City of Geneva Historic Preservation Commission met March 20.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
1. Call to Order
Chairman Roy called to order the March 20, 2018 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Collins, Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon
Absent: Commissioners Zellmer and Zinke
Staff Present: Preservation Planner Michael Lambert; Community Development Director David DeGroot; Attorney Ron Sandack for the City; Planet Depos Court Reporter Joanne Ely
Others Present: Residents Colin Campbell, Sharon Jones, Kate McCracken for the Shodeen Foundation and Dave Patzelt; Elizabeth Safanda, Sean Gallagher with Gallagher & Associates; John McLinden with Streetscape; W. Alex Teipel with Architectural Resources, Tom and Jayne McCulloch, Thomas D. Mooney, Michael Oleson, Jamie Dwyer
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – February 20, 2018
Minutes of the February 20, 2018 meeting were approved as presented on motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried by voice vote of 3-0-2. (Collins, Salomon abstain.)
4. Public Hearings
Chairman Roy confirmed with Commissioners Collins and Salomon that they reviewed the material from last month’s meeting regarding the following case. Both commissioners stated in the affirmative.
A. 4 E. State Street (Case No. 2017-130). Applicant: Fred H. Zinke, Geneva Resident. Application for Historic Landmark Designation (continued from 2/20/2018 meeting). Chairman Roy recalled the hearing was continued and invited the public to speak on any new items.
Ms. Sharon Jones, 27 N. Bennett, shared her concerns about keeping the horizontal river line and for the HPC to acknowledge that the site under discussion was significant environmentally and historically -- including the former blacksmith shop and the Mill Race Restaurant – to everyone present. She asked that the Shodeen family make a reference to the site with a building reflective of its history, not to construct a large building, and to keep a reference to the restaurant or possibly name it “Shodeen Park.”
Hearing no further public comment, the chairman recalled there was an objection filed on this matter and the commission had not been able to review it last month. He asked for commissioner comment.
For clarification, Commissioner Hiller inquired of staff that if something was not original to a building but was within the period of significance, should it be considered historic, wherein Mr. Lambert summarized that, per the Secretary of Interior Standards and the HPC ordinance, the commission should evaluate those items that have changed over time and have gained significance in their own right during the stated period of significance. If the Commission concurs that those items or elements are significant to the property and its development, then those items are considered historic.
A short dialog followed on whether the application was now considered complete as well as clarification of the term “instability.” In addition, in the chairman’s review of the objection, he did not believe much of it had to do with the HPC’s purview tonight as it related to the nomination process.
Co-applicant, Mr. Colin Campbell, 18 S. Sixth Street, distributed documentation in defense of the landmarking application for the commissioners to consider. And he also apologized for the landmarking application itself, noting it was a new process for him, but he pointed out that within his document existed a point-by-point defense where the building met every one of the criteria for landmarking. He reviewed the historic documentation for the property as it related to historic people associated with the building, its historical relevance to the area, including commerce and social significance, and its early vernacular architecture, which represented a simple, humble time and place that had survived over 170 years and had served many purposes.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that should the building be demolished all of its history stated in the application will be lost. He noted that within the application submitted to the commissioners all of the criteria for landmarking a building were met.
The reason this landmarking was brought before the HPC was that he was asking that the 1846 building be saved and to “buy time” to work together with the Shodeen firm to make the repurposing of the building feasible, citing inducements that could support the effort. He pointed out when Shodeen purchased the property, they stated they were going to save the building. When the Mill Race building was torn down, Mr. Campbell said Shodeen did mothball the building but then a permit for demolition was being sought. Had he known earlier that demolition was being planned he could have worked with the owner sooner to preserve the building.
The following commissioner questions were directed to Mr. Campbell: 1) whether the photographs in the application and supporting documentation represented the period of significance between 1846 and 1946; 2) whether the existing 1846 building was the original Mill Race Inn that Ann Forsyth opened in 1933; 3) whether any of the following was true or accurately described the existing building, and from the research, how these events affected the historical or architectural significance of the building: a) the subject property, at any given time, has been converted, remodeled, reconstructed, partially demolished, burned (more than once), painted, repainted, enlarged, flooded, altered, modified, shored up and substantially rebuilt no less than what appears to be 20 times over the past century and one-half (from page 10 of 38 of the objection); 4) was the building a typical example of a utilitarian building of the period; was it rare, and were there many remaining in the area; and 5) did the fireplace fit within the period of significance.
Mr. Campbell provide his responses and explained that the changes to the building over time were part of its history and if there was a way to preserve/repurpose it, such as the Pure Oil building, it would go through more changes which would also be part of its history.
Ms. McCracken, on behalf of the objector, took to the podium and explained the owner did not believe the structure was structurally stable and asked for the City’s assistance in that regard but the city declined to assist. Also, she and the owner disagreed with the chairman’s statement that “the objection has nothing to do with any of you tonight,” commenting that the objection had everything to do with all of the commissioners tonight. Ms. McCracken reminded the commissioners the application and tonight’s environment was not hostile but, instead, the subject was difficult due to a third party dictating what could be done with a piece of property. The property sat in its current state for months and Ms. McCracken explained she was advocating on behalf of the property owner’s rights as well as finding the defects within the application before the commissioners.
She asked the commissioners to consider the following five issues:
1) There is no legal description of the structure submitted with the landmarking application, as required by the city. Therefore, the application is incomplete;
2) The information submitted in the application was not prepared by the applicant but was a “cut and paste” from a 2016 report prepared by the Preservation Planner;
3) Pages 52 to 67 of the record explains point-by-point of what remains of the structure;
4) The applicant speaks to the period of significance as being 1846. However, in reviewing the application, there is a point at which the 1846 structure is identified as no longer existing; and
5) The structure is stated to be “intact”; however, after a review of the testimony it becomes clear that the structure is not and to state as such is inaccurate.
Further details of the application’s inaccuracies followed as well as inaccuracies of evidence made by staff regarding the building’s architectural integrity. In addition, McCracken points out that on the record the applicant replies to a commissioner’s question and explains that the reason he (the applicant) is present is to “stop the demolition”, not to landmark a building. Ms. McCracken found the applicants’ actions inappropriate and believed that to block a demolition was a misuse of the Historic Preservation ordinance.
Ms. McCracken asked the commissioners to remember that when they prepare their findings that they consider all that was discussed tonight, including the objection, the testimony, and the requirements of the City, and to deny the application.
Chairman Roy invited Ms. McCracken to review the “undue, adverse impacts” she referenced in her presentation wherein, Ms. McCracken walked the commissioners through the pages that described the changes/alterations the structure endured through the years and then disappeared only to reappear.
At this point, Attorney for the City of Geneva, Mr. Ron Sandack, described the steps the commissioners would follow in their deliberation.
Hearing no further questions and upon hearing the last of the testimony, Chairman Roy invited a motion to close the public hearing. However, Mr. Lambert proceeded to read into the record a second letter he received from Landmarks Illinois stating that Landmarks Illinois was in support of the landmark designation.
Motion by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0.
Discussion followed that it would be beneficial to have all commissioners present and to hold off the deliberation until the next meeting to review tonight’s additional information. However,
Chairman Roy conveyed that only one commissioner was missing and he was not sure what would be gained by continuing the hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Salomon to continue the public hearing to April 17, 2018. Roll call:
Aye: Hiller, Salomon
Nay: Hamilton, Collins, Roy Motion Failed. Vote: 2-3
Discussion was raised by some commissioners that some of the items within the application were not completed because the applicant was not the property owner and the application could not be completed because of that. It begged the questioned on whether the entire application should be discounted. In response, Mr. Sandack explained and read from the ordinance, Section 10.6.6 -- Historic Landmark Designation -- as it relates to the application’s completeness versus the legal description argument, explaining that the legal description did not identify the structure but did describe the site, and commissioners could determine whether more information or less information, or better information, should have been supplied.
Dialog followed regarding the site’s description and where it came from, i.e., the Kane County Recorder’s office. Asked if commissioners had a complete application to review tonight, Salomon believed enough information existed to know what the commissioners were discussing. Hamilton stated a Tax Assessors Parcel I.D. number within the nomination paperwork existed.
Conversation moved to whether the structure was 83% complete from its period of significance, wherein Hiller quoted text on page 3 of 38 (middle of page) in the Objections regarding “the numerous expansions sacrificed portions of the original limestone walls at the east, north and west sides of the original structure. He stated it was necessary to include the beginning of that sentence that read, “Although the majority of the original limestone walls in the 1933-era windows were exposed in the three dining rooms, the numerous expansions sacrificed portions ..., the objection implied that there was less there than really was.
Commissioner Salomon explained how the building evolved over time and that changes were made to it to keep up with the growth and technology of the county. The building survived and grew with it, and while it was not one hundred percent original, it still existed as did thousands of other buildings in the country. Chairman Roy appreciated the review of the undue impacts because they were part of the building’s history, it reflected its various uses, and the builders who worked on it. Hiller pointed out that buildings change over time, which was allowed by the Secretary of Interior Standards, and that historic photos of the building existed. Regarding architectural significance, his rule was that if a person visiting from the past could still recognize the building if he walked past it, then it had architectural integrity.
Regarding the fire, commissioner comments were that many buildings have had fires and the structures still remain. While they may not be as strong, they still exist. As for the building not appearing on the Sanborn Fire Insurance map, Chairman Roy was not sure how that was determined -- if the building has no roof but the limestone walls remain, was it deemed as no structure existing? Furthermore, he stated that whether it was an 1868 building or an 1846 building, there was enough architectural integrity and historical integrity prior to 1900 that existed on the structure.
On Page 36 of 38 of the objection, Hiller pointed out the text mentioning that other utilitarian buildings landmarked in the State of Illinois were far worse than the structure being discussed tonight. He appreciated receiving the letter from Landmarks Illinois reflecting that other buildings of similar age and in similar condition had been landmarked and included in the National Register.
For a clear record, Atty. Sandack suggested to the chairman that the commissioners may want to review the five standards for designation of historic landmarks within the ordinance and whether there was agreement or not among the commissioners:
Standard No. 1. Is it located in the City of Geneva? Commissioner consensus was in the affirmative.
Standard No. 2. Is it at least 30 years old. Commissioner consensus was in the affirmative
Standard No. 3. Property possesses integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, feeling and association. Regarding the design, Collins could not confirm the structure was according to its design since viewing of the structure was in its current condition. It was “iffy, at best.” Dialog followed regarding the changes made over time but Collins pointed out that there were design changes such as the two different chimneys existing at different times. Commissioners agreed a majority of the items within Standard No. 3 were met.
Standard No. 4. Embodies such other qualities and characteristics, as is the judgment of the commission, should be considered for the designation of a landmark. Commissioner Collins voiced concern that the commission was reviewing someone else’s property, explaining that his focus was on the interpretation of the law. However, Commissioner Hiller pointed out the commission was supposed to be focusing on architectural and historical significance where he believed Commissioner Collins was basing it on something else. Commissioner Collins discussed that the application was not filled out correctly and proceeded to share his own interpretation of the structure’s historic integrity. Other commissioners felt otherwise and were in support of Standard No. 4.
Standard No. 5. Possesses one or more of the following demonstrations of significance: broad cultural, political or social association with the historic development of the nation, state, or community; identification with a historic person or with important events in national, state, or local history; distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type inherently valuable for the study of a period, style, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; the notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose work and/or activity has significantly influenced a period of development; an improvement embodying all or part of the above characteristics, which is subject to encroachment of detrimental influences; an improvement of historic, architectural, or cultural significance which is threatened with demolition by public or private action; and/or an improvement, in the judgment of the Commission, should be considered for the designation of a Historic Landmark. The Commission did not specifically deliberate each point of Standard 5; however—over the course of the deliberation—Commissioners Hamilton, Hiller, Roy, and Salomon identified that the nominated property, as stated by the Applicant in his rebuttal to the Owners’ objection, satisfied more than one of the stipulations of Standard 5. Specifically, Commissioners noted that the structure was associated with the Alexander brothers (pioneer blacksmiths) as well as Kate Raftery (community leader and founder of Geneva’s Third Street shopping district) and Anne Forsyth (founder of the Mill Race Inn); early industrial development along the Fox River as well as the beginning of destination dining at Geneva were important in the development of Geneva; the nominated building was a very early building in Geneva and was constructed of local limestone; the 1933 remodeling for Anne Forsyth—which included the stone fireplace—was completed by August Wilson, highly-regarded local contractor; the building housed many significant businesses over the one hundred year period of significance (circa 1846 -1945); and that the nominated building was threatened with demolition. Commissioner Collins stated that, in his opinion, some of the points were supported but not all of them. Commissioner Collins also raised concerns about infringement of the rights of the property owner.
Motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Salomon to recommend that the City Council grant designation of Historic Landmark status to the property at 4 E. State Street, based on supporting evidence that the nominated property meets the five criteria for designation, as identified in the Geneva Historic Preservation Ordinance. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Roy
Nay: Collins Motion Passed. Vote: 4-1
(The commissioners took a five-minute break at 8:45 p.m.; reconvened at 8:50 p.m.)
Review of Conceptual Plans Planned Unit Development
A. Cetron Place at Peyton Street (Case No. 2018-106). Applicant: StreetScape Development, LLC, John McLinden/Mary Danaher, Karis Capital, LLC, Jake Finley/Rolf Anderson. Application for Proposed New Six-Unit Townhome Infill. Preservation Planner Lambert discussed that this proposal was a preliminary planned unit development with a final planned unit development to return to the HPC for review. The location of the proposed mixed-use site was identified and was noted to be bisected by the western boundary line of the Geneva Historic District and wholly outside the northern Geneva Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Tonight, the commissioners’ focus would be on the northeast corner that lies within the Geneva Historic District. Mr. Lambert reviewed the four criteria in which the commissioners should review the proposal.
Views of the site from various angles followed on the overhead, with Lambert explaining the character of the neighborhood. Challenges to the site included: overhead power lines, a variety of building types in the neighborhood (within and beyond the boundary of the Historic District): existing, detached garages, single- and multi-story homes, and the Burgess-Norton industrial facility to the west on Peyton Street.
Applicant, Mr. John McLinden, with Streetscape Development, walked through the plan for the six townhomes stating his goal was to make the development a beautiful addition to the area but also to receive commissioner feedback tonight. A review of the development plan followed on the overhead, with Mr. McLinden discussing how the inspiration of the area was used to create the development. A variety of building materials were reviewed as were building elevations.
Commissioner comments/questions included: 1) the buildings appeared to be three stories rather than two stories, with the first floor acting more as an English basement; 2) would Cetron Place (the street) extend to State Street (it would not); and 3) what was the height of the proposed townhomes as compared to the homes in the area (existing homes = 26 ft. to 28 ft. in height; proposed homes = 36 to 38 feet in height). Commissioners also voiced concern that the overall height of the townhomes would overwhelm the existing homes. The larger front setbacks were appreciated as well as the proposed green space. Chairman Roy preferred the development to “hug” more of the Cetron Place and to keep a common distance in front of the townhomes’ setbacks...a more traditional orientation to the street.
Resident Mr. Jamie Dwyer, 128 N. Sixth Street, and Resident Michael Oleson came forward and expressed their concerns about height but were pleased to see a development come to the area. Mr. Dwyer voiced concern about a stormwater issue and wanted to make sure the city was aware of it before plans were finalized. He asked for the specifications of a proposed knee wall / retaining wall due to his concern that stormwater run-off would pond in his back yard. Mr. Dwyer noted that the existing gravel parking lots I already 2 feet higher than his rear yard and water stands there after many rains.
Mr. Oleson, who resided near the development also, voiced concern that even though his garage was higher than Mr. Dwyer’s property, his property still flooded in a part of his driveway and garage and wanted the City to be cognizant of that. He acknowledged that the present stormwater run-off comes primarily from the Burgess-Norton site but did not want the new development to make the situation worse. He asked that the trees also be considered. However, he and Mr. Dwyer were supportive of the plan, and he believed it was a better use for the property.
Development Dir. DeGroot interjected that stormwater was not part of the HPC’s review and those plans were not included, however, he did receive preliminary plans that provided for detention for the improvements. (Mr. Dwyer stated the homes on Sixth Street were not listed as adjacent properties on the plans.)
No further comments were received.
Review of Building Permit Applications
A. 406 S. River Lane – (Case No. 2018-128). Applicant: Brian Hogan with Hogan Design + Construction, Developer/Contractor; Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Associates, Architect. Application for Infill Construction for Single-Family Residence. Mr. Lambert provided a brief background on this proposal which included three single-family lots being proposed for redevelopment. The site was located on the overhead. Tonight’s proposal focused on the middle lot of the three-home development. Requirements for lot coverage and floor area were satisfied. Alterations, since concept review, included the grade being raised, porch apron modified, AND window details modified.
Architect Sean Gallagher, with Gallagher & Associates, stated the home’s allowable area was approximately 700 sq. feet less that what was allowed due to compressing the ceiling height/plate height. The home is a stucco Tudor cottage style. Mr. Gallagher handed out material samples to the commissioners, describing the stucco will be either a dash or sand finish and color to be light gray or bone color. Roofing is to be laminated asphalt shingles -- dimensional architectural style with color to be Pewter Gray or Weathered Wood. Windows will be ebony- colored, Marvin aluminum clad windows and specific decorative windows would utilize leading tape to give the window a lead glass look. An 8-foot ebony-colored wooden door, with lead glass panel, will be installed. A brick skirt will be across the entire front entrance with a stone floor in the enclosed porch area. The chimney brick will be a sanded brick with a chalky texture (colors: Smokey Mountain by Sioux City from Illinois Brick and Pine Hall from Illinois Brick). Trim heads and sills will have two options: a hewn cedar trim or LP Smart trim (smooth and both stained dark).
The porch area will not need a railing on it. Height of the home is just short of 32 feet and is shorter than what is allowed. Grade details followed. Front columns will be wrapped and capped. Three French doors have been replaced with two mini panels with side-lights to gain space. A blue stone patio will be incorporated. The roof line, ridge line, and gables were described in more detail by Mr. Gallagher.
Motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton to recommend approval of the construction for 406 S. River Lane, as presented. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Collins, Roy
Nay: None Motion Passed. Vote: 5-0
B. 305 S. River Lane – (Case No. 2018-102). Applicant: W. Alex Teipel, Architectural Resources for Tom and Jayne McCulloch, Owners. Application for Proposed New Sunroom.
Mr. Lambert recalled this proposal came before the HPC last month as a concept review. A brief history of the home with its architectural changes over time followed. Photos of existing conditions were also depicted on the overhead. Proposed elevations included gable roof; a sunroom with double-hung windows in a cottage style sash, flanked by wood pilasters; and a new trellis element added to the large expanse facing River Lane. The south façade will incorporate paneled pilasters at the corners with paired off-set sash windows. The proposed exterior will be stucco or an equal finish to match the current exterior stucco.
Mr. Alex Teipel with Architectural Resources added that the only change since the last meeting was to add the trellis element to break up the wall in response to HPC comments. He intends to use a stucco material (“stuccato board”) on the addition. Mr. Teipel explained the difference between the “stuccato board” and stucco material. Commissioners expressed little interest to the “stuccato board” option to which Mr. Teipel offered to use stucco and sought approval from the homeowners who were present. The Owners agreed to the use of stucco. Clarification also followed on the Fibrex (Anderson-brand cladding finish) windows being proposed. Chairman Roy reminded Mr. Teipel that last month he preferred the pilasters to be simpler. Mr. Teipel explained they would be hidden by landscaping, but offered to remove the pilaster panels in favor of a flat pilaster but with the retention of a base and capital so that the new pilasters looked similar to the original front door details.
Commissioner Hiller recalled the size of the addition was the focus at last month’s meeting and that it was awkward looking. However, Commissioner Hamilton voiced that he was fine with the addition given that he drove past the property recently. Per a question, the windows on south and east were explained by Mr. Teipel.
Motion by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Collins to approve the addition for 305 S. River Lane, with the following condition: the new pilasters shall be simplified (retain a capitol and base). Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Collins, Roy
Nay: None Motion Passed. Vote: 5-0
5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Updates)
Mr. Lambert noted that the abandoned residence at 427 Peyton Street (northeast corner of Peyton and Fifth streets) has been demolished. No re-development proposals for the site have been submitted to-date.
Also, Mr. Lambert said he is preparing for Preservation Month in May and will be seeking assistance from the commissioners. This year’s theme will be “This Place Matters” with an emphasis on celebrating the Illinois Bicentennial.
6. New Business
A. From the Commission: Commissioner Hamilton asked about the status of the historic preservation training, wherein Mr. Lambert explained no training dates were set yet.
B. From the Public: None.
7. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Salomon, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0.
https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03202018-1154
Alerts Sign-up