City of Geneva Historic Preservation Commission met Dec. 17.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
1. Call to Order
Chairman Zellmer called to order the December 17, 2019 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present HPC: Chairman Zellmer; Commissioners Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Stazin, Warner, Zinke
Staff Present: Preservation Planner Michael Lambert
Others Present: Applicants Mike and Lisa Riebe, 227 Ford Street; Frank Giampoli, 201 N. Third St.; Dennis Kintop with One Man One Project for 307-309 W. State Street
3. Approval of November 19, 2019 Minutes
3. Approval of November 19, 2019 Minutes
Minutes of November 19, 2019 – Motion by Commissioner Salomon to approve the minutes, as presented. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Motion passed by voice vote of 7-0.
4. Five Minute Field Guide – Architectural Impact of Window Sash Color
Preservation Planner Michael Lambert discussed paint color trends from 100 years ago to the present, the importance of window sash details and their affect on architecture, as well as the correct and incorrect way to paint window sashes and trim. Some minor questions from the commissioners followed.
5. Review of Building Permit Applications
A. 227 Ford Street (Case # 2019-042) – Mike and Lisa Riebe Owners; Request for Window Replacement. Mr. Lambert recalled this application was before the commission prior under a different owner. The current owners – Mike and Lisa Riebe -- were seeking to replace the windows on the Ford Street and Second Street elevations that incorporate the historic portion of the house that remained. A brief history of the home followed.
Due to the recent clean-up of the property and on-going renovation, which is not being completed under the Tax Assessment Freeze program, Mr. Lambert reported the windows—which had been represented as dating to the 1850s during prior reviews of the project—had become viewable. The windows are not of the nineteenth century, but date, most probably, to the period between 1936 and 1955; however, the windows do not match the former kitchen window, which was known to have been installed in 1948 by William H. Warford. In summary, Mr. Lambert asked that commissioners review the details of the window construction in order to determine the historic significance of the remaining windows. He discussed the difference between windows constructed during the mid-19th century as compared to those constructed in the early 20th century.
Per Lambert, the request was for 20 replacement windows on the first and second floors, several of which were located at the rear of the building. Mr. Lambert reviewed some of the conditions of the current casings and windows, which were reminiscent of a 20th century window. Other details followed. The owners were proposing to install Pella Architect Series replacement windows—approved by this commission at other properties—with interior and exterior muntins (5/8” inch, black) attached to the exterior and interior glass surfaces. Per Lambert, this Pella series did meet the City’s window policy.
Applicant, Mr. Mike Riebe, came forward and reviewed the windows that were being replaced. Asked why he was replacing the windows, Mr. Riebe explained that, in his opinion, some of the windows would become more period-authentic and would last longer.
Commissioner dialog followed regarding the period of significance for the home and when the windows may have been replaced. Hiller pointed out that just by their age alone, the Secretary of Interior Standards would indicate that the windows had acquired historic value in their own right. However, he did not feel the current windows had significant deterioration. Chairman Zellmer, on the other hand, questioned whether the existing windows incorporated “period-appropriate” details of the style of the home when they were installed and whether the windows were “old” or had acquired “significance in their own right.”
In response, Mr. Lambert reported the window openings appeared to be similar to what existed at the time of construction in 1852 and renovations in the 1920s. The windows were multi- light with authentic muntins, which would have been appropriate for the period.
Commissioner Zinke agreed with Commissioner Hiller that the windows attained historic significance on their own and so did the families, which was a part of the history of the home, and which was significant to the home itself. She did not support replacing the existing windows.
Commissioner Stazin asked the applicant about the actual condition of the windows and whether they were salvageable, wherein Mr. Riebe explained the windows were a major repair project. He could not provide an estimate of the cost but indicated that some of the window sashes needed to be replaced and would have to be milled to their exact specifications.
Returning to the age of significance factor, Mr. Lambert pointed out that age is not the over- riding factor of gained (acquired) historic significance. Significance is established based on whether or not an architectural feature contributes to the historic understanding of the building or is associated with a significant event or person associated with the property. In this case, he pointed out that everyone that lived in the home left his/her mark to some extent. Mr. Lambert posed the question to commissioners whether the Krum-Canning House of the early 1850s thru the 1920s, was intact enough to be understood as a historic property. Alternatively, is the existing building more significant as the Manning-Warford property (1936-1955)? Or, as the house stands, is it significant from its date of construction (circa 1852) to the 50 year cut-off (1969)?
Commissioner Salomon, however, voiced concern about consistency and the way the commission evaluated windows, reminding commissioners that in the past, they had received some type of assessment of whether or not the windows were restorable and their repair cost versus the cost to replace them with new. He pointed out the applicant had no cost estimates for window repair nor an estimate to replace them with new windows to validate such request.
Mr. Riebe, however, felt that the commission’s determination of significance of the windows is an important determination. He felt that his request to replace the existing windows was being reviewed by the Commission solely on his expense (which was not his primary concern) versus whether the windows were truly historic features of the property. Mr. Riebe felt that brought emotion into the discussion.
Commissioner Stazin also pointed out the applicant could provide some cost estimates and to add as much objectivity to it as possible so it was not subjective, which helped in the decision process.
Continuing, Mr. Riebe explained that he was trying to keep the house as it would have looked in the 1950s (sic since Mr. Riebe obviously intended to say 1850s) with the new addition constructed at the rear. He stated the windows were in poor repair but that he would obtain a quote to rebuild them or add new windows. Being a homeowner and understanding the stability of windows, he believed adding new windows would be more consistent with what would have been in place in the 1850s versus what was installed in the 1950s. Since he had not pushed back on any specific item when the architectural plans were approved by the Commission (June 2019), he asked for some leniency on replacing the windows.
Mr. Lambert acknowledged that no clear application guidelines exist that explain to Applicants exactly how to document a request for window replacement per the standards set forth in the adopted City of Geneva Window Policy. Commissioners agreed there was a need for consistency in the review process. Commissioner Warner agreed more cost information was necessary before making a decision.
To summarize, Mr. Lambert confirmed that the commissioners were seeking a cost estimate to restore the existing windows, the cost of replacement windows, and an analysis of window condition. Furthermore, he reminded the commissioners that the application was before the commission due to the significant amount of work that was being done in the house simply to stabilize the very deteriorated property; essentially, the Riebes were constructing a new house because it was in such deplorable condition and renovation costs were increasing.
Discussion followed on how the commission would view the two costs – replacement cost versus refurbishment cost, wherein Commissioner Hiller explained to the applicant that the commission’s evaluation was based on the City’s window policy which was based on the Secretary of Interior Standards (“SOI Standards”). Commissioner Hiller read SOI Standard Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 as examples for the applicant. In addition, he said the Secretary of Interior offered guidelines on how the standards are interpreted.
Mr. Riebe then inquired if the commission viewed his building the same way as the State, i.e., being 50 years or older, as significant. Mr. Lambert stated that both organizations review properties based on interpretations of the SOI Standards. The Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (IL-SHPO) and local commission have differed in their assessment of properties in the past. The interpretation of the SOI Standards depended on the building. Some buildings in the historic district have had significant alterations that detracted from the historic and/or architectural character of the building while other modifications did not detract and—in some instances— contributed to the historic significance of the property.
Since more questions appeared to be arising, Mr. Lambert believed that the applicant should provide the additional information requested by the commission. Simultaneously, the commission needed to come to an understanding of the historic significance of the property and how the Riebe request impacts the historic understanding of the property. Mr. Lambert shared the some of the challenges to identifying the significant architectural features of the home and the contributions of its various owners over time. Dialog followed on how much of the home was depicted on the earliest Sandborn map wherein Mr. Lambert pointed out the original “L” plan and pointed out that the existing dormers were added by William Canning between 1880 and 1929. Mr. Lambert emphasized that the home is not a pure example of a mid-19th century, vernacular residence and that some might identify the Warford alterations as a negative impact on the historic character of the home that had been occupied by a single family from circa 1852-1929.
Continuing, Mr. Riebe stated he was asking for approval to not install the previously- approved window at location No. 9 and that they did want window No. 8, preferring to remove it or, alternately, “drywall over” window No. 8. While the two locations were on the rear of the home, they were visible from the north, as noted by Mr. Lambert. Mr. Riebe requested a determination about windows 8 and 9 at this meeting, so that work could proceed while the replacement of other windows was under continued discussion.
Chairman Zellmer asked that the applicant return with estimates for window refurbishment and for replacement windows, along with any visual evidence of deterioration window by window. He provided examples and then clarified the applicant would need to provide a window-by-window cost for repair as well as window-by-window condition. Mr. Riebe asked if there were guidelines to follow for a window’s condition, wherein Mr. Lambert offered to assist Mr. Riebe with that portion. Discussion followed.
Mr. Lambert noted that difficulties exist when applying the SOI Standards strictly in consideration of the owner’s wishes for this project. The project is not a Tax Assessment Freeze project and, consequently, is not an attempt at pure preservation of the property. The interiors are not reviewed by this commission; and the first floor of the completed project will be, basically, a large open room from east to west and opened to the new addition to the north. The historic staircase is proposed to be removed as well. Therefore, if some windows at the first floor are replaced and others are not, the windows will be different within the same space, resulting in a visual impact at the completed interior.
Commissioner Zinke preferred that—instead of installing all new windows—as many historic windows in the open room be preserved as reasonably possible regardless if they all matched or not, believing the preserved windows represent some of the history of the home.
Commissioner Warner pointed out that while the commission follows the SOI Standards, the explanation for the application of those Standards also notes that the consideration of restoration and alternatives of significant features should be considered against the “financial reasonableness and technical feasibility” of any request.
Commissioner conversation continued regarding the period of significance for the property and the impact of 20th century additions on the architectural character of the Krum-Canning house. The Krum-Canning families occupied the house for more than 75 years. During the commissioners’ discussion, Mr. Riebe noted that—based on the initial HPC approvals in 2018—the commission had identified the historic period of significance for 227 Ford Street as 1853.
In reviewing window Nos. 8 and 9, commissioners were fine with removing window No. 8 and not inserting window 9.
Motion by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the proposed changes to 227 Ford Street eliminating the addition of window No. 9 and window No. 8. Second by Commissioner Salomon. Roll call:
Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Salomon, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0
6. Secretary’s Report
Staff was seeking commissioner input regarding minor project modifications to:
201 N. Third Street – New Chimney Detail – Per Mr. Lambert, this project was a tax assessment freeze rehab on an 1858 residence. The chimney flue was visible from the north and not visible from the southwest or east. The consensus of the Illinois Historic Preservation office and Mr. Lambert was that the flue was acceptable but staff requested that it be painted with heat resistant paint to match the roof as closely as possible. Questions followed regarding the height of the flue. Commissioners concurred with Staff’s recommendations for the chimney detail.
318 N. Second Street – Front Wall Siding – For this Tax Assessment Freeze project, Mr. Lambert identified that the commission had required the owners to replicate the original windows with proportional double-hung windows at the front porch and relocate the door to the side of the porch. A request came (to staff) to remove the synthetic siding beneath the porch and install 8-inch exposure composite siding in its place. Mr. Lambert explained to the commission that the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (IL-SHPO) had reviewed the staff recommendation for the removal of the synthetic siding and installation of the character-defining exposure and finish of the wood siding found on the rest of the historic portion of the home. The preference was to salvage historic wood siding from the rear of the home for re-installation. If that option was not possible, then new wood siding of appropriate exposure and finish could be installed. Because none of the wood siding was salvaged when the addition was constructed at the rear of the residence, new wood siding as described was supported by both staff and the IL-SHPO. Therefore, under the porch will be 4-inch wood siding while the rest of the home will be covered in synthetic siding (the exterior synthetic siding is proposed for removal in a future phase). The contractor for the project and Mr. Lambert did discuss and agreed that four-inch exposure wood siding would be installed, eventually to match the siding underneath the current synthetic siding.
307-309 W. State Street – Storefront Bulkhead – Mr. Lambert reviewed the façade elevations that were approved for the Nobel House restaurant in September 2018 and at the October 15, 2019 HPC meeting. The commission approved (October 15, 2019) the increased depth of the lintel between the display windows over the historic storefront to accommodate the transoms and the operable windows proposed for the project. However, code required that the fire sprinkler connection be located at the front of the building (versus rear) which was to be 18-inches above grade minimum. Details of the fire department connection valve; historic storefront; and existing conditions were shared. Per Mr. Lambert, the fire department was willing to allow a straight connection in order to be as low as possible on the front of the building. Current photos of the facade followed.
The Applicant’s proposed modification is to raise the center bulkhead to approximately 40 inches above grade to accommodate the fire department connection. Mr. Lambert explained that no details had been submitted regarding the appearance of the panel, and he was not comfortable approving a single, raised bulkhead panel at the storefront to accommodate the connection on the front of the building. Mr. Lambert explained that the historic storefront was dominated by horizontally-oriented elements and that architectural feature should be preserved in any approved solution. He offered commissioners another option: raise the top of the bulkhead to its approximate historic height (possibly slightly higher) to accommodate the connection and retain the horizontal line across the front of the store front.
Commissioners discussed the sill height and why this issue was not identified earlier in the process since many architectural details had changed over the course of many months of review. Mr. Kintop explained that the fire department connection valve was originally proposed for the rear
of the building but—only recently—had the fire department determined that the connection valve must be at the State Street façade. Mr. Kintop proposed that the connection be as low as allowed. With this change, Mr. Kintop also explained that the windows would be approximately 10 inches shorter. Further dialog and review of photographs followed. Mr. Lambert recommended the consistently horizontal bulkhead across the storefront with a slightly higher sill (compared to the historic height). The suggested height of the bulkhead is between 24 and 27 inches above finished grade so that the contractor could make the valve connection compliant. Mr. Kintop concurred that the uniform bulkhead height was a better alternative than a single panel of a raised bulkhead. Commissioners concurred with staff’s recommendation. Mr. Kintop suggested increasing the depth of the bulkhead panels; however, Mr. Lambert noted that the panels were square, historically, and that dimension should be retained. Mr. Lambert also noted that the historic photograph appears to show a baseboard below the bulkhead panels so that the approved bulkhead mock-up could be utilized with the addition of the baseboard to raise the overall bulkhead to the approved height.
On another matter, Mr. Lambert reported he was about 20 permits ahead of last year at this time and believed his workload would have a 20 to 30 percent increase of permits for the fiscal year over last year.
Commissioners returned to discussing the earlier project at 227 Ford Street and how the period of significance would have to be determined, as well as the importance of following a consistent process—be it with the windows or siding, etc.—possibly even creating a policy checklist. Mr. Lambert reported that application forms consistent with the adopted policy requirements are a goal of his for the coming year.
7. New Business
A. From the Commission: Commissioner Zinke inquired if Mr. Lambert could provide an update on the former Mill Race property. Mr. Lambert stated that he was not aware of the project details other than planning continues to move forward; he is not assigned to the project team. He suggested she contact the community development director or the economic development director, who are coordinating the project with the developer.
Regarding the home that was to be demolished at the corner of Fifth and Ford Streets (428 Ford Street), Mr. Lambert reported that the owners have filed a judicial review of the City process with the Kane County courts; his understanding is that the owners are pursuing multiple options.
B. From the Public: None.
8. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Salomon, second by Commissioner Warner. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 7-0.
https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_12172019-1550
Alerts Sign-up