TUESDAY, April 15, 2014 MEETING

Transcription

1 Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, April 15, 2014 MEETING Location: Geneva City Hall Council Chambers 109 James Street Geneva, IL Time: 7:00 p.m. Commissioners: Scott Roy, Chairman Nanette Andersson Al Hiller Zachary Ploppert Geri Schock-Soderberg Carolyn Zinke Staff Liaison: Michael A. Lambert Preservation Planner 630/ Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes March 18, HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 515 Hamilton Street CASE Applicant: Joe Stanton Application for: New free-standing, front yard sign B. 107 S. Second Street CASE Applicant: Pietro Verone / Villa Verone Ristorante Italiano Application for: New front yard fence C. 30 W. State Street CASE Applicant: Lindsey DeLosSantos PF Zellmer Architects Application for: New awnings / fabric structures at existing patio 5. Secretary s Report (Staff Update) 6. New Business A. From the Commission B. From the Public 7. Adjournment Next HPC meeting: May 20, 2014 The Historic Preservation Commission meeting is audio-recorded and summary minutes are taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting who require accommodations in order to allow them to observe and or participate in this meeting are required to contact the Planning Division at 630/ at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.

2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 109 James Street - Council Chambers Geneva, Illinois March 18, 2014, 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Chairman Roy called the March 18, 2014 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed: 2. Roll Call Present HPC: Absent: Staff Present: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Hiller, Schock-Soderberg, Zinke Andersson, Ploppert Preservation Planner Michael Lambert; Community Development Dir. Dick Untch Others Present: Tad Hemming, 1224 Brigham Way, Geneva; Stephanie Krivus, 545 Blackhawk Dr., Batavia; Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan, Geneva; Architects Dave Myszka with K. Peterson Associates, Ken Overstreet (Avondale Custom Homes); Jim Bishop, 228 S 5 th St., Geneva; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt 3. Approval of the February 18, 2014 Minutes The February 18, 2014 minutes were approved on motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Schock-Soderberg. Motion carried by voice vote of HPC Review of Building Permit Applications A. 227 S. Third Street (Case No ): Replacement of Door at Street Level; Applicant: Tad Hemming - Hemming Construction - Preservation Planner Lambert reviewed the location of the structure on two maps, noting the structure was listed as non-contributing in the 1999 Architectural Survey. The applicant was proposing to replace the wooden doors on the west elevation due to deterioration and age, as well as the doors on the south side which had the same issues. Per Mr. Lambert, the applicant is going to replace the doors with the same doors (Therma True doors) that are located on the second floor of the structure. Applicant, Mr. Hemming was present to answer questions. None followed. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the request for replacement doors for 227 S. Third Street, seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Roll call: Aye: Hiller, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-0 B. 212 S. Fifth Street (Case No ): Demolition of Non-historic Screened Porch; Replacement of Historic Cellar Bulkhead with Escape Window. Applicant: Avondale Customer Homes - Maurice McNally/Dave Myszka - Mr. Lambert recalled there was discussion at the November 2013 meeting of a concept review for modifications to the former Merritt King home that included the removal of the second floor screened porch. Since that time, the existing cellar door/bulkhead has been leaking, causing water running into the basement and the applicant would like to replace the door/bulkhead with an egress window. Photographs were shown. Per Lambert, the cellar currently exists at the corner of the original 1850 s house where it intersects with the 1890 s

3 Historic Preservation Commission March 18, 2014 house and collects water off the roof systems. The area is visible from the public right-of-way (ROW) on Campbell Street. Should the plans be approved for the proposed residences along Campbell, between Fifth and Sixth Streets, the egress window would not be visible from the ROW. For the petitioner, architect Mr. Myszka, explained that there will be a partial wall built up underneath, with a metal egress well surround, and built up to code to alleviate some of the flooding that is occurring. Mr. Myszka explained that the cellar was constructed of rubble stone around the foundation with a concrete bulkhead on the inside. Mr. Myszka also stated he intends to remove as much of the rubble stone as possible, since it is already deteriorating and saving whatever stone is left to use in the garden. Resident, Mr. Jim Bishop, 228 S. Fifth Street, who resides immediately south of Mr. King s house stated he sees the rear side of the screen porch from his home. As to the statements made that the screen porch is not historic while the garage has been relocated and is being classified as historic, Mr. Bishop reminded the commissioners that the Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards addressed how a structure evolves over time, and should be kept that way. To arbitrarily remove the porch went against the SOI standards. He asked to keep the porch in place since the home had gained historic value to the community. Due to the above concerns, dialog followed by Mr. Myszka that he did not know exactly when the screened porch was added but indicated the garage was relocated in the 1950 s from its original location along Campbell and the screen porch was added when the garage was moved -- probably around The condition of the current porch was open construction underneath and decking. Per Commissioner Zinke s question about relocating the garage, which had been mentioned prior, Mr. Myszka stated he wanted to relocate the garage with the driveway in mind, so that it opened up the corner lot, but he wanted to speak with Mr. Bishop first about that relocation. Chairman Roy clarified and reminded the commissioners of the various projects they had approved over time and that it was important to let the property evolve over time, but to make sure it was sympathetic with the surrounding area and to preserve the character of the building. For further clarification, Lambert discussed one of the SOI standards which referred to additions attaining significance in their own right and the fact that if the screened porch were to be kept, the question to ask was had it attained significance to stand on its own? Also, the National Park Service, in their review of buildings, also suggest that any additions and modifications made on a historic structure were, ideally, made at the rear of a building, which was where the modifications for this structure are proposed. It was also brought to the commission s attention that if the garage/carriage house were relocated, it would look strange with a second-story porch on pilings. Asked their thoughts on the historic contribution of the screened porch, Commissioner Hiller did not feel it was consistent with the character and style of the rest of the house. Chairman Roy was also under the impression that since the commission did not vote on the relocation of the garage during the last meeting, the consensus going forward was that it was fine with the commissioners to move it. Lastly, clarification followed that the garage/carriage barn was original and it was moved twice, as documented. It was being saved because it was contributing, while the porch was not. Commissioner Zinke moved to approve the demolition of the screened porch and alteration of the historic bulkhead, as presented, seconded by Hiller. Roll call: Aye: Hiller, Shock-Soderberg, Zinke, Roy Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-0 2

4 Historic Preservation Commission March 18, Concept Review A. SW Corner of Fifth & Campbell Streets - Lot 2 (Case No ): Proposed Infill Residence; Applicant: Avondale Custom Homes - Maurice McNally/ Dave Myszka - Mr. Lambert presented the elevations and floor plans for the proposed in-fill home on the former Merritt King property. The residence will be on an open parcel to the north of the former Merritt King house, at the corner of Fifth and Campbell Streets. Mr. Dave Myszka with K. Peterson Associates and architect for the project, reviewed the proposed elevations, noting the home will have a six and one-half feet wide front porch (to the east) and the home s material will consist of siding, asphalt shingles, lower base brick, and fenestrations around the windows. A detached carriage house will incorporate the third car garage with materials consisting of brick, siding and heavy bracketry on the garage. A backyard will be created. The garage will be set off the street as much as possible to break up the massing and to avoid a flat look. The proposed plan does meet the City s zoning ordinance. The front porch may be constructed wider based on previous commissioner comments. Commissioners voiced positive comments overall but there was a concern about the number of garage doors facing Campbell Street and if the smaller garage could be placed not facing Campbell Street. Chairman Roy suggested removing some of the brick on the smaller carriage house to lighten the massing. Per Commissioner Zinke s question, Mr. Myszka confirmed he was still working on the four houses with a re-review of the design. As to sharing a driveway, Mr. Myszka was also looking at other possibilities but also stated he was trying to create a friendly backyard area. Adding an alley was a concern of his because he did not want the current neighbors looking at an alley, wherein Commissioner Zinke commented on her recent trip to South Carolina and stated that many of the homes in the historic district there had alleys but hid them behind hedges. Lastly, commissioners asked for a streetscape view in future applications. Resident, Ms. Liz Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, Geneva, appreciated the plans for a modest home that was not overwhelming in size and blended in with the surrounding homes. She believed it was a good compromise and hoped to see similar plans. 6. Secretary s Report (Staff Update) Mr. Lambert announced that 526 S. Fourth Street has received a demolition award and the demolition is scheduled as early as tomorrow. He announced that commissioners will now be ed a link to the Agenda Center for future packets. Commissioners were updated on staff s progress for Preservation Month. Discussions still continue on the Mill Race Inn. 7. New Business A. From the Commission - Commissioner Hiller met with reps from the Geneva History Museum and Preservation Partners to coordinate their Preservation Week activities. The HPC s portion will be about awareness. Hiller shared a sample poster depicting photographs of buildings then and now which will be placed in various businesses along Third Street for the public to view. His goal is to place posts in 12 buildings. Details followed. Lambert also stated there has been no formal proclamation for Preservation Month for several years and asked the commissioners if they wanted the process returned. Commissioners supported its return. B. From the Public - None. 3

5 Historic Preservation Commission March 18, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Schock-Soderberg, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 4

6 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 15, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 4A 515 Hamilton Street New free-standing, front yard sign Applicant: Joe Stanton Request: Permit Review: New free-standing front yard sign HPC Case Number: Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/ BACKGROUND The structure at 515 Hamilton Street was constructed circa 1900 as a single family residence. The 1999 Architectural Survey identifies this house as having been constructed ca and rated the building as contributing to the Geneva Historic District character. Although dated to 1900, the house appears to have been built as an Upright and Wing, circa Based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps as well as an 1892 map for the City of Geneva, this lot was vacant until sometime between 1905 and Presumably, the house was moved to this site from another location during that period. Between 1905 and 1912, the present front porch was added to the structure. In 2012, the house was sensitively rehabilitated for adaptive use as commercial / office space based on approvals granted by the HPC. REQUEST The proposed sign is being requested to accommodate tenants in the rehabbed structure.

7

8

9

10

11 April 15, 2014 FINDING OF FACT STAFF ANALYSIS 515 Hamilton Street, Agenda Item 4A COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The property has been converted for commercial office and/or retail use. The conversion is sympathetic to the historic character of the property and neighborhood. The proposed work will not further diminish the architectural integrity of the property. Historic materials will not be affected by the proposed work. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.

12 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 15, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 4B 416 Hamilton Street New front yard fence Applicant: Pietro Verone Request: Permit Review: New front yard fence HPC Case Number: BACKGROUND The structure at 416 Hamilton Street was constructed in 1849 as a single family residence. Constructed of limestone, the Greek Revival residence has been adapted for commercial use for many years. The 1999 Architectural the building as a significant structure within the Geneva Historic District. REQUEST The 3 rail, square picket, aluminum fence (black) is being requested to enclose an existing outdoor dining patio. Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/ mlambert@geneva.il.us

13

14

15

16

17 April 15, 2014 FINDING OF FACT STAFF ANALYSIS 416 Hamilton Street, Agenda Item 4C COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The property has been converted for a hospitality / food service use. The conversion is sympathetic to the historic character of the property and neighborhood. The proposed work will not further diminish the architectural integrity of the property. Historic materials will not be affected by the proposed work. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.

18 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 15, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 4C 30 W. State Street New fabric structure / awning Applicant: Lindsey DeLosSantos Request: Permit Review: New fabric structure / awning HPC Case Number: Staff Liaison: Michael Lambert Preservation Planner 630/ mlambert@geneva.il.us BACKGROUND The structure at 30 W. State Street was constructed ca as a twopart commercial building (commercial use on first floor with residential use at the second floor). Constructed of brick, the building has been served as restaurant for many years. The raised patio structure, incorporating precast concrete, steel and brick piers, was constructed circa 1995 and was approved by the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission. The 1999 Architectural the building as a contributing structure within the Geneva Historic District. REQUEST The Applicant proposes to erect, at the existing raised patio, a steelframed structure that will carry tensioned fabric supported by a cable system. While awnings are typically approved through the Administrative Review process, Staff believes that this request for a fabric structure is architectural in character rather than a design or functional element for business signage or for shielding pedestrians and storefronts from sun, snow or rain. The proposed structure of metal supports with cablesupported, tensioned fabric will create an architecturally-defined space adjacent to the historic structure that will be visible to State Street. The proposed fabric and steel structure does not alter the historic structure and is entirely supported from the circa 1995 patio structure.

19

20

21

22

23

24 Architectural Concept Viewed From East Architectural Concept Viewed From Overhead Architectural Concept From South Towards State Street

25 April 15, 2014 FINDING OF FACT STAFF ANALYSIS 30 W. State Street, Agenda Item 4C COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The historically-commercial / residential property continues to be used for its original purpose. The building has been altered over time; the existing deck was constructed in the mid-1990s with HPC approval. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed work will not further diminish the architectural integrity of the property. Historic materials will not be affected by the proposed work. HPC action on the agenda item may be as follows: 1. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact as presented. 2. Adopt Staff s Finding of Fact, with modifications, basing any modifications on the SOI Standards. 3. Create new Finding of Fact, basing it on the SOI Standards.