Kane County Reporter

City of Geneva Historic Preservation Commission met April 17.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

1. Call to Order

Chairman Roy called to order the April 17, 2018 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

Present HPC: Chairman Roy, Commissioners Hamilton, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke

Absent: Commissioners Collins, Salomon

Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert

Others Present: Residents Colin and Glorianne Campbell, Sean Gallagher with Gallagher & Associates; Brian Morell; Arnie Silvestri; John Temple, John Bernard; Steve Barnes; Dave Walker, Jim Kautz and Bill Spring

3. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 20, 2018

Minutes of the March 20, 2018 meeting were approved on motion by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried by voice vote of 3-0-2. (Zellmer, Zinke abstain.)

4. Review of Conceptual Planned Unit Development

A. 428 Fulton Street – Applicant: Brian and Meggan Morrell Application for: Proposed new Gable Roof at Existing Dormers. Historic Preservation Planner, Michael Lambert reviewed the site location and recalled this matter was before the HPC in January 2018, recalling the issue was with the gable roofs on the dormers being somewhat overbearing on the front facade. The owners were planning to do their project in phases. Images of shed and gable roofs from various perspectives were depicted on the overhead projector.

Owner, Mr. Brian Morrell, appeared and said he took the commissioners’ comments into consideration at the last meeting and decided that the gabled dormer would work best. He was seeking input from the commissioners on how to proceed forward to have his architect proceed with construction drawings that include the gabled dormers. He would then present the plans to the commissioners at a later date.

Commissioner Zinke asked for confirmation that the chimney would remain (it would). As to where the dormer roofs met the main roof of the house, Mr. Morrell confirmed it would look lower from the street level. Commissioner Hiller appreciated the owners looking at the other roof option and commented that the gabled roof would probably not be seen much from the street level and it did not change the appearance of the house much. Commissioners Zellmer and Hamilton also appreciated the owners looking at the shed roof option but understood what the owners were trying to accomplish.

Turning to the topic of siding at the dormers and proposed gable ends, Commissioner Hiller relayed that he would leave the siding option up to the owners’ discretion, including the Hardie board, since he saw the project as new construction and it was high up off the street. Mr. Morrell shared what he found underneath the aluminum siding of the ground floor of the house, which was a combination of cement fiber board nailed to old wood. It included good material and not so good material, as well as old windows/doors that were no longer present. In speaking with two contractors about preserving the siding, both said the owners would be spending about the same as new siding but would not warranty it. Mr. Morrell stated he was going to be replacing the windows since they were approximately 25 years old. Some original interior windows did exist. Mr. Lambert, in walking through the home last August, recalled there were no original windows remaining in the house except for interior doors and windows.

Addressing the two siding options (in staff’s report), Commissioner Zinke read the options to the owner, who stated he was not aware of the options listed but indicated he was considering the Hardie shingle look because of its durability. Also, the cedar shingle was in keeping with the style of the home. However, Mr. Lambert interjected and explained he had given the commissioners four options to consider; each of the options had been approved previously in the historic district under specific conditions. The four options were:

1. restore the original siding (presumably lap siding but, possibly wood shingle), once exposed, and install new, wood siding at the gable ends to match existing siding (as discovered);

2. restore the original siding (presumably lap siding but, possibly wood shingle) and install complementary, new, wood siding (presumably shingles) to distinguish the new gable ends (if gable design approved);

3. install new, cementitious siding to match existing (presumably lap siding but, possibly wood shingle) at the existing dormer walls and new gable ends (if gable design approved); or

4. install new, cementitious, straight-edged shingles (irrespective of the original siding material) at the existing dormer walls and new, gable ends (if gable design approved). Mr. Morrell’s understanding was the owner removed some of the siding on the first floor and saw some patching. He and the owner did not know the condition of the siding on the upper dormers and asked for direction.

In speaking with a neighbor to the south, Mr. Morrell said the neighbor recalled the prior owner had issues with the siding and was tired of repairing it and eventually had the home aluminum sided. Commissioner Zinke did not support Option No. 4 (cement board) and preferred to hear input from the other commissioners. An explanation of the HPC’s siding policy followed by Mr. Lambert. Mr. Morrell understood that restoration could always take place but it came down to cost and a warranty and the work was not always guaranteed, which was a significant investment for him. Commissioners agreed that once Mr. Morrell peeled away the siding, he would have a better idea of the wood condition underneath. The chairman was fine with any of the options in staff’s report.

B. 327 S. Fourth Street – Larrabee House – Applicant: St. Mark’s Church/David Walker’ Application for: Proposed New Connection between Existing Church Facility and Historic Larrabee House. Planner Lambert located the site on the overhead, explaining the project is to join the Larrabee House to the Episcopal Church. A review of the home and its changes followed on various historical maps. A brief biography of Mr. William Larrabee followed. The project at hand is to restore the front porch, rehab the Larrabee House, and connect the house to the church. Some of the details Mr. Lambert asked the commissioners to provide comment on included things such as a window that was being replaced with a large window (with transom) as well as the expansion of the east addition and its connection to an existing detached garage. The proposed east addition would obscure a historic frieze. Conceptual views of the proposed project followed.

Mr. David Walker, petitioner, shared that he will be dedicating the St. Marks chapel with a national historic plaque on Saturday, April 28th at 9:00 AM. He extended an invitation to all commissioners to attend. Mr. Walker reported that in 1963 the Larrabee House was acquired and about the time the porches fell into disrepair, the house was aluminum sided due siding issues. The house was relocated on the site in 2000. An empty space exits between the home and the structure north, which was currently being used as an egress.

Part of tonight’s proposal included constructing an underpass between the two structures, connecting the two youth centers to avoid the weather elements and filling in the space by creating a narthex for parishioners to enter. Mr. Walker believed the Larrabee House was probably last renovated in 1902. Challenges of the home followed: old plumbing, old wiring, little insulation, and uneven stairs. Mr. Walker expects the home’s second floor will be renovated into an apartment for the assistant rector while the first floor will become a nice community center space with landscaping and porches returned. Per Zellmer’s question, Mr. Walker indicated he would like to return the home to some form of wood siding.

Architect, Mr. Steve Barnes, with Steven J. Barnes Architects, explained he would like to replace with siding underneath the aluminum with Hardie board or some type of composite concrete material, four-inch weathered shiplap – something more period correct from the 1920s to the 1930s. He was not sure the bracket frieze was original or not. The porch was being returned with the same projection and so was the roof line and brackets, while picking up the materials and reducing maintenance. The addition between the existing garage would become an entrance for the rectory and an egress from the basement. Mr. Barnes was open for recommendations between the old and the new structures.

Asked what period the church was looking to return to, Mr. Barnes relayed he was not sure since he had much historic evidence with various details and no dates. However, he preferred a weathered wood product, 4-inch ship lap on the home. The bracket style with fascia and frieze was consistent and porches were in most of the photographs he saw. He offered to review profiles with the commissioners. The windows were refurbished in 2000. There would be new windows in the new addition which would be a painted wood product. Asked what the siding condition was under the aluminum, Mr. Barnes could not say until he looked at it. He envisioned it had dry rot or mold. Commissioners voiced that they preferred to restore the siding and recommended looking at the condition of the wood underneath. Zinke pointed out the commission’s preference was based on the HPC’s siding policy and, therefore, she could not make a recommendation until the aluminum siding was removed first; other commissioners concurred.

Mr. Barnes proceeded to discuss the financial expenses involved in such restoration. After listening to the commissioners Mr. Barnes indicated he would look at the siding. Both, commissioners and Mr. Lambert explained the savings that some residents in the historic district experienced when they repaired their siding versus replacing it with new siding. Mr. Lambert pointed out that the most successful projects, some residents had used older wood and used wood only in places as needed. He suggested that Mr. Barnes obtain a breakdown, per façade, of what the deterioration was, how much was there, and whether salvaged materials off of other parts of the building could be used for patching. Commissioner Zinke noted the HPC ordinance emphasized wood replacement had to be “replacement in kind.”

For the church, Mr. Barnes emphasized that the project had to be economically feasible. Adding to that, Chairman Roy explained that for the new addition, the Hardie board material could be used, be sympathetic but not replicate the old structure. For the new portions of the project, Chairman Roy explained that while they needed to be sympathetic to the older structure, he preferred that the brackets remain off. For the house, he preferred the brackets to be restored. Commissioners provided suggestions to differentiate the new portions. As for the porch not being a wrap-around like the one in the photographs, Mr. Barnes explained he would be seeking zoning relief.

On that note, Mr. Lambert pointed out that when the project was approved in 2001, it was approved under a special use permit which allowed an increase over the allowable lot coverage, which meant the proposal would have to be seen by the planning and zoning departments as well as the fire department because the special use permit would have to be amended which would determine what could be done to the home as it related to lot coverage. The porch, as proposed, could possibly be the only option remaining.

Commissioners appreciated the vestibule addition being set back on the site. From Hamilton’s question, Mr. Barnes explained the porch depth appeared to match (6 feet) in the historic documentation. Per Mr. Walker, the chimney was going to be removed internally because it was large and took a large amount of space in the youth room – over 100 sq. feet. However, it would remain on the exterior. Mr. Barnes discussed the possibility of restoring/reusing the exterior chimney but lessen up the roof load. Commissioner Hiller noted some lead windows appeared to exist and suggested that they be worked into the project somehow. He also recommended that Mr. Barnes provide an inventory of those windows that were salvageable. Mr. Barnes concurred. Mr. Barnes envisioned restoration of the building would fall between the years 1910 to 1925. Discussing the construction of the east addition and the possible removal/relocation of some historic bracketed frieze, Commissioner Zinke asked if the new addition could be lower in order to see the original frieze. Chairman Roy saw a possibility by lowering the roof but the dormer would obscure it. Mr. Barnes discussed the challenges if it was lowered, such as the stair clearance. However, he would look at the head room. Hiller voiced concern about the over length of the addition with Zellmer asking the petitioner to not focus on matching the building too much. Mr. Barnes would re-examine it again. Should the brackets be removed, Zinke questioned what would happen to them, wherein Mr. Lambert reminded her of the design guidelines and informed the commission it would be best to preserve the historic east frieze somehow and not replicate the historic element on the addition. Some commissioners suggested that the petitioner determine the solution for it, with Hamilton emphasizing that Mr. Barnes refurbish and reuse as best possible and do the work to have the best comparison of replacement.

Regarding the front porch railing, Mr. Barnes would see what the code required and review the porch again. Commissioner Zinke asked that the home’s front door be more in keeping with the period. She thought the entry may have had two narrower doors. Mr. Barnes would review. As for the link between the two buildings, commissioners were fine with its location, height, material (glass), and the fact that it was set back far enough to break the plane.

5. Review of Building Permit Applications

A. 410 South River Lane – Application: Brian Hogan with Hogan Design and Construction, Developer/Contractor; Application for:: Infill Construction for Single Family Residence. Mr. Lambert recalled for the commissioners that this project was a three lot redevelopment on River Lane and tonight’s focus would be the southern-most home that was being proposed. The lot coverage and floor area had been met. Modifications included: the final grade being raised to minimize the steps to grade, the porch apron was modified; and the porch roof was lowered below the windows due to the concern of the cut-in window.

Mr. Sean Gallagher, with Gallagher Associates, summarized that the roof line was brought down as indicated, and in lieu of a canopy, a porch was created, along with columns. Samples of the brick selection for chimney followed. Roof shingles would be Timber Line (Pewter Gray or Weather Wood.) The main siding would be Hardie board, smooth side out. The upper band in the gable would be straight-edge paneled Hardie shingles with a shingle-look. Brackets to be six-by material. The porch roof and kitchen bay roof would be copper. Windows would be an aluminum clad Marvin unit (Bronze color). The porch apron would be open lattice with a wood trim on the vertical. Brick would come from Illinois Brick Company (color: Cherry Creek Williamsburg). Height of the home at the front elevation was 27 feet, 10-inches; from the sidewalk, 31 feet, 6-inches, with 32 feet being allowed. The garage was attached to this home due to the site’s configuration.

Motion by Commissioner Zellmer, seconded by Commissioner Zinke to approve the structure at 410 S. River Lane, as presented Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Zellmer, Zinke, Roy

Nay: None Motion Passed. Vote: 5-0

5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Updates)

Mr. Lambert provided an update on the Mill Race Inn (4 E. State Street) explaining the City Council tabled the action to May 7, 2018 to discuss with legal council whether the process had been followed properly. A supermajority vote will be required for the recommendation. Details were provided. Mr. Lambert reported the Mill Race Inn and the Amasa White House (limestone structure), located on Fabyan Parkway and owned by Kane County, have been nominated to Landmarks Illinois as 10 most endangered buildings in Illinois. Currently, the county has no plans to renovate the Amasa White House. Zellmer suggested the HPC look at the building before it is considered for demolition. Mr. Lambert summarized his meeting with county preservation/development representatives who did not appear to be opposed to working together to bring awareness to the building and he believed the city council could be more amenable to the HPC initiating a nomination with the county.

Commissioner Hiller shared that he did see the interior of the Amasa White House some time prior and it appeared intact. He also mentioned some of the older limestone buildings located near the landfill and wondered if there was any historical connection. Mr. Lambert offered to follow-up.

Commissioner Zinke asked if there had been any preservation interest in a white building located at Kirk and Fabyan Parkway to which Mr. Lambert did not believe the building was within the city limits.

Discussing the month of May, Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that May was Preservation Month and asked if there was any commission input, suggestions, or assistance that would be provided by the commissioners. Hearing none, he offered to put together a list of recipients, circulate the list, and identify recipients based on commissioner feedback. Per Lambert, future HPC meetings will be videotaped. Regarding the city’s Certified Local Government status, Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that the program requires the commission to be the “local eyes and ears,” providing comment about potential historic structures within the corporate boundaries of the City for the state preservation office. The state preservation office had questioned why the HPC did not provide comment on some recent development projects. Per Chairman Roy’s question, recommendations would be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office to better assist them in evaluating potentially-significant properties that may be threatened by proposed development. Mr. Lambert explained that the commission had not commented, in the past on projects beyond the boundaries of the historic district but that he would discuss this requirement further with appropriate city staff. During next year he will focus on through with the HPC’s obligations as a Certified Local Government. Lambert will keep the commissioners informed on this topic.

Commissioners were invited by Mr. Lambert to attend the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions conference in Des Moines, Iowa, scheduled for July 18-22, 2018.

6. New Business

A. From the Commission: Commissioner Zellmer asked for an update on the Craft Beer sign. A brief update followed regarding the commission’s training on parliamentary rules and procedures. Lastly, Mr. Lambert reported starting next month he will begin meetings with a “fiveminute field guide” presentation on some aspect of preservation or architecture.

B. From the Public: None.

7. Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Zellmer. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 5-0.

https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04172018-1172