HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-16 DRSC approved 09-27-16Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
September 13, 2016
Minutes
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:
Lynne Diamond, 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
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of August 23, 2016, as
submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
None
New Business
8 -16 S Liberty Street — Removal of deteriorated cupola
33 N Porter Street — Installation of 6' -0" privacy fence in side yard
564 Lillie Street — Installation of 8'x10' shed
312 North Street — Reconstruction of front porch balustrade and handrails
ITEMS TABLED:
Casco Aluminum presentation; due to non - representation.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 2 of 9
NEW BUSINESS:
8 -16 S Liberty Street — Removal of deteriorated cupola
The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations:
1. Removal of deteriorated cupola located on the south end of the east building.
The applicant has indicated their interest in removal of the deteriorated cupola as it is in poor
condition. The applicant stated that there are two cupolas per building and that the other three
cupolas were in good condition.
Staff has advised the applicant that architectural features should not be removed or altered if
original to the building. The cupolas can be seen from the public way.
To note, the building is listed as a non - contributing building to the Elgin Historic District
however, it was built in 1963 and has now reached historic status (50 years old). The building
has a twin adjacent to it listed at 11 -25 S. Porter Street.
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 cannot recommend approval of the certificate of appropriateness application as
submitted, since removal of original, architectural features does not meet the requirements of
the Elgin Design Guideline Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts.
Nick Scarpelli (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owner indicated he is anticipating reroofing the entire building in 2017. Meanwhile the cupola
in question is leaning significantly to one side and he expressed potential safety issue. Owner is
unaware of the building cupolas being used for any type of ventilation and believes them to be
decorative only. Due to damage /decay, raccoons are getting into the attic and causing more
problems.
Commissioners discussed various aspects of this cupola including: colonial style design, cupola
scaling appeared to be too small for structure, possibly used previously for venting purposes,
and acknowledgement of additional cupolas (same size) on the structure.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 3 of 9
Although the structure has colonial design features, unable to determine if this cupolas are
original to the building or not. Non - contributing structure, however it is greater than 50 years
in age.
Owner requesting to remove the titling cupola and patch the area until the entire roof is
replaced.
Commissioners discussed the need for the cupolas if decorative only and miss proportioned in
design for the structure. Difficult to see cupolas with growth of trees and size of existing
cupolas.
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve the removal of the collapsing cupola
now (safety issue) and to remove remaining three cupolas within 1 year of this COA approval.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
A roll call vote was requested by Chairman Wiedmeyer.
The motion passed 5 -2. Nays: Hunter and Roxworthy
33 N Porter Street — Installation of 6' -0" privacy fence in side yard
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new
privacy fence on the south and west side of the house.
The applicant is proposing to install a 6' -0" dog- eared, privacy fence in the rear and side yards.
The applicant indicated that they would like to replace the current 6' -0" privacy fence at the
side yard and move the location approximately 9' -0" westward, toward the front yard with
another 6' -0" privacy fence. The current side yard fence is located approximately 33' -0" off of
the rear corner of the home in the side yard.
Per the Historic District Guidelines, privacy fences shall be located at the rear corner of the
building. If a fence is located past this point in a side yard, then it shall be 50% open with a
maximum height of 42 inches.
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.
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 19th and early 201h
century. Cast iron fences are generally not appropriate for dwellings built after 1920.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 4 of 9
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
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 Yards
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 cannot recommend approval of the application as submitted, since the height of the fence
in the front and side yards do not meet the height requirements of the Elgin Design Guideline
Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts.
If the height of the fence is approved as proposed, staff recommends that the Design Review
Subcommittee recommend the following.
1. The fencing shall be a maximum of 6' -0" high.
2. The fencing shall be more decorative than a dog -eared fence such as a solid with lattice
style fence.
The fence shall be of cedar, redwood or pressure treated pine, cypress or other rot resistant
wood.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 5 of 9
Susan Macomb and Thomas Reid (owners) were present for tonight's COA discussion:
Owner would like to install the 6' high fence a foot or two from the eastern portion of the
tower (approximately 7 -8' east of the existing fence). Existing fence was designed and installed
about 25 years ago. The top 1' of the fence has already came down and the lower 5' is leaning
significantly.
Commission informed homeowner the existing fence was installed incorrectly. Good side of the
fence is to face the adjacent property owner, while the supports are seen by the home owner.
With the issuance of a fence permit, the building code will require the new fence to be
construction properly.
Staff recommends the style of fence to be decorative due to placement. Owner had a brochure
from "Fence Connection" of which two fence styles would be considered for this project:
#19 —A 5' high board on board design with a 1' decorative spindle design.
#20 — A 5' high standard straight board design with 1' decorative lattice design.
Homeowner would prefer tight side by side straight boards, not board on board (shadow box)
style.
Some distance /relief from the tower should be provide. A couple of feet would be agreeable by
homeowner and commission.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve a COA with the following conditions:
1- fence height not to exceed six feet (5' (straight board design with 1' decorative spindle
design), boards are to be installed side by side, not board on board (shadow box) style; 2- solid
stain or painted, within one year of COA issuance; 3- maximum 4' wide gate; and 4- to be install
a few feet back from the east of tower.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow.
The motion passed unanimously.
564 Lillie Street — Installation of 8'x10' shed
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to install a 8'x10'
frame shed on the north east area of their property.
The shed will be approximately 80 sq.ft. It will be constructed of wood with a gable roof. The
proposed shed will be minimally visible from the public way.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Secondary Buildings: Garages, Sheds, Other Outbuildings
A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 6of9
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
acceptable 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 for the installation of the proposed shed as it cannot be seen
from the public way and contains a gable roof and wood construction that is similar in design to
the existing home. The following conditions shall apply for approval:
1. The shed shall be primed and painted with colors to complement the existing home's
paint scheme.
Jesus Sarmiento (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Glass at top of shed is not appropriate in design and should be removed.
Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve with staff recommendations and the
following amendment: glass window above doorway is to be removed from design.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 7 of 9
312 North Street — Reconstruction of front porch balustrade and handrails
The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations:
1. Reconstruction of front porch handrails without a COA or permit.
The applicant indicated that the previous porch handrails were in bad condition. They were also
unaware that they were located in the Historic District and that they needed a permit for the
work at the front porch. They noted that they will reconstruct the porch handrails to meet the
Historic District Guidelines and the Design Review Subcommittee's comments.
The previous porch handrails did not match the style or age of the home as there were no
newel posts terminating the end of the handrail at the bottom tread.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Porches
A. Should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing
B. Should be repaired or replaced to match the original in design, materials, scale and
placement
C. Should be screened only if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal
and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Screen panels should be
placed behind the original features such as columns or railings and should not hide
decorative details or result in the removal of original porch materials.
D. Should have steps of the same material as the porch floor (e.g. porches with wood
floors should also have steps made of wood, not concrete or brick)
E. Should have poured concrete steps if the porch, patio or terrace floor is made of
concrete (see section on Porch Steps).
F. Should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the fagade,
if the porch floor is made of wood.
G. Should have trellises made of wood, if trellises are appropriate.
H. Should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house or with
decorative wood framed skirting, vertical slats, or lattice panels, if open areas in the
foundation exist.
I. Should not be removed if original to the dwelling
J. Should not be enclosed with wood, glass, or other materials which would alter the
porch's open appearance.
Porch Columns and Railing
A. Should be preserved and maintained. Where repair is required, use materials to
match the original in dimensions and detailing.
B. Should be rebuilt in historic designs if the original columns and railings have been
removed or replaced
A. 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
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 8 of 9
inches in height.
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, W cove, 2x2 turned,
balusters with sharp edges, with a maximum of 21/2" spacing. That the bottom rail is a
2 x 4%" with chamfered edges, installed 2" above finished floor.
2. That the newel posts shall be 6x6 (wrapped 44 post) with pummeled edges and a 5
inch diameter ball cap.
3. All front porch details shall match the attached drawing.
4. All front porch details shall be primed and painted.
April Welch (owner), Carri Ann Overheidt (Property Mgr.), Mike Sigrist (Grid 7 Properties LLC)
was present for tonight's COA discussion:
Post would be installed in front of the last step overlaying the step. Newel post proposed at
6x6 due to mass of building.
Wrapping height proposed at top and bottom of post discussed in great detail. Taller bottom
wrapping is typical in newer residential developments, not in the historic districts.
The proposed placement of a newel post against the house is not traditional. Usually the railing
would be attached to a mounting block, or a % post would be set into the siding by cutting the
siding to fit the block or post. Edges would be sealed in either case.
Due to post dimensions, the ball needs to be 5 -5 % ".
Railing height proposed at 36 ". Within the historic district, owners can sign documentation to
allow handrail of 30 ".
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendation and the
following amendments: 1) Ball to be 5 % - 5 % ", due to newel post width; 2) Bottom wrap of
post on bottom step, to be approximately 8 %" high; shorter top wrap will be determined by
bottom wrap height (staff to approve final dimensions); 3) cove moulding under handrails;
4) squared balusters will be true 1 W x 1 W with 2 — 2 W spacing; 5) railings to be attached to
the house by either: a) 6 "x6" mounting block, b) 1/2 newel post, or c) screwed directly into the
wall /siding; 6) railing height of 33" to the top of railing (no graspable rail); 7) newel post
maximum 6 % "; 8) flute on newel post is optional; 9) paint to compliment the house.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee — September 13, 2016
Page 9 of 9
OTHER:
Representative of Casco Industries — Kevin Brown was not in attendance.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
1) Gifford Park Association's 35th Annual Historic Housewalk - September 10th & 11tH
2) Heritage Commission to present the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Award
to the Mayor, City Council and the City Manager on Wednesday, September 14, 2016.
This award was received for website technology.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Diamond.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cind!A. l en Approved:
Design Review Subcommittee Secretary September 27, 2016