HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRSC 11-14-17 - approved 12-12-17Design Review Subcommittee
of the Elgin Heritage Commission
November 14, 2017
Minutes
The meeting of the Design Review Subcommittee was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers (Located on the 2nd floor of City Hall) by Chairman Wiedmeyer.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lynne Diamond, Rebecca Hunter, John Roberson, Dennis Roxworthy, Scott Savel, and John
Wiedmeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Ristow
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 October 24, 2017, as
submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Savel.
The motion passed unanimously.
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
None
New Business
266 Lessenden Place – Demolition of building
140 N. Porter Street – Reconstruction of front stairs – new handrails
162 Franklin Street – Reconstruction of front and rear porch
408 S Liberty Street – Maintaining concrete block pillars in front of home
ITEMS TABLED:
None
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 2 of 10
NEW BUSINESS:
266 Lessenden Place – Demolition of building
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the
existing unoccupied residential building located at 266 Lessenden Place.
The applicant noted that this property is part of potential future redevelopment plans,
combined sewer below-ground wastewater storage structure, for the Fox River Water
Reclamation District.
Staff completed a site inspection of the structure on October 19, 2017 and determined that the
structure is in repairable condition. However, staff did not have acce ss to the interior of the
structure at that time. The property is currently vacant (water shut off on April 12, 2017). Fox
River Reclamation District purchased the property in May of 2012.
The building was built in 1958 (construction began in 1957) and although it is now considered
historic, the property is not within the period of significance (1840-1940) for the Elgin National
Watch Historic District. The remaining homes on the block are within the period of significance.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
Guidelines for Demolition
A. Should be avoided of any original feature or part of a pre-1945 building.
B. should not occur, unless:
1. An emergency condition exists and the public safety and welfare requires the
removal of the building or structure;
2. 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
3. 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.”
4. 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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request to demolish the structure as it meets Standard B2 –
building does not contribute to the historic and architectural character of the district and
Standard B4 – denial of the demolition will impede rehabilitation/redevelopment of the site.
However, staff has the following comments and recommendations:
1. Private sidewalk and gravel driveway shall also be removed and restored to grass.
2. Allow the property to be available to neighborhood preservation groups such as the
Gifford Park Association (GPA) to salvage architectural elements within the building.
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 3 of 10
*****
Bob Trueblood (Representative of Fox Valley Water Reclamation District-FRWRD) was present
for tonight’s COA discussion:
FRWRD’s 5-10 year plan is to construct an underground storage tank facility, which will
encompass this parcel and several others adjoining parcels. Multi-million dollar project.
Discussions with the city has been to allow a small pocket park installed above the storage tank.
Pros and cons of a pocket park in this area were discussed by the commissioners.
FRWD is awaiting the Illinois EPA application approval; then discussions will continue with the
City of Elgin’s engineering, water and parks departments with development of the exposed
land.
House has flooded several times. Liability issue from water intake and building being a vacant
building for the past few years. The demolition of this structure has been mentioned in prior
DRSC meetings when discussing adjacent parcels. This is the first formal COA request regarding
the removal of the structure at this address.
Various parcels in the area are part of FRWRD’s future plans. A large chicken hatchery/coop was
demolished last year on the parcel south of this property. It was structurally unsound,
abandon, in disrepair and was frequently found with homeless persons within the structure.
The former Elgin Corrugated Box building at Raymond and Bluff City Blvd also had numerous
police and fire calls due to persons being illegally within the structure.
FRWRD has also divided lots in this area to allow single family dwelling to remain, yet allowing
open area needed for the future underground storage tank facility.
Demolition of any structure in a historic district are taken quite seriously. This house is over 50
years old, however it is not a contributing structure in the Watch historic district. Commissioners
noted that items #2 & 4 of the four standards are applicable for the demolition of this structure .
FRWRD acknowledged that they will need to bid out demolition of building and fill of the land.
The driveway and service walks/sidewalks would also be removed. Entire site would be graded
and seeded with grass.
FRWRD is also willing to coordinate with city staff salvage efforts of anything inside or outside
the building. Staff noted that typically the GPA would have a crew come in on one day to
remove any doors, windows, trim, aluminum siding, hardwood floors, etc. that may be
beneficial to other restoration projects. Staff and FRWRD will coordinate timeline for salvage.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve with staff recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed 5-0-1. (Abstain: Diamond)
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 4 of 10
140 N Porter Street – Reconstruction of front stairs – new handrails
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to reconstruct the
property’s front porch stairs.
The applicant stated that they are going to only reconstruct the stairs at the front porch at this
time due to heavy deterioration at the treads and handrails. Staff stated that the new design
must meet the Design Guidelines specifications as well as meet building codes.
The applicant noted that they will be completing the rest of the work at the porch (guardrails,
skirting) at a different time but wanted approval for a preliminary design.
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 panel s 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 façade,
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.
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.
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 5 of 10
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 5/4x12 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 as submitted and with the
following conditions:
1. The handrail shall match as closely as possible including size, design, details, etc. to the
existing handrails found at the south portion of the front porch. This includes the
spindles to be 2x2 square corners with a central bead (to match the existing spindles),
placed 2.5” apart. That the bottom rail matches as closely as possible including the size,
design, details to the existing bottom rail found at the south portion of the front porch.
2. That the newel posts are installed at the bottom of the stairs and shall be round
(fiberglass recommended) with a 5 ½” diameter ball cap.
3. That the stair treads shall 5/4” x 12 (recommended) or 2x12 and bull -nosed on 3 sides
and overhang the risers a minimum of 1”. Pressure treated wood or composite material
is acceptable. When using pressure treated wood for the stair treads, paint every side
with porch/deck enamel to deter any future cupping of the board. Use 3 -4 deck screws
(ceramic coated preferable) to adhere board to framing.
4. Skirting at the stairs shall match the existing skirting found at the side porch (diagonal
cross hatch).
5. That all other details match the attached rendering and sketches.
All porch details shall be primed and painted.
*****
David Schneider (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion:
Wrap around porch was added by 1913, per Sanborn map. Adjacent property (sister house) is
shown with an attached (not wrapped) porch.
Skirting on the side porch is the turned lattice; which is not included in this COA request.
However, the wrap around porch is proposed with a “diamond” pattern for skirting and would
be appropriate in design. Commissioners explained the “stock” lattice at the home
improvement stores could not be used for the “diamond” pattern. Skirting would have to be
made using 30 and 60 degree angles. Homeowner prefers the look of the “diamond” pattern
and is agreeable to making the “diamond” pattern skirting.
Gooseneck rail system is noted as 28” at highest point. Therefore the handrail down the steps
will need to project about 6-8” from the column than angle down the steps to the newel post.
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 6 of 10
Since there is no evidence of an original gooseneck handrail at the stairs, the straight hand rail
design would be appropriate for the house.
Motion made by Committee Member Hunter to approve with staff recommendations and the
following requirement: skirting to have diamond pattern.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roxworthy.
The motion passed unanimously.
162 Franklin Street – Reconstruction of front and rear porch
The property owner has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to
rebuild the rear egress stairs and front porch guardrails and stairs.
The applicant noted that the rear egress stairs were removed for access to the building when
installing the fiber cement board siding at the addition. Due to this, the stairs must be brought
into compliance. The rear stairs are also being proposed in a simpler design as it is near the rear
of the home. The rear stairs are partially visible from the street, though are currently hi dden
from a lawful non-conforming privacy fence.
The front porch recently has had emergency repairs to reattach the front porch roof to the
structure. Staff noted to the owner that the full width front porch is not original to the home
and was constructed after the 1950s according to the 1950 Sanborn map where the full front
porch is not shown.
Staff stated to the homeowner that the home likely had a small front porch stoop that led into
the home at the door location. The owner stated that they would pre fer to retain the existing
full front porch roof by conducting the emergency repairs at the roof and installing new
guardrails and stairs to make them code compliant. The existing columns will remain.
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).
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 7 of 10
F. Should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade,
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.
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 5/4x12 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 as submitted and with the
following conditions:
Rear Egress Stairs
1. Due to the partial visibility of the rear egress stairs, the top rail shall abut into the 4x4
newels versus placed on top of with the newels extend higher than the top rail. The
newels shall then be capped with a post cap.
2. All other rear porch details shall match the submitted drawing.
3. All rear porch details shall be primed and painted.
Front Porch Rehabilitation
1. The base wrap around the columns is removed.
2. All other front porch details shall match the submitted drawing.
3. All porch details shall be primed and painted.
*****
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 8 of 10
Dallia & Hector Villicana (owners) were present for tonight’s COA discussion:
Rear porch newel posts should be wrapped with 1x. Without the wrapping, the staircase looks
like a deck (similar to new construction houses), which is not an appropriate design within the
historic districts. Columns should be installed, then railings connected between the newel
posts. To accommodate the hand railing going down the steps, the railing may need to extend
out and then down to the next post.
Front porch original columns are still in place. The proposed illustration indicates the columns
would be wrapped, being 10” wide at their widest point. Commissioners noted the proposed
columns would be too large/beefy at 10” and requested staff work with the homeowner and
architect on a column design of 6x6 with capitals detailing.
Newel posts on both porches are to have square hip caps, as illustrated by staff.
One of the photos provided by staff had shown exposure between th e front porch roof line and
the 2nd floor window. Clear smooth cedar siding needs to be weaved in above the front porch
line, with the proper installation of flashing for the roof.
Motion made by Committee Member Savel to approve with staff recommendations and the
following requirements: 1) 4x4 posts to be wrapped with 1” boards, and include square hip
caps, 2) staff to work with homeowner and architect for final details of front porch column
details; a) capitals to be added, b) reduction of width, and c) base wrapping.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Roberson.
The motion passed unanimously.
408 S Liberty Street – Maintaining concrete block pillars in front of home
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to maintain two concrete
block piers (35” 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 did not realize that a permit was needed to install the concrete
block piers. Staff reminded the applicant that any work completed on the exterior with the
exception of installing plantings needs to be reviewed and ap proved prior to work beginning.
On October 10, 2017, the Design Review Subcommittee approved similar concrete block piers
installed in front of 414 S. Liberty Street without a COA with the compromise that the two piers
in front of the home shall not exceed a total height of 24” with a 2” limestone or concrete top.
Design Review Subcommittee – November 14, 2017
Page 9 of 10
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
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,
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:
Concrete Block Piers
Staff cannot recommend approval of the application as submitted, since the material (concrete
blocks) does not meet the material requirements of the 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 piers are lowered and shall not exceed a total height of 24”.
2. A stone or concrete cap is installed on top of the brick piers.
Any landscape features such as statues, or potted plants placed on top of the piers shall not
exceed a total height of 36” high from the top of the landscape feature to the ground. The
landscape features shall not be fixed to the pier.
*****
Lorraina & Jon Amundson (owner) were present for tonight’s COA discussion:
Homeowners indicated they installed the piers a few years ago. Base of pier is compacted
gravel. Cap is slate. Planters had been set on top, however they were pushed off and broken.
Staff informed commission and homeowner that structures over 3’ in height require stamped
or sealed plans for permit approval. Brick/stone piers including the cap cannot exceed 24”.
Motion made by Committee Member Roxworthy to approve with staff recommendations and
the following requirements: 1) if existing slate cap is not used, replacement cap must be
smooth top with rough edges, 2) the piers shall not exceed a total height of 24”.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Diamond.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
1. National Trust Conference being held in Chicago November 15 -17th. Elgin will be featured
with a bus and walking tour of mid-century buildings, including: Church of the Brethren
(just of I-90), Spring/Douglas Historic District, City Hall, Appellate Courthouse, the Fox River