The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRSC 02-23-16 approved 03-08-16Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission February 23, 2016 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, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel (6:03), and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Ristow CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller Paul & Sue Kuester PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 418 Lowie Ct — Window Replacement 150 S Gifford St — Reconstruction of front stairs APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of January 12, 2016, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed 4 -0. ITEMS TABLED: None NEW BUSINESS: 418 Lowie Ct — Window Replacement The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness request for the replacement windows due to issues with energy efficiency (air infiltration). The applicant proposed to install Casco, aluminum clad wood, double -hung, 1/1 windows. Design Review Subcommittee — February 23, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Staff conducted a site visit on January 29, 2016. At that time, Staff assessed the window conditions and determined that many of the windows were replaced previously with wood, double -hung windows. In addition, several of the window profiles differ from one another. The replacement windows are in fair condition, however, the majority of the windows have plexiglass glazing. It was found that there are three original windows, one at the stairwell (fixed window), and two on the second floor. The original windows are in the worst condition as the window sashes have varying degrees of deterioration. Staff advised the applicant that window estimates for the repair and replacement windows should be submitted. Estimates for replacement were submitted, however, no estimate was submitted for the repair of the windows. To maintain the overall consistency of the windows, the applicant has requested approval to replace all of the existing windows. 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. 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: At this time, staff is unable to fully recommend the replacement without the applicant's submittal of the project repair cost estimates. Design Review Subcommittee — February 23, 2016 Page 3 of 4 However, should the Design Review Subcommittee 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 the following: 1. That all windows shall be 1/1 double -hung, aluminum clad wood and must fit original window openings. 2. The window replacements must match the profile of the original windows. 3. Window glass shall not be tinted. 4. That the existing window wrapping is removed. 5. That new wrapping is not installed. Juan & Mireida Estrada (owners) was present for tonight's COA discussion: The basement are not proposed for replacement. There are 15 windows on the house to be replaced, of which 3 are original windows. Original windows are located: South elevation - upper East elevation —stairwell (fixed window) North elevation — double hung in bedroom Homeowner provided a sample window from Casco Co (South Elgin, IL) for commission to see. Commission felt the bottom rail was appropriate in height /profile (3 -3 % "), however the top rail, side styles and meeting rail were too narrow. Top rail needs to be 2 -2 % ", each side style 2- 2 % ", and each meeting rail 1 % ". Juan indicated he placed several calls for quotes for window repairs, but no one called him back to arrange for estimates. House currently has aluminum siding. If the exterior trim is taken off, it could be very difficult to reinstall the existing trim. Should the siding be damaged, homeowners could have major issues and possibly have to remove the aluminum and then work with (restore or replace) whatever material is below. Commission acknowledge they would be agreeable to replacing the 3 original windows and the other 12 windows, however the appropriate profile /style of window would need be to be submitted for consideration. Commission noted there are several manufacturers that make wood clad replacement windows with appropriate rail dimensions. Adjacent property owners (Paul & Sue Koester) commended the homeowner for the improvement made on the property. Replacement windows would look nice and give uniformity to the structure, but the trim should remain. Paul also acknowledge the newly constructed garage with wood siding looks beautiful. Motion mode by Committee Member Savel to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion ailed unanimously (0 -5). Homeowner was given two options: 1- Submit a new COA for window replacement with appropriate material /profiles Design Review Subcommittee — February 23, 2016 Page 4 of 4 2- Appeal DRSC decision to the Heritage Commission. Appeal process was explained to the homeowners by Christen Sundquist. 150 S Gifford St — Reconstruction of front stairs Note: Property owner (Jaime Garcia) withdrew the application prior to the tonight's meeting. Mr. Garcia is communicating with the neighboring unit for possible repairs to the other shared staircase of the building. Additionally, he wants to apply for one of the historic grants for the project(s). ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: 1- Building Code: Community Development staff is reviewing the International Building Code for possible amendments. As information becomes available, staff with share proposal of text amendments with committee members. 2- Grant application submittal deadline is April 1, 2016. 3- Grant information meeting to be held at the Gail Borden Library on March 7th @ 7:OOpm. Several speakers to answer questions regarding the available grants will be there including: Christen Sundquist (grant application process), Vince Cuchetto (Code), Patricia Williams (NHS of the Fox Valley), Scott Savel and John Wiedmeyer (commissioners). 4- Discussion of grant poster locations (where they have been placed and other proposed sites). 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 7:00 p.m. RespectfulJ,y submitted, Cindy A. Walden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary 0- /0Y //(--/-