City of Geneva, Historic Preservation Commission

Meeting Agenda

CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

MEETING LOCATION & HPC INFORMATION TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 MEETING

Location: Geneva City Hall 1. Call to Order Council Chambers 109 James Street 2. Roll Call Geneva, IL 60134 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes

June 18, 2019

Time: 4. Review of Building Permit Applications A. 327 South Fourth Street – Larrabee House CASE 2018-115 7:00 p.m. Applicant: St. Mark’s Church Mike Sweeney Application for: Request to consider replacement of historic wood windows with aluminum-clad windows at a Significant property. Commissioners: Paul Zellmer, Chairman B. 112 North Fifth Street CASE 2019-040 Jim Hamilton Applicant: Mike Holmes and Caitlyn Reimer, Owners Ben Hinds / Brian Hinds, BGH Construction Al Hiller George Salomon Application for: Request to consider relocation / elimination of George Stazin historic wood windows at a Contributing property.

David Warner C. 626 Fulton Street CASE 2019-043 Carolyn Zinke Applicant: James Dickerson, Owners Mike Schmidt, Schmidt Exteriors

Application for: Request to consider new composite siding in place of existing aluminum siding, new front door and replacement of one Staff Liaison: window with a new, aluminum-clad unit.

Michael A. Lambert 5. Secretary’s Report (Staff Updates) Preservation Planner 630/938.4541 6. New Business [email protected] A. From the Commission B. From the Public

7. Adjournment

Next HPC Meeting: July 16, 2019

The Geneva Historic Preservation Commission meeting is audio-recorded, and summary minutes are transcribed by a recording secretary.

The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require accommodations in order to allow them to observe and or participate in this meeting are required to contact the Planning Division at 630/232.0818 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FONA International – FONA Center 1900 Averill Road Geneva, Illinois, 60134

June 18, 2019

1. Call to Order

Chairman Zellmer called to order the June 18, 2019 meeting of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission at 7:02 p.m.

2. Roll Call

Present HPC: Chairman Zellmer, Commissioners Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke

Absent: Commissioner Salomon

Staff Present: Historic Preservation Planner Michael Lambert; Community Develop- ment Director David DeGroot, City Atty. Michael Rachlis

Others Present: Mr. Sean Gallagher, 427 Anderson Blvd., Ms. Denise Ward, 418 Dodson; Ms. Debbie Peterson 208 S. River Lane; Mr. Brad Saelens, 208 S. River Lane; Bob Forslund, 428 Ford St.; Tom Simonian, 921 S. Batavia Avenue Mr. Ben Hinds, 25804 Bliss Rd., Batavia; Mr. Mike and Ms. Lisa Riebe, 227 Ford St.; Mr. Robert Akers, 427 W. State St.; Mr. Frank Giampoli, 201 N. Third St.; Hayden Crane with Solgen Power; Ms. Caitlyn Reimer, 112 N. Fifth St.; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt

3. Approval of May 21 and May 28, 2019 Minutes

Minutes of May 21, 2019 - Motion by Commissioner Hamilton, second by Commissioner Warner to approve the minutes. Motion passed by voice vote of 5-0-1. (Hiller abstains.)

Minutes of May 28, 2019 – Motion by Commissioner Warner, second by Commissioner Hiller to approve the minutes. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0-1 (Stazin abstains.)

4. HPC Public Hearings (Commission Deliberation)

A. South Geneva Historic District (Case # 2018-205). Applicant: Karen Buckley, Bill and Amy Cook, Jill Leo, Gillian McNamara and Marsha Reinecke. Application for South Historic District Designation (previously closed public hearing). Chairman Zellmer invited the commissioners to provide their input on this case. A summary worksheet of prior discussions was provided to the commissioners.

Chairman Zellmer asked the commissioners to begin the discussion by considering the applicability of Standard 6f to the nominated and staff-recommended properties. Upon review of the summary, Commissioner Hiller believed that all of the nominated and staff-recommended properties met all of the requirements of Standard 6f, including the encroachment definition.

With regard to Standard 6g, Commission Hiller explained that he did believe 814 Batavia Avenue (open lot) met the standard not because it could or should be developed, but because it Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

was a historical site that should be developed with sensitivity. (Mr. Lambert noted that Standards 6f, 6g and 6h refer to a collective area of properties and not to a specific property.) City Attorney Rachlis provided further clarification/examples of threats to an area. Commissioners proceeded to discuss the concern of teardown/infill versus encroachment and whether Standard 6g should be considered or not for the nominated and staff-recommended properties. Mr. Lambert explained the distinction between Standards 6f and 6g. Some commissioners recommended including Standards 6f and 6g for the entire area based on the definitions received from Mr. Lambert.

Discussing 501 Peck Road as it relates to Standards 6a and 6c, Mr. Lambert disclosed that the owners provided written testimony that the property had been significantly altered in the 1990s and what was considered a 1960s structure was really more of a mid-1990s home, which was outside the stated Period of Significance, identified within the submitted nomination. Commissioners agreed to categorize the property as Non-contributing, and remove Standards 6a and 6c, but keep Standards 6f and 6g.

In regard to questions about the classification of 902 Batavia Avenue, Mr. Lambert explained the reason for the category change from Significant to Contributing was due to the testimony provided regarding the replacement of windows. However, after visiting the site, the windows appear to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for a window replacement project. Mr. Lambert stated it was the Commission’s responsibility to determine the appropriate property categorization. The majority of the commissioners agreed to leave the property as Significant; however, Commissioner Hiller felt the category should be changed to Contributing.

For 814 Batavia Avenue (the lot with many mature oak trees recently subdivided form the Atwater House), Commissioner Zinke supported the lot being categorized as Significant due to a natural spring existing on the parcel and due to the character of the lot which included rolling terrain and a ravine as identified in the submitted nomination.

For 809 Batavia Avenue, Commissioner Zinke supported Standard 6a being applied to this site because it was part of the post-WWII infill development for the City.

For 932 Batavia Avenue, Commissioner Zinke stated that since the property was categorized as Non-contributing due to a home constructed after the stated Period of Significance, Standard 6a was a moot point. Mr. Lambert explained that, for Standard 6a to be applicable, the property should be identifiable/recognizable to the significant pioneer settler associated with the parcel. However, substantial redevelopment over time had occurred on the site, and it does not exist in the state of condition that was known to the pioneer Haskins family. Commissioners agreed not to include Standard 6a for this property.

Discussing Standard 6h, Commissioner Hiller explained his understanding of the definition. He recommended adding Standard 6h to all of the homes located on Batavia Avenue and for 316 and 398 Elizabeth Place and 406 Peck Road, due to their location the Lincoln Highway (the first, transcontinental, paved highway in the United States that was routed along present-day Route 31 and through Geneva). Furthermore, Commissioner Hiller identified a local tradition of relocating homes within the City for the repurposing and reuse of buildings, including several barns for homes and other functions. He believed 737 Forrest Avenue and 516 Peck Road should be included under Standard 6h. Commissioner Hiller noted the carriage barn at 425 Easton Avenue was relocated and repurposed, following the design of local architect Frank B. Gray.

Commissioner Hiller also suggested that the Commission consider the homes constructed by the Wilson Brothers as a Standard 6h group; commissioners concurred. The Chairman noted that all of the homes built by the Wilson Brothers were protected, also, under Standard 6d.

2 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

As to 715 Shady Avenue, Mr. Lambert explained that testimony had been provided that this building had been painted, leading to a claim that the paint greatly altered its character. Some commissioners felt it was reversible; however, Zinke pointed out that sometimes the paint does not come off. Although Commissioner Zinke recommended listing the building as Non-Contributing, the majority of the commissioners agreed to retain the categorization of 715 Shady Avenue as a Contributing property.

Further dialog followed on what other properties, if any, were to be excluded or included in the Commission’s recommendation. The Chairman noted that the Commission had previously determined that 322 Cheever Avenue should be excluded because it was a Non-Contributing property, built after the stated Period of Significance and located on the edge of the district; Commissioners confirmed their prior determination. Commissioners did not identify any other properties to be excluded from the proposed Historic District. Asked if staff’s recommendations should be included within the proposed Historic District, commissioners concurred with staff.

Commissioner Zinke expressed her appreciation to the applicants and to Mr. Lambert for their work. She explained that she included staff’s recommendations for additions to the nominated district due to the wealth of history in the area, the distinct neighborhood feel, the stately size of the homes, and the majestic trees. Other commissioners extended their appreciation to staff and noted that staff’s recommendations were a natural inclusion from the start, the homes that were added by staff were consistent in size, lot size, and in the spirit of what the district was intended to represent. The amended district appeared to answer many of the objections that had been identified through many hours of oral testimony as well as objections submitted in writing.

Chairman Zellmer reviewed Standards 1 through 6h on the commissioners’ worksheet, confirming with the commissioners that the properties included in the nomination met those standards they discussed. For the record, Mr. Lambert reviewed each of the individual properties and those Standards the property satisfied for the recommended South Historic District (Summary tabulation attached as Exhibit 1).

Motion by Commissioner Zinke, seconded by Commissioner Warner to recommend to the Geneva City Council the designation of the South Geneva Historic District, comprised of the properties identified, and designation standards discussed, and as read aloud by Mr. Lambert. Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0

5. Review of Conceptual Projects

A. 208 S. River Lane (Case No. 2019-039). Applicant: Edward & Deborah Peterka; Brad Saelens, BDS Architecture. Application for: Demolition of Existing, Attached Garage and Construction of a new attached garage. Mr. Lambert located the property on the overhead map and explained that the property comprised of a number of buildings and additions over time and was part of the Kate Raftery’s River Lane Beautification Project. The owners were proposing to demolish the existing, attached garages, workshop, and temporary art studio as well as enclose a door on the west side of the home. Mr. Lambert discussed the prior three changes made to the garage. Photos followed. A two-car garage was being proposed with carriage-style doors and period-style lighting and architectural grade roof shingles. The door being enclosed was located in an alcove and very difficult to see from the public right-of-way.

3 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

Mr. Brad Saeles, architect for the project, reiterated the that he was trying to remove iterations of the garage and replace it with something that fit the architectural style of the existing home. The new garage would align better with the front entry of the home. The western door to be enclosed was pointed out on the overhead. The front entry of the home would be maintained. All exterior materials would be matched to the existing.

Commissioner questions pertained to 1) what would happen with the space between the existing garage and the entry alcove from Campbell Street to which Mr. Saelens envisioned it would be re-landscaped; 2) when was the art studio added (1940s); and 3) the fact that the new garage would have same roof pitch and roof line of the existing garage and the cement slabs would be removed. Commissioners were appreciative of the applicant staying true to the size and character of the building and supported the demolition of the garage and temporary studio for this project.

Because this was a concept review, discussion followed on whether the garage details should match exactly or have a different approach. Commissioners agreed that since the studio was a temporary structure (two walls and a flat roof attached to the existing structures) with no foundation (built on the original driveway), it could not be preserved. The recreation of the art studio and the board-and-batten siding a false sense of historicism should not be created. While commissions had no issues matching what was there, they asked that the applicant return with photos of the current conditions of the garage/studio. Commissioners also agreed the door should be enclosed.

6. Review of Building Permit Applications

A. 201 N. Third Street (Case No. 2019-005). Applicant: Frank & Lori Giampoli, Owner; Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Associates. Application for Modifications to Approved Plans for a Significant Property based on Field Investigation. Per Mr. Lambert, commissioners saw this application previously but due to a recent field investigation, some significant structural changes were found that brought challenges to the project. The project was a tax-assessment freeze project.

Applicant, Mr. Frank Giampoli, reported that during investigative demolition, he found that the (limestone) foundation and first floor beams were compromised significantly, including termite damage. In speaking with a home mover, he explained the house could be lifted using L-beams on the side of the house which would allow the removal of the failing foundation and allow for a new foundation to be inserted. Mr. Giampoli summarized that the north wing porch was very compromised and, most likely, it would have to be constructed as new. He discussed the finances already invested in the project but believed such improvements would bring the home into the 21st Century.

Mr. Gallagher, architect for the project, referenced the documentation that the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office reviewed, and recalled for the commissioners that in the previous plans submitted, the porch located on the northwest corner would not be constructed and instead the north wing would be extended within the proposed footprint of the new addition. Per Gallagher, the State asked the owners to save all trim and replicate the trim on the elevation and match the gable end to what currently exists. The top of the first floor of the renovated home would be higher than the existing by approx. 3 to 5 inches since it was being lifted off its foundation and placed on a new foundation and new floor framing was being installed. The finished grade would be modified so that no more than the present foundation would be exposed when the project is completed. The front porch would include piers with square caps and would be concealed by a skirt. The north addition

4 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

will be the same width as the current wing. Per Mr. Giampoli, the siding was being replaced because it was being compromised. Originally, the home was stucco with siding over it. However, Mr. Gallagher stated the siding would be evaluated and salvaged, if possible, or be replaced in- kind. Mr. Lambert recalled the previous approval by the commissioners allowed the applicant to investigate if the siding could be salvaged. Per a question, the chimney, which was not original, will be removed and not replaced in accordance with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office review of the proposed modifications. Dialog followed regarding the relocation of the garage on- site; the State Historic Preservation Office approved its relocation.

Commendations went to the owners for saving the home.

Motion by Commissioner Hamilton, second by Commissioner Zinke to approve the alterations to the previously-approved plans for 201 N. Third Street, as presented. Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer Nay: None MOTION PASSED VOTE: 6-0

(Commissioners took a five minute break at 8:45 pm; reconvened at 8:50 p.m.)

B. 124 Stevens Street (Case No. 2019-035). Applicant: Kurt Beier, Owner; Collin Prisbrey & Krystene Allen with Solgen Power. Application for: Request to Install Solar Roof Panels at a Contributing Property. Mr. Lambert reviewed the background for this application and located the property on the overhead map. The applicant was seeking a solar panel installation and the request fell under a change in roofing. (Currently, the City was working on drafting guidelines for solar panels.) Mr. Lambert pointed out that most of the solar panels will be hidden from the street. However, those panel locations where they would be visible were highlighted in orange in the photographs. Mr. Lambert explained that the home had many small roofs which were a challenge for locating the panels. (Additional photographs of the property followed.)

Mr. Hayden Crane, with Solgen Power, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Stazin appreciated the drawings but would have appreciated photographs of some of the residential project installations done by the company to understand the character of what the project would look like, wherein Mr. Crane produced a large marketing piece depicting various photographs of projects that were completed by his company. Concern was raised about the panels being very reflective. Per questions, Mr. Crane explained the actual panels were about 3 inches thick and attached to the roof with another 3 to 4 inches between the panel and the roof. Commissioner Hiller pointed out the solar panels were removal.

Concern was voiced about the penetration to the roof shingles and changing the character of the home. Mr. Lambert produced documentation from several preservation agencies and organizations (including the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions) regarding the installation of solar collection devices on historic buildings.

The discussion regarding the aesthetic impact of solar panels; removability of the panels; and the potential damage or alteration of the roof structure/framing and finish material continued. (Samples were distributed by Mr. Crane). Dialog followed regarding general setbacks, an emergency shutoff meter, and the tilt plane of the panels according to the Secretary of Interior Standards. Commissioner Warner inquired about the space between the roof and the panel and the number of holes for each panel to which Mr. Crane noted that some penetrations of the roof are required and referred commissioners to the submitted engineered drawings.

5 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

Motion by Commissioner Stazin, second by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the solar panels for 124 Stevens Street, as presented. Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer Nay: None MOTION PASSED VOTE: 6-0

C. 112 N. Fifth Street (Case No. 2019-040). Applicant: Mike Holmes & Caitlyn Reimer, Owners; Ben Hinds/Brian Hinds with BGH Construction. Application for: Request to consider relocation and elimination of historic wood windows at a Contributing Property. Mr. Lambert explained this proposal involved window modifications due to an interior remodel. After review by staff, Mr. Lambert determined that Commission review was required for a few items. Mr. Lambert provided a brief history of the home, built for the Nelson family about 1890; Mr. Nelson and his son returned to Sweden after the death of Mrs. Nelson in 1909. The house went through a variety of owners and was converted to a two flat between 1923 and 1930, apparently, when the porch was enclosed.

Mr. Lambert explained that many windows were affected by the interior remodel but some windows were not original. At the south elevation, two windows at the first floor appear to be later additions when a front stairway was removed; those windows will be in conflict with the proposed new staircase. Additionally, two windows on the second floor needed to have tempered glass because of their proximity to a bathtub; only one of those windows falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and it is unclear whether or not the windows will be fitted, simply, with a tempered storm panel at the interior. Two historic openings at the first floor on the north elevation appeared to need modification for counter tops. Also, three windows at the second floor of the north elevation need clarification as to whether they are proposed to be removed, replaced or relocated. Additionally, the relocation or modification of windows and window openings may require consideration of appropriate siding repairs; currently, the exterior of the house is aluminum siding over historic siding (condition of historic siding is unknown).

Mr. Lambert produced photographs of the home, expressing concern about those windows that could be seen from the right-of-way. On the north elevation all of the windows could be viewed from the public sidewalk. Currently, there was aluminum siding on the house and it could require the windows to be patched in. Mr. Lambert noted that the front porch was glassed in between 1923 and 1930, noting the windows were nearly 100 years old. However, the question was whether or not alternations of the historic front wall (within the enclosed porch and somewhat visible from the public sidewalk) were appropriate or not. For this project, the owner was proposing to relocate the historic front door to another location and, then, modifying an existing triple window and remodeling it into a double window. Mr. Lambert presumed, based on its design and location, that the triple window was installed in the 1930s-era remodel of the home.

Mr. Ben Hinds, with BGH Construction, was present to answer questions. Chairman Zellmer inquired what the owners’ plans were for those windows within the kitchen and pantry areas since they were most visible, wherein Mr. Hinds explained the kitchen window height would be changed to accommodate the kitchen cabinets. The pantry window would be eliminated but it would be up to the Commission. Because the window sash being discussed had metal banding, Mr. Hinds assumed they were not original to the home, although most of the window locations appear to be original. Mr. Lambert clarified the window locations, when aligned between the first and second floors, were original. However, Mr. Hinds indicated that only two windows remained with weights and pulleys; most of the window sash had been replaced or modified over the years. A discussion about the function, condition, location and modifications of the windows followed.

6 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

Commissioners proceeded to ask the applicant to provide elevations/drawings of what was actually being proposed at the exterior since the interior renovation was now resulting in exterior modifications. Clarification of the type of plans the HPC was looking for was explained by the Chairman to Mr. Hinds. Asked if the second-floor bathroom windows were changing in size, Mr. Hinds indicated they were not. The windows near the stairs (south elevation) would disappear. Commissioner Stazin asked to see plans for the south elevation and north elevation when more details were available. Commissioners also pointed out the window sills at the paired windows at the south elevation did not match the height of the other windows. Staff had no historic photos of the home.

For clarification and since the project was in for a permit, Mr. Lambert offered to speak to the building commissioner to allow the interior work to begin as long as proposed work that affected the historic windows was not installed. Also, Mr. Lambert asked how comfortable the Commission would be in having the applicant patch in the aluminum siding in fairly large amounts. Discussion followed on the difficulty of preserving the historic character of the home when windows were being removed. Dialog followed as to which windows would stay and which were proposed to be eliminated. Commissioners agreed the proposal for the north façade was somewhat problematic because it is a long flat elevation that is highly visible and because the windows were placed in a very regular and symmetrical pattern. Alteration of these design patterns would result in a loss of the historic, architectural character.

Applicant Ms. Reimer inquired of the commissioners to define the word “historical” and asked what “historic character” the commission was trying to preserve. She went on to explain her vision of bringing back the home to a single-family home. She asked the commission to provide some parameters for its vision. To avoid commissioners getting involved in the design process, Commissioner Warner encouraged Ms. Reimer to work with her architect and create her desired interior character within the context of the original home’s exterior, working around and with what exists. Mr. Lambert recommended that she pay attention to the strong vertical rhythm of the fenestration (windows and doors) and to work thru the design details between her and her architect. Details were explained.

Ms. Reimer asked if she could receive feedback on the three items that were at issue: the interior wall of the front porch, the south window, and the north elevation, versus reviewing them again next month. Mr. Lambert briefly reviewed the items that were being discussed and offered to work with the applicants so that in the interim the applicants could move along with their interior demolition. Chairman Zellmer concurred and directed Mr. Hinds to provide samples of the existing siding next month as well as what was being proposed, including dimensions. Mr. Lambert asked also that the applicants provide window cut sheets. Commissioner Zinke also asked for clarification of those windows that are proposed to be replaced. She acknowledged the north wall was very problematic but the styling of the home would require that the windows align above and below each other.

Mr. Lambert explained the tradeoffs of the design to Mr. Hinds. As voiced by Commissioner Stazin, the symmetry was to be maintained regardless of the final design of new window sash design for the existing openings. Mr. Lambert confirmed the application would return at the July 16th HPC meeting.

D. 316 Campbell Street (Case No. 2019-041). Applicant: Sue Hadley & Deb Hilton, Country Naturals; Alex Teipel with Architectural Resources. Application for: Request to modify an existing Entry Stoop and Overhang at a Contributing Property. Mr. Lambert reviewed the proposal and located the property on the overhead map. The home was a former residence. The front patio

7 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

and stoop have crumbled and inclement weather was deteriorating the front stoop. The proposed covering was a functional project

Mr. Robert Ackers, from Architectural Resources, explained the stoop and stairs will remain as they are and the proposed covering will be extended only to cover the stoop, steps and walkway from inclement weather. Commissioners commented that the gable end of the entry was a new element and may not be appropriate for the project, wherein Mr. Lambert believed the gable was introduced to better identify the entry and was not wholly out-of-character for the heavily-modified building. Mr. Ackers briefly explained some of the additions that were added to the home. Per a question, the new covering would cover about six feet and extend over the bay window. After discussing the matter, commissioner comments were that the covering changed the home’s character a bit but the element was functional and could be removed in the future with little adverse affect on the original portion and historic additions to the 19th century building. No other objections were voiced. A brief dialog followed on how the applicant got around the ADA access.

Motion by Commissioner Hamilton, second by Commissioner Warner to approve the modifications for 316 Campbell, as presented. Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer Nay: None MOTION PASSED VOTE: 6-0

E. 227 Ford Street (Case No. 2019-042). Applicant: Mike and Lisa Riebe, Owners; Sean Gallagher with Gallagher Associates. Application for: Modifications to approved Plans for a Significant Property. Mr. Lambert located the property on the overhead and stated this case was before the commission one year ago, however, the item was before the commission tonight due to minor modifications that were made to the prior-approved plans.

Owner, Mr. Mike Riebe, 227 Ford Street, discussed how he and his wife purchased the home and referenced the home’s previously-approved plans. He wanted to return the home to its original character.

Mr. Sean Gallagher, architect for the project, explained two changes were made from the last concept review, done a year ago: 1) more glass would be added in the door that exited from the mudroom towards Third Street, and 2) a slight differentiation would be created in the dormers facing Third Street which would now cause the dormers to match in size. (Elevations were provided.) The doorway from the mudroom will include a sidelight and a full-view French door. As for materials, Mr. Gallagher explained the original home currently had shingle siding and it would be patched/repaired for any needed modifications. The trim on the dormers would be repaired in kind. The two new windows on the original portion of the home will be wood and the windows on the new addition will be Marvin Integrity windows. Also, the addition will have smooth side out Hardi (lap to match the shingle siding on the original house) and the shingles will be Serpentine Noir Black. The standing seam roof in the entry from the mudroom and on the canopy will be Matte Black Steel. The garage door on the detached garage will be full-face Coachman-style door. The upper replacement rail system will be Chippendale style. Per Mr. Gallagher, this was not a Tax Assessment Freeze project.

Regarding the roof over the front door, Mr. Gallagher explained the gable will be left open, tying it with a black powered coated tie rod. The front door will retain the historic transom above.

Commissioners voiced positive comments for the project.

8 Historic Preservation Commission June 18, 2019

Motion by Commissioner Zinke, second by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the revised plans for 227 Ford Street, as presented and discussed. Roll call:

Aye: Hamilton, Hiller, Stazin, Warner, Zinke, Zellmer Nay: None MOTION PASSED VOTE: 6-0

7. Secretary’s Report (Staff Updates)

Mr. Lambert reminded the commissioners that the Mill Race Redevelopment charette would be taking place on June 24th at 7:00 p.m. at Riverside Receptions. He invited commissioners to attend. On June 26th, the charette will start at 5:30 p.m., and the last date -- June 27th -- the charette would start at 7:00 p.m. Details followed. Mr. Lambert did not know whether the charette would be recorded or not. A brief explanation of next steps followed.

6. New Business

A. From the Commission: None.

B. From the Public: None.

7. Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Stazin, second by Commissioner Warner. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 6-0.

Community Development Department Report

CITY OF GENEVA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM 4A 327 South Fourth Street July 16, 2019 Proposed Renovations and Additions

Applicant: BACKGROUND St. Mark’s Church, Owner The St. Mark’s worship and fellowship center traces its roots on South

Fourth Street to 1868, when its historic, limestone chapel was erected at Mike Sweeney, Representative South Fourth and Franklin Streets. for St. Mark’s Church

In 1987, a single family residence was removed from the east side of South Fourth Street and the church facilities were expanded to the south of the historic chapel.

Request: In 2000, the parish requested and was granted a Special Use permit for a Replacement front door and second expansion of the church facilities. Upon recommendation from windows at the Larrabee the Geneva Plan Commission and the Geneva Historic Preservation House as part of a Commission, the Geneva City Council adopted Ordinance 2001-22. A Comprehensive Renovation of condition of the Special Use approval was the preservation of the the Existing Church Facilities Larrabee House, a historic residence at 327 South Fourth Street.

The Larrabee House had been acquired by the St. Mark’s congregation in

1960 and, under the conditions of the Special Use permit, was relocated

in 2001. At that time, the house was moved closer to the southwest HPC Case Number: corner of its original lot to allow the construction of a fellowship hall as 2018-115 well as a sunken courtyard. At that time, a detached, two car garage was constructed to the east of the residence.

Sitting prominently at the Staff Liaison: northeast corner of South Michael Lambert Fourth and Fulton streets, Preservation Planner Larrabee House currently 630/938.4541 serves as the rectory for the [email protected] assistant pastor and provides additional space for some church-related youth and small meeting activities.

Since 1999, Larrabee House has been identified as a Significant property within the Geneva Historic District and a Contributing property in the Central Geneva Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 5 Project Amendments / Revisions

ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION The Larrabee House dates to 1854 and is depicted in the 1869 Birds’ Eye Map of Geneva. It is identified as a Significant local property within the Historic District.

The Fourth Street entry of the Larrabee House is characteristic of the mid-1850s Greek Revival style; however, no other Greek Revival details that are found, typically, on other local homes of that era exist. The bracketed frieze and tall windows are reminiscent of the early Italianate style, which became fashionable in northeastern Illinois in the mid-1860s. Based 1869 Birds Eye Map of Geneva on physical details, it appears that the home was remodeled when the home was approximately 20 years old. The 1-over-1 windows are typical of a late Victorian era home and may have been replaced between 1890 and 1920. The south-facing bay windows are, stylistically, early twentieth century features. The original exterior siding was covered with the present synthetic siding around 1970.

In fact, the Larrabee House—particularly the bracketed frieze at the main eaves—is similar, architecturally, to the Parker House (later, LeBaron-Turner House) at 113 Fulton Street.

Based on recent review of its history, the Parker House (later, the LeBaron- Turner House) was remodeled in 1867- 1868 by Clark & Long, the prominent, mid-nineteenth century builders in Geneva. Coming from Maine, Robert Long, Jr. was a carpenter who settled at Geneva in 1854. Long’s obituary stated that the Civil War veteran had contracted on more than one hundred residences and buildings in Geneva during his career. It is possible that the Parker House and, later, LeBaron-Turner House Larrabee House may have been one of View circa 1910 to circa 1925. those residences. Source: Geneva History Museum

BRIEF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Built for the family of William Morse and Mary M. (Haight) Larrabee, the 1854 Larrabee House has been attributed to a builder by the name of Elbridge Hall. Although an Elbridge Hall purchased significant tracts of land in Kane County and throughout Illinois during the 1840s and 1850s, no builder by that name is identified in local histories. Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 5 Project Amendments / Revisions

A native of Whitehall, New York, William M. Larrabee was born in 1809 and came to Chicago with his parents and siblings around 1838, when he married his second wife, Mary M. Haight. The Larrabee family was among the early, prominent pioneers of Chicago, and Larrabee Street is named in honor of the family. By 1846, Charles Larrabee was City Attorney; by 1853, William M. had been named Secretary of the Galena & Chicago Union Railroad; and, by 1854, C. R. Larrabee was Secretary of St. James Hospital. (Source: Chicago History Museum)

The Larrabee family left Chicago, briefly in 1849, and moved to Wisconsin, where William M. Larrabee began his railroad career. However, the family returned to Chicago by 1852. (Source: Andreas, Alfred T. The History of Chicago, Volume 3, 1886)

In 1853, the Galena & Chicago Union Railroad from Chicago made its way to the east bank of the Fox River at Geneva. By 1855, the railroad had crossed the river. With the completion of the rail line through Geneva, several railroad officials settled in town and, in the 1850s, built some of the finest houses in town, including Augustus Herrington, solicitor, 416 South First; William Larrabee, secretary, Fourth & Fulton; William D. Plato, attorney, 415 South Fifth; Samuel Nelson, roadmaster, South and Third; and Thomas Clancy, worker, South and First. (Source: Geneva Historical Society 50th Anniversary, p. 86).

William M. Larrabee served as Secretary and Treasurer of the Galena & Chicago Union Railroad as Secretary until 1864. After the Galena & Chicago Union Railroad was absorbed by the Chicago & North Western Railroad, William M. Larrabee assumed the position of Secretary-Treasurer of the Chicago & Alton Road rail line until his death in 1879.

William and Mary Larrabee raised eight children in the South Fourth Street home. During that time, William M. Larrabee served as the Mayor of Geneva for one term (1869-1870). Following William M. Larrabee’s death in 1870, his widow continued to live in the home until the mid-1880s before relocating to Denver, Colorado.

By 1885, their son, William D. Larrabee was living in “the old family mansion” at Geneva. (Source: Andreas, Alfred T. The History of Chicago, Volume 3, 1886) Like his father, William D. Larrabee worked, also, for the Chicago & Alton Road rail line. William D. Larrabee raised his family and remained in the Larrabee family home at Geneva until the early 1890s, when he relocated to California.

When William D. Larrabee moved out of the house, it passed through several families. In 1960, the Larrabee House was purchased by St. Mark’s parish from the estate of Bessie M. Blatner.

The Larrabee House is considered Significant for its association with a significant Geneva resident and as an excellent, local example of architecture (Late Greek Revival / Italianate Cruciform Residence).

CONCEPT REVIEW – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT On April 17, 2018, St. Mark’s parish sought direction from the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission regarding their proposal to connect the existing worship and fellowship center to the historic Larrabee House as part of the process for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) request before the Geneva Plan Commission.

Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, the proposed additions were required to meet all zoning, building and Life Safety regulations adopted by the City of Geneva.

Specifically, the Applicant was seeking—in April 2018—feedback regarding: Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 5 Project Amendments / Revisions

1. the removal of the sunken courtyard and the construction of a new, grade-level connecting vestibule; 2. the restoration or replacement of historic siding (existing condition unknown at this time due to installation of synthetic siding) with low-maintenance, composite siding; 3. installation of new windows or rehabilitation of existing windows; 4. removal of a historic, central chimney; 5. construction of an addition to the east (rear) side of Larrabee House (which may require the removal and/or relocation of the historic, bracketed frieze; 6. connection of the Larrabee House to the existing, detached garage; 7. removal of existing brackets and replacement with similar, composite details; 8. restoration of the historic verandah at the west and south facades; and 9. landscape / site improvements to make the Larrabee House handicap accessible and eco-friendly.

The Commission provided direction—in accordance with the adopted Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as well as the adopted Geneva Window Policy; adopted Geneva Siding Policy, and adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Properties in Geneva—regarding the 9 requests presented at the April 17, 2018 meeting of the Commission. See attached Minutes, as accepted.

FINAL REVIEW – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT On August 20, 2018, St. Mark’s parish submitted a complete Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application, and the request was brought before the Historic Preservation Commission on September 18, 2018. The Final Review request included request for approval of the plans that excluded the replacement of the historic siding and the replacement of the historic windows. The Commission concurred with the request with 5 stipulations (see attached letter dated February 22, 2019, prepared upon the submittal of complete architectural plans).

REQUEST AND ANALYSIS On April 10, 2019, Mr. Chris Aiston, representing St. Mark’s parish, notified David DeGroot, Director of Community Development that the building committee was requesting to appeal the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of St. Mark’s request for the replacement of historic siding and replacement of historic windows. However, the record of the Commission proceedings clearly states that those items were removed from consideration and that the Commission never denied the requests because the requests had never been made.

Subsequently, Mr. Aiston submitted a memorandum, dated May 14, 2019 (see attached) that outlined a request to replace the historic siding, replace the historic windows, and install additional windows in the building exterior walls. Since the request submittal, the siding has been found to be reparable and that item has been removed from the request. Similarly, the installation of additional windows has been removed from the request.

Consequently, the request—as amended—has been limited to a request for the replacement of historic, wood windows at a Significant building in the Historic District. The May 14, 2019 memorandum states “St. Mark’s Church can realize significant cost reductions with pursuing the window replacement effort over that of restoring the existing windows.” Mr. Aiston has noted that St. Mark’s is a not-for-profit organization and, therefore, implementing the most cost-effective window project is the primary goal of the congregation. Agenda Item 4A Page 5 of 5 Project Amendments / Revisions

At its May 28, 2019 meeting, the Commission was unable to determine the actual, existing conditions or the true costs of window replacement. The submitted proposal from Marvin Window & Door Co. does not include the initial costs of labor to remove the existing windows; of material and labor to re-install exterior and interior trim and does not include the cost of sealant around the perimeter of installed window trim.

The existing front door system—that incorporates a single sidelite and transom--does not retain an original door, sidelite or transom. The proposed door system is more sympathetic to a period door with flanking sidelites and a transom. However, the proposed transom divisions (3) are not representative of a historic configuration; 5 panes would be more appropriate and proportional. Similarly, the 3 vertical divisions of the flanking sidelites are not consistent with the proportions of period sidelites; 4 vertical divisions of each sidelite would be more appropriate to the period of the home. The proposed door leaf complements the period architecture of the Larrabee House.

Additional documentation has been provided by the Applicant regarding the condition of windows and the proposed replacement of the front door (see attached information). Staff has visited the site (07.11.2019) and made additional observations about the condition of windows. Detailed views of the existing window conditions will be provided at the Commission meeting for review and comment.

The Applicant has been asked to provide, at the July Commission meeting, complete cost information—as previously requested at the Commission’s May 28, 2019 meeting—including the labor and material costs for window removal; window installation; and trim and siding repair associated with the replacement.

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE RENEWAL RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS

presented to

GENEVA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

July 2019

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS

GENERAL INFORMATION

Inspections Conducted Week of June 24-29, 2019 by Mike Sweeney, President of Red Oak Builders and member of St Mark’s Church.

There are 33 windows in the Larrabee House. Six (6) have historical significance since they contain leaded glass. They are identified in this report as LL1, LL2, LL3, LL7, LL10 and LL12. It is my recommendation that the glass be restored and inserted into new frames that match existing. The remaining thirty (30) windows are in such poor condition and present such safety concerns that it is recommended they be replaced. Some are not original to the house. Many of the sashes have already been replaced and nothing matches. There are also six (6) windows that should be manufactured with tempered glass including the 2nd floor bathroom window which is adjacent to a bathtub. The identification #s for these windows are LL8, LL9, UL14, UL15, UL16, UL17.

Marvin Windows can manufacture exact look-alike windows with the same exterior trim and sill design. Sashes can also be manufactured to match existing sashes.

This report gives you the information needed, window-by-window, to provide a clear understanding of the window conditions. Members of the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission are invited for a personal tour of the Larrabee House to verify information contained in this report.

Respectfully submitted by

Mike Sweeney Red Oak Builders 630 363 6756 [email protected]

(see next page for pictures depicting general condition of windows)

GENERAL CONDITION OF WINDOWS

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETAILED INSPECTION OF WINDOWS

Southeast Bay (right) 65”H x 30”W Window # LL1 Window Size & Location ______

EXTERIOR WINDOW FRAME ITEM CONDITION Top Drip Cap No drip cap or flashing Flashing

Top 1”x 4” Trim Damaged from aluminum capping

Top Head Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows

Left Side Trim Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Left Side Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Trim Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Bottom Sill Rotted on left end

EXTERIOR UPPER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked Frame

Left Side Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim Frame

Right Side Rail on Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim. Severely Sash Frame cracked, needs repair

Bottom Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim Frame

Window # LL1

EXTERIOR LOWER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping Frame

Left side Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Frame

Right Side Rail on Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Frame

INTERIOR ITEM CONDITION Pulleys and Weights One missing (right pulley). Painted Shut

Hardware / Latches Missing

Weather Stripping None

Condition of Glass Leaded Upper Wavy, needs repair. Lower probably OK. Leaded glass is of historical significance and should be restored to original condition but with new frames that will match existing

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Bottom jambs rotted on all 3 windows

RECOMMENDATION RESTORE WITH

CONDITIONS

LL1

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETAILED INSPECTION OF WINDOWS

Southeast Bay (Middle) 65”h X 40”w Window # LL2 Window Size & Location ______

EXTERIOR WINDOW FRAME ITEM CONDITION Top Drip Cap No drip cap or flashing Flashing

Top 1”x 4” Trim Damaged from aluminum capping

Top Head Jamb Cracked/damaged due to storm windows

Left Side Trim Cracked/damaged due to storm windows. Separated from sill

Left Side Jamb Cracked/damaged due to storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Trim Cracked/damaged due to storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Jamb Cracked/damaged due to storm windows. Separated from sill

Bottom Sill Rotted on right & left ends. Cracked & chipped paint

EXTERIOR UPPER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Sash has been replaced. Not original Frame

Left Side Rail on Sash Sash has been replaced. Not original Frame

Right Side Rail on Sash has been replaced. Not original Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Sash has been replaced. Not original Frame

Window # LL2

EXTERIOR LOWER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Left end rotten. No glazing Frame

Left side Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping paint Frame

Right Side Rail on Heavily cracked & chipping paint Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Left side rotten & cracked. Paint cracked & chipping Frame

INTERIOR ITEM CONDITION Pulleys and Weights Appear to be there but not operable

Hardware / Latches Missing

Weather Stripping None

Condition of Glass Leaded Upper Wavy. Bottom OK. Leaded glass is of historical significance and should be restored to original condition but with new frame to match existing.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Bottom jamb ends rotted

RECOMMENDATION RESTORE WITH

CONDITIONS

LL2

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETAILED INSPECTION OF WINDOWS

Southeast Bay (Left) 65”H x 30”W Window # LL3 Window Size & Location ______

EXTERIOR WINDOW FRAME ITEM CONDITION Top Drip Cap No drip cap or flashing Flashing

Top 1”x 4” Trim Damaged from aluminum capping

Top Head Jamb Damaged from aluminum store

Left Side Trim Rotten at bottom, cracked. Damage from aluminum capping

Left Side Jamb Cracked & rotten at bottom. Damaged from aluminum storm window

Right Side Trim Cracked & rotten at bottom. Damaged from aluminum storm window

Right Side Jamb Cracked at bottom. Damage from aluminum storm window

Bottom Sill Heavy paint cracking & chipping. Rotten on bottom right

EXTERIOR UPPER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint is heavily cracked & peeling Frame

Left Side Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint is heavily cracked & peeling Frame

Right Side Rail on Missing glazing bead. Paint is heavily cracked & peeling Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint is heavily cracked & peeling Frame

Window # LL3

EXTERIOR LOWER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Left end rotten, no glazing bead Frame

Left side Rail on Sash Heavily cracking of paint & chipping Frame

Right Side Rail on Heavily cracking of paint & chipping Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Broken. Paint cracked & chipping Frame

INTERIOR ITEM CONDITION Pulleys and Weights Appear to be there. Not operable

Hardware / Latches Missing

Weather Stripping None

Condition of Glass Leaded Upper Wavy. Bottom OK. Leaded glass is of historical significance and should be restored to original condition but with new frame to match existing.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Bottom of end jambs rotted

RECOMMENDATION REPLACE WITH

CONDITIONS

LL3

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETAILED INSPECTION OF WINDOWS

South (right bay) 76”H x 32”W Window # LL4 Window Size & Location ______

EXTERIOR WINDOW FRAME ITEM CONDITION Top Drip Cap No drip cap or flashing Flashing

Top 1”x 4” Trim Damaged from aluminum capping

Top Head Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows

Left Side Trim Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Left Side Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Trim Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Right Side Jamb Cracked & damaged from storm windows. Separated from sill

Bottom Sill Rotted on left end. Out of square.

EXTERIOR UPPER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked Frame

Left Side Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim Frame

Right Side Rail on Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim. Severely Sash Frame cracked.

Bottom Rail on Sash Missing glazing bead. Paint heavily cracked. Separating from trim Frame

Window # LL4

EXTERIOR LOWER SASH ITEM CONDITION Top Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping Frame

Left side Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Frame

Right Side Rail on Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Sash Frame

Bottom Rail on Sash Heavily cracked & chipping. Separating from trim Frame

INTERIOR ITEM CONDITION Pulleys and Weights Works but no well

Hardware / Latches Missing

Weather Stripping None

Condition of Glass Looks like original glass

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Window frame is not square to sash by ½”+. Needs total replacement

RECOMMENDATION REPLACE

W/NEW

LL4

ST MARK’S CHURCH – LARRABEE HOUSE PROJECT RESTORATION / REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETAILED INSPECTION OF WINDOWS

South (middle of bay) 76”H x 42”W Window # LL5 Window Size & Location ______

EXTERIOR WINDOW FRAME ITEM CONDITION Top Drip Cap No drip or flashing Flashing