City of Elgin Heritage Commission Design Review Subcommittee met Oct. 12.
Here are the minutes provided by the subcommittee:
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 Savel.
Acknowledgement of new board members: Chairman Savel welcomed the two new Committee members: Michael Burns and Elissa Ledvort.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Burns, Joey Crist, Rebecca Hunter, Elissa Ledvort (6:03), Krissy Palermo, Carly Steurer and Scott Savel.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Christen Sundquist, Historic Preservation
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion made by Committee Member Hunter to approve the minutes of September 28, 2021, as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Crist.
The motion passed 5-0-1. Abstain: Burns.
RECOGNIZE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT:
None
PROPERTIES ON AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION:
Old Business
1. 516 Park Street – Replacement of front door and sidelights
2. 129 N. Porter Street – Reconstruction of Front Porch
New Business
1. 638 Douglas Avenue – Preliminary Review of Addition
2. 515 N. Spring Street – Reconstruction of 2-car garage
ITEMS TABLED AT TONIGHT’S MEETING:
None
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion made by Committee Member Palermo to un-table Old Items for discussion at tonight’s commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Hunter.
516 Park Street – Replacement of front door and sidelights
This item was tabled at the September 14, 2021 Design Review Subcommittee meeting due to non-representation.
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) as a corrective action for replacing the front door and sidelights of the enclosed porch with a new door and sidelights.
The applicant noted that they no longer have the original door or sidelights.
Historically, the porch would have been opened and was enclosed at a later time. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the porch was enclosed between 1913 and 1950. Although, the previous storm door and sidelights were not original to the home, they were considered historic. The new door and sidelights installed are appropriate for a Colonial Revival style but not for an Arts and Crafts style American Foursquare.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
DOORS AND DOOR FEATURES
A. should be replaced with new doors appropriate for the style and period of the dwelling.
Replacement doors should be similar in design to the original in style, glazing (type of glass and area) and lights (pane configuration). Wood or solid core fiberglass is acceptable materials for use in replacement doors.
B. should be constructed of solid wood panels, such as the four-panel Homestead or Italianate design may be used on the front if appropriate to the style of the house.
C. should involve glazing in clear etched or beveled glass as appropriate to the style of the house, if applicable.
D. should only involve artificial materials such as “lexan” or other acrylic based materials, if applicable.
E. should not be removed or altered. The original size of the door opening should not be enlarged, reduced, or shortened in height.
F. should not be replaced by doors with new designs, especially those at the front entrance or at side entrances which are readily visible from the street.
G. should not be added at locations where they did not originally exist. If needed to meet safety codes or to enhance the use of a property, doors should be added at the rear or sides of dwellings where they would not be readily visible.
Staff Recommendation:
Front Doors
Staff cannot recommend approval as the design of the replacement door and sidelights are not in keeping with the style and age of the house as outlined in the Historic District and Landmark
Design Guidelines.
Staff would recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted with the following:
1. The applicant replaces the front door with one of the recommended door designs included in this packet;
a. Must be wood or smooth fiberglass;
b. The sidelights may remain;
2. A full width transom (window) is installed above the door assembly with equally divided simulated grilles (4 grilles installed on outside of glass);
3. All elements of the door are painted to be complementary to the house and not left white.
Ruby Aguilar (owner’s daughter) was present for tonight’s COA discussion:
The commission asked if there was any additional comments from Ms. Aguilar of which she responded no and that her mother was agreeable to the changes recommended by staff.
Motion made by Committee Member Palermo to approve with staff recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Burns.
The motion passed unanimously.
129 N. Porter Street – Reconstruction of Front Porch
This was request was tabled at the August 10, 2021 Design Review Subcommittee to provide the owner more time to submit an architectural plan showing shed roof design.
Applicant updated plan to alter roof design to a hipped roof.
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to reconstruct the front porch due to roof failure.
The existing porch was altered in the 50’s with wrought iron columns and balustrade. The owner has temporarily installed posts and rebuilt the shed roof, though without a permit.
Historically the roof was likely a hipped roof, not shed.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
PORCHES
Porch design, materials, and placement are key defining characteristics of an historic dwelling.
Original porches should be maintained and repaired where needed. Porches on the fronts of dwellings should not be enclosed with wood or glass for additional living space. The screening of porches on the fronts of buildings is appropriate as long as the open appearance of the porch is maintained. If replacement of porch features is required, use materials to closely match the original. If the original porch is missing, a new porch should be constructed based upon photographic or physical evidence. If such evidence does not exist, base the design upon historic porches of similar dwellings from the same time period and architectural style. In some cases turn of the century dwellings had their original porches removed and replaced with “modern” porches in the 1920s and 1930s which do not necessarily match the original style of the house. If desired, these porches may be replaced with porches in keeping with the original design; however, some of these porches have acquired significance in their own right and can be preserved.
Enclosing porches on the front of a house or where readily visible is not appropriate or recommended. Front porches should not be enclosed with glass, wood siding, or other materials. Porches on the rear or sides of dwellings may be enclosed when not readily visible from the street and if the height and shape of the porch roof is maintained.
Guidelines
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 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
Original porch columns and railings should be retained and repaired with materials to match the original. If the original porch columns and railings are missing, replacement porch columns and railings should be appropriate for the dwelling's architectural style and period; handrail height and style should be determined by photographs, paint outlines, paint shadows, or similar homes in the area.
Porch columns often deteriorate first at the bottom next to the porch floor. If this is the case, consider sawing off the deteriorated area and replacing this section rather than replacing the entire column.
A note on porch railing height: Traditionally, the height of porch railing was based on the height of window sills within the porch, and ranged anywhere from 24 to 30 inches. This was done to provide a clear view from the inside of the house.
However, modern building codes require that railing heights be no less than 36 inches, with an exception for historic properties if the lower height of the porch railing is judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard in accordance with the requirements of Section 3406 of the 2000 International Building Code – “Historic Buildings.”
Drawings should be provided that properly integrate the porch features with the design of the house.
Railing height less than 36 inches high will need to be reviewed by the building official so as not to constitute a life safety hazard.
Guidelines
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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted with the following recommendations:
Porch
1. The columns are to be 8” in diameter with Doric style capital and base. The columns may be pressure treated or smooth fiberglass.
2. Bedmolding at interior of porch/ceiling and along boxbeam/soffit shall be 2”.
3. Install 4” crown molding at fascia or k-style gutter, painted metal to match fascia color with hangers installed under shingles. If gutters installed, downspout shall be installed against the house.
4. All other materials shall be of rot resistant wood.
5. All new porch elements to be primed and painted.
6. All other details shall match the submitted drawings.
William Flaman (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion:
Mr. Flaman noted that the drawings that were submitted were not what he was proposing and that he’d like to still propose to maintain the shed roof design. The submitted drawings did not reflect this design which was what the Design Review Subcommittee requested when they previously tabled the review of the design. The owner noted that it will likely cost him several thousands of dollars to alter the roof’s design, though he did not have any estimates to present to the commission. The owner also argued that the shed roof design on the porch was on the home for several decades and he was only trying to match what was there. The commission noted to him that once a non-conforming design is removed then a new design is to be proposed that would be in keeping with the age and style of the home which would be the hipped porch roof design.
The commission also suggested that the owner apply for a Historic Rehabilitation Grant in 2022 if funds are approved by City Council. The owner said he would be interested in applying but if funds are not available, he would still like to seek approval for the shed roof design. The commission asked the owner to provide cost estimates for the alteration of the shed roof design to a hipped roof and present this to them at the next Design Review meeting.
Motion made by Committee Member Palermo to table this review until cost estimates are submitted for the alteration of the shed roof to a hipped roof.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ledvort.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
638 Douglas Avenue – Preliminary Review of Addition
The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to construct a 20’x22’ rear addition. This is for preliminary review only. Applicant will submit architectural stamped plans after comments received by the Design Review Subcommittee.
The rear addition is proposed to match the southwest sunroom addition in design but also match the clipped roof design of the main house. The applicant noted that the existing mudroom is not heated and is pulling away from the house. They would like to propose to construct a larger addition to accommodate their family of seven.
Due to the centrally place original window at the main house as well as the cellar door placement, the applicant is proposing to slightly move the addition so approximately 5’-0” will be minimally visible from the street and will align with the cross gable portion of the house.
This also allows the addition to have an additional window. To note: the existing mudroom is not original to the home, however, it was installed between 1903 and 1913 according to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and is considered a historic addition to the home.
Elgin Design Guideline Manual Specifications:
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS – NEW ROOMS
Elgin’s historic dwellings generally possess the flexibility to be enlarged for additional living space. Additions are acceptable when they are placed at rear or side facades not readily visible from the street. Additions should also be built so they will have a minimal impact on the buildings overall character. The rears of dwellings are the best locations for the addition of rooms, wings, porches, or decks.
Before beginning any work on an addition, be sure to check the zoning of the property on which your building is located. In most older established residential neighborhoods, the expansion of any “lawful non-conforming” use is not permitted.
Guidelines
K. should be located at the rear of dwellings, not on the front or readily visible areas of the sides of dwellings.
L. Should be secondary (smaller and simpler) than the original dwelling in scale, design and placement.
M. 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.
N. 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.
O. Should be constructed to avoid extensive removal or loss of historic materials and to not damage or destroy significant original architectural features.
P. Should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. For example, a ca. 1880 Queen Anne style rear porch addition would not be appropriate for a 1920s Craftsman/Bungalow house.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends preliminary approval of the application as submitted with the following recommendations:
7. The addition matches the clipped gable design along with the beadboard soffits, crown molding at the fascia and the freizeboard with bedmolding along soffit and the wall.
8. The addition shall have 1/2x6 beveled no. 1 cedar (clear-no knots) or finger jointed cedar or smooth hardiboard to match the exposure on the clapboard gable siding. Installation of 5/4”x4 cornerboards at the corners of the addition must sit proud of the siding.
9. An 6” water table board to sit proud of the siding shall align with the stone water table on the main house. A drip cap shall be installed to match the drip cap that is included in this agenda packet. Cornerboards must sit on top of the water table/drip cap.
10. The foundation of the addition shall be of poured concrete to match the height of the parged foundation on the home.
11. The windows shall be aluminum clad wood or wood and shall match the following specifications: 3” bottom rail, 2” stiles, 2” top rail, 1” meeting rail. (Submit window specifications for final review to Design Review Subcommittee.)
12. Sills shall have a minimum of a 5 degree slope; 7 degree slope is preferred as long as the exterior appearance of the sill remains as close as possible to the original sills (match attic window/vent sills). Sills to be of treated wood (kiln dry wood preferred) or cedar.
13. Window trim shall be 5/4x4, be of rot resistant wood (no. 2 cedar or better or pressure treated) and installed smooth side out. Window trim shall sit on top of the sub-sill.
Header trim shall be 5/4”x4 and shall have crown molding that matches the crown molding found at the south and north elevation attic window/vent.
Justin Jacobson (owner) was present for tonight’s COA discussion:
The Commission commended the owner on the sketches that were submitted as they were clear and easy to ready. They noted that the proposed addition is compatible with the design of the home and were pleased to see that the addition did not cover any historic openings.
Motion made by Committee Member Palermo to preliminary approve the proposed addition with staff recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Crist.
The motion passed unanimously.
515 N. Spring Street – Reconstruction of 2-car garage
The applicant has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new garage on the property (due to an emergency condition staff approved demolition of existing garage).
Due to a high wind storm at the beginning of the Summer 2021, a large tree fell on the property, crushing the existing garage. A letter dated September 21, 2021 from architect, David Jurina, noted that there was an emergency condition and requested the approval by staff to demolish the garage without the approval from Design Review Subcommittee. The Director of Community Development, Marc Mylott, approved the issuance of a demolition permit without the submission of proposed plans at that time due to garage’s condition with the requirement that the applicant submit new garage plans no later than October 5, 2021 to be placed on the October 12, 2021 Design Review Subcommittee agenda.
The original garage was approximately 14’ x 22’. The proposed garage will be approximately 23’ x 24’. The garage was built around the 1950s and is noted to be a contributing structure to the historic significance of the property.
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 (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.
J. 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:
1. That the foundation is of brick to match the brick on the home, not concrete block, with the proposed 5” stone sill or that the proposed siding extends down to grade to match the previous existing garage design.
2. That the proposed garage siding material will be beveled no. 1 cedar (no knots) and installed smooth side out with an exposure that matches the exposure on the original garage, approximately 8”.
3. The trim around the garage door shall be 5/4x4 and must sit proud of the siding. A 1x2 drip cap shall be installed on top of the header casing. Do not miter the corners of the trim – the header trim shall sit on top of the vertical trim.
4. The trim around the pedestrian door shall be 1x4 vertical casing and 1x4 header casing with a 1x2 drip cap. Do not miter the corners of the trim – the header trim shall sit on top of the vertical trim.
5. 2” bed molding shall be installed along the top of an 8” frieze board (friezeboard to sit proud of siding).
6. That the siding and trim is to be painted a color to match or complement the home.
7. The windows shall be aluminum clad wood or wood and shall match the following specifications: 3” bottom rail, 2” stiles, 2” top rail, 1” meeting rail, ¾” grilles with ogee profile (SDL). Match window design on main house – 6 over 1 lite windows (Submit window specifications for final review to staff).
8. Sills shall have a minimum of a 5 degree slope; 7 degree slope is preferred as long as the exterior appearance of the sill remains as close as possible to the sills on the previous garage. Sills to be of treated wood (kiln dry wood preferred) or cedar.
9. Window trim shall be 5/4x4, be of rot resistant wood (no. 2 cedar or better or pressure treated) and installed smooth side out. Window trim shall sit on top of the sub-sill.
Header trim shall be 5/4”x4 and shall have a ½ drip cap installed on top. Do not miter the corners of the trim – the header trim shall sit on top of the vertical trim.
10. That all other details meet the Design Review Subcommittee’s recommendations.
11. Future pergola will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness application and additional design review and zoning approvals.
12. On Plat of Survey – Proposed sidewalk cannot exceed 5’-0” in width.
Abraham Miller (owner) and David Jurina (architect) were present for tonight’s COA discussion:
The commission noted that they had a few minor changes to the design including the brick mold changing to 5/4”x4” flat stock around the door and window openings; that the windows match the design on the home; and that the foundation has a brick veneer or to lower the foundation and lower the siding. It was also suggested to use a stamped brick formwork to give an appearance of brick.
The commission noted that the use of concrete block is not appropriate for the garage design as the material is not compatible with the material on the home. The architect argued that the garage is not readily visible from the street and therefore, should have some leniency in terms of materials. The commission noted that the location of the garage is visible from the street and therefore is readily visible. Despite this, concrete block is still not an allowable material as the home exhibits no use of concrete block. The architect also proposed a raised poured foundation instead of concrete block; however, there are no historic precedents for garages built at the time of the home to have 4’-0” high poured foundations.
The architect also proposed fiberglass windows of which the commission noted that they have reviewed fiberglass windows previously and they do not have the historic proportions that would be acceptable for use in the historic districts. The commission noted that if the owner would like to propose a particular fiberglass window that they may submit specifications and a mockup of that particular window for the commission to review. The commission and the owner agreed to table the review until the October 26, 2021 Design Review meeting to review the owner’s findings regarding the use of stamped concrete or any other proposed alternatives the owner may have regarding the design.
Motion made by Committee Member Palermo to table the review to provide time for the owner to explore stamped brick concrete.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Crist.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None
CORRESPONDENCE:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Alerts Sign-up