Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 03-22-16 approved 04-12-16Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission March 22, 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, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel (6:01), and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: Dan Miller, Paul Kuester PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 418 Lowrie Ct— Replacement Windows 159 S Charming St — Installation of garage — 2016 Grant Application 477 Arlington Av — Installation of fence APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve the minutes of March 8, 2016, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed (5 -0). ITEMS TABLED: None OLD BUSINESS: None Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 2 of 7 NEW BUSINESS: 418 Lowrie Ct — Replacement Windows 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. On February 23, 2016, the DRSC denied the applicant's request to replace the windows with the submitted Casco new construction replacement window and recommended that the applicant pursue other windows that meet the DRSC specifications. At that time, the applicant was advised of the appeals process. In lieu of appealing the DRSC's decision, the applicant pursued obtaining estimates for windows that meet the DRSC specifications /dimensions. Additionally, a Casco representative spoke with the DRSC at their regular scheduled meeting on March 8, 2016 regarding their insert window. The DRSC stated that they have approved this window in the past. In light of this, the applicant is re- submitting a request for the aluminum clad wood window installation of the Casco insert window. 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. Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the following conditions: 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. Juan & Mireda Estrada (owner) were present for tonight's COA discussion: If window trim /casing is removed it must be replaced in kind (same size, profile, style, etc). Jambs and sills should be measured independently for each window opening. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve as amended by staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed unanimously. 159 S Channing St — Installation of garage — 2016 Grant Application The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application to demolish the existing 2 -car garage on the property. The garage has deteriorated beyond repair — the roof has collapsed and the rear wall has buckled. The structure has been condemned by the Code Enforcement Department for immediate removal as it poses a safety hazard. The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new garage on the property. The garage will be located in the same location as the existing garage. The existing asphalt driveway will remain and be extended to the rear to provide access to the new proposed garage. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Demolition: should not occur, unless: A. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; B. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character of the districts and its removal will improve the appearance of the districts; or C. The denial of the demolition will result in an Economic Hardship on the applicant as determined by Chapter 20.10 of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code — "Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance." D. The denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation, or redevelopment of the site, and /or adjacent properties from substantially improving the aesthetic, architectural or economic value of the affected properties and surrounding area. Secondary Buildings: Garages, Sheds, Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 4 of 7 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 unacceptable 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 recommends approval of the application as submitted, as the proposed changes /repairs to the structure will further enhance its architectural character. Sergio Vasquez (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion. Committee Member John Roberson recused himself from the project; his drawings were submitted for this application. Existing deteriorated garage was built between 1950 and now. Siding on the house is 2 %" clapboard siding. Proposed siding for garage is 4" exposure. Garage is setback considerably from the street. There is a cement product out there with a 2 V profile. Roberson explained the side elevations gables are so high, the top 6" will be stepped out. Committee acknowledged the following details need to be added to drawings prior to permit submittal: Over the upper portion of the garage face to have an 8 " -12" frieze board with crown molding. Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Shingles will be architectural design (not 3 tab). Valley flashing to be metal or weaved shingles. Service door to be either top % lite or solid. Window trim to match the house. Brackets to be added to back elevation (three brackets on both the front and back elevations). Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve as amended (items listed above for building permit submittal); and staff to approve give final details regarding a) service door style, b) crown molding and c) valley flashing (metal or weaving) prior to permit release. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed 5 -0 -1. Abstain: Roberson 477 Arlington Av— Installation of fence The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new privacy fence on the north, south and west side of the house. The applicant is proposing to install a 6' -0" 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 with another 6' -0" privacy fence. The current side yard fence is located 8' -0" off of the rear corner of the home in the side yard. The proposed fence shall match the fence installed by the neighbors located at 476 S. Liberty Street. 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 1911 and early 20" 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. Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 6of7 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 painted to match the trim of the house. 3. The fence shall be of cedar, redwood or pressure treated pine, cypress or other rot resistant wood. Danielle Jacobson (owner) & Jon Jacobson (son) were present for tonight's COA discussion: Owner wants to replace fence in same location as previous fence, which aligns with the adjacent southern property's fence line. Commissioners discussed the guideline requirements for "painting" of fences. Painting /white washing was typical and customary of picket fences. Members feel privacy fences (solid 6' fence styles) should not be painted and would be allowed to weather or have a clear stain applied. Design Review Subcommittee — March 22, 2016 Page 7 of 7 Motion made by Committee Member Save] to approve as submitted with the following amendments 1) matching plane of neighbors fence line, and 2) no paint (natural wood). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: General conversation regarding knee walls projects previously reviewed by committee, due to a property located on Douglas Avenue is considering applying for a preservation grant. CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Roberson. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. W/. Id4n Approved: Design Re�'w Subcommittee Secretary April 12, 2016