Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 10-10-17 - approved 10-24-17Design Review Subcommittee of the Elgin Heritage Commission October 10, 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, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John Wiedmeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation; and Cindy Walden, DRSC Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Committee Member Roberson to approve the minutes of September 12, 2017, by amending page 21 (increased from 12” to 24”); and approve the minutes of September 26, 2017, by amending page 5 (soffit or rafter tails are present) and( rather than mitered). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ristow. The motion passed 5-0-2 for September 12 (Abstain: Diamond & Savel); and the m otion passed unanimously for September 26. RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT: None PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION: Old Business None New Business 414 S Liberty Street – Maintaining Existing Paint Scheme – Paint Grant 359 Park Street – Removal of three existing, non-original windows and replacement with stained glass windows ITEMS TABLED: None Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 2 of 9 NEW BUSINESS: 414 S Liberty St – Maintaining Existing Paint Scheme – Paint Grant The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to maintain the existing paint scheme that is a part of the Exterior Paint Grant Program. On June 3, 2016, the applicant submitted an Exterior Paint Grant application and was approved. As a requirement for this application, the applicant was asked to submit paint swatches of the proposed colors. The applicant’s contractor proposed colors that included a dark and light gray, purple, black and blue. Staff stated to the applicant’s contractor that although these are not historically accurate colors, the applicant may still submit this paint scheme for the grant program if they keep the purple and blue colors to small details. Staff at that time took an image of the existing home and marked the areas of where the paint colors were to be applied. On September 15, 2017 staff completed an inspection of the home to find the color scheme that was approved changed, altering the purple and blue to be more prominent accents. The change in the scheme was not approved by staff and the inspection failed. The vibrancy of the purple and blue were not in character of this style of home and staff did not feel that this change could be approved over the counter. Staff noted to the applicant that if they decided to withdraw their application from the painting grant or seek approval from the Design Review Subcommittee, on the condition of their approval, the existing paint scheme could remain. The applicant noted that this paint scheme was a winner in the 2017 Chicago Paint and Coatings Association’s Painted Ladies Competition. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to maintain two concrete block piers (3’ tall) installed at the private sidewalk. The COA application has been filed as a corrective action to the following violations: 1. Installation of concrete block piers in front of house The applicant noted that they had extra material from their driveway project and did not realize that a permit was needed to install the concret e block piers. Staff reminded the applicant that any work completed on the exterior with the exception of installing plantings needs to be reviewed and approved prior to work beginning. Staff noted to the applicant that there are precedents in the histor ic districts for brick piers at the sidewalk including 802 Douglas Avenue, 907 Douglas Avenue, 1007 Douglas Avenue, 1013 Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Douglas Avenue, 1025 Douglas Avenue, 638 N Spring Street, 402 N Spring Street, and 320 N Spring Street. Staff could not find a precedent in the Watch District. Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications: Recommendations for Paint and Paint Colors Note: this section is provided only as a recommendation for property owners on the types of paint colors that are appropriate for use on historic buildings. Property owners are free to use colors of their choice on the exterior of their properties. A. Paint should be of high quality to provide a long lasting finish. B. Paint colors should be appropriate for the dwelling's architectural style and design:  Italianate Style - Light colors for the body and trim. Body - Tan, Light Brown, Beige, Light Green, Yellow Trim and `Accents - Cream, Gray, Light Brown  Queen Anne/Second Empire/Homestead - Diversity of colors using combinations of contrasting colors for the body and trim. Body - Tan, Red, Green, Brown Trim and Accents - Darker colors such as Dark Olive, Salmon, Red, Dark Brown  Shingle - Most Shingle style dwellings were originally built with the exterior wood shingles stained or left natural rather than painted. Most of these dwellings in Elgin have been painted over the years and a return to the dark browns and reds of the wood shingles is recommended. Body - Dark Red, Brown, Dark Gray, Dark Green Trim and Accents - Dark Green, Dark Brown  Prairie - A return to lighter colors such as yellow and white. Body - Light Tan, Light Yellow, Light Brown, Grays, Medium to Light Greens Trim and Accents - Whites and Off-Whites, Cream, Brown, Blues, Greens  Craftsman/Bungalow/Tudor Revival - Darker colors again such as earth tones. Dark stains also used in place of paint. Brick, stone, stucco, and concrete generally left unpainted. Body - Brown, Green, Gray, Dark Red Trim and Accents - Both light and dark trim colors such as Reds, Browns, Greens, and shades of Tan  Colonial Revival - Light colors predominate Body - Yellow, Light Gray, Light Blue Trim and Accents - White, Off-White, Cream Retaining walls: A. should be preserved and maintained, if original to the dwelling (or built before 1945). B. should be of poured concrete (not concrete blocks) or in stone designs such as cut stone, random rubble, coursed rubble, or cobblestones. Retaining walls of brick are less appropriate but may be constructed. If constructed of artificial or cultured stone, Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 4 of 9 textures, colors and random designs should replicate natural stone. If located in front yards, the walls should be constructed using up to two courses and an additional cap course, not to exceed twenty inches in height. C. should not be removed or replaced with new materials, if built before 1945. D. should not be built on the fronts of dwellings, if constructed of timbers or railroad ties. Staff Recommendation: Paint Staff cannot recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted as this is a grant project and the colors that were painted on the home do not match what was previously approved. In addition, historically, the home would have used colors that were less vibrant than the paint colors that were chosen. Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The purple and blue found at the wood shingles shall be subdued to a purple and blue that are not as bright/vibrant. 2. Or, the paint scheme follows the previously approved paint scheme. If the applicant decides to withdraw their grant application, the existing paint scheme may remain. Concrete Block Piers Staff cannot recommend approval of the application as submitted, since the material (concrete blocks) does not meet the material requirements of th e Elgin Design Guideline Manual for Landmarks and Historic Districts. If the piers are approved as proposed, staff recommends that the Design Review Subcommittee recommend the following: 1. The material brick is installed and not concrete block. 2. A stone cap is installed on top of the brick piers. ***** Carlos Baez and Denise Benjamin (owners) were present for tonight’s COA discussion. Owners stated this is their first home purchase. They have been waiting for the painting contractor to start the painting process for about eighteen months. In the meantime, they began other projects to fix up the property in general, including the service walks, driveway and building interior. Commission acknowledged this house had won a painted lady contest in the early -mid 2000’s with the paint scheme seen in the 2015 staff photo. Owners indicated the painting contractor had not presented the staff “approved” color scheme to them. Contractor showed up one day (without advance notice) and began to paint the house. Homeowner became aware of painting crew being on site via their security cameras. Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 5 of 9 As the contractor completed sections of the house, owner stated the contractor would contact them and asked if they liked the color. Again, the owners stated they were unaware of the staff “approved” color scheme. Commission acknowledged paint color diversity in the historic district is good, if appropriate colors and locations are used. For older historic houses (such as this one), neutral colors are used for the larger portions of the building with brighter colors used only for small accents/detailing. This allows the house details to be the main focus. Currently, when you drive or walk past the house, your eye is drawn to bright paint color in the body (shingles) rather than to the detailing of the house. Commission acknowledged when city funds are used for paint grants, than color schemes must be approved and installed accordingly. Commission feels the contractor should be held accountable for the deviation. Staff has well documented the color selection approved and was presented to the contractor prior to the work being done. This contractor has worked in the historic district before and is aware guidelines must be met for work completed within the historic districts. Contractor has placed the homeowner and the commission in a challenging situation for resolution. Staff has presented the homeowner with an alternative color tones for the blue and purple areas on the house. The muted colors will still be in the respective colors to accentuate the building details. As staff mentioned, homeowner has two options: 1) keep the current paint scheme and opt out of the grant program; or 2) reduce the brightness of the blue and purple paint color s at the body (shingles) with appropriate, staff approved, subdued palate selection. Regarding the piers, the homeowners indicated they used 8” pounded gravel base, then glued the retaining blocks together. Owners were going to install a cap and possibly a light fixture within the piers too. Commission indicated the material of piers usually match the house. Brick piers (not block) with a 2” smooth top, rough edge limestone or cement cap is typical in the historic districts. As seen in staff’s examples, piers without fencing are typically shorter, with planter features for adornment. Additionally, a building permit is required for structures greater than 24” from lowest grade. Any structure higher than 24” requires engineer or architect stamped/sealed plans. Homeowner is willing to reduce the height of the pier to ensure it will be less than 24” (including the 2”) the required cap. Owners requested keeping four rows of blocks, then one Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 6 of 9 row of brick, topped with the 2” cap. Landscaping to be completed around the piers with pebble stones. Owner was informed stone along a driveway could look like an expansion with inappropriate materials. Owner is willing to work with staff to ensure landscaping type and placement is appropriate. Discussion regarding planter or gargoyle being placed on top of the cap. Commission indicated gargoyles are typically seen on structures looking down (over) the land. A planter would be appropriate at this location. Landscaping (grass, stone, overflowing plants from urn, etc.) would also reduce the amount of exposed block. Motion #1 made by Committee Member Diamond to approve COA as submitted with existing paint color (vibrant blue and purple). The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter. A roll call vote was requested by Chairman Wiedmeyer. The motion failed unanimously (0-6). Staff explained to the homeowners the appeal process. However, homeowners indicated they would prefer the second option of having the muted tones painted (per staff recommendations). Based on the homeowners willingness to have the muted tones installed, the COA will be completed by staff as an over the counter approval. Motion #2 made by Committee Member Diamond to approve COA as amended staff comments and tonight’s discussion with the applicants. The following details are to be approved: 1) block piers with cap is not to exceed 24” containing a minimum of one row of brick from service walk, 2) cap shall be either limestone or concrete and must have a smooth top surface with rough edges, 3) landscape plan new piers to be reviewed and approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy. The motion passed unanimously. 359 Park St – Removal of three existing, non-original windows and replacement with stained glass windows The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace three non- original glass windows at the west elevation with stained glass windows. The three windows that are stepped at the west elevation are located at the stairway in the home and were once stained glass originally. The stained glass was removed by a previous owner and replaced with the existing glazing. The homeowners are proposing to re-install new stained glass that borrows designs from the “sister” home in Wheaton, IL. Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 7 of 9 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted, as the proposed changes/repairs to the structure will further enhance its architectural character. ***** Tom and Maureen Lee (owners) were present for tonight’s COA discussion. Owners stated that they have been considering replacement of the three windows for a while but have finally Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 8 of 9 pushed forward with the project due to some damage to one of the windows during the last storm. The windows found at the Wheaton home are stated to be “original” to their structure and is what they will be copying for the new stained glass windows. Stained glass pieces will be custom made by Mary Krebsbach. Sashes will be removed and reused, stain glass would be inserted and then entire piece would be installed. This is not a window replacement. Motion made by Committee Member Diamond to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel. The motion passed unanimously. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: December plaque awards will be held on December 5th at the Elgin History Museum. Social hour at 6:00pm, awards start at 7:00pm. Appeal for St Joseph’s Church retaining wall/planter was overturned by the Elgin Heritage Commission with a few notations: 1) side retaining wall was to be removed, 2) church officials must work closely with staff and Design Review Subcommittee regarding the future addition to the church to ensure appropriate materials and designs will be used for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Committee Member Savel. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy A. Walden Approved: Design Review Subcommittee Secretary October 24, 2017 Design Review Subcommittee – October 10, 2017 Page 9 of 9