Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/01/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the January 26, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Virginia McTier, Guy Berg, Mary Ellen Swenson, Bill Ransom and Jim Preschlack. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Fred Moyer Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. He reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission. 2. Approval of the October 27, 2010 and November 23, 2010 meeting minutes. The minutes of the October 27, 2010 meeting minutes were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner McTier. The minutes of the November 23, 2010 meeting minutes were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner McTier. CONTINUED PETITIONS 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a replacement residence at 475 E. Westminster. Owner: Sally Bartholomay Downey Representative: Mark Downey, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Downey introduced the petition and reviewed the revisions made based on the comments at the last meeting. He noted that the footprint of the replacement house was reduced in width by 6 inches. He stated that reconsideration was given to the proposed siting of the house and whether modifying the location could allow for the new house to better relate to the structure to the east. He stated that after study, the siting of the proposed replacement structure was not changed. He noted that shifting the location would block existing open space views from the neighboring homes. He stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 2 that since the last meeting, preliminary engineering plans were developed. He reviewed the proposed site improvements including a natural swale and proposed drainage structures to direct water to the City’s storm sewer system. He reviewed the proposed detached garage noting the revisions made based on the comments at the last meeting. He stated that a wall offset was added to the design and stated that in his opinion, the composition and balance of the design was improved as a result. He explained the architectural details intended on the proposed replacement house and reviewed each elevation. He discussed the dormers noting the difference in formality of the details as you move around the house. He stated that the home is designed for the site and will be an asset to the historic district. Mr. Johnston, Rocco Fiore Landscaping, presented the landscape plan. He stated that minor changes and enhancements are proposed on the site. He stated the intent to maintain the character of the overall streetscape. He noted that the palette is soft and natural and commented on the proposed gravel driveway and the stone walls that will address the grade changes on the property. He stated that there is a relaxed character to the landscaping with small detailed gardens. He stated that the pool has an irregular edge deck. He stated that the driveway was shifted to the west to allow additional landscaping and inlets to channel the water off the site. He stated that the arbor vitae will provide a buffer from the neighboring property. He pointed out the lawn steps and terraces that are proposed noting the re-grading that incorporates small drain inlets. He stated that more stormwater will be collected than currently occurs on the site. He stated that the fence will run to the side of the house in an effort to maintain an open feel to the back yard. Ms. Czerniak stated that this petition was presented to the Commission in November for preliminary direction to allow for early input to the contract purchaser. She stated that based on the direction heard at the November meeting, modifications and additional information was submitted by the petitioner. She stated that after research and review of all relevant facts, staff is supporting the request for demolition and the design of the replacement structure. She stated that in November there was testimony presented to the Commission both in support of and in opposition to the demolition. She stated that demolitions within the historic district are always considered by the Commission in a very careful and deliberate manner and noted that the Commission’s questions and direction at the last meeting assured that this request was considered in that manner. She stated that additional research was completed and noted that this particular property was not called out specifically as a contributing structure in the original nomination completed in 1976. She stated that in the mid-1980’s there were additions and alterations permitted by the City that served to diminish the integrity of the original house. She stated that based on the processes in place in the mid-1980’s, a careful review of the proposed additions, in the context of the potential impact on the integrity of the original house, was not conducted. She stated that in the late 1990’s the City, with the help of interns, conducted an update to the survey of contributing properties in the historic district adding those that were at that time, more than 50 years old and associated with noted architects and important people in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 3 community. The purpose of being inclusive in this update was to assure that when changes were proposed in the future, appropriate and careful consideration would be given in reviewing those requests. She stated that at that time, there was no elaboration with respect to this property on unique aspects of the structure as a whole, but the brackets and eaves were called out at that time as important features. She stated that the Commission granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and alteration to the structure in 2008 noting that the work on that project was started, but never completed. She stated that based on the facts specifically related to this property, demolition of the existing structure would not be contrary to the Ordinance, or detrimental to the district. She commented that in the past, the Commission has recognized that preservation for the sake of preservation, without taking into account the unique facts and history of a specific property, can be detrimental to the district and to the overall goal of preservation. She stated that a key piece in this case is the City’s previous approval of an addition and alteration that diminished the architectural integrity of the structure. She stated that the fact that this structure was not called out in the original nomination form is another piece that supports demolition of the structure given the design of the replacement structure. Ms. O’Neill reviewed the Commission’s input to the petitioner in November noting that in response, the petitioner reconsidered and revised and provided further details of the proposed replacement residence. She stated that the level of detail has been enhanced as is shown in the enlarged detail drawings provided in the Commissioner’s packets. She stated that landscaping is proposed to soften the width of the proposed replacement structure. She noted that the City’s Arborist visited the site and recommends an additional condition of approval requiring a report from a Certified Arborist on the condition of the trees located on neighboring properties. She noted that depending on the findings of that report, an agreement may be required between the property owners regarding possible impacts or the need for removal of those trees. She stated that the petitioner is aware of the comments provided by the Certified Arborist and is working with the neighbors to address the tree issues. She stated that a preliminary grading plan was reviewed by the City Engineer and appears workable. She noted that currently, the storm water is not controlled on the property. She stated staff support for the replacement structure and demolition. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill clarified that staff is recommending an additional condition of approval requiring a report on the trees located on the neighboring property. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak explained that the original nomination identified approximately 50 properties as significant. She stated that in the 1990’s, several additional properties were identified as significant as part of an update. She explained that due to the pressure for demolitions during that decade, more properties were identified as contributing to assure careful and complete review of any proposed changes. She stated that between 1970 and 1998 the community discussed the need for a preservation ordinance and establishment of a historic preservation commission on several occasions. She noted that at least in part due to the development Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 4 activity taking place, the community supported passage of a Preservation Ordinance in the 1990’s. She stated that the majority of the Stanley Anderson homes were most likely identified as significant during the evaluation that occurred in the 1990’s due to their association with a noted architect. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City is currently in the process of updating the survey of historic properties in the East Lake Forest District with the help of a consultant. She clarified the difference between designation of a property as a local landmark or including a property within a district and the identification of a property as contributing to the district. She stated that designation requires action by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council. She stated that the contributing category is assigned to help identify properties that require a high level of review as changes are proposed. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak stated that there are other Stanley Anderson homes that have more distinctive features. She stated that she did not know if this is the only Maryland Tidewater home designed by Stanley Anderson. Commissioner Preschlack noted that Paul Bergmann provided public testimony at the previous meeting that the brackets and eave detailing is probably unique to this structure. In response to a question by Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Arborist has conducted a preliminary review of the site. She stated that further refinement and discussions with the petitioner’s landscaper will need to occur if the project progresses. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Downey commented on the design of the front entrance. He stated that the design as presented is intentional and based on the proportions of another Stanley Anderson house. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack and McTier, Ms. Czerniak stated that construction began on the previously approved project in 2008. She stated that the current state of the structure is not in and of itself a reason to support demolition. She noted that willful neglect or failure to complete a construction project is recognized as a finding that can be used to support demolition. She stated that Code enforcement issues, distressed properties, are dealt with through a process of fines and ticketing and ultimately through the Courts, if necessary. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City has a distressed property ordinance. She stated that there is a process for enforcing maintenance standards. Chairman Pairitz invited public testimony. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 5 Paul Bergmann, Lake Bluff resident and keeper of the Stanley Anderson Archives, noted that this property should be considered a contributing structure. He stated that this is the only Maryland Tidewater house in Lake Forest. He noted the challenge of identifying Stanley Anderson homes in the community. He stated that the existing house is a vernacular style house and is unique. He stated that the irregular window configuration is characteristic of the vernacular style. He stated that approval of the demolition would be a poor decision noting that the Commission has an important tool to prevent demolition. He commented on the two-year hold that was placed on a Howard Van Doren Shaw home at 1414 Green Bay Road and noted that as a result, the home was saved. He stated that the Commission is being asked to move quickly because of the pending foreclosure and cautioned the Commission to take the time to thoroughly review the request. He stated that the structure was designed by Stanley Anderson, an architect who contributed to the character and significance of Lake Forest noting some 200 homes that were designed by Stanley Anderson. He stated that the house was built for Carl Kraft who was a prominent businessman and part of Lake Forest history. He stated that the corbels and brackets are unique on the house and discussed the criticisms that actually make the house unique such as the use of Tuscan columns. He asked that the Commission deny the demolition request. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff considered this demolition request in the context of its potential impact on future demolition requests. She stated that every decision of the Commission should be considered in the context of how it may impact the integrity of the district and overall Preservation Ordinance. She reviewed the demolition criteria noting that regardless of the current condition of the house, over time this particular structure was compromised by previous additions and alterations. She stated that a past project was approved, prior to the adoption of the Preservation Ordinance, without careful consideration to the impact on the integrity of the home. She stated that there is no question that the home was designed by Stanley Anderson who has contributed greatly to the character of the district and Lake Forest. She stated that the house, as noted by Chairman Pairitz, has brilliant moments, but that overall, the house has been compromised. She stated that there are practicalities and realities that need to be balanced. She noted that there is neighborhood support for this request. In response to public testimony, she clarified that the Commission does not have the authority to defer demolition for two years, noting that provision is not part of the Preservation Ordinance. She stated that the Commission, if enough information has been provided, should either approve or deny the demolition request. Commissioner Ransom commented that he is looking at the Ordinance and the criteria that the Council has asked the Commission to apply to demolition requests. He stated that deciding to deny this demolition will not set the precedent that everything must be preserved. He stated that this house is unique and has a character that other Stanley Anderson homes do not have and noted that the criteria for demolition are not met. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged that the house has brilliant moments including the brackets and the shutters. He stated that this is a difficult decision. He stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 6 that this is not a legal question noting that the Ordinance provides guidance to help preserve the character of the community, the character of the neighborhood and of Lake Forest overall. He stated that there needs to be room to allow for change. He stated that the previous approvals granted by the Commission were not in keeping with the character of the original house. He stated that the existing house probably has more brilliant moments than the proposed replacement structure. He stated that in his opinion, demolition and replacement in this case, is not detrimental to the community. Commissioner Berg stated that the Commission is focusing on the rhetoric and definitions in the ordinance. He stated that there are elements of the house that do not exemplify the architectural style and may be alterations from the original design noting that the original drawings do not exist. He stated that this house has interesting pieces, but overall is not exemplary of Stanley Anderson’s work. He stated that he is in support of the demolition. He stated that the landscaping should be carefully reviewed by the City Arborist noting concern that the character along Westminster be preserved. Commissioner McTier commended the petitioner. She stated that the examples shown as precedent studies are well integrated into the design of the replacement structure. She noted that the proposed landscape plan is beautiful. She stated that all of the standards of the Ordinance are met with respect to the replacement structure. She stated that the standards for demolition are also satisfied. Commissioner Swenson commented that she is conflicted noting that there are no other “new” homes in the neighborhood. She stated that new construction may compromise the feel and character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Preschlack stated that he supports the demolition noting that the process is working and there has been a good discussion on the matter. He stated a need to balance the interest of the community and of the owner. He noted that the structure has changed over time and has been compromised. He stated support for the demolition. Commissioner Pairitz stated that economics is not a factor in evaluating this petition. He stated that the design of the replacement structure is important. He stated that a replacement structure that emulates the original design almost suggests that the existing house should not be demolished. He asked that the petitioner review the proportions of the front entrance. He commented that the driveway configuration is workable. In response to a question by Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Commission needs to vote on both the demolition and the replacement structure. She stated that it would be permissible to make two separate motions if desired by the Commission. She stated that the conditions of approval can be modified to include comments that the proposed landscaping be modified to preserve the character of the Westminster streetscape. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 7 Commissioner McTier made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing structure and design of the replacement structure with the following conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions shall be satisfied. 1. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the site. 2. Final plans for the replacement structure shall be modified and refined subject to review by staff to confirm that the plans accurately reflect the direction and approvals of the Historic Preservation Commission. If necessary, staff shall return the final plans to the Commission for further review. 3. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading plan, shall be submitted for review by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist shall confirm that the plan achieves the following goals before approving the plan: a. The landscaping shall be reviewed and determined to be consistent with the character of Westminster in terms of type, density and style of plant material b. Tree assessment plans, prepared by a Certified Arborist, shall be submitted for the trees on adjacent properties in proximity to the proposed construction to determine if removal of those trees prior to the issuance of a building permit is necessary or if they can be adequately protected. c. The plan shall identify all existing plantings, those that will remain, and those intended for removal. d. The plan shall identify all new landscaping proposed. e. The plantings must provide screening of the residence from the streetscape and from the neighboring properties in a manner consistent with the overall character of the neighborhood and in a manner that retains the existing streetscape. 4. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and any on-site parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted subject to review and approval by staff. 5. Protection fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. 6. All applicable fees or fines shall be paid in full including the Demolition Tax. Other conditions. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 8 7. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. Fees for these additional inspections shall be assessed consistent with the Fee Scheduled adopted by the City Council. 8. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy due to the time of year, only a conditional Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued and a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor shall be posted with the City. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg and it was approved on a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Ransom voting nay based on his comments during the proceedings. NEW PETITION 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow an alteration to the existing attached garage located at 865 Church Road. Owners: Walter and Nancy Johnston Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Mr. Krasnodebski presented the petition noting that the homeowners are in the audience. He stated that the home is a Stanley Anderson designed home. He stated that a modest addition is proposed and no building scale variance is requested. He noted that there is no change to the footprint and that the addition will be above the garage to allow a bathroom addition. He showed images of the property and surrounding area. He stated that there is mature vegetation on the property and noted that the home is nestled into the property. He stated that the house is setback from the street noting that the home is only visible when you are standing on the driveway. He showed the site plan noting that the roofline will be raised 3.5 feet stating that the intent is to maintain a subordinate addition to the main house. He stated that the connecting link was increased in height to provide head height from the main house into the new addition. He stated that the roof form will recede back and hopefully disappear. He stated that the materials and details will match the existing conditions. He commented on the window configuration and design of the dormers which is intended to minimize the visual impact of the addition. He stated that the trim and muntin pattern will match the existing conditions. He showed the elevations of the proposed addition noting that the existing brick will be maintained on the garage. He stated that the flat roof dormer was determined to have less mass than a gable dormer and the face of the dormer is setback approximately 7 feet from the wall of the garage to further reduce the mass of the addition. He stated that there is a flat portion of the connecting roof to keep the height of the roof at the link down and proportionate to the composition. Ms. O’Neill noted that this is an example of a Stanley Anderson home that has retained its integrity over the years. She stated that the roof forms will be maintained but an increase to the wall height is proposed to allow for additional Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 9 living space above the garage. She discussed the proposed materials and commented that they will match existing conditions. She stated that the brick will remain on the garage during construction. She noted that the location of the addition requires variances from the side and rear yard requirements. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the plan earlier in the week and forwarded a unanimous recommendation to the City Council in support of the variances requested. She stated that a landscape plan was not required because there will be no change to the footprint or removal of any vegetation for the project. She stated that a condition of approval for photographic documentation is recommended. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill stated that the garage appears to be original noting that original drawings of the house are not available. She stated that there is a low pitch roof connecting the main house and the garage that will be increased in height. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Krasnodebski commented on the shutters noting the intent to have shutters on the addition. He stated that other dormer roof forms were explored including gable roof dormers noting that the proportions of the composition were considered in finalizing the dormer details. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Krasnodebski clarified that the shingles will be painted white to match the existing wall shingles. He stated that the roof shingles will be left to weather. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Paul Bergmann, Lake Bluff Resident and keeper of the Stanley Anderson archives noted that this home was built for Kraft in 1932, a prominent business man in Lake Forest. He stated that the house footprint has not changed overtime noting that the home was remodeled by Stanley Anderson several times. He stated that this is an appropriate addition and alteration for the structure. He noted that he is fierce in his support for the preservation of Stanley Anderson homes but also supports sensitive additions and alterations when appropriate. Chairman Pairitz commented on the view of the structure from the driveway. He stated that in elevation, the garage appears more massive than it will appear in reality. He commended the petitioner on the design. Commissioner McTier also complimented the plan. Commissioner Berg commended the petition noting that what is presented is an appropriate way to upgrade the home. He stated that the house reflects a deliberate decision to enter from the side noting the English tradition of entering from the north in order to enjoy sunny spaces in the living areas of the home. He stated support for the proposed addition. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 10 In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the covered entrance on the north face of the house will remain noting that it was removed from the drawing to allow a better view of the addition. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the door to the south of the garage doors is an existing door. Commissioner Berg made a motion to approve the petition as submitted subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall provide digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site to the City. 2. If required by City staff, chain link tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. 3. A construction materials staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner and reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and it was unanimously approved. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a prototype business directory sign for use in the City’s business district. Representative: City Staff Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission to identify any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Berg recused himself due to his firm’s involvement in the petition. Chairman Pairitz noted that a full size mockup of the proposed sign was viewed by some members of the Commission, on site, over the weekend. Ms. Czerniak stated that this proposal for establishing a directory signage proto- type for the Central Business was introduced to the Commission at a previous meeting. She commented that the need for and interest in some type of a directory sign to support local businesses has been discussed for several years by various committees and groups. She stated that at the direction of the Central Business Advocacy Group, a consultant was hired, Melichar Architects, to develop a proto-type for both wall mounted and free standing directory signage. She explained that the goal was a directory sign that would be consistent with, and certainly not diminish, the character of Market Square. She stated that the initial installation of the freestanding sign is proposed at the southeast corner of Market Square as a pilot project. She stated that after the initial installation, staff would solicit feedback to determine whether the sign should remain and if so, whether any additional signs are appropriate. She stated that the feedback would be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission. She discussed the directory insert noting that it would be a removal aluminum panel which could be updated and replaced from time to time as Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 11 businesses change. She discussed the wall mounted directory sign proto-type noting that the initial installation is proposed on the west side of Market Square. She commented that the exact location of the signs would require further discussion with property owners. She reviewed the recommended conditions of approval noting that details of the map and insert would be brought back to the Commission as well as any future locations of signage around the Central Business District. She stated that the Central Business District Advocacy Group presented the concept of directory signage to the City Council and the concept received support at that level. She noted that additional, high quality, small signs could be considered to provide more direction around the Business district. She clarified that the frame and base are proposed as a dark metal and noted that the sign will not be illuminated. Commissioner Ransom questioned if the clock tower motif is taking up too much space at the top of the sign. He stated that the size of the map should be evaluated to assure that it is readable. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak stated that the specifics of the directory insert piece are still being detailed and that the comments of the Commission will be used to guide refinements. She stated that the final details of the insert will be brought before the Commission for final action. She noted that since the directory insert is intended to be updated periodically, feedback received would be taken into account as each update is contemplated. She confirmed that the base and frame of the sign are not intended to change once installed. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that the signs are meant to encourage people to walk around the business district, beyond just Market Square and to inform shoppers of store locations. She commented on the durability of the sign noting that the materials and installation were considered carefully with an eye toward achieving a quality consistent with the surroundings. She stated that the free standing signs would be installed in the same manner as light poles are installed and would not be easily removed. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the specific location of the wall signs will need to be discussed with property owners. Chairman Pairitz noted that the proportions of the signs are well represented in the rendering. In response to a question Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the current plan is to install one free standing sign at Western Avenue and Market Square and one wall sign directory at the west side of Market Square. She stated that this will be a pilot program to gauge community response to the signs. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that the goal is to create a directory that serves as “street furniture” as much as signage. She acknowledged that the addition of signage is a controversial issue Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 12 and the consistent philosophy followed by the Boards and Commission is that less signage, rather than more, is key to maintaining the community’s character. She stated that the use of the back of the sign for public announcements was not considered noting the delicate balance between signage and preservation of the character of the business district. Commissioner Preschlack commented that for the most part, people looking at the signs will be people new to Lake Forest. Chairman Pairitz stated that the intent is that the signage is scaled for pedestrian use, not vehicle oriented. He stated that making handout maps available at various locations around the business district is also important. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Place, provided a brief history of Lake Forest noting the quiet draw of the community. She commented on the recent changes to Western Avenue noting the white concrete and lights that create an excessively bright character. She noted the poor location of some of the lights. She stated that the small town feel of Lake Forest may be diminished with additional signage. She stated that the sign is intrusive and does not fit into Market Square. She stated that the “More Shops” sign was the most appropriate sign proposed. She stated that the signs will diminish the character of Market Square. She stated that a high-class brochure should be designed and made easily available to visitors. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Chamber of Commerce has been involved in the discussions regarding the directory signs and has indicated support of the concept. She stated that currently, a brochure and map is produced by the Chamber, but agreed that if the directory sign is installed, consistency between the handout map and the sign will be important. She reiterated that the concept of a directory sign has been discussed for several years and that the current proposal is for a prototype sign to allow an opportunity for feedback. She acknowledged that balancing the preservation of character, keeping signage to a minimum while also being responsive to business owners during the present economic times requires careful thought. She stated that the Central Business District Advocacy Group is mindful of the need to preserve the character of Lake Forest. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the brochure could be the first phase of the pilot program. He questioned what the criteria are for evaluating the pilot program. He stated that the map should be created immediately before a permanent sign is installed. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Chamber does currently put out a brochure and noted that the prototype can be removed if it is not the right solution. She stated that the Central Business District Advocacy Group wants to be responsive noting that they are dealing with the perception that sales are down and that there are vacancies in the business district. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 13 Chairman Pairitz stated that the scale of the proposed sign is that of street furniture and does not overpower the site. He stated that in his opinion, the sign will not change the character any more than siting a bench on the streetscape. He noted the importance of siting the sign appropriately so as not to block the flow of pedestrian traffic. He commented on the 2-dimensional nature of the mock-up noting that the supporting post will be round and appear less bulky in real life. He commented on the concerns for vandalism noting that there will always be that type of concern. He stated that in his opinion, the prototype is worth trying assuming that it will be well executed. Commissioner Swenson noted that the sign is lovely, but questioned if the initial effort could be just mounted on the wall instead of the freestanding sign as a compromise. Commissioner Ransom noted that visitors may be more accustomed to looking for a free standing directory sign, instead of wall mounted signs. Chairman Pairitz reiterated that the location of the sign is important noting that it should not be in the middle of the sidewalk. Paul Bergmann suggested that the signs could be placed in the porte coucheres, given that those areas have architectural intrigue, to draw people into the spaces. He noted that the directory plates could be mounted to walls throughout the business district. He cautioned that Market Square is beginning to be cluttered with street furniture, traffic islands and odd brickwork around planting beds. He stated that a post-mounted sign will add to the clutter. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the goal of the Central Business District Advocacy Group and the City Council is to be responsive to concerns raised by business owners. She agreed that the pilot program could start with only the wall mounted directory signs noting that property owners will need to be involved to gain permission for locating the signs on privately owned businesses. Commissioner Pairitz made a motion to approve the prototype design for up to two wall mounted directory signs and two smaller, wall mounted “more shops” signs subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The location of the wall mounted signs shall be brought back to the Commission for review on the Consent Agenda prior to installation. 2. The Directory plate insert, with the map and listings of businesses, shall be brought back to the Commission for review on the Consent Agenda prior to authorizing production of the plate itself. 3. After the initial wall signs are installed, any proposals for future locations or installation of the free standing sign shall be brought back to the Commission for further review. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 26, 2011 - Page 14 The motion was seconded by Commissioner McTier and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional public comments presented to the Commission. The Commission reconvened in the 2nd floor conference room to continue the public meeting as a work session. 7. Additional information from staff. Staff provided an overview of the concept of demolition by neglect noting that other communities have adopted language to prevent neglect of a property from being used as a basis for a future demolition request. She noted that the City Council Commission consideration of this topic. The Commission reviewed standards used by other communities and discussed the pros and cons of various standards. The Commission agreed such an approach is worth further consideration and directed staff to work with the City Attorney to prepare draft Code language for Commission discussion and public comment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development