City of Batavia Historic Preservation Commission met February 27.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
1. Meeting Called to Order Chair Hagemann called the meeting to order at 5:31pm.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Vice-Chair Roller; Commissioners Bus, Sherer, and Hohmann
Members Absent: Chair Hagemann, Commissioner Sullivan
Also Present: Jeff Albertson, Building Commissioner; and Cheryl Collier, Recording Secretary
3. Approve Minutes for January 23, 2017
Motion: To approve the minutes for January 23, 2017
Maker: Sherer
Second: Hohmann
Voice Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent Motion carried.
4. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed There were no items to be removed, added or changed.
5. Matters From the Public (for items not on the agenda) Vice-Chair Roller asked if there were matters from the public for items not on the agenda. There were none.
6. COA Revision Review: 103 East Wilson Street – Window Replacement (Brad Colby, applicant)
Brad Colby addressed the Commission representing the Martinez family. He is planning on replacing the second story windows at 103 East Wilson Street. He has reviewed what the Commission had previously approved, which was aluminum clad windows with true divided light. The manufacturer that he uses is Marvin Windows, and they have three options. One option is the aluminum clad simulated divided light with a spacer bar; another option is authentic divided light with a wood frame; and the third option is custom aluminum clad true divided light. The third option is extremely costly, and Mr. Colby was originally informed that there would be no warranty on the window with this option because of the size of the window. The window size is over eight feet. He contacted the Marvin architectural representative, who indicated that they would warranty this window, but the cost of the window is more than double the simulated divided light. He is recommending the aluminum clad simulated dividing light window with spacer bars, and has a letter of intent with Mr. Martinez to install this type of window.
Mr. Colby expressed his concern about the wood clad window and the amount of maintenance it would require. It would need to be painted at least every two years, especially with the way that it is installed into the masonry. Albertson asked for the cost of the different window types.
The cost of the aluminum clad simulated divided light window with spacer bars is $45,000; the cost of the wood clad authentic divided light window is $48,800; and the cost of the aluminum clad authentic divided light window is $81,000. These prices do not include the labor to install the windows, but including labor the aluminum clad true divided light with installation would be about $100,000. He had an example of the simulated divided light with spacers and indicated that it really looks just like the authentic divided light. The authentic divided light is custom made, so he did not have an example of that.
Bus asked which window the Commission had previously approved. Albertson indicated that the Commission had approved the aluminum clad true divided light. Mr. Colby explained that the true divided light window would also take an additional twelve weeks to order and have delivered.
Roller explained that the simulated divided light windows that the Commission had previously looked at did not have spacer bars, and just had dividers on the outside of the window. She thought that this window looked more authentic.
Mr. Colby showed the Commission the grill that would be used for the simulated divided light window. The grill is close to the same size grill as the window currently has. Roller asked what size it was, and Mr. Colby responded that it is 1 15/16 inches. Sherer thought the grill looked very wide. Albertson explained that the windows are 40 inches by 8 feet, so the grill will look smaller on that size window. The grill is also available in a 1 1/8 inch, but that was much smaller than the current windows have on them.
Bus asked if Mr. Colby was proposing the window that he was showing to the Commission as an example, and Mr. Colby responded not quite. Mr. Colby said he is proposing a direct glazed window in bronze that has simulated divided light with a spacer bar, and has the same aluminum casing as the example that he brought with him. Bus asked if the window would open. Mr. Colby responded that it would not open. Sherer asked if the window would match the current configuration of divided lights, and Mr. Colby said that it would. Sherer asked if there would be a design in the curved part of the window, and Mr. Colby answered that it would not. Bus asked if the arches would change, and Mr. Colby responded that they would not change and the window would match the windows that are currently installed.
Sherer asked about the color of the grill. Mr. Colby said that it was bronze and passed out a sample of the bronze colored grill. This is the color that was approved at the past meeting with the contractor that was working on this project at the time.
Bus asked if the Commission approved a window for this project previously. Albertson responded that they had approved the aluminum clad true divided light window, and this is a revision that they are proposing. The original proposal was to do a square window with a fiberglass panel for an arch. The Commission said no and that they would like a matching window that included the arch.
Bus indicated that he would like them to be careful because this is a high visibility location, and it would be compared to City Hall eventually. He asked what the differences between what is being proposed here tonight and what was previously approved.
Mr. Colby indicated that the only difference was that this window is an aluminum cased simulated divided light with spacers instead of an aluminum cased true divided light. He believes that the simulated divided light has much less room for error.
Albertson said that Staff is supportive of this concept because of the maintenance issue, and he believes that the window with the simulated divided light with spacer bars will not look any different than the true divided light, especially on the second floor of the building. Roller agrees that most people would not even notice the difference, even if the window was on a first floor. Albertson also mentioned the cost factor for the owner.
Sherer asked about the wood case selection. Albertson responded that with this option they would be back trying to get the owners to maintain the windows, which has been a problem all along.
Sherer was concerned that if the Commission approves this option with the spacer bars, someone else could come in with an inferior simulated divided light window and expect the Commission to approve it because they approved this window. Albertson explained that the Commission could specify the window as being a simulated divided light with spacers (SDLS).
Bus asked what exactly the Commission is being asked to do tonight. Albertson responded that they are being asked to approve this updated version of the window in the revised proposal. Bus noted that the application that they have is from October 7, 2016 and has all of the old information on it, including the three difference options. He asked if there is a revised or resubmitted application to be signed by Vice-Chair Roller for approval. Albertson stated that the Commission has never done this in the past. Bus stated that the Commission has been presented with a different product than was originally approved. He feels that because this is different than what the Commission approved, it should have a new or amended application representing the change. He noted that this is a high visibility location and the Commission or someone else may need to refer to this in the future. He said the applicant came before the Commission and did a good job and represented a better product. This should be reflected in a COA that is revised to show the changes/revisions to the October 2016 COA.
Hohmann asked Mr. Colby what it would do to his timeline if the Commission pushed this item to the next meeting for approval. Mr. Colby responded that he did not plan on doing the contract with Mr. Martinez for a couple of weeks so this would not affect his timeline.
Albertson stated that this is not how a revision has been handled in the past, and if the Commission wants to do it this way going forward, he needs to know this. Bus responded that with a building of this significance and prominent location, he thinks there should be a new application that represents the new or revised product. Albertson noted that he can’t just do this for this building, but would have to do it for any project that is revised in the future. Hohmann agreed with Bus that if it is a new product, it should have a new application.
Motion: To support the window product that was presented tonight and to have the applicant submit an amended COA representing the new product at the next meeting.
Maker: Bus
Second: Hohmann
Roll Call Vote: Aye: Bus, Sherer, Roller, Hohmann
Nay: None
Absent: Hagemann, Sullivan
4-0 Vote, 2 Absent, Motion carried.
Albertson will work with Mr. Colby to have an updated or new application at the next meeting. Mr. Colby will try to be at the meeting in two weeks, and will clarify the width of the lights in the windows and the exact grill size.
Bus stated that the new application has to clearly reflect that it supersedes the Commission’s previous action. Sherer agreed that it is good that the Commission is getting a revised application because if they just vote on something and there is no paperwork to back up what is voted on, there is no record of it. Albertson responded that there would be a record in the minutes. Albertson said that he would have the revised application for the window at the next meeting, and also noted that right after the current application was sent out, he received an application for a wall sign for the same building.
7. Updates
Vice-Chair Roller asked if there were any updates on the listed items. Albertson reported that there were no specific updates tonight. They are still working on getting notifications to the owners of a deadline to complete their projects.
8. Other Business
Vice-Chair Roller asked the Commission to talk about the review process for revisions to a COA, and asked if this will be for any changes or major changes.
Motion: Reflecting the discussion tonight on Item #6, in the future when the Commission has previously approved a COA and the applicant comes back in with a significant revision, amendment or change that in the opinion of the Commission warrants a new application for a COA, that this be the Commissions’ policy for the future.
Maker: Bus
Second: Hohmann
Roll Call Vote: Aye: Bus, Sherer, Roller, Hohmann
Nay: None
Absent: Hagemann, Sullivan
4-0 Vote, 2 Absent, Motion carried.
Albertson wanted to follow up on this motion. He stated that the way he is intending to enforce this policy is that any changes that come to the Commission will have a new application. He does not want to wait to find out if the Commission considers it a significant change or not because then the applicant will have to wait another two weeks to have another application considered. Bus commented that he used the word significant intentionally because if it is something that is mundane, he doesn’t want to burden applicants with having to come back to the Commission if it is not significant. He said that his motion is what it is and the Commission would be happy to work with staff is there is a question, but he thinks staff needs to use some good common sense. If there is a doubt, then bring it back to the Commission. Hohmann agrees with Albertson that it is a customer service issue for the applicant.
Bus reported that he and Sherer attended the workshop that was held at City Hall last Saturday, and it was nice to have the City of Batavia City Hall being chosen as the place to host the event. He said that it was well attended by the public and members of the preservation commissions from the State of Illinois and also the Tri-Cities. This is the first in a series of seminars, and maybe in the future they will focus in on significant issues, such as windows. Bus remarked that he thought what the Commission did today or will do in two weeks on this particular window is an important step forward, and he thinks that this window is a great product. He doesn’t know if other Tri-City Commissions would feel the same way, but maybe we can learn from each other. For example, St Charles coordinates better with their Planning Commission which is something we could work on in Batavia.
Albertson reported that the Planning Commission is meeting on March 15 to discuss the design review of 1 North Washington. Bus suggested that maybe the Plan Commission Chair should invite the members of the Historical Preservation Commission to their next meeting. Albertson noted that the members are invited to any meeting in the City as the meetings are public meetings. Bus reiterated that he said that maybe the Chair should invite them. Albertson responded that he would pass that along to the Plan Commission Chairman.
9. Adjournment There being no other business to discuss, Vice-Chair Roller asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:18 pm; Made by Sherer; Seconded by Hohmann. Motion carried.
http://www.cityofbatavia.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02272017-967
Alerts Sign-up