Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 06-27-17 - approved 07-11-17Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission June 27, 2017 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: Lynne Diamond, Rebecca Hunter, Bill Ristow, John Roberson, Scott Savel (6:03), and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Roxworthy CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve the minutes of June 13, 2017, as amended (pg. 7 add "bulkier "). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed 5 -0. RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business 132 Hill Avenue — Reconstruction of front and side porch handrails New Business 467 Division Street — Maintaining steel frame gazebo 431 E Chicago Street — Reconstruction of garage 226 Villa Street —Window opening re- design ITEMS TABLED: 132 Hill Avenue, remained on the table due to non - representation Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 2of10 OLD BUSINESS: 132 Hill Avenue — Reconstruction of front and side porch handrails *This item was tabled due to the request for a new design of wood handrails at the front and side porch to match the style of the home and not the style of the 1959 stoops. The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the front porch handrails. The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: 1. Removal of existing metal handrails and installation of wood handrails without a COA and Building Permit. The front porch has been altered several times since the building was constructed, however, originally when the building was built there was a front stoop at the general location of where the current front stoop is located. The stoop roof at the front and side porch were installed in 1959 along with the metal handrails. The applicant is proposing to install wood handrails at the front and side porches to match the style of the home and not the style of the stoops. 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. Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 3 of 10 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. Porch Staircases and Steps A. Should be retained in their original location and configuration, if original to the property. Wood and concrete steps should be repaired with materials to match the original. B. Should be replaced with wood rather than brick or concrete, if the porch floor is made of wood. C. Should have their tread constructed in either 5/412 or 2x12 lumber. The ends of the treads should be bull -nosed and overhang the riser by no less than 1 inch. D. Should have newel posts and balusters, treads and risers, to match original porch construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following recommendations: 1. The handrail shall have a 2x4 top rail with chamfered edges, W cove, 2x2 square balusters, with a maximum spacing of 2.5 ". That the bottom rail is a 2x4 with chamfered edges, installed 2" above finished floor. 2. That the newel posts are added to the bottom of the stairs and shall be a 6x6 newel post with a 1x base wrap, topped with a post cap and ball. 3. All front and side porch details shall match the attached rendering. 4. All front and side porch details shall be primed and painted. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations. No representation for this COA was present for tonight's COA discussion, therefore the item remained tabled. NEW BUSINESS: 467 Division Street — Maintaining steel frame gazebo The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a steel framed gazebo with cloth /insect screen covering in the side yard located on the south Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 4 of 10 side of their property. The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: 1. Installation of steel frame gazebo without a COA and Building Permit. The property technically does not have a rear yard as it is situated on the corner with the home situated on almost the entire lot. Due to the proposed material of the gazebo and its side yard location, Staff requested that the applicant appear before the Design Review Subcommittee. To note, if this request is approved by the Design Review Subcommittee, the applicant will need to seek a variance with the Planning and Zoning Commission as any accessory structure located in an R3 zoned district must be at least 4' -0" away from the primary structure and 3' -0" away from the lot line. In addition, the area of which the gazebo will be installed will be considered a patio (gathering of people) and no longer a driveway and therefore would require a 6' -0" setback from interior lot lines per the city's ordinance. The applicant proposed to replace their driveway on April 3, 2017 with brick, which was approved by staff over the counter. This requires a 3' -0" setback from interior lot lines. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Yard Features Pergolas, arbors, gazebos, fountains, tree houses, ponds, and statuary A. should be sited in rear yards or side yards B. should be of wood construction in designs appropriate for pre -1945 dwellings. Yard features constructed of materials such as glass, metal or brick can be placed in yards if situated near the rear of the lot and effectively screened by fencing or landscaping. C. should not be located in street yards. Arbors are light open structures of trees or shrubs closely planted, either twined together and self - supporting, or supported on a light lattice. The designs for these structures should be based on historic designs appropriate for pre -1945 dwellings. Wood construction should be used rather than brick, concrete, metal, or glass. Appropriate structures in front yard shall be reviewed by the Design Review Subcommittee. Staff Recommendation: Staff cannot recommend approval as the material (metal) for a gazebo does not meet the historic district guidelines. However, the overall design does not detract from the historic integrity of the home and the gazebo is also partially covered by the existing fence. Though, it can still be seen from Walker Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 5of10 Place but not from the main thoroughfare, Division Street. In addition, the accessory structure may be seen as reversible (can be removed without affecting the historic integrity of the home). Lastly, the applicant noted that this is a seasonal structure that can be removed and taken down during the winter months. If the Design Review Subcommittee approves the application as submitted, staff would recommend the following: 1. The accessory structure disassembled and stored during seasonal changes. Eilyn Tomassini (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion: Gazebo was assembled with screws. Screen material added to all four sides along with small lights have been added to the structure by the homeowner. Currently not anchored to the ground. Commissioners expressed concern of unit not being anchored. Wind could possible move or tip the metal unit over. This is a standalone structure, not a screened porched attached to the house. Gazebos in the historic district are typically constructed of wood, per guidelines. Small lot within the historic district, containing mostly house with limited yard area(s). Gazebo is quite visible from the street even with current tree foliage. Staff noted a zoning variation is required for the placement of the gazebo on the zoning lot. Commission indicated they would entertain a trial basis of one year. Staff to take photo during in January 2018 for commission to see the visibility during non - foliage periods. COA should be brought back to the commission for final consideration (approval /denial) next spring. Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve a trial period of one year. Staff to provide photos for final consideration of this COA by the DRSC in spring 2018. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed 5-1 (Nay: Diamond). 431 E Chicago Street — Reconstruction of garage The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct a two -car garage on the property to match the recently demolished garage design. The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: 1. Demolition of existing garage and reconstructing new garage at same location. The applicant received a permit on June 8, 2017 for spot replacement of existing cedar siding to match in kind at the existing garage. A stop work order was placed on the property on June 14, Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 6of10 2017 by Code Compliance Officer Joshua VonDran due to the previous garage being demolished without proper approval. The applicant noted that he was unaware that his contractor demolished the garage. The applicant is proposing to replace the design of the garage in kind in the same footprint as well as the location of the windows, the pitch and design (hipped) of the roof, siding, trim, etc. The garage was approximately 20'x22' in size with two garage doors. To note, the garage was built sometime after the 1950s as it does not exist in the 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Secondary Buildings: Garages, Sheds, Other Outbuildings A. Should be smaller in scale than the dwelling; clearly secondary in nature. 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. Should not be constructed of rough sawn cedar with knots. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request to construct the new garage if the following conditions are met: Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 7of10 1. That the proposed garage siding material will be clear cedar (no knots) and installed smooth side out in a profile and exposure to match what was once there (4 %" exposure). 2. The trim shall be a 1x4 at the following locations: corner boards; garage doors with an 8" header casing as well as at the windows. The header at the windows shall extend past the vertical trim by at least 1 inch as well as the sill to match the photograph. The trim must sit proud of the siding. 3. The proposed windows shall be wood with a 2" top rail and stiles with a 3" bottom rail. The glazing shall be glass and not tinted. The design of the window shall match the enclosed photograph exactly. 4. That the garage roof shall be hipped to match the previous garage roof design. 5. That the eaves shall be enclosed but not be boxed and shall extend a minimum of 12 inches away from the garage wall. Soffit shall match in kind found on the existing home. 6. Garage doors shall be raised panels. 7. The garage shall be painted in complimentary colors to the existing home. S. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations. Arturo Zamudio (owner) was present for tonight's COA discussion: Owner indicated materials were being stored inside the structure was pushing the wall out. Commission expressed great concern of demolition being completed without COA consideration by staff and /or commission; especially when a COA was requested for "repair" only. House has at least a 6/12 pitch, possibly 8/12 with hip design. Garage style and pitch should match the house. Standards for trim and fascia to be indicated in approval too. Man /service door to be installed on west elevation. Door can be steel or wood with 6 panels design without window, or 2 vertical panels with window above. Motion made by Committee Member Ristow to approve with staff recommendations and by the following requirements: 1) Hip design roof with 6/12 or 8/12 pitch (staff to approve), 2) 12" soffit overhang, 3) 2 %" siding exposure (needs to be padded out), 4) two fixed windows (4 lite optional), 5) installation of man /service door (as noted above), 6) match trim on all doors and windows (must sit proud of siding), 7) bed molding details and aluminum drip cap. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed 5 -1 (Nay: Roberson). 226 Villa Street — Window opening re- design The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness request to alter the design of the windows so that they are 13" shorter than the existing at locations that require fall protection. Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 8of10 The applicant's request to replace existing windows and open up brick areas was approved at the Design Review Subcommittee meeting held on June 13, 2017. After which, the applicant found that the existing windows at the proposed bedroom locations are only 11 inches above the finished floor. Per building code, any sill that is below 24 inches must have some type of fall protection. Staff advised that there are casement and double -hung windows that provide fall protection with a latch that only allows the window to open no more than 4 inches but can release to open fully during an emergency. The architect stated that they are uncomfortable approving those windows as the latch may fail leaving the window with no fall protection. Therefore, to meet building code, the applicant is proposing to raise the existing window sill and relocate it at 24 inches above the finished floor so that it meets the required height for no fall protection. The windows will still be casement, aluminum -clad wood windows with simulated meeting rails at egress areas only. 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. Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 9of10 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 existing sills (brick or limestone) are to be relocated at the proposed locations with new brick installed where the previous sill was located to match the existing brick in kind. 2. That all other specifications regarding the windows shall match those that were approved at the Design Review Subcommittee held on June 13, 2017. 3. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee's recommendations. Eduardo Ordaz (owner) and Alex Ordaz (owner's son) were present for tonight's COA discussion: Total of seven (7) windows on the upper floor. Commission noted there are so many layers of paint and various mortar joints on the structure, the entire house should be painted to provide uniform color. Limestone or cast concrete sills should be installed. Cast concrete needs to mimic the existing limestone sill on all windows. Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and by the following requirements: matching limestone or cast concrete sills installed on all window openings. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. The motion passed unanimously. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Savel. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Diamond. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Subcommittee — June 27, 2017 Page 10 of 10 The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respec,gully submitted, Cindy A. galy en Design Review Subcommittee Secretary Approved: 07- /%o2O/7