HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 05-23-17 - approved 06-13-17Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 2 of 17
OLD BUSINESS:
1028 Douglas Avenue – Replacement of basement windows
Motion made by Committee Member Hunter to un-table items E1 for discussion
(representatives for the properties in attendance for tonight’s meeting).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
This request was tabled on May 9, 2017 due to lack of owner representation.
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace four, fixed, metal
basement windows with aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites. The
proposed window will match closely to the existing storm window design.
The applicant noted that the existing metal windows are in varying condition (poor to fair) and
would like to have two of the windows installed as awning windows to allow for more air
ventilation into the basement. The other two windows will be proposed to be fixed.
The applicant is also requesting to keep the current configuration of his venting system that is
venting out from part of the window located at the rear of the property. The glazing in one of
the divided lites was removed to accommodate for the vent. The vent hood on the stove on the
first floor is a Jenn-Air downdraft cooktop and the venting would be allowed to be maintained
in its current configuration per code due to this type of appliance. The applicant stating that he
would prefer to maintain the vent-hood through the window as making a hole in the brick
would be intrusive and costly.
Three basement windows can be seen from the public right of way, however, are partially
obstructed by vegetation. The remaining basement window proposed to be replaced is located
at the rear of the home and is only visible from the alley and partially obstructed from the A/C
mechanical system.
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
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 3 of 17
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:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following conditions:
1. That the proposed basement windows shall contain three-simulated divided lites (grilled
installed on exterior and interior sides of the glazing) and shall fit the width of the
original window opening.
2. That the proposed basement window containing the vent shall have two-simulated
divided lites and the area where the third light would be will contain a metal panel for
the vent. If possible, the vent location shall be flipped so that it is hidden by the A/C
mechanical unit and that the portion of the window could be seen from the street.
3. Window glass shall not be tinted.
*****
Tom Ruydell (owner) and Vicky Slotterbek (Pella window rep.) were present for tonight’s COA
discussion:
Tom explained the existing windows are all wood and have storms too. Vicki presented sample
of the Pella wood window with aluminum cladding to be installed. A 2” brick molding with
modern step is being proposed.
Commissioners explained that the 1x framing board with a 1x flat brick molding is not typical in
the historic districts, a slimmer design is more appropriate. Vicki indicated a 1x could be used
to keep the window profile in a more slender design.
Three lites will be installed in each basement window with the exception of the window with
the dryer vent.
This window is located at rear of the home and has limited visibility due to distance from alley
and placement of the air conditioning unit. Punching a hole thru the brick will be costly and
difficult due to interior floorplan. Proposal of left lite: dryer vent will be placed at the top
portion and a flat white aluminum panel will fill the remainder; while the remaining two lites
for this window will be true lites.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 4 of 17
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and the
following requirements: 1) 1x framing board with a 1x flat brick molding, 2) flat aluminum plan
under vent, and 3) approval for operational or fixed window design (if allowed by building
code).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
838 Douglas Avenue – Replacement of existing fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the
existing cedar fence with a 5’-0” board on board, scalloped cedar fence to match in style as the
neighboring fence at 832 Douglas Avenue.
The request has been submitted due to areas of deterioration at the existing fence. The fence is
proposed to be installed at the location of the existing fence. The existing trellis on the south
side of the property to remain.
The applicant is proposing this particular style to match the existing style at 832 Douglas for
continuity. In 2015, 832 Douglas Avenue was approved to install a 6’-0” high scalloped, solid
fence. The height of this fence was approved as it was installed at the rear corners of the home.
The applicant is proposing to install the new fence at the existing location to align with the
fence at 832 Douglas rather than pushing the fence to rear corner of their home.
The applicant is proposing not to paint the new fence but to let the fence weather. To note, the
current fence on the property is not painted.
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 cat iron or other material of original design should be preserved.
D. Of cast iron may be added to buildings constructed in the late 19 th and early 20th
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 – May 23, 2017
Page 5 of 17
Fences in Front Yards
I. Should be no higher than 36 inches with 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 e hidden
behind the picket design. Fences which cross a driveway or walkway should have gate
posts. Gates should be designed to swing onto the walkway or driveway, not onto the
public sidewalk.
Fences in Rear Yard
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.
O. 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 as the height (5’-0”) in the side yards does not meet the
Historic District Guidelines. However, should the Design Review Subcommittee approve the
proposed fence due to the fence aligning with the fence at 832 Douglas Avenue and 844
Douglas Avenue, which is located at the rear corner of both homes, staff would then
recommend the following:
1. The fence shall be no higher than 5’-0”;
2. The fence shall match the style found at 832 Douglas Avenue (scalloped board on board)
for continuity.
3. The fence shall be painted white or a complimentary color to the home or stained with a
solid body stain. The color may be coordinated with adjacent neighbors.
*****
John Steffen (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion.
Arbor is to remain, wanting to keep the gate. Fence at 832 Douglas was installed about 2 years
ago. The fence would be 5’ at the highest point and scallop down to 4.5’, matching the
adjoining property owner’s fence design and placement between the houses.
If the fence on this property was to be set back from the adjoining fence, commissioners felt
the fence would look out of place.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and the
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 6 of 17
following requirement: 1) fence is not to be painted, nor stained (age naturally).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
844 Douglas Avenue – Replacement of Existing Fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the
existing cedar fence with a 6’-0” board on board, scalloped cedar fence to match in style as the
neighboring fence at 832 Douglas Avenue.
The request has been submitted due to areas of deterioration at the existing fence. The
applicant is proposing to install the fence at its current location due to a patio built direction
behind it. The existing fence is located approximately 8’-0” east of the rear corner of the home.
The applicant is proposing this particular style to match the existing style at 832 Douglas and
the proposed style at 838 Douglas Avenue for continuity. In 2015, 832 Douglas Avenue was
approved to install a 6’-0” high scalloped, solid fence. The height of this fence was approved as
it was installed at the rear corners of the home. The height of the existing fence is 6’-0” high.
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 cat 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 20th
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.
Fences in Front Yards
I. Should be no higher than 36 inches with 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 e hidden
behind the picket design. Fences which cross a driveway or walkway should have gate
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 7 of 17
posts. Gates should be designed to swing onto the walkway or driveway, not onto the
public sidewalk.
Fences in Rear Yard
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.
O. 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 as the height (6’-0”) in the side yard does not meet the
Historic District Guidelines. However, should the Design Review Subcommittee approve the
proposed fence based on the recommendation/approval made regarding 838 Douglas Avenue,
staff would then recommend the following:
1. The fence shall be no higher than 5’-0” at the side yard to nicely align with the
proposed height at 838 Douglas Avenue (if the design and height was approved by the
Design Review Subcommittee). The fence can then be adjusted to a 6’-0” high height
once the fence is past the rear corner and into the rear yard.
2. The fence shall be installed at its existing location, approximately 8’-0” east of the rear
corner of the home.
3. The fence shall match the style found at 832 Douglas Avenue (scalloped board on
board) for continuity.
4. The fence shall be painted white or a complimentary color to the home or stained with
a solid body stain. The color may be coordinated with adjacent neighbor.
*****
Linda Haight (owner) and Raul Negron (contractor) were present for tonight’s COA discussion,
who presented a new fence design. A 6’ high privacy fence (5’ high solid, with 1’ high
screening/topper) wholly constructed of wood.
Commission agreed the new style presented is more pleasing then the existing fence design.
Placement appears to be about 8-10’ west of the NE corner of the house, and relatively close to
the rear building foundation line. Fence would be approximately 70’ from the city sidewalk.
Commission prefers no paint on fence. Existing fence has weather to a gray exposure and looks
appropriate for a taller style solid fence.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and the
following requirement: 1) 6’ privacy fence as presented tonight (5’ solid board and 1’ screened
topper – per the illustration present tonight by the applicant), 2) placement to be
approximately 8’-10’ from rear foundation, and 3) fence is not to be painted, nor stained (age
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 8 of 17
naturally).
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
415 Park Street – Replacement of existing fence
The property owner has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace the
existing cedar fence with a 4’-8” dog eared, 50% open wood fence to match the height and
design of their existing fence at the rear of the property.
The request has been submitted as the owners would like to enclose their side yard up to their
existing deck. The owners also stated that they would like the specific height of 4’-8” to be
consistent with the height of their fence at the rear of the property. They also expressed
concerns of having a lower fence as their dog is known to be able to jump over lower fences.
Currently, the fence height at the front yard is 42 inches and is hidden behind shrubs. The fence
that ran along the side yard to the rear no longer exists currently leaving the yard open to the
adjacent property to the west.
To note, the fence will be visible from the public-right-of-way as it abuts the parking lot of the
adjacent property.
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 cat iron or other material of original design should be preserved.
D. Of cast iron may be added to buildings constructed in the late 19 th and early 20th
century. Cast iron fences are generally not appropriate for dwellings built after 1920.
E. If placed along common property lines should not be placed again st 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 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 e hidden
behind the picket design. Fences which cross a driveway or walkway should have gate
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 9 of 17
posts. Gates should be designed to swing onto the walkway or driveway, not onto the
public sidewalk.
Fences in Rear Yard
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.
O. 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 as the height (4’-8”) in the side yards does not meet the
Historic District Guidelines. However, should the Design Review Subcommittee approve the
proposed fence to allow consistency with their existing rear fence, staff would then
recommend the following:
1. The fence shall be no higher than 4’-8”;
2. The fence shall match the style of the existing rear fence (dog eared spaced 50% open);
3. The fence shall be painted white or a complimentary color to the home or stained with
a solid body stain;
4. Landscape material (shrubs including evergreens for year-round screening) to remain
along the front elevation of the fencing to screen it.
*****
Layne & Gavin Buckland (owners) were present for tonight’s COA discussion.
Decking does not appear to be greater than 30”. Owners are proposing to install an open 1x6
picket design.
Commission recommends corner post with caps. Larger posts (6x6) with narrower pickets (1x3
or 1x4) would be more appropriate. The subject property is located next to a parking lot, and
the narrower pickets will provide more “screening” of the parking lot.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and the
following requirements: 1) corner and gate posts to be 6x6 with profiled cap and ball and all
other posts to be 4x4 with pitched caps, 2) 4’8” tall fence height maximum, and 3) 40% open
1x4 pickets.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 10 of 17
1024 N Spring Street – Removal of original garage doors and replace with overhead doors in
similar style as existing.
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace
existing, original wooden garage doors with new steel roll-up doors similar in appearance.
The applicant noted that existing garage doors do not shut completely and in the winter freeze
shut not allowing access into the garage. The garage doors appear to be in good condition with
some deterioration at the base, though there is some sagging noted where the doors connect
at the center, which is likely why the doors catch the ground and become difficult to open. To
note, the garage is located at the alley and cannot be seen from the main thoroughfare.
The homeowner is also proposing to install light fixtures at either side of the garage door; new
gutters to match the existing style and to scrape and paint the entire structure. To note, the
gutters and the painting can be approved by staff over the counter.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Garages, Carriage Houses and Outbuildings
A. Should be preserved and maintained. Original features should be repaired to match the
original.
B. Should not be moved or relocated to another part of the lot, if original to the property.
Garage Doors
C. Should be maintained to the greatest extent possible, but may be retrofitted with
modern hardware and custom garage door openers. If the original doors are missing or
too deteriorated to repair, they should be replaced with new doors that fit the original
opening and are appropriate to the design of construction of the garage.
D. Should be raised panel designs, with solid core, if proposed to be in metal designs. Flush
design doors (without raised panels) unless retrofitted to look like traditional doors and
hollow core metal doors should be avoided when possible.
E. If windows are necessary, they should be simple in design with clear glass. Muntins in a
simple design may also be used. The use of ornamental stained glass and openings in
decorative shapes such as sunbursts and oval designs are not permitted.
F. Should have painted metal panel doors to match the house in color appropriate to the
period of the house.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend approval of the garage door as submitted, since the material of the
existing garage doors is in good condition with minor deterioration at the base.
However, should the replacement doors be approved as proposed, staff recommends that the
Design Review Subcommittee recommend the following:
1. That the proposed doors fit the existing garage door openings.
2. The proposed garage doors are painted a color to complement the existing paint
scheme and not left white.
3. That Option 2 (preferred) or Option 3 is installed.
4. Salvage original doors to remain on property for possible future installation by next
owner.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 11 of 17
5. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee’s recommendations.
Staff does recommend approval of the installation of lighting with the following specifications:
That the light fixtures are raised an additional 1’-0” per the artist rendering to closely align with
the header casing of the garage door.
*****
Meghan Charochak (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion.
Homeowner likes the character of the existing garage doors. Would prefer to install option #2
garage design.
Steel door is allowed by commission. The existing hardware (hinges) can be taken off the
garage, cleaned and added to the new garage door.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve with staff recommendations and by
the following requirements: 1) garage door option #2, 2) straps not to be installed 3), Remove
center handles (leave lower handle in case power is out, 4) Light sconces to be center of rows of
garage door lites, 5) pattern of obscure glass to be approved by staff.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
121 Villa Street – Adjusted of roofline at garage
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the
roofline and pitch of the existing garage roof as water is not being properly shed from roof.
The applicant will also be replacing the existing garage doors with raised panel garage doors
and installation of a raised panel man door at the north elevation. To note, there is currently no
pedestrian door and the proposed location will not be visible from the street.
The existing garage roof is a hipped roof. The applicant is proposing to install a gable roof.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Garages, Carriage Houses and Outbuildings
A. Should be preserved and maintained. Original features should be repaired to match the
original.
B. Should not be moved or relocated to another part of the lot, if original to the property.
Garage Doors
C. Should be maintained to the greatest extent possible, but may be retrofitted with
modern hardware and custom garage door openers. If the original doors are missing or
too deteriorated to repair, they should be replaced with new doors that fit the original
opening and are appropriate to the design of construction of the garage.
D. Should be raised panel designs, with solid core, if proposed to be in metal designs. Flush
design doors (without raised panels) unless retrofitted to look like traditional doors and
hollow core metal doors should be avoided when possible.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 12 of 17
E. If windows are necessary, they should be simple in design with clear glass. Muntins in a
simple design may also be used. The use of ornamental stained glass and openings in
decorative shapes such as sunbursts and oval designs are not permitted.
F. Should have painted metal panel doors to match the house in color appropriate to the
period of the house.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the alteration of the roof form as the existing roof form
is hipped. Staff would recommend for approval with the following recommendations:
1. The roof pitch is adjusted to allow for better water runoff, but the roof form, hipped,
remains.
Should the Design Review Subcommittee approve the submitted request, staff would then
recommend the following:
1. The pitch of the gable shall match the pitch on the existing home.
2. That the roof extends past the garage walls by at least 1’-0”
3. That the fascia be 6 inches with 3” crown molding
4. That a frieze board with bedmolding installed at the top shall be installed in the same
size found on the existing home.
5. That the gable siding match the existing cedar lap siding in kind (material, size, profile,
exposure, thickness, etc.)
6. That clear, cedar siding is installed, primed and painted complimentary color to the
home.
7. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee’s recommendations.
Staff does recommend approval of the garage door replacement and installation of a
pedestrian door with the following specifications:
1. The proposed garage doors and pedestrian door are painted a color to complement the
paint scheme on the home and not left white.
2. The garage doors shall be square, raised panel. If windows are to be installed they shall
be placed at the top row and be only glass with no adornment.
3. That 1x4 trim is installed on the sides and the header of the pedestrian door along with
a 1x2 drip cap.
*****
David Hammond (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion. Owner indicated the
garage has problems shedding water and would like access to garage via a service door on the
west elevation (non-visible from street view). Two overhead doors with no lites is proposed.
Commission requested the new roof’s pitch match the house with similar eve returns. After
much discussion, the returns were deemed unnecessary for the accessory structure.
Owner indicates he is unable to install an overhang, due to garage proximity to property lines.
No soffit. Finishing front with 1x12 and 1x8
Motion made by Committee Member Hunter to approve with staff recommendations and by
the following requirements: 1) garage roof to match house pitch, 2) match existing siding
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 13 of 17
profile with clear, smooth, ½ x 6 cedar boards, 3) if desired by owner, eve returns can be added,
4) 1x4 corner boards and 1x6 frieze boards, 5) no lites in overhead door, 6) service door on west
elevation, 7) 1x4 trim around service and garage doors, and 8) 1x2 beveled drip cap (sitting
proud of siding) above service and garage doors.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
444 Prairie Street – Construction of addition
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness request for construction of a 2’ x
5’ addition at the side (east elevation) of the house.
The applicant noted that they would like to enlarge their existing kitchen by 10SF and that the
proposed addition will match the existing architectural features as close as possible including
the cedar siding, trim, crown molding and cornerboards. The roof of the addition will be an
extension of the existing roof with the same pitch. A corner window will be removed.
The home is located on the corner lot and therefore, the proposed addition located at the side
will be visible from Channing Street but not from Prairie Street.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Additions
A. should be located at the rear of dwellings, not on the front or readily visible areas of the
sides of dwellings.
B. should be secondary (smaller and simpler) than the original dwelling in scale, design,
and placement.
C. should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original dwelling’s design, roof
shape, materials, color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights, etc.
D. should impact the exterior walls of the original dwelling as minimally as possible. When
building additions use existing door and window openings for connecting the addition to
the dwelling.
E. should be constructed to avoid extensive removal or loss of historic materials and to not
damage or destroy significant original architectural features
Staff Recommendation:
As the addition will be minimally disruptive to the original configuration of the home, staff
would recommend approval with the following conditions:
Kitchen Addition:
1. That the siding is of clear cedar and matches the thickness, exposure, profile of the
existing siding. The siding shall not sit proud of the trim but shall abut into the new trim
on the addition.
2. The roof line follows the same pitch as the existing roof.
3. The corner boards shall match the existing in size, thickness, material.
4. The frieze board with bed molding matches the existing in kind.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 14 of 17
5. The fascia board matches the size as the existing with the installation of in-kind crown
molding
6. All other details shall match the drawings.
All elements shall be primed and painted.
*****
Melissa & Adam Patterson (owners) were present for tonight’s COA discussion. Owners
indicated water damage which seemed to be coming from the narrow window. When the
siding was removed, the box board was found to be rotten.
The small bump out would assist with the correction of the water damage and provide
additional interior space for their kitchen (counter top, upper & lower cabinets). Interior design
details were shown to the commissioners by the applicant.
Siding profile would be done to match with 1 x 4 trim boards at corners.
Roof line will continue the existing roof line.
Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve with staff recommendations and by
the following requirements: 1) match details (fascia, crown ¾ round), 2) trim boards to be
proud of siding..
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
507 Raymond Street – Restoration of original siding, reconstruction of missing window hoods
The COA application has been submitted to restore the original siding found under the
substitute siding material; and replace missing architectural features including window hoods.
The applicant submitted a request to the Design Review Subcommittee on April 11, 2017 to
maintain the existing vinyl siding and vinyl windows that were recently installed without
building permits or a COA. The request was denied by the commission unanimously. The
applicant chose not to appeal the decision and will be restoring the original siding, and
reconstructing missing features.
Staff completed a site inspection at May 17, 2017 and found that the siding was in good
condition. There are some areas of deterioration found on the north elevation that are
recommended to be replaced in kind (clear cedar, same exposure and thickness of original
cedar clapboards).
Originally, there was a side porch that extended all the way to the front of the house. There are
remnants of where a pilaster (engaged column) was located as well as the porch roof. The
applicant is proposing to fully replace those areas of missing cedar siding with new cedar siding.
Though, the applicant mentioned that if the Design Review would prefer, they would install a
vertical cedar board in the location of the original pilaster for possible future restoration.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 15 of 17
To note, the remaining aluminum siding around the windows and doors will be removed. The
aluminum at the soffits and fascia will remain.
At this time, the applicant is still looking at options for replacement windows. In addition, the
inappropriate handrails that were recently installed will be removed.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Wood Siding
A. Should be repaired rather than replaced, if original. If replacement is necessary, wood
siding and shingles should be replaced with new cement board or shingles to match the
original in size, placement, and design. Wood that has been concealed beneath
synthetic sidings such as aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl should be repaired and the
synthetic sidings removed. Following the removal of synthetic sidings, the original
siding should be repaired to match the original, caulked and painted. If the "ghosts" or
outlines of decorative missing features are revealed, these should generally be
replicated and reinstalled. If these features are not replaced, they should be recorded
through photographs or drawings for future replication.
B. Should be insulated if the addition of the insulation does not result in alterations to the
siding. The creation of plugs or holes for blown-in insulation is not acceptable.
C. Should have original asbestos shingles kept stained or painted. If asbestos shingle siding
is deteriorated or poses a health hazard, it may be removed and replaced with wood or
other substitute siding. Removal of asbestos siding should follow hazardous material
guidelines.
D. Should not be concealed beneath synthetic materials such as vinyl, Masonite, or
aluminum, if original. Original siding should also not be concealed beneath wood-based
materials such as particleboard, gyp board, or pressboard. These materials generally do
not possess textures or designs which closely match original wood siding. However, if
more than 50% of the original siding material is damaged beyond repair, or missing,
substitute materials may be applied if the following conditions are met:
• the existing damaged siding materials are removed prior to the installation of
substitute materials;
• Vinyl material is not permissible. Rather, cement board is and should be smooth
without knots and be accented with trim
• Finger jointed board stock is acceptable, however, natural continuous board
stock is preferable for use as siding.
The application of these materials must not result in the concealment of or removal of original
decorative detailing or trim including window and door surrounds. However, if no trim or
surrounds exist then new wood trim in the form of fascia, corner boards, base boards, molding
and windows should be installed.
Substitute materials should match the dimensions of the original wood siding as closely as
possible. The cement board should abut the wood trim and be caulked to prevent moisture
damage.
Design Review Subcommittee – May 23, 2017
Page 16 of 17
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted and with the
following conditions:
Siding:
Replacement siding in cedar shall be installed on the entire house with proper trim around
windows, corner boards, base boards, fascia boards and soffits under roof overhangs meeting
the following requirements:
1. Damaged siding shall be repaired, epoxy preferred
2. Nail holes must be patched with putty, epoxy preferred.
3. New siding shall be installed only as necessary with replacements-in-kind to match the
original siding profile and exposure.
4. All replacement wood material shall be clear (no knots), cedar preferred and installed
smooth side out.
5. All missing window hoods to match shadows must be installed.
6. Appropriate trim boards shall be repaired or installed as necessary at the corners and
around doors and windows, which includes but is not limited to the corner boards and
front window caps.
7. Siding shall be sanded, primed and painted.
All other specifications to meet the Design Review Commission’s recommendations.
*****
Sophia Li (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion.
Only siding and window hoods are being reviewed tonight.
Commission indicated siding repairs should be weaved in with the existing siding. Weaving of
siding was described in great detail to the applicant.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and by the
following requirement: 1) new siding must be weaved in existing siding.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
At the permit counter this week, Cindy explained she worked with a property being renovated
that only two lots away from the Elgin National District. When asked if they would consider
using guidelines from the historic district to maintain the intrigued of the district, the project
manager was intrigued and willing.
Although the property is not within a historic district, he was willing to use details from the
Design Guidelines for the property improvements. Discussions regarding the various proposed
projects included garage replacement, house repairs and fencing. Project manager was
agreeable to install appropriate style garage overhead and service doors, smooth cedar siding