Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-15 approved 10-27-15Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 13, 2015 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 Chairman Wiedmeyer. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: PatJage PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 1. 272 Division St — Removal of existing concrete retaining wall and chain link fence and replacement with new retaining wall and wood fence. 2. 363 Wellington Ave — installation of vinyl siding and vinyl windows without a COA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of September 8 and September 22, 2015, as amended (September 22nd minutes: pg. 8 add "approved" with..., pg. 9 Railing height 26.5" and pg. 13 abstain- Savel). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: None Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 2 of 8 NEW BUSINESS: 272 Division St — Removal of existing concrete retaining wall and chain link fence and replacement with new retaining wall and wood fence The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to remove existing retaining wall and install a new retaining wall on the north end of the property. The applicant is requesting to remove the existing retaining wall at the north end of the property near St. Joseph's Catholic School's playground and install a new poured concrete retaining wall. The existing concrete retaining wall has major spalls and is beyond repair. In addition, the applicant is seeking to remove the existing chain link fence and is proposing to install a wood fence on top of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is proposed to be constructed in concrete approximately 12 inches in height at the upper grade and approximately 5' -0" in height at the lower grade. The retaining wall and fence are not readily visible from the street. 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. 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. C. Of cast iron or other material of original design should be preserved. D. Of cast iron may be added to buildings constructed in the late 1911 and early 20th century. Cast iron fences are generally not appropriate for dwellings built after 1920. 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. H. That has a decorative gate or arbors must be submitted with a drawing complete with dimensions. Fences in Front Yards A. Should be no higher than 36 inches with the posts being slightly higher and having caps Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 3 of 8 B. 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. C. 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 Yards A. Built for privacy should not extend beyond the rear yard beginning at the back corner of the house. B. 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. C. Can be constructed in the same low fence design found in the front yard D. 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. E. 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 recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. The fencing shall be a maximum of 6' -0" high. 2. The fencing shall be painted in a complimentary paint color to the school. 3. The fence shall be of cedar, redwood or pressure treated pine, cypress or other rot resistant wood. Miriam Neet (Sr Project Architect and Dori Del -Iro Project Architect) as representative of St Joseph's Church) was present for tonight's COA discussion: There is a large drop off between the church property and the adjacent residential property. The concrete is spalling badly between the properties; unable to salvage. Chain link fence is leaning over and or fall down between the playground and the residential property too. Two plans are proposed for the retaining wall, with a 1' exposure on the church playground area with a 4' high fence above the 1' exposure. Although the retaining wall would be solely on the church property, the construction would need to be done on the adjacent residential property. Option #1) with a berm constructed on the neighboring property to soft the appearance of the required retaining wall needed; or Option #2) a straight 6 foot high retaining wall. Access for either project would require approval /permission from the adjacent residential property owner Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Architect indicated from the residential view, the exposure height of the straight retaining wall would be 6 feet; then topped with a 4 foot high wood fence. Giving an overall "wall" height of 10 feet at the rear of the residential property. The berm construction method would possibly reduce the amount of usable yard area by the homeowner. Architects indicated at no point on the church side would the combination of wall and fence height exceed 6 feet. Commissioners indicated the fence should not be attached to the side of the concrete retaining wall. Pickets above and parallel to the retaining wall. Although the exact fence style has not been determined, a shadow box style was preferred by the architects and commissioners. Motion #1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve retaining wall Option #1 as amended: 1) pickets to be cut above the concrete retaining wall with a maximum of 2 inch separate; 2) fence to be parallel to grade, maximum of 6 feet at highest point; 3) exposure of retaining wall on church property to be a maximum of 1 foot; and 4) staff to approve final fence style. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. Motion #2 made by Committee Member Roberson to approve Option #2 with the same conditions as motion #1, only if the adjacent property owner requests the retaining wall without a berm. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 363 Wellington Ave — installation of vinyl siding and vinyl windows without a COA The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: Installation of vinyl siding and vinyl windows without a COA. The applicant has indicated their interest in keeping the existing vinyl siding as they believe this is an improvement compared to the asbestos siding that clad the building prior to the installation of the vinyl. Staff has advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines do not permit the installation of vinyl siding. Staff has also advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines permit the installation of new siding (wood or fiber cement) over the entire building only if more than 50% of the original siding is damaged and beyond repair. Staff has advised the applicant that once the non - original siding is removed any architectural features that can be restored as per the building's shadow Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 5 of 8 lines will be required. To note, the architectural features including the original window hoods were removed during installation of the vinyl siding. The applicant has also installed vinyl windows throughout the home. Staff has advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines do not permit the installation of vinyl windows. The applicant stated that the windows that were removed were vinyl windows and that the new vinyl windows were installed in the existing framing. The applicant also indicated that they were unaware that vinyl windows were not permitted on structures located in the historic districts. 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 Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 6 of 8 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 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 material requirements of the Elgin Design Guideline Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts. Richard Popco (owner), Brandon Popco (son), were present for tonight's COA discussion: Richard Popco stated he and his son started Popco Construction in February 2015. This was their first property in Elgin, which was purchased to remodel and sell. They were both unaware of the property being within the historic district. Materials (windows and siding) were purchased and installed to update the exterior. Replaced the existing vinyl windows with new vinyl windows. Stock vinyl windows were purchased, since Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 7 of 8 custom vinyl would have been more expensive. Commissioners reaffirmed the house is located within the Elgin National Watch Historic District which was established in 1997. A brief history of the watch factory and workers cottages in the area was provided to the applicants. The commission explained that pre- existing conditions (items no longer allowed, but were present when the historic district originated) are allowed to remain. However, if approved for removal then the replacement must meet the Design Review Guideline requirements. The installation of the replacement vinyl windows do not fit the original window opening; and are not appropriate in design or material. Window hoods have been removed; which provided architectural details on the small structure. By removing the substitute siding (asbestos siding) brings forth other issues. If original wood siding was underneath, the wood siding would need to be restored. If no original wood siding, then the commission could have considered appropriate alternative siding and trim details (ie: window hoods, etc.) could have been replicated. At this point, we have no idea what is or was under the asbestos siding. This commission is required to review the proposed work and material; then determine if the proposal meets the Design Review Guidelines. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. A roll call vote was requested. The motion failed unanimously. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Sundquist stated the second round 50/50 and 75/25 Historic Grants will be considered by city council tomorrow night. Ms. Walden confirmed approved DRSC and Heritage minutes are accessible on the city's website. If specific date is not available from the pull down listing, minutes can be accessed from the "archived" minute selection. CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Savel. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee — October 13, 2015 Page 8 of 8 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. den ApproveOd::,, Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Oa';