Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2012/01/25 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the January 25, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, January 25, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: None City staff present: Megan O’Neill, Planner, Victor Filippini, City Attorney, Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development Chairman Pairitz opened the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission noting that the Commission will go into a brief Executive Session before addressing the items on the regular meeting agenda. He asked for a motion to amend the agenda to add an Executive Session. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to amend the agenda to add an Executive Session. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously approved by the Commission. Chairman Pairitz asked for a motion to go into Executive Session. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved by the Commission by a roll call vote. The Commission returned to open session at 7:00 p.m. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: None City staff present: Megan O’Neill, Planner, Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 2 Chairman Pairitz reviewed the role of the Historic Preservation Commission and reviewed the procedures followed by the Commission. He invited the Commissioners to introduce themselves. 1. Approval of the minutes of the October 26, 2011 and November 14, 2011 meetings. The minutes of the October 26, 2011 meeting were approved with one correction and several typos as requested by Chairman Pairitz. The minutes of the November 14, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. RETURNING PETITIONS 2. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a revision to an approved plan as it related to window replacement and additional dormers at 990 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: Marty Masterson Representative: Austin DePree, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree introduced the petition noting that this project received approval from the Commission several months ago and construction is underway. He explained that the project is a significant renovation and as is common with such projects, it has evolved and the owners have decided to invest more money into the property than originally planned. He stated that as a result, the project is back before the Commission with a request for some further changes to the house involving windows and dormers. He reviewed the location of the property and its relationship to surrounding streets and development. He stated that the original house was constructed in the mid-1970’s as a builder’s colonial house, an eclectic mix of styles. He reminded the Commission that the previous approvals permitted the removal of a sunroom and summarized the work completed to date. He reviewed the existing and proposed floor plans noting that as part of this project, the owners have decided to buildout the attic space and as a result, are now requesting approval to add one large dormer and three individual dormers. He reviewed the existing elevations and explained that the present request, to add dormers to the roof is intended to respond to the lack of detail on the large roof plane and is intended to create more of a sense of balance, strengthening the center line of the roof. He noted that on the rear façade, the dormers will add interest to the house. He discussed the decision to use casement windows rather than double hung windows noting that the facades are horizontal in nature and noting the low slung nature of the house. He noted that the strong horizontal lines will be replaced with something more elegant to create some vertical elements on the house. He stated the owners’ interest in retaining the existing double hung windows on the north façade for ease of use. He explained that these windows are in the master bedroom and will be used often for cross ventilation. He pointed out that these existing double hung windows are not visible as part of the front façade. He stated that casement windows will be used consistently on the two main façades. Ms. O’Neill explained that this petition is an expansion of the scope of the work previously approved by the Commission. She noted that this house is not identified as a contributing Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 3 structure to the district. She stated that the changes proposed do not increase the square footage of the home. She noted that the staff report calls out the intent to retain the existing double hung windows in the master bedroom as a point for Commission consideration. She stated staff support for the petitioner as presented. Commissioner Ransom commented that the house with the dormers as proposed appears weighted heavily and incongruous. He noted that without the dormers the house has a simpler feel. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree confirmed that the height of the roof is not being increased. He discussed the alignment of the windows and dormers as proposed noting that a grouping of four dormers may look foreign. He noted the effort to make an axial connection to the roof and noted the views of the dormers, and lack thereof, from various points. He noted that the house already has a number of asymmetrical elements and acknowledged that if a new house was being designed, the asymmetry as currently exists would likely not be proposed. He noted that the renovation project is an effort to make the house better than what exists today. He noted that the front facade is the most important due to its public visibility. He confirmed that landscaping will be added in appropriate areas to mask some of the asymmetrical elements. He discussed the large rear dormer noting a precedent in a Howard Van Doren Shaw house. He noted that the dormer is intended to read as a ribbon of windows. He stated that three individual windows could make the elevation appear even more chaotic as opposed to adding a single architectural element. He noted that from the homeowners’ perspective, the single dormer solution provides more space in a very linear interior area. He stated that no variances are requested and added that to address concerns about light spillover from the dormer, landscaping could be considered to provide some screening from neighboring homes. He stated that the neighbor to the north is present, but stated that no other neighbors have commented on the project to date. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. DePree provided a side elevation of the rear dormer. Commissioner Berg pointed out that the rear dormer will likely be above any landscaping that is provided and as a result, will not likely be screened. He noted that some refinement would be beneficial to make the dormer more subtle. He noted that the hip roof appears awkward and questioned whether a shed roof could be a better choice. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. DePree confirmed that the owners want to change the double hung windows to casement windows with the exception of the windows in the master bedroom. Chairman Pairitz noted that looking at the photos, offers a different feel than the elevations. He noted that what is really seen from the street differs from the appearance of the elevations. He stated that dormers on the front may have minimal impact. He agreed that the rear dormer is large and agreed that a shed roof may be worth considering. Mr. DePree stated that a shed roof has been discussed with the owner and may be acceptable. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 4 Chairman Pairitz pointed out that in the first proposal, the roof “goes away” and does not call attention to itself. He questioned whether the dormers help or hurt noting the simplicity of the existing roof. He acknowledged however that from the owners’ perspective, it would be beneficial to add windows to bring light into the large space under the roof. Commissioner Berg stated that from a streetscape perspective, the dormers could work but noted that it is worthwhile to assure that an elegant solution is presented as an end product. Mr. DePree confirmed the intent to have a narrow corner board with foam insulation. He stated that the dormers will be crafted to appear historic and confirmed that they will have a profile. He noted that currently, all of the eaves are vented and confirmed that the roof eaves will be extended and copper gutters added along with other details. Commissioner Preschlack cautioned the Commission about micro-managing a good project. He noted that in his opinion, the front elevation is acceptable and with some refinement, the rear elevation as well. He noted that the architect is skilled and stated confidence that he will be able to meet the concerns raised by the Commission and meet the desires of the property owners as well. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Neighbor at 1020 N. Sheridan Road stated support for the project noting appreciation that the property owners are investing in the home and neighborhood. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Depree stated that the Mastersons are doing this project the “right way” and in the end, making improvements to the house and property. He stated that the architectural elements proposed are consistent with those found throughout the community. Commissioner Moyer stated discomfort with the mis-alignment of the house. However, he noted that other good work is going on at the site which leads him to believe that the end result of this project will be good. He stated support for the project. Commissioner Athenson suggested that further consideration be given to alignment of the windows on the front elevation. She noted continued concern about light spillover from the rear dormer and encouraged consideration of landscaping and the use of a shed roof on the dormer. She encouraged the selection of a single window style. She stated that with refinement, the project is workable. Commissioner Swenson noted less concern with the alignment of the windows than with the dormers. She stated support for two dormers on the rear, as opposed to a single large dormer, but stated an understanding of the interest in a single alcove space. Commissioner Ransom stated a continuing discomfort with the project and agreed with the comments of Commissioner Athenson. He stated that he is not comfortable with the project as proposed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 5 Chairman Pairitz suggested that the windows in the dormer could be made smaller or could be recessed to reduce their prominence. He suggested that if the comments and suggestions from the Commission are taken into account in refining the elements identified, his sense is that this project could move forward at this time. Mr. DePree agreed that use of a shed roof could create more of a horizontal line to the dormer. He stated that it is important to note that the dormer on the rear relates to another line of windows. He discussed the possibility of recessing the dormer and agreed that it could diminish its scale and stated a willingness to make the changes discussed. Commissioner Berg agreed that with refinement consistent with the Commission’s discussion, he is comfortable moving the project forward. He reiterated that careful consideration of third floor dormers is always important due to the prominence of these elements. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. DePree discussed elements of the floor plan. Chairman Pairitz questioned whether the rear dormer should be located in the center of the roof or slide in one direction or another. Mr. DePree stated that if the dormer is refined to read as a low slung element in the roof, the desired appearance, as discussed by the Commission, may be achieved. The Commission discussed how a motion might be crafted to address the concerns raised. In response to questions, Mr. DePree explained the intention to retain double hung windows only on the elevation that is least visible. He confirmed that the existing windows on the north elevation will be removed and replaced with double hung windows. Chairman Pairitz stated support for the project subject to the refinement consistent with the Commission’s discussions and stated support for retaining double hung windows on the north façade. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the project subject to the following conditions of approval. She noted that her motion accepts the retention of double hung windows in the master bedroom as desired by the owners. The project shall be refined to address concerns expressed by the Commission with respect to the rear dormer. In particular, use of a shed dormer and recessed or smaller windows shall be explored. Further refinement of the front elevation shall also occur. The studies supporting the refined plans shall be included in the submittal for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was approved by a vote of 6 to 1 with Commissioner Ransom voting nay based on reasons as previously stated. 3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a revision to an approved plan as it relates to the garage expansion at 950 N. Maplewood Road. Owner: Stewart Swift Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 6 Representative: Steve Rugo, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Rugo introduced the proposed revisions and presented a model. He stated that a reduction in the scope of the project is proposed. He explained that the existing dormers will remain and the previously proposed front addition is eliminated with this revision. He stated that the garage doors will shift just enough to allow them to function and as a result, a more symmetrical condition will be created. He explained that the face of the garage will move out about 10” and as a result, the eave will be lowered. He stated that he worked with staff to consider options that would allow the scope of the project to be reduced, while still creating a functional garage. He explained that in order to make them functional, the garage doors will be more recessed than the existing condition noting that the drawing may not fully reflect that aspect of the project. He explained that the side door will not change since the front wall will no longer be moved forward. He stated that no other changes are proposed to the previously approved project. He concluded noting that the project is reduced in scope and more of the existing structure will be left intact. Ms. O’Neill stated that the massing and detailing of the garage wing has been challenging since the start of the project noting that the Commission previously had extensive discussions on these items. She stated that a reduction in the scope of the project from what was previously approved by the Commission is now proposed. She explained that the reduced scope retains the same garage doors and some detailing at the arch is proposed. She stated that there will still be an expansion to the east side of the garage as previously approved. She stated that the proposal resulted from a great deal of study and appears to be a good compromise balancing the prior Commission approval and the owners’ desire to reduce the scope of the project. She stated that the rear addition to the residence is under construction consistent with the prior Commission approvals. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Rugo described the project as originally approved noting that as currently proposed, there is a little more brick than originally approved. He confirmed that the hipped room originally proposed is no longer part of the project. He clarified the areas of existing brick and the areas where brick is proposed. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Rugo clarified that the garage doors remain in the same location in the revised plans due to the significant cost of moving the doors as proposed in the approved plan. He added that retaining the doors in the present location avoids creating the appearance of additional mass. He pointed out the location of large fir trees on the east side of the property which, as required as part of the previous approval, will be protected. He stated that little of the roof is visible. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that work on the project was started and during proactive inspections, staff noticed some deviation from the approved plans and initiated discussions with the petitioner about the desire to make changes from the approved plans. She stated that as a result of the interest in making changes from what the Commission previously approved, the project is back before the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 7 In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Rugo described the east elevation noting that there is significant vegetation and little visibility of this area from off of the site. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment hearing none; he commented that given the Commission’s previous lengthy discussion on this petition, the request for a reduction in scope of the project is back before the Commission for consideration. He stated that essentially the project is back where it started with respect to the garage. He agreed that the garage has limited visibility due to the vegetation on the site. He noted that the concern of the Commission all along was that the garage not take over the house. He stated that the revision presented does not appear better or worse than the project as previously approved. He stated that the functionality of the house is improved with the proposed project. He stated support for the project as presented noting that it is a difficult situation to resolve. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the project as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Athenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a revision to an approved plan as it relates to the garage dormers at 142 S. Stonegate Road. Owner: Bill and Leslie Stevens Representative: Christopher Rosati, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Rosati introduced the petition providing a brief review of the previous approvals granted by the Commission. He reviewed the changes now proposed as a result of further study and consideration of the model which was made at the direction of the Commission. He noted that the project was reconsidered in the context of the views of the house from the formal driveway approach. He explained that the revisions now proposed are focused on the garage. He noted the proposed change in the dormer shape, change in window shape and change in the height of the eave line. He reviewed the elevations of the garage noting the dormer that was pulled forward. He noted the change in the door and the intent to pick up the dormer on the master bedroom wing. He reviewed the west elevation noting that this side of the home is more of a service area and the private side of the residence. He reviewed the revised floor plans noting the impacts of the proposed changes. Ms. O’Neill reviewed that the Commission previously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project and that this petition is presented as a request for revisions to the approved plans. She stated that some of the changes appear to be appropriate, but noted that the changes proposed to the dormers on the garage could benefit from comments and direction from the Commission. She recommended discussion and continuation of the matter to allow further refinement of the proposed revisions. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 8 In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Rosati explained that the proposal to change the style of the dormer came after study of the model. He confirmed that the proposed change is purely for aesthetic reasons and to match the new dormers to the existing. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Rosati confirmed that the proposed change to the dormers does not affect the functionality of the interior space. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill explained that in considering the proposed revisions, considering the relationship of the roof to the dormers and the relationship of the eave line to the window is important. She noted staff’s concern that the proposed revisions be considered in the context of the project as a whole. Commissioner Ransom noted that the garage wing is currently subservient to the residence. He observed that with the smaller and rounder windows as previously approved, the wing remains subservient to the main house and on approaching the house; your focus is still drawn to main area. He stated concern that with the proposed change, the garage wing attracts attention and could read as the main part of the residence. He stated support for continuing that relationship between the garage wing and the main part of the residence with the garage being more subtle. Chairman Pairitz stated that as presented, his sense is that the project as originally approved is a better approach than the proposed revisions. He stated that with the proposed changes, too much attention may be drawn to the area where the square footage is being added. He cautioned that focal points will be created drawing attention to areas that would be better off reading as more subtle. He added that the change proposed on the north elevation also seems to draw attention to an area that is not appropriate. Commissioner Berg stated appreciation for the model noting that it is a good tool. He stated that in reviewing the original plan presented, he was apprehensive that pulling the garage out would create an imposing forecourt. He observed that the lower eave line establishes a hierarchy of forms which is beneficial. He acknowledged that there are differing floor heights that logistically impact the project. He observed that if the dormers are lined up, the new dormers will be at a higher level and will have a strong visual impact. He stated concern that the proposed revisions may be moving in the wrong direction. He noted that by raising the eave and over doing the dormers, the project over all could be trivialized. Chairman Pairitz stated that the north elevation is the most unsettling and appears forced. He acknowledged that the dormers on the back of the garage could work since there may be enough mass to visually support them, but he observed that they would need to replicate exactly the existing construction. He noted that is problematic given that this area is a garage. He noted that the doors underneath the dormers would need to be changed to allow the dormers to replicate the existing construction. Commissioner Berg offered that maybe the idea of a balcony railing and door could be eliminated. He added that the north elevation could be designed to relate more to the garage face, with the eave dropped. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz noted that the Commission appears to be more comfortable with the project as previously approved but offered that the petition could be continued to allow the revisions to be refined based on the comments made by the Commission. He invited public comment, hearing none; he invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to continue the petition to allow consideration of the Commission’s comments. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITION 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for landscape lighting on property located at 900 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: William and Barbra Schumann Representative: Nick Miller, Lighting Designer Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Berg recused himself due to his firm’s involvement in the project. He left the Council Chambers. Chairman Pairitz invited a presentation from the petitioner Mr. Miller introduced the petition. He noted the intent to provide a low level of lighting and commented that there will be no impact on the neighboring properties. He reviewed the property noting the areas where lighting is proposed and the areas that will remain dark. He noted that the area where the driveway curves will be lit to provide focus. He noted the intent to wash the front façade of the residence with subtle lighting for safety, security and aesthetics. He noted the intent to light large evergreens with recessed ground lighting. He said that path lights are proposed for a soft touch on steps, terraces and to light ornamental trees. He noted that the property is densely planted with evergreens and pointed out that the neighbor to the west should have no impact from the lights. Ms. O’Neill stated that the landscape lighting plan is before the Commission consistent with a condition of the approval of an earlier project on this site by the Commission. She stated that the lighting is intended to highlight key features on the site and not be visible to the neighbors. She noted that as part of the subdivision approval, fairly extensive landscape screening is required on this site. She noted that on the east side of the property, there is less landscape screening than on the west side and as a result, staff is recommending extra sensitivity to lighting in that area to avoid impacts on neighboring properties. She noted that a condition is recommended in the staff report requiring a mockup of the proposed lighting to allow an evaluation of the intensity and visibility of the proposed lighting. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that if the prior Commission’s prior approval did not specifically require Commission review of a lighting plan, the lighting plan would be reviewed administratively for consistency with the Code requirements Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 10 and lighting guidelines. She stated that in that case, the plan would have only been brought to the Commission for review if the plan was not consistent with those requirements. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Miller confirmed that the path lights will be above the ground and that the other landscape lights will be recessed into the ground. He confirmed that the direction of the lights will be fixed, but acknowledged that some of the beams of light could be adjusted after installation. He confirmed that nature and snow can impact the direction of the lights and stated that they may need to be adjusted to be in compliance with the approved plan from time to time. Commissioner Ransom noted his sensitivity to lights shining on to neighboring properties as an unintended consequence. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill stated that the lighting regulations in the Code specify the maximum intensity of light permitted at the property line and that approved lighting plans regulate the lighting permitted on individual sites. She clarified that based on complaints, City inspectors conduct site visits to verify that exterior lighting is consistent with the approved plans. She noted that if lighting is found to be not in conformance with the approved plan, the lighting is required to be brought back into conformance with the approved plan and if not, a notice of violation is issued to the property owner. Commissioner Ransom stated that a minimal approach should be used, as little lighting as possible should be used to achieve the owner’s goal without impact to the neighboring properties. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Miller confirmed that the lights will be on an automatic timer and set to turn off no later than 11 p.m. as required by the Code. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that all lighting, except for limited security lighting at entrances, must be turned off no later than 11 p.m. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he stated an understanding and agreement with the concerns stated by Commissioner Ransom. He stated that impact on the neighboring properties is a concern and commented that the lighting should be done in a manner that retains the residential character of the neighborhood. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill stated that the lighting regulations and guidelines have been in place for about 12 years. She confirmed that lighting plans are reviewed based on the regulations and that the regulations are focused on limiting the amount of lighting, preserving the dark character of the community and avoiding light spillover on to neighboring properties. She confirmed that most of the lighting complaints result from situations where lighting was put in without the required plans and permits. She stated that in this case, the consultants and homeowners appear to be sensitive to avoiding any impacts on neighboring properties and streetscapes. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Miller confirmed that the lighting plan was coordinated with the landscape architect. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 11 Commissioner Athenson noted that with commercial lighting installations, the Commission has required mock ups of the lighting to allow the Commission to better understand the impact of the lighting as proposed. Chairman Pairitz suggested that in the case of this well thought out petition, staff could play that review role and evaluate the intensity of the lighting after installation and request corrections or reductions as appropriate. Commissioner Ransom stated that given the careful attention to this petition, he is comfortable with staff monitoring the lighting installation and intensity. Commissioner Moyer stated that based on the materials provided and the fact that the project is in the hands of competent professionals, he is supportive of the project. Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the following condition of approval. Staff shall review the lighting during and after installation to assess the intensity of the lighting and determine whether there are impacts or spillover on to neighboring properties or streetscapes. If determined to be appropriate, lighting direction shall be modified or the intensity of the lighting shall be reduced to avoid any off site negative impacts both in the short and long terms. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and it was unanimously approved. OTHER ITEMS 6. Consideration of proposed amendments to Chapter 51 of the City Code, Historic Preservation, as prepared by the City Attorney and relating to procedures and standards. Presented by: Staff Chairman Pairitz noted that the Commission held an Executive Session on this matter earlier in the evening. He invited an introduction of the agenda item by staff. Ms. Czerniak stated that the proposed Code Amendment is a result of ongoing litigation in the matter of Moore v. Ferris. She stated that as part of the ongoing litigation, the portion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance that deals with building scale variances has been challenged. She noted that the proposed amendment makes the Historic Preservation Commission a recommending body to the City Council with respect to building scale variances. She explained that currently, the Commission’s decisions on variances can be appealed to the City Council, but do not require Council action. She stated that the amendment does not alter the Commission’s process or deliberations. She stated that in the opinion of the City Attorney, this amendment is needed to strengthen the ordinance given the legal challenge. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 12 In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Commission is providing a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Code amendment. She confirmed that it is the purview of the City Council to make decisions on Code amendments. Commissioner Athenson commented that this amendment will reduce the authority of the Commission. Chairman Pairitz stated that currently, any decision of the Commission can be appealed to the City Council noting that in some sense, the Council is already the final decision maker in all matters reviewed by the Commission. He stated his hope that the Council will continue to defer to the Commission on matters relating to the historic districts but acknowledged that the Council, based on a broader view, has the ability to overturn decisions of the Commission noting the Council’s recent decision to remove Barat Campus from the historic district despite the Commission’s recommendation against it. Commissioner Preschlack stated that there is still a reason to have thoughtful and preservation minded people on the Commission. He pointed out that the Commission does not see many requests for building scale variances noting that when such requests come before the Commission, the Commission has reviewed them in a conservative manner. Commissioner Athenson noted that changes on the City Council could impact whether the recommendations of the Commission are supported or not. Commission Ransom stated that he agrees with all of the comments made but questioned whether it is appropriate for the Commission to recommend that the Council take power away from the Commission. He stated that the Council has the authority to take the power away without an affirmative recommendation from the Commission. Commission Preschlack stated that in his view, this amendment will not impact the mission of the Commission and stated support for recommending approval of the amendment in light of the litigation. Chairman Pairitz stated that this change affects a narrow aspect of the petitions that come before the Commission. He stated that given the circumstances, and the determination by the City Attorney that a change to the ordinance is necessary; he is comfortable supporting the amendment. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the role of the Commission is to ensure the preservation of the Community. He stated that the Commission is not going away and commented that if this amendment protects the Ordinance, he is comfortable supporting it. He noted that the effectiveness of the Commission is based on the Caucus bringing in good people to serve on it. He acknowledged that there is always the chance that the Council could be more or less preservation minded at any one time but stated that the process has worked. He added that the process is already in place which allows the Council to hear appeals of the decisions of the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 13 Commissioner Ransom stated that he does not necessarily disagree with the suggested amendments to the Ordinance noting that his problem lies in recommending that the Council take power away from the Commission. He stated that this proposed amendment will change the power of the Commission. Chairman Pairitz noted that the City Attorney has identified a legal flaw in the Ordinance. He stated that this minor change appears to improve and strengthen the ordinance without substantially changing the process. Commissioner Athenson pointed out that with the City Council as the final decision maker, decisions may be more political than preservation minded. Chairman Pairitz stated that this is a check and balance system. He stated that in his opinion, the only time the Council is likely to step in to reverse or question a decision of the Commission is if the Commission does something unreasonable. He stated that the Council created the Commission so that it can avoid dealing with the details of petitions. Commissioner Moyer noted that variances from the building scale requirements are directly linked with historic aspects in some cases. He stated that as a result, the Commission sometimes allows overages to advance the interest of preservation. Commissioner Preschlack stated that it is incumbent on the Commission to support action that protects the Ordinance. Commissioner Ransom noted that as Commissioners who are charged with preserving and protecting certain elements of the community, it is philosophically contradictory to recommend reducing the powers of the body. He stated his expectation that regardless of the Commission’s recommendation, the City Council is still going to pass this amendment. Chairman Pairitz suggested that preservation should be viewed as a team effort with the Commission and City Council each having a role. He stated that both bodies are on the same team. Commissioner Swenson noted the recent decision regarding Barat in which the Council made a decision that was inconsistent with the Commission’s recommendation. Chairman Pairitz noted that in evaluating building scale variance requests, the Council will need to consider the same criteria as those considered by the Commission. Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments as proposed by the City Attorney to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Chairman Pairitiz and it passed on a motion of 4-2 with Commissioners Ransom and Athenson voting nay for reasons as previously stated. 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 - Page 14 Leone Falcone, 930 Lake Road, commented on the Forest Park Master Plan noting that a letter from the Friends of Forest Park was submitted on November 11, 2011 to the Forest Park Project Board. She stated that the letter laid out objectives that could lead to a successful planning effort for the park. She stated that Forest Park should remain a passive park and that the ring road and existing parking should remain. She asked that the planning process for Forest Park be transparent. She noted that many residents have questions that need to be answered and she asked that if there is a new version of the plan, it be presented to the public for information. She asked for information about the review process. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Forest Park Master Plan is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Commission at the upcoming February meeting. She stated that as currently envisioned the Commission and members of the public will have the opportunity to provide input, suggestions and to ask questions at that meeting. She noted that no action is anticipated at that meeting. She confirmed that any correspondence received will be included in the packet. She stated that staff is working to schedule tours of the park with two Commissioners at a time prior to the presentation. She clarified that the Forest Park Project Board is a not for profit entity and noted that group will be presenting the proposed master plan for Forest Park for consideration by the City. She stated that it is her understanding that the Forest Park Project Board is interested in meeting with representatives of the Friends of Forest Park and encouraged Ms. Falcone to contact that group. Additional Information from Staff. The 2012 Meeting Schedule was unanimously approved by the Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development