Geneva commission approves full window replacement at 216 Stevens Street despite preservation concerns

The Geneva Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously June 17 to approve replacement of three upper historic windows and four nonhistoric lower windows at 216 Stevens Street, despite staff saying the proposed materials remove historic fabric and do not fully meet the Secretary of the Interior standards.

The applicants, Eric Borman and Heather Sutherland, asked for the replacements citing poor thermal performance and deterioration. "The condition of the windows are not great," Borman told the commission. Assistant planner Jessie corrected an earlier staff note, saying the existing upper sashes are wood with removable aluminum storm windows and that the application is for alternative materials: "it's not a proposal for an in kind replacement as I previously wrote. It's, an alternative material replacement that's for the upper 3 historic windows."

The commission's deliberations focused on the preservation policy, the Secretary of the Interior's (SOI) standards and practical tradeoffs. One commissioner summarized the commission's policy: the SOI standards call for repair first, and "our first goal is to preserve rather than replace if we can." Commissioners repeatedly noted that when repair costs are lower than replacement, the commission is reluctant to approve full replacement. Staff said in this case the quoted repair cost was lower than a new window estimate but that adding historically appropriate storm windows and possible lead‑abatement work could narrow the gap.

Applicants and commissioners discussed options to improve thermal performance without wholesale replacement. Sutherland said frost and drafts were persistent: "We get a lot of drafts in the winter" and repairing alone had not solved the comfort problems. Commissioners and the applicants discussed replica storm windows and separate full screens, and a speaker who checked local pricing during the meeting said a replica storm can cost "about $200 to $400 each" (said by a meeting participant who identified their method as a quick web search). The applicants also told the panel that one repair contractor had given a lower quote and another contractor they considered seemed to have a much longer lead time.

Staff analysis had recommended against approving the proposed replacement because it would remove historic material and the proposed product did not conform to all SOI standards; Jessie explained she initially misread the windows' cladding and corrected that record during the meeting. Commissioners weighed the aesthetic and practical considerations, including that the existing storm screens are “nonhistoric” and visually prominent. One commissioner noted that matching upper and lower windows on the principal façade could preserve the front’s cohesiveness if replacement were allowed.

After debate, a commissioner moved to approve the replacement as presented, and the commission approved the motion. The roll call recorded aye votes from Commissioners Zellmer, Tobler, Jensen, McManus and Phillips; the motion passed.

The commission told the applicants staff will provide a confirmation letter and the applicants may pick up their building permit from the building department when it is ready. Jessie also suggested the applicants consult the Geneva History Museum for additional archival information about the property.

The decision distinguishes discussion from formal action: commissioners debated preservation policy, costs and alternatives (discussion); staff corrected the record about existing materials and explained how the SOI standards apply (direction/clarification); and the formal action was the vote to approve the replacement as presented (decision).