Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutjan 13 2015 HCDR minutesDesign Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission January 13, 2015 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, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel (6:03), Christen Sundquist, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None 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 162 College St — new retaining wall 211 Michigan St— new front and rear porches APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of October 14, 2014, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sundquist. The motion passed unanimously. Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve the minutes of October 28, 2014, as amended (page 4 add "rail" after the word sash in the approval). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve the minutes of November 11, 2014, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee— January 13, 2015 Page 2 of 5 ITEMS TABLED: None NEW BUSINESS: 162 College St — new retaining wall The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to install a new retaining wall on the south side of the house. The retaining wall is proposed to be constructed in uni -lock concrete blocks approximately 2.5 to 3 feet in height. Provisions for adding a fence are also proposed during the construction of the wall. The concrete blocks are designed to match a stone wall, and will be constructed with a ca p. A portion of the wall will face the street, and therefore be readily visible. The applicant is requesting the wall to be able to re -grade the southerly portion of the yard to make it more useable. The yard currently slopes away from the house. 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 cannot recommend approval of the application as submitted, since the material (concrete blocks) does not meet the material requirements of the Elgin Design Guideline Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts. If the retaining wall is approved as proposed, staff recommends that the Design Review Subcommittee recommend that landscape material (shrubs including evergreens for year - round screening) be planted in front of the retaining wall to screen it. John Boline (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion: Request is necessary due to topography of property. Height of retaining wall approximately 3' feet at the deepest northern point; for a distance of about 20 feet along College Street. A tier system will be in the rear yard. A fence will be requested in the future. Design Review Subcommittee— January 13, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Proposed style is the "slate wall" which mimics a tumbled stone. Commission noted that Elgin has many parcels with topography issues and acknowledged they must take those issues into consideration. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted; with a height limit of 36 ". The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. 211 Michigan St — new front and rear porches The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to rebuild the front and rear multiple story porches on the building. The front porch is proposed to be rebuilt using the existing turned posts on the upper level, while replacing the balustrade with new guard rails and turned spindles. The turned spindles are proposed to be 2x3 balusters with the 3 inch exposure facing the street to give the impression of a wider baluster. The lower level will be rebuilt using the existing square posts. The applicant is proposing to reuse the decorative ornamentation to the greatest extent possible. The rear deck and access to the building is also proposed to be rebuilt. However because of the lower visibility of the structure from the street, the property owner is proposing a simpler design. The posts will be 6x6 posts with simple capitals and balusters will be 2x2 balusters 4 inches on center. Newel posts will be designed with post caps and bases. Details of the porch reconstruction are included in this packet. Additionally, two windows on the front elevation above the porch will be reopened. These windows will be new wood double hung windows. No additional work to existing windows and doors is proposed at this time. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Porches: A. should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing. B. 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). Design Review Subcommittee— January 13, 2015 Page 4 of 5 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The turned spindles proposed on the front porch should be minimum 3x3 rather than the 2x3, due to the magnitude of the porch and the number of spindles that will need to be used. 2. Existing architectural features such as the turned posts, brackets and other original architectural features should be reused to the greatest extent possible to continue to preserve the original character of the porch. 3. The new windows proposed to be installed in reinstated openings in the masonry should be set to match the depth and profile of the remaining existing windows on the building. % *x�a Tim Ramseyer (owner) and John Roberson (architect) were present for tonight's COA discussion. Note: John Roberson recued himself from voting this item, due to conflict of interest. Front porch (west elevation): Lower posts to be constructed of 6x6 wrapped with a 1x; plus 1x 10" at base with beveled edge. Upper turned posts to be used if possible. Upper brackets to be installed at post corners. Hand rail will need to be 36" height due to location and code requirements. Commission would prefer 24 -28" railing with a pipe rail above to fulfill the 36" height requirement. Need to add approximately 6" to bottom of upper posts to allow for hand rail to join properly at posts. Railing should have a 4 % -5" top and bottom rail; beveled upper rail with cove molding and a chamfered lower rail. Turned 3x3 spindles. Porch details to be primed and painted. Mansford roof to have a bed molding below the soffit of the box beam (not crown molding). The new wood double hung windows to be installed within the original window opening. Motion #1 made by Committee Member Savel to amend front porch per commission comments with staff's final approval. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed 6 -0 -1. Abstain: Roberson Rear porch: Porch originally was across the building (mirror image of left and right). Design Review Subcommittee — January 13, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Posts to be 6x6 with wrap at top and bottom. Plain square edged 2x2 (actual 1'/: x 1 %:) spindles at 36" height; due to location and code requirements. Frieze /spandrel at the top is optional. Treads to be constructed of 5/4 lumber (treated lumber is permitted). Three pieces of equal size, allowing for two drain lines. Bullnose front and side edges. Decking to be 5/4 x 5'/:" treated decking. Motion #2 made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by commission comments. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed 6 -0 -1. Abstain: Roberson ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: None CORRESPONDENCE: None 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 7:22 p.m. Respectf ly submitted, Cindy A. W n Approved: Design Rev Subcommittee Secretary March 10, 2015