City of Geneva Historic Preservation Commission met November 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
1. Call to Order
Chairman Roy called to order the November 21, 2017 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke
Absent: Commissioner Collins
Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert; Community Planning Dir. David Lambert and Intern Jackie Navara; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt
Others Present: Sean Gallagher, Gallagher Associates, 427 Anderson Blvd.; Resident, Mr. Mike Simon
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – September 19, 2017 and October 17, 2017
Minutes of September 19, 2017 – Motion by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the September 19, 2017 minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Salomon. Motion carried by voice vote of 4-0-2. (Zinke, Hamilton abstain.)
Minutes of October 17, 2017 – Commissioner Hiller corrected a petitioner’s name: Kevin P-e-n-z-a-t-o. Also, noted his motion on the same petition was to “replace versus “repair and not “restore versus repair.” Motion by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the minutes, as corrected. Second by Commissioner Zellmer. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0-1. (Salomon abstains.)
4. HPC Public Hearing:
A. 520 Ray Street – (Case No. 2017-098). Applicant: Madeline Roth, Owner. Application for Historic Landmark Designation.
Commissioner Zellmer moved to open the public hearing for the landmark designation of 520 Ray Street (Case No 2017-098), seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Hiller moved to continue the public hearing (by request of the applicant) to a date certain, that date being December 19, 2017. Second by Commissioner Zinke. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0.
5. Review of Building Permit Applications
A. 26 South Street – Lot 2 of South Street Estates (Case No. 2017-096). Applicant: Hogan Design & Construction, Developer. Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Architects. Application for Proposed New Residence. Mr. Lambert relayed that this application was before the commissioners prior but tonight’s discussion would focus on the eastern parcel. A site plan followed, along with the home’s proposed floor plans, elevations, and color renderings reflecting materials.
Architect, Mr. Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Associates, explained the home is just under 4700 square feet, the lot coverage is 6600 sq. feet, and the home’s height is 33-feet 6-inces. Materials include the following: smooth Hardi/lap side out on lower portion of the home; vertical board and batten Hardi on the upper part of the home; Marvin SDL aluminum clad windows (Wineberry color); asphalt shingle roof with two standing seam roofs – one over the master bedroom and one over the side study area (Colonial Red by Pack Clad). Color samples were distributed. Trim will be LP Smart Trim for the vertical corner boards, rakes and cornices. Mr. Gallagher reviewed the home’s design configuration, floor plan, and lowered roof line/plate (to break up its massing). Due to the site’s grading, a wooden railing (painted to match the square columns) will be added to the home’s front elevation. The specifications for the garage door (Clopay Coachman/insulated metal panel) were reviewed and brochure distributed to the commissioners with glass lights on the upper portion.
Commissioner comments were positive – specifically that the home was under the design guideline requirements, there were no real changes from the concept plans, it was a good solution, and would be an outstanding home. Commissioner Zinke asked if the peak of the garage could be shortened wherein Mr. Gallagher described that he would not only need the head room but also the location of the garage in the plans was deceiving and would actually be set back thereby being less noticeable.
Motion by Commissioner Zellmer to approve the proposal, as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Zinke. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy
Nay: None Motion Passed. Vote: 6-0
B. 400 S. River Lane (Case No. 2017-119). Applicant: Hogan Design & Construction, Developer. Application for Demolition of a Non-Contributing Residence Mr. Lambert discussed this petition was for a proposed demolition of an existing home in the historic district. He reviewed pictures of the brick Cape Cod home which had its permit pulled in 1958 and was occupied by one family in 1960. Mr. Lambert explained that not much information existed on the home since it was constructed late in the period of significance (1835 to 1967) and does not show up on the Sanborn maps, nor does any information exist on an architect associated with the home. It is, Mr. Lambert explained, one of the only brick Cape Cods in the historic district.
Mr. Lambert explained the review of this home was based off the City’s 1999 Architectural Survey which stated that properties less than 50 years old or lacked sufficient architectural integrity, were identified as “non-contributing” which was how this residence was identified. The 2015-2017 National Register Nomination, however, which was updated between 2015 and 2017, identified only two categories in the historic district: 1) non-contributing; or 2) contributing. Lambert explained he was working on updating the 1999 Survey to include structures now 50 years old or older and would pick up those homes not identified in the 1999 Survey.
Continuing, Mr. Lambert provided recent photographs of the home on the overhead explaining the home occupies three platted lots and sits on a corner. Interior pictures of the home followed and reflected deterioration throughout. Per Lambert, because the residence was not a contributing building, the HPC was not required to hold a public hearing.
Applicant, Mr. Brian Hogan with Hogan Design and Construction, explained how he found out about the house. He intends to demolish the home and construct three homes about 2400 sq. feet in size.
Commissioner comments included the concern that a home of a certain scale was going to be demolished and be replaced with something larger; the home did not fall into what the commission normally reviewed for demolitions, such as homes having structural issues, and the fact there was no real historical significance behind the family or builder of the home.
As for rehabbing the home, Mr. Hogan discussed that the seller did want to sell the home to him for $900,000. He did calculate the figures to rehab it but they were not feasible as far as putting the money into the 1700 sq. foot home.
Mr. Lambert also pointed out that the home does sit across all three lots and subdividing the lot was not an option nor relocating the house on the site, as it had challenges, i.e., the electrical lines and the side yard setbacks.
Commissioners discussed that while the home had the integrity of a 1950’s house, it was not a significant example of a 1950s house and there was no real historical information as to the family living there. Commissioner Zinke was not supportive of demolishing the home since there appeared no structural issues that could not be corrected. She also believed it was a good example of 1950s architecture for the home. Referencing the McAllister’s Field Guide to American Houses, Mr. Lambert indicated the book reported the Cape Cod style ended around 1950 and this home appeared to be a “holdover” style in a transitional era of the 1950s home. By the mid-1950s, the rambling ranch style was starting. Commissioners spoke to the fact that the home was contributing as to the scale and age but not necessarily in its style. Also relayed was the fact that the home was contributing in one of the surveys (1999 Survey) but not in the other survey.
Chairman Roy invited public comment.
Mr. Jim Kautz, 1305 S. Batavia Avenue, reminded commissioners that it had to work within the guidelines that existed currently and not what was going to happen in the future. He also pointed out that the defining features of a Cape Code had to be considered for this house, but he also believed the HPC could fight for better examples of Cape Cods in the City.
Mr. Gallagher recalled the small frame home that sat at the corner of 5th and Peyton which became a demolition by neglect home which he cautioned could be the destiny of this home.
Commissioners went around the dais discussing the excellent examples of Cape Cods and ranches throughout the historic district. Lambert read the two reasons the HPC can use for demolishing a building. He suggested that recording/documenting the home could be an appropriate stipulation made by the commission, if demolition of the residence was supported.
Going back to the discussion of rehabbing the home, Commissioner Hamilton queried Mr. Hogan on what the $400,000 would include, wherein Mr. Hogan explained it would include a second story that included a master suite and an added bedroom and bathroom and an enlarged kitchen. However, even if the home was purchased for $700,000 and $300,000 in upgrades was added, Mr. Hogan said it still did not make the home marketable at $1.1 Million. Chairman Roy and Commissioner Zellmer agreed that $100,000 could go into the home but questioned if anyone would pay $800,000 for a home that was slightly larger at 2,000 square feet. Mr. Lambert noted that the two, new infill homes located at South Street Estates and that were recently approved by the commission were approximately twice as large as the potentially-renovated home at 400 S. River Lane but—according to the preliminary renovation cost estimates provided by the applicant— would need to be marketed in the same price range as the approved new homes on South Street, in the same neighborhood.
As for further documentation, the chairman felt it was not necessary to obtain more documentation, given what was already presented by Mr. Lambert. Commissioner Zellmer believed the photographs and plat were probably sufficient.
Commissioner Zellmer moved to approve the demolition of 400 S. River Lane and to include the plat of survey and a photographic record of all elevations to be submitted to City staff prior to demolition. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Zellmer, Roy
Nay: Zinke Motion Carried. Vote: 5-1
6. Proposed Text Amendment
A. Request to allow Signs to be painted directly on any Exterior Wall. Applicant: Bernie Laskowski & Franscisco Chavez/Craft Urban. Application to Allow Direct Painted Wall Signs. Mr. Lambert explained this petition comes before the commissioners for comments and recommendations that will be forward to the Plan Commission and on to the City Council for consideration. The property is owned by Mike Simon. Photographs of the building were presented on the overhead. Sign calculations were explained by Mr. Lambert and the sign met the sign area requirements. It was noted the building’s masonry was previously painted but that the city’s current code did not allow painted signage directly on the wall of any building, which was why the proposal was before the HPC.
Mr. Lambert proceeded to explain how painted wall signs evolved from temporary paper posters over the years. He described the negatives associated with painted masonry: flaking, masks mortar deterioration, hampers maintenance of the mortar, and traps moisture leading to blistering paint on the brick face and the brick falling off. Examples followed. Challenges to removing paint from masonry were also described by Mr. Lambert and the fact that the city’s building code also discouraged the destruction, alteration or removal of original distinguishing architectural qualities of a building or structure. It should be avoided. Details followed.
Furthermore, Mr. Lambert pointed out that the city does not require a permit to paint building exteriors. It is only when a building application is submitted to the building department that the HPC gets to identify whether the proposed work is appropriate or not, according to the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards. Lambert noted the City’s design guidelines also discussed concerns about painting unpainted masonry on historic structures. In addition, SOI Standards 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 address the retention and preservation of distinguishing architectural features, details and materials of a building. In summary, Mr. Lambert reviewed the four options the HPC could consider as it related to the sign ordinance, including upholding the existing sign ordinance, as written, and require the applicant to paint over the sign and replace it with a wall- mounted sign.
Mr. Francisco Chavez, applicant and business partner with Craft Urban, discussed the background of his business and explained why he chose the Ava Grey Design group from Chicago to design the signage for their business. The paint and logo specifications for his sign were explained in greater detail. Mr. Chavez stated his proposal will include annual updating and maintenance of the sign, with self-imposed fines of $1,000 (1st offense), $2500 (2nd offense), and $5,000 (3rd offense, with revocation of the sign painted on the building’s facade). Social media statistics for the business were also shared by Mr. Chavez.
Chairman Roy, although he liked the pictures of the business, its wonderful design, and self-imposed fines, he voiced concern about the community’s future and those business owners who will want to do the same to their building but are not able to afford the upkeep of their painted signage. Should the business become unsuccessful, he asked what happens to the painted wall and does it become the owner’s responsibility? Other concerns were expressed. Commissioner Salomon believed two issues existed: 1) if the building was already painted, it could be painted; or 2) if the building was original with no paint then no paint would be allowed. He personally favored removable signs. Asked if the city had a policy for murals, Mr. Lambert confirmed there was not a policy. He stated the issue was separate from a painted sign.
Asked why the entire wall was not considered a sign, Mr. Lambert explained that within his staff analysis it was determined that the sign area that was painted met the requirements for signage and the remaining wall did not contain any logos, direct advertising or words describing what was being sold in the business. He noted commissioners were to focus on the allowable sign area specifically and painting it onto the masonry. Again, Chairman Roy’s concern was that since no permit was necessary to paint a building, someone could paint a solid wall or paint it as a mural and the HPC would have no purview over it. Lambert stated this was a separate discussion from the sign text amendment before them.
Further comments shared by the commissioners were that additional paint on painted masonry just sealed the masonry and created more issues and hid the structure’s detail. Another issue was the maintenance of current painted buildings and whether the city would have to document what was painted before and painted after. Dialog followed. Commissioner Zellmer believed the HPC needed to see such cases on a case-by-case basis and the basis for that would be that if a wall area was painted prior, then it could be painted again. Commissioners went back and forth discussing the challenges of this matter. Commissioner Zinke preferred to uphold the sign ordinance as written and have the applicant paint over the sign and replace it with a wall- mounted sign.
Chairman Roy invited Mr. Simon to speak.
Mr. Mike Simon, owner of the building, stated he would uphold the same enforcement as what the tenant was proposing. As far as keeping someone from painting a building and then coming before the HPC to paint a sign on the painted building, Mr. Simon explained the city could propose another text amendment that no sign can be proposed for a building until “X” number of years or months after the painting of the wall.
However, Chairman Roy voiced his concerns that the city would have to manage such matters and, again, maintenance would be a problem especially if someone left their business. Would the tenant or the landlord paint the building; how many buildings would be affected, etc.? Commissioner Zinke and Hiller voiced concern that it was setting a precedence for entire neighborhoods. They agreed the current sign ordinance was working.
Mr. Simon stated he liked the Craft Urban proposal initially because the owners were going to do something different; it was more industrial looking and it was unusual among the crowded restaurant landscape. Having the sign painted on the brick contributed to the overall industrial look of the building and by installing a separate sign, he believed the owners would lose a bit of what they were trying to accomplish by doing that.
The chairman also added that the façade under discussion had been turned into a front façade yet was always the rear of a building. If a regular sign would have been added to the building initially, he believes no one would have known the difference. Mr. Simon agreed but responded the petitioners were seeking the artistic license as part of their vision. Commissioner Hiller reminded him the HPC was charged with preserving the character of the neighborhood and “preservation of the buildings themselves.”
Asking for further input, Commissioner Hamilton saw no benefit to changing the ordinance; Zellmer did not see it as a sign issue but instead as an issue of painting existing brick.
Dir. DeGroot acknowledged the comments made about businesses currently being able to paint a wall, only to return to paint a sign afterwards. However, he questioned how many business owners would actually do that, just to have a painted sign and, given the economics. Yet, he did not want to see the city’s historic buildings painted. And while he understood the commissioners’ concerns, he believed some city operations would have to change and a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be required prior to issuing a building permit.
DeGroot also explained the reason behind the Design Guidelines and the input the city received on the prohibition of painted signs within the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Lauren Byron, 122 N. 4th Street, said in regards to those buildings that were already painted, she believed three options existed: 1) the paint could be removed; 2) leave the paint alone; and 3) maintain the paint. She stated if someone was going through the effort to repaint a building, it made sense that the business be allowed to add its address and logo as well as keep up the exterior. It made no sense to add an external sign to a wall which could cause additional damage.
A straw poll was taken to keep the ordinance as is. Five commissioners favored keeping the ordinance as is, while Commissioners Zellmer and Salomon believed that if an exterior wall was previously painted, the business should be allowed to paint it. As for reviewing petitions case by case, Chairman Roy voiced his concern about allowing one business to paint while others not, and setting a precedent.
Mr. Simon appreciated the comments and asked if case by case reviews could be done by the HPC, wherein the chairman voiced concern about allowing one petitioner to paint while not allowing the other. Mr. Lambert cautioned the commissioners that it did not want the HPC to start judging the content or colors of signs because it was not their purview. Hiller emphasized that painting ultimately damages brick; even on buildings that are painted.
Chairman Roy summarized that it sounded like the commissioners were against painted brick but not unanimous on signs painted on brick (5 to 1). Asked if paining would make a difference on a wood or stucco building, Zellmer believed painting stucco was not appropriate, yet it was easy to cover. Zellmer conveyed that if the building was already painted, then there was no issue to paint a sign on it. The same was for the signage. Zinke stated otherwise.
Mr. Chavez returned and apologized for painting the sign on the brick but pointed out that if he has to install a sign, he will have to paint over the logo again in order to install the sign. He apologized for any misunderstanding.
Someone pointed out that Mr. Simon had difficulty matching the brick for the Nosh building initially which was why the brick was painted in the first place; the same was true for Sergio’s. However, Zinke said that was for a different issue than this matter. Chairman Roy concurred but did not see it as an issue if the masonry was already painted.
Commissioner Zinke made a motion to recommend upholding the city’s sign ordinance as written. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Zinke, Roy
Nay: Zellmer Motion Passed. Vote: 5-1
7. Secretary’s Report (Staff Updates)
Mr. Lambert announced the Illinois Association of Historic Preservation Commissioners (IAHPC) will be hosting its 2017 Annual Meeting on Saturday, December 2nd in Riverside, Illinois in conjunction with the Suburban Preservation Commission, from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm. (Handouts were available.) The IAHPC is seeking officer positions and meets about six times a year.
8. New Business
Dir. DeGroot thanked the commissioners for their service on the HPC. Intern Jackie Navara was introduced.
A. From the Commission: Mr. Lambert provided updates on the following: the Geneva Library and the status of the Mill Race building, in which he would follow up with Shodeen. However, Dir. DeGroot, said he did speak to Mr. Patzelt who has indicated the matter has been discussed within their office and they were trying to determine what to submit as a proposal. The building was secured and boarded up. Asked if the historic building could last another two years, Mr. Lambert shared his opinion about the building’s exposure. Lastly, commissioners were updated on the status of 420 Peyton Street which had a prospective purchaser. Lambert expected the Demaray case to be up next month.
B. From the Public: None.
7. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Zellmer. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 6-0.
http://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11212017-1088
Alerts Sign-up