Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 01-12-16 approved 02-23-16Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission January 12, 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: Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: John Roberson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Robert Lee PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 260 National St — Exterior painting without a COA; request for awnings 161 Villa St — Egress windows; and front hand rails APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of November 24, 2015, as amended (pg. 3 — Fascia board should be 1x6). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. ITEMS TABLED: None Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 2 of 9 NEW BUSINESS: 260 National St — Exterior painting without a COA; request for awnings The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: 1. Painting exterior masonry without a COA. The applicant has indicated their interest in maintaining the painted brick as the brick was in poor condition. The applicant stated that they wanted to provide a seal coat to the brick to prevent further deterioration. Staff has advised the applicant that the Design Guidelines do not permit the painting of masonry. Staff also advised that painting brick traps moisture as the masonry walls are not allowed to "breath" or evaporate the moisture that has penetrated into the wall. When brick walls are painted, it can cause water /moisture to freeze (during winter) and eventually spall (the protective fire face of the brick chips off exposing the softer brick material that is more susceptible to water infiltration) causing more damage. Staff assessed the site on 12/03/2015 and noticed some spalled bricks (minor) at random locations throughout the street elevations, and several areas that had open joints. To decrease water infiltration, the areas that exhibit open joints should be re- tuckpointed and the spalled brick spot replaced. Overall, the street elevations were in good condition. The common brick wall at the east elevation was in the worst condition with spalled brick, open joints and step cracking present. This may have been caused by water not being properly shed away from the parapet walls (coping has several layers of tar, no flashing or drip cap) and the elevation being previously painted in the past. Typically done in this situation is not to paint over the brick but to remove and rebuild the top 12 courses on this elevation, install new shelf angles (with flashing and drip caps) above the windows and door and install new coping with drip caps and flashing at the parapet. The lower courses of the brick on this facade are in better condition and could be retuckpointed and cleaned. To note, although this building is listed as non - contributing, the surveyor may not have known the age of the building and assumed it was less than 50 years old (to be classified as historic, buildings must be 50 years or older). The building was built in 1939 as a Gasoline /Service Station and displays many of its original characteristics in the Art Deco style. The applicant is also requesting to install awnings throughout the property. The proposed location of the awnings will cover some architectural features including the square, glazed brick inserts; and the vertical cut limestone at the restaurants main entrance at the south elevation. The awnings will not cover up the limestone architectural feature found at the angled entryway. Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Masonry: Brick, Limestone Block and Cobblestone A. should be preserved and maintained, if original B. should be cleaned only if there are major stains or paint build -up. If the staining or dirt is limited, it may be best to leave it alone. Do not introduce water or chemicals into brick walls. C. should be cleaned with detergent cleansers if the brick walls are stained. If you wish to remove paint from brick, the use of chemical removers is appropriate. This is a job that usually requires professionals. Information concerning the use of chemical paint removal products can be found in Chapter XIII. D. should be repaired carefully to match the original brickwork and mortar, using hand tools, not electric power saws, to remove mortar, if repairs are necessary. E. should have repointing (fixing the mortar between the bricks) that matches the original brick and mortar regarding width, depth, color, raking profile, composition, and texture. Repointing should never be done with Portland cement or other hard mortars unless these mortar compounds are original to the dwelling. For most pre - 1920 dwellings, use soft mortars to match the original composition. If the original composition cannot be determined, use a historic compound such as one part lime and two parts sand. F. should not be sandblasted or subjected to any kind of abrasive cleaning. Brick should never be cleaned with high pressure water which exceeds 300 pounds per square inch. G. should not be coated with silicone -based water sealants. Water sealants or water repellents generally have the affect of keeping interior moisture from evaporating through the walls and thereby damaging the brick. H. should not be painted unless the brick and mortar is extremely mismatched from earlier repairs or patching. Previously sandblasted brick or brick in poor condition may be painted to provide a sealing coat. I. should not be covered in stucco or other coating materials. Paint Removal and Surface Preparation A. Should be performed by manual scraping or by using appropriate chemical removers. A paint shaver may be used, but with caution so as to avoid removal of wood siding B. Should be performed cautiously when removing paint through heat plates or heat guns to avoid unnecessary damage to the wood through charring or fire. C. Should not be removed by abrasive techniques such as sand or water blasting since this can damage the wood and introduce moisture into the building. Awnings A. Should fit the opening to which they are applied. Shed awnings are appropriate for rectangular openings while arched awnings are appropriate for arched openings. B. Should be straight sided or have shed designs. The use of bubble, concave, or convex forms is appropriate only on round arched openings. Internally lit awnings are not acceptable. Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 4 of 9 C. Should not cover or conceal decorative transoms containing prism glass or stained glass D. Should not be internally it. Staff Recommendation: Painting Staff cannot recommend approval of the certificate of appropriateness application as submitted, since painting masonry does not meet the requirements of the Elgin Design Guideline Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts. Awnings Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 1. The awning brackets shall be installed in the mortar joints and not through the brick or limestone. 2. The awnings are placed only above windows and entrances as they would have been installed historically at these locations. Miguel Torres, Sr (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion: Original building constructed in 1939 as a gas station. Addition was added prior to 1973 when a restaurant was established (Lazara's Pizza). Owner stated prior to painting the building the Raymond Street (western elevation) brick face was actually in good condition. National Street (south elevation) brick had had a few issues with tuckpointing including various shades of mortar. The northern face of the building is all smooth stucco. While the eastern wall was both brick and stucco material along the alley. Along the eastern elevation, the northern half is smooth stucco and painted white. The southern end of the eastern side has brick and stucco which is coming off the building due to water runoff of the roof. Owner express the need want to stop the water seepage and improve the National Street view of the eastern elevation. Western portion of building was an addition and can clearly be distinguished by the brickwork at the southwest corner of the structure. Although the survey states this a noncontributing structure in the historic district, this survey appears to have been miss stated, since the Art Deco details were not recognized in the survey. Staff has seen occasionally over the years other survey errors. Commission express great concern of leaving the painted brickwork (which was done without a COA), which would set a precedence for other potential brick structures within the historic districts. Commissioners indicated a "breathable" clear coat should have been applied to the brick. Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Owner would prefer to have one continuous awning along top edge of the building face. Awning color is not dictated by the commission, however complimentary colors /tones are suggested to bring attention to the architectural features such as the Art Deco elements. Awnings should not to cover any architectural features. As indicated with the guidelines, the commission would prefer the awnings to be individually over each window opening, and not continuous along the multiple facades. Awning anchor bolts should be removed from placement within the limestone and new awning brackets should be anchored into mortar joints. Motion #1 made by Committee Member Savel to approve the painting of brick as submitted by applicant. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion fakd unanimously (0 -5). Motion #2 made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as awning (continuous style) per the rendering submitted as applicant. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion ailed unanimously (0 -5). Appeal process was provided to the applicant by Christen Sundquist. After further discussion, the owner indicated he was willing to eliminate the arched awning over the entrance and install the awnings over the window and door openings only (not a continuous awning along the building face); and requested to amend his COA request. Motion #3 made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve awnings to be installed over window and door openings only (anchor bolts to be located in mortar joints) and limestone to be fully exposed; subject to staff's final review and approval. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed unanimously. 161 Villa St — Egress windows; and front hand rails The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install three egress windows at basement at north elevation as well as install handrails at the front porch. The applicant is proposing to construct three bedrooms in the basement that require egress. The current basement windows at the north elevation are awning windows that do not meet the building code requirements for egress windows. The applicant noted that the new windows Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 6 of 9 will not increase the width of the existing windows but only the height. To note, the windows are minimally visible from the public way. The applicant also indicated their interest in installing handrails at the front porch. Staff advised applicant that the metal chains are original and a significant element of the home and shall not be removed. The applicant is requesting to install metal handrails that are painted white, as the building is a lighter color, to not detract from the historic, architectural elements. 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. Porches A. Should be maintained in their original design with original materials and detailing Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 7 of 9 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 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: Windows 1. The basement window replacements must fit the width of the original basement window openings. Handrails 1. The existing chain stair railing shall remain. 2. That the metal handrails be painted a color that blends in with the paint scheme. If the building will remain a lighter color, white handrails shall be installed. If the building will be painted a darker color, black handrails shall be installed. 3. The metal handrails shall not exceed 30 inches in height. Andy Santillanes (construction manager for MACK Estates) was present for tonight's COA discussion: Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Currently a single family dwelling containing two (2) bedrooms. The proposed interior modeling and installation of egress windows will allow the structure to be a five (5) bedroom home. Plans submitted indicate concrete window wells. Mr. Santillanes stated that galvanized square window wells are to be installed. The width of the opening is not being increased. Commissioners stated a preference of galvanized %: rounded window well to be installed no greater than 2" above grade. Mr. Santillanes was amendable to the style change. The three (3) egress windows proposed are to be wood with aluminum clad with mutton to appear as double hung design. Bungelow style houses are typically smaller homes with small basement windows. Commissioners noted an egress window was previously approved on Douglas Avenue. Handrails are not required to be replaced at this time by building code unless the stairs are being modified. If the existing black "chain" barriers are removed, than the railing and spindles would require building code compliance. Applicant indicated desire to install new handrails for the safety sake of the next occupants. Discussion continued between commissioners, applicant and staff regarding styles of handrails and color. Typically a light colored home would have a light color handrail to compliment the stair case and make staircase appear to "disappear" from view. Many 1920 homes had metal railing installed. Any handrail system installed will be seen easily from one direction or another. Commissioners express their preference for the color of handrail to match the color of stucco; which the applicant was agreeable to. Motion #1 made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as egress windows as amended by applicant (galvanized rounded design, maximum of 2" above grade). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed 4 -1. (Nay: Roxworthy) Motion #2 made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as handrail replacement with staff comments; and color to match principal color of structure. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed 3 -2. (Nay: Roxworthy and Savel) Design Review Subcommittee — January 12, 2016 Page 9 of 9 OTHER: Fiberglass window discussion Per the committee's direction in December 2015, staff has continued research information regarding fiberglass windows. A group in the state of Oregon stated glass area is reduced compared to wood windows. In their case, the government entity approved fiberglass window replacement on the rear of the building and for basement windows. Robert Lee presented a small section (roughly 5" long) of a fiberglass rail sample for committee to see and touch. He would like to present fiberglass windows for consideration in the near future. Both fiberglass windows and fiberglass clad wood windows were found recently on the internet. Overall the research completed by staff and various committee members had found the rails and styles of the fiberglass windows do change the profile /exposure. Should fiberglass material be deemed an acceptable material for windows in the historic district, the commission could specify dimension requirements for rails and styles of any replacement window. From a distance, the ascetics of the replacement window needs to be similar or very close to the same profile of a wood window. All products fail, but wood windows can be repaired. 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 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. We'n Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Dom-/? -3//9