch flooring boards in tongue and groove to match existing flooring
boards.
3. Replace deteriorated aluminum siding on garage to match existing siding
4. Replace gutters
5. Paint foundation
6. Repair concrete driveway
7. Porch
a. Replace existing vertical board skirting with diagonal lattice skirting
b. Replace the treads on the front porch stairs, constructed on wood.
It should be noted that at this time,the applicant has not requested any work to the porch
railing. However,the stair rails will need to be removed to accommodate the repair of the
porch steps.The porch stair railing will then need to be replaced to meet code requirements.
The applicant has indicated that he will replace the railing according to the drawings attached
to the application.
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.
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 7 of 15
r 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 each item as follows:
1. Repair front concrete stairs that lead up to the front of the house from the street -
patch the broken areas to match the existing as closely as possible
Approve as submitted with the condition that the mortar match the existing as closely
as possible.
2. Replace two porch flooring boards in tongue and groove to match existing flooring
boards.
Approve as submitted
3. Replace deteriorated aluminum siding on garage to match existing siding
Approve as submitted with the condition that the new siding be in a material, dimension
and profile to match the existing.
4. Replace gutters
Approve as submitted with the condition that half round gutters be used. If only repair
is proposed, then the portions proposed to be repaired or replaced must match thee
existing size and profile of gutter
5. Paint foundation
Approve as submitted with the condition that the color match the existing color on the
foundation
6. Repair concrete driveway
Approve as submitted
7. Porch
Approve as submitted with the following conditions:
a. The porch stairs be constructed to match the details provided on the application
attachment
b. The metal railings on the porch stairs be replaced with new wood railings to
match the details provided on the application attachment
c. The skirting, if approved in diagonal lattice design be framed in accordance with
the guidelines.
Augustin Arrelo(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Jaime Garcia translated.
Owner wants to install the skirting around the entire porch.
Commission indicated the skirting should trim boards: 1x8 at top, 1x6 at piers and 1x4 at the
bottom. Porch railing to be can be lowered to 30" with owner's waiver. Newels to be 6x6.
Treads per illustration with bullnose on the exterior sides and %" cove molding.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve COA as amended by staff comments,
with final details as noted about from commission: 1) trim boards for skirting, 2) railing height,
3) newel post dimension and 4) stair details.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 8 of 15
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed unanimously.
314 Raymond Street—Rehabilitate front porch
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to remove the
existing porch decking and stairs and rebuild to specifications provided in the packet. specifics
of the project are as follows:
1. The posts will be replaced with new turned posts. No design is provided to show
whether they will match the existing pilasters.
2. The porch railing will consist of a top rail, bottom rail and square balusters. No
dimensions provided. the height of the rail will be 36 inches for safety reasons based on
the height of the porch above grade.
3. Porch floor will be 1x4 tongue and groove flooring perpendicular to the elevation of the
building.
4. Stairs will be wood composite or pressure treated with a 1 inch overhang over the riser.
5. Skirting will be 1x4 inch boards with a 1-inch spacing between boards. The skirting will
be framed.
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.
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 window sill level, if present, and no greater than 30
inches in height.
Porch staircases and steps
E. 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.
F. should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made
of wood.
G. 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.
H. should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers,to match original porch
construction
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. final specifications of the replacement turned porch posts be provided. Staff
recommends that the design of the posts match the existing pilaster to the greatest
extent possible.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 9 of 15
2. The railing be constructed with the minimum typical dimensions provided for within the
historic district.
3. The stair tread dimensions be 5/4x12 not to exceed 2x12 if pressure treated is used.
4. The newel post at the foot of the stairs be minimum 4 inch in cross section dimension.
Howard Leek (contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
General discussion regarding height from grade to decking; a 36" height might be required.
Commission agreed that turned posts to match existing (6x6). Newel posts should be with a
ball cap. Skirting details needs to include vertical and horizontal boards below the decking and
staircase. Decking must be tongue and groove. Handrail details need to be included in
approval.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff comments and the following
commission comments: 1) Turned 6x6 posts, 2) skirting trim with 1x6 vertical boards (at post),
1x8 top horizontal board, 1x4 lower vertical board and 1x4 under staircase, 3) newel post of 6x6
with ball cap, 4) 1x4 (5/4x31/<finished) decking tongue and groove to be either wood or
composite material perpendicular to the house, 5) bullnose treads with 1" overhang on three
sides and 6) handrail 2x4 beveled top with 3/" cove to get depth, 2x4 chamfered bottom rail,
with 4" on center balusters.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
653 Douglas Avenue—Reconstruct dormers; rehabilitate front porch
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to reconstruct two
north-facing dormers to match the original dormers shown on the historical photograph and
complete additional repairs as part of maintenance to the exterior of the house. The
maintenance consists of repair to architectural features, and painting.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Architectural Features
A. should be repaired rather than replaced.
B. should not be removed or altered if original to the building.
C. should not be covered or concealed with vinyl, aluminum or other substitute material.
D. should not be added unless there is physical, pictorial, or historical evidence that such
features were original to the house or consistent with the style which would allow them to
be added to the house. These features should match the original in materials, scale,
location, proportions, form, and detailing.
Dormers
F. should be over skylights in highly visible portions of the roof.
G. should be constructed as two gables and a connector, if larger in volume.
H. should not occupy more than fifty percent of the slope of the roof of which is being
constructed and should be trimmed out in the style of the house. They should be designed
and located for as not to detract from the character of the roof.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page l0of15
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval as submitted.
John Wiedmeyer(contractor) was present for tonight's COA discussion and will abstain from
voting.
Dormer same size as original.
Roof pitch will be increased slightly. Hip style will be eliminated.
Siding to match 1/2x6.
Double hung one over one wood window to be installed.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed 6-0-1.
Abstain: Wiedmeyer
834 Brook Street—Install rear windows
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the
existing 3-tab shingle roof with a new cedar shingle roof and accompanying copper gutters.The
applicant also wishes to repair an existing bay window and south-facing picture window.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Roofs
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.
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. I _
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 11 of 15
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.
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 as submitted.
John Wiedmeyer (contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion and will abstain from
voting.
Match existing opening and install two wood windows.
Bay and south elevation sills to be repaired.
Design Review Subcommittee-October 14, 2014
Page 12 of 15
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed 6-0-1.
Abstain: Wiedmeyer
711 Douglas Avenue-Install rear yard fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the fence
on the property. The request has been submitted due to damage to the fence.
A portion of the privacy fence that is 6 feet high is located in the side (south side)yard. The
fence is located half way back from the front to the back of the side elevation of the building.
The applicant is seeking a variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that only
allows 6 foot high privacy fences in the rear yard. Instead,the applicant is seeking approval to
replace the fence in exactly the same location, design and configuration.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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 mare 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:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted as it does not meet the guidelines. Should the
Subcommittee approve the fence as proposed, staff would recommend approval if the
following conditions are met: -
1. The fence is reconstructed in the same location as existing.
2. That the fence is painted white or in color that compliments the house.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 13 of 15
John Laskey_(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Per applicant,the fence style is solid board with top cap. No change in placement/location.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed 6-0-1.
Abstain: Wiedmeyer.
11 N Liberty Street—Replace existing privacy fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to replace the fence
on the property. The request has been submitted due to storm damage to the portion of the
fence located along the north lot line in the rear yard. However, in evaluating the condition of
the fence,the applicant feels that a complete replacement is warranted, and is therefore
requesting replacement of the entire fence.
The existing fence is 6 feet high in the side and rear yard. The portion facing the street that
contains the gate is 5 feet high, and is constructed with a scallop to reduce its height. The
applicant is seeking a variance from the Design Guideline's recommendation that only allows 6
foot high privacy fences in the rear yard. Instead,the applicant is seeking approval to replace
the fence in exactly the same location, design and configuration.
The applicant is aware of the requirements of the guidelines, and has indicated that he is willing
to construct the street-facing portion of the fence in the same height (5 feet) and design
(scalloped)to reduce its impact on the street. The applicant additionally points out that the
impact of the fence is currently greatly reduced due to the existing vegetation that screens a
portion of the street-facing section.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Fences
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.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 14 of 15
N. Can be constructed in the same low fence design found in the front yard.
O. 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:
Staff does not recommend approval as submitted as it does not meet the guidelines. Should the
Subcommittee approve the fence as proposed, staff would recommend approval if the
following conditions are met:
1. The fence is reconstructed in the same location as existing.
2. The fence height of the street-facing portion of the fence is no more than 5 feet in
height and in the same scalloped design as existing.
3. That the fence is painted white or in color that compliments the house.
David Beebe(owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
North line of fence was destroyed by recent storm.
Fence to be cedar dog ear scalloped fence with solid stain.
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve with staff comments.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
Street Yard Fencing Requirements
Memo from Dan Miller requested discuss of fence spacing within the street yard. Currently,
the Design Review Guidelines state the spacing must be 50%open in the street yard.
Documentation was presented to the commission for consideration to modify the spacing to be
a minimum of 40%open. All zoning lots in Elgin, but not located within a Historic District or
Landmark designation are permitted to have a fence in the street yard at 48" high with a 40%
opening between the boards/pickets.
Additionally, photos and other historical evidence indicate that fences in the street yard were
typically 42" in height and constructed of either a decorative open style metal fence or wood
pickets with an opening of 40%.
With this evidence, Mr. Miller requested the commission to consider allowing staff to approve i
street yard fencing at the 42" height, however modify the opening to a minimum of only 40%.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 14, 2014
Page 15 of 15
flk Commissioners discussed the information provided and the following motion was made:
Motion made by Sundquist to permit staff's approval of street yard fencing at a maximum
height of 42" and a minimum opening of 40%.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respe ully submitted,
Cindy A. ti•'en Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary
4 %A5--*
r
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday,October 28,2014-6:00 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 14, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
1. 484 Division Street—approval of egress windows
F. New Business
1. 100 E Chicago Street—Notice to Heritage Commission regarding public hearing
regarding forthcoming zoning petition; request for approval of exterior work
2. 175 S Gifford Street—Replace existing vinyl windows with new vinyl 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
October 28, 2014
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 2"d floor of City Hall) by Chairman Wiedmeyer.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Save!, Christen Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Ristow and John Roberson
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Sarosh Saher, Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
484 Division St—Egress Windows
New Business
100 E Chicago St—Notice to Heritage Commission regarding public hearing regarding
forthcoming zoning petition; request for approval of exterior work
175 S Gifford St—Replace existing vinyl windows with new vinyl windows
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS TABLED:
None
I
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014
Page 2 of 8
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Wiedmeyer to un-table items E1 for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight's meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
484 Division St—Windows replacements
The Design Review Subcommittee reviewed and approved the replacement of windows among
a number of other exterior changes to the building at their meeting on September 23, 2014.
Permits have been issued and the applicant is in the process of completing the rehabilitation of
both the exterior and interior of the structure.
At this time,the applicant is requesting approval of the location,type and configuration of the
egress windows proposed for the bedrooms located on the 2nd floor of the house.
The attached drawings provide two alternatives for design, location and configuration of the
egress windows on the structure. They are as follows:
1. On the east (side) elevation, replace the two 2nd floor windows with new casement
windows with a horizontal faux sash bar to preserve the opening size, proportion and
character of the windows, while meeting the minimum egress requirements of the code.
The windows will be trimmed out in a manner similar to the remaining windows on the
house.
2. On the east (side) elevation, replace the existing windows with new double hung
windows in a width greater than the existing windows and those on the first floor of the
house. The increased width will provide for the necessary egress area through the lower
sash on the windows. The windows will be trimmed out in a manner similar to the
remaining windows on the house.
Note that the drawings also indicate that the westerly window on the north (rear) elevation is
proposed to be used for egress. This is an option proposed by the applicant which staff has
recommended against in favor of using the windows on the east elevation which are not readily
visible from a right-of-way.
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
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014
Page 3 of 8
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 the approval of option 1 proposed by the applicant as follows:
1. On the east (side) elevation, replace the two 2nd floor windows with new casement
windows with a horizontal faux sash bar to preserve the opening size, proportion and
character of the windows, while meeting the minimum egress requirements of the code.
Staff prioritizes the proportions and size of the window openings over the configuration
(double-hung) of the new windows. Wider windows in a double-hung configuration will
visually alter the character of the elevation and will be more noticeable from the street.
Staff additionally, recommends that:
a. The windows shall be trimmed out in a manner similar to the remaining windows
on the house as previously approved by the Design Review Subcommittee
2. The westerly window on the north (rear) elevation as proposed to be used for egress
shall be replaced with a double-hung window that is designed and sized to fit the
existing opening, and not be used as an egress window.
Travis Juracek(Habitat for Humanity representative)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014
Page 4 of 8
The two bedroom windows are needed to comply with building codes (5.7sf minimum).
Preserving the window opening size with casement style windows. If double hung stylewas to
be installed,the windows width would go from existing 2'3"to 3'9". Height would remain the
same. Trim and crown will simulate the double hung windows below.
Commission comments:
Bottom sash of 3-3 1/2", center bar (to give appearance of double hung style).
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff comments and requiring a 3-3
1/2" bottom sash rail.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
100 E Chicago St—Exterior doorways, stairs, window and proposed change in use
The City of Elgin has received an application for zoning approval in the form of a conditional use
for planned development at 100 E. Chicago Street, more commonly known as the Tower
Building. Specifically, the conditional use for planned development would allow the applicant
to put apartments on the ground floor of the building. Currently, the zoning for this property
only permits apartments within the upper floors of the building.
The applicant intends to convert the vacant Tower Building into 45 market-rate apartments. A
conditional use for planned development would allow the applicant to put five apartments on
the ground floor, along with a lobby and leasing office. Other building amenities would be
provided in the basement. The applicant proposes a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments
throughout the building.
A public hearing of the Planning& Zoning Commission to consider the petition for rezoning is
scheduled for Monday, November 3, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Second
Floor, North Tower, Elgin Municipal Building, 150 Dexter Court.
Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code- "Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance" requires that the
Elgin Heritage Commission be notified when zoning relief is requested for a landmark or
property located within an historic district. The section of the historic preservation ordinance
requiring such comment is as follows:
20.12.030: NOTICE TO HERITAGE COMMISSION:
The community development director shall provide notice in writing to the chairman of the
heritage commission at least thirty (30) days in advance of forthcoming public hearings
regarding zoning, special use or variation petitions involving designated properties.
Additionally, the building official shall provide notice in writing to the chairman of the heritage
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014
Page 5 of 8
commission at least sixty (60) days in advance of plans by the city to alter or demolish a
designated property owned by the city. (Ord. G22-05 § 1, 2005)
The Elgin Heritage Commission has charged the Design Review Subcommittee with reviewing
matters pertaining landmarks and historic district properties, which is why this matter is being
brought before the Subcommittee. Staff is additionally requesting that the 30-day notice
requirement to the Elgin Heritage Commission be waived at this time.
Staff of the Community Development Department is requesting comments of the Design
Review Subcommittee related to the forthcoming zoning petition which requests a departure
from the existing land use provisions of the CC1 Center City District to allow for residential uses
on the first floor of a building.
As part of the development plan,the applicant also intends to apply to the Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency (IHPA)for certification of the rehabilitation to obtain federal rehabilitation
investment tax credits.The tax credits provide an added incentive in an amount of 20%of the
overall cost of rehabilitation to property owners that rehab properties listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. In light of that,the applicant intends to comply with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation both on the exterior and interior.
The applicant has also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
complete the following exterior work:
• All stone work will be cleaned per U.S. Parks and Recreation Department guidelines for a
Historic Rehabilitation
• Tuck-pointing will be completed per U.S. Parks and Recreation Department guidelines
for a Historic Rehabilitation
• All windows will be evaluated and either re-glazed and repaired or replaced with like
kind to maintain the Historic element of the building
• Remove existing metal spiral stairs on upper levels and replace door openings with
windows
• Remove window air conditioner units and restore window openings
• Repair the main entrance doors
• Removal of two doors facing Douglas Avenue and replace the openings with windows.
At this time,the applicant intends to retain and repair the existing windows in conformance
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. In the event the windows are proposed to be
replaced,they will be replaced with new industrial steel sash windows that will continue to
maintain the configuration and character of the existing windows, which is a requirement to be
certified for historic tax credits.
Staff Recommendation:
1. Staff recommends that the Design Review Subcommittee recommend approval of the
proposed zoning petition to the Planning&Zoning Commission and waive the 30-day
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014 ,
Page 6 of 8
notice requirement and transmit its recommendation for consideration at the upcoming
public hearing scheduled for November 3, 2014.
2. Staff recommends approval of the proposed exterior work with the condition that the
staff be informed on the final determination as to whether the windows will be repaired
or replaced.
Damon Femmer(Webster Design)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Building had been occupied until Spring 2014. Property owners are proposing to change the
use from office to residential dwellings. National Park standards will apply to this project due
to grants being requested. There are approximately 500 windows on the building. A window
inventory will be completed by a state inspector and provided to the Park District for review.
Facade on the 152 floor is fairly new and will remain. Plaster and store exterior seems to be in
pretty good condition. Two doorways (former DNA office)facing Douglas Avenue would be
replaced with windows.
Motion#1 made by Committee Member Savel to recommend the Heritage Commission to
approve the change in use from commercial to residential.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion#2 made by Committee Member Savel to approve exterior work with staff
recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed unanimously.
175 S Gifford St—Vinyl Windows
An application has been submitted by the contractor of the property owner to replace the
existing vinyl windows on the entire house with new vinyl windows. The applicant has indicated
that the windows have been purchased and was unaware that vinyl windows were not
permitted on structures located within historic districts.
Staff has advised the property owner of the guidelines and recommended that the replacement
windows be either all wood windows or windows clad in aluminum or baked-on aluminum
throughout the structure.
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.
1
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014
Page 7 of 8
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 does not recommend approval of the application as submitted as the proposed material—
vinyl—does not meet the requirements of the guidelines.
However, because the existing material of the windows is vinyl, staff recommends approval of
their replacement, but contingent upon the following conditions:
• The replacement windows be either all wood windows or windows clad in aluminum or
baked-on aluminum throughout the structure.
Vince Gatto(contractor)was present for tonight's COA discussion:
This house was built in 1950. Surrounding homes were built around 1900's. Title policy from
purchase of house did not indicate historic district designation.
Eighteen vinyl windows were purchased to replace the existing "early" vinyl windows. Sill risers
will also need to be replaced due to rot. House had wood sills that will need to be replaced. Flat
stock or vinyl trim to be used in wrapping the sills. No grills would be added to the windows.
Design Review Subcommittee—October 28, 2014 .
Page 8 of 8
Commission acknowledged the existing vinyl windows are grandfather. However, replacement
windows in the historic district are to be wood or wood with aluminum clad.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted (replacement with vinyl
window material).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion was denied unanimously (0-5).
Note: The appeal process was explained to the attendee.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
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 7:09 p.m.
Respe Ily submitted,
_ 01.042--
Cindy A. f . den Approved:
Design '00 ew Subcommittee Secretary 6///3AS
Elgin Heritage Commission
Design Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, November 11,2014-6:00 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 14, 2014
2. October 28, 2014
D. Recognize Persons Present
E. Old Business
F. New Business
1. 705 W Highland Ave -
2. 73 N Liberty St—restore architectural features on the elevations
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.
r
Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
November 11, 2014
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 Wiedmeyer.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow,John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Christen Sundquist, and John
Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Scott Savel
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Sarosh Saher,Senior Planner; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
Dan Miller
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
None
New Business
705 W Highland Ave—Porch and portico restorations
73 N Liberty St—Restore architectural features on the elevations
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No minutes were presented for consideration.
ITEMS TABLED:
None
Design Review Subcommittee—November 11, 2014
Page 2 of 4
NEW BUSINESS:
705 W Highland Ave— Porch and portico restoration
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
make repairs as follows:
• Wrap-around porch (northeast corner of house)—support on new piers, frame and
rebuild porch to match existing. Repair the integral gutters on porch
• Porte Cochere (west side of house)—raise structure to stabilize,to secure and
straighten columns and brackets
• Rebuild front steps to original based on original blueprints
Additionally, repairs to deteriorated siding and exterior painting will also be completed.
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.
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 the application as submitted, as the proposed changes/repairs to
the structure will further enhance its architectural character.
Evelyn & Roy Chapman (owner) were present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owners stated they purchased the home in 1997. Some of the original stain glass was missing
at that time. Sleeping rooms were put in around 1908. In 1950's, the back staircase was
added. '"
Design Review Subcommittee—November 11, 2014
Page 3 of 4
East side of the porch has water damage. Southeast corner of decking is loose and spongy.
Missing spindles on site and will be restored. Porch restoration will be the same style and
details. Hidden gutters on both the first and second levels. Foundation may have support
poured for the piers. Stone foundation will be replicated.
The western portico columns appear seem to be bowing.
First porch staircase will remain as is.
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
73 N Liberty St—Restore architectural features on the elevations
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)to
install architectural features on the building. The property owner had also applied for and
received unanimous approval from the Design Review Subcommittee for a similar restoration in
2008.The features proposed to be installed are as follows:
1. Primary gable ornaments on the east and west gables of the house
2. Lower gable ornaments on the east and west elevations—two options provided
3. Porch frieze ornaments on the porch
The addition of the ornamentation will complete the restoration of these features on the
building. The packet contains detailed drawings of the features as proposed by the property
owner.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND FEATURES
A. Should be repaired rather than replaced.
B. Should not be removed or altered if original to the building.
C. Should not be covered or concealed with vinyl, aluminum or other substitute material.
D. should not be added unless there is physical, pictorial, or historical evidence that such
features were original to the house or consistent with the style which would allow them to
be added to the house. These features should match the original in materials, scale,
location, proportions,form, and detailing.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted, as they are in keeping with the
overall character of the house.
Note: John Roberson continued this item as Chairman Pro-tern.
Design Review Subcommittee—November 11, 2014
Page 4 of 4
John Wiedmeyer (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
The design and scale of the detailing from 2008 has been modified slightly.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist.
The motion passed 5-0-1.
Abstain: Wiedmeyer
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Respe Ily submitted,
gejedet_____D
Cindy A. al• n Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary V/3//
;
Notice of meeting cancellation
Regularly scheduled meeting on November 25, 2014
of the Elgin Heritage
Design Review Subcommittee
The regularly scheduled meeting of November 25, 2014, has been canceled.
Our next meeting will be on our regularly scheduled meeting date of December 9, 2014, at 6:00
p.m., City Council Chambers, 2nd floor of the North Wing, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Should you have any questions regarding the posting of this cancellation notice, please contact
the staff liaison Saher Saher at 847-931-5943.
SS/caw
Notice issued on 11/18/11
Notice of meeting cancellation
Regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 2014
of the Elgin Heritage
Design Review Subcommittee
The regularly scheduled meeting of December 9, 2014, has been cancelled.
Our next meeting will be on our regularly scheduled meeting date of January 13, 2015, at 6:00
p.m., City Council Chambers, 2nd floor of the North Wing, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Should you have any questions regarding the posting of this cancellation notice, please contact
the staff liaison Saher Saher at 847-931-5943.
SS/caw