Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/10/26 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the October 26, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 26, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Grieve and Commissioners Elizabeth Sperry, Wells Wheeler, Susan Athenson, Robert Alfe and Carol Gayle. Commissioners absent: Bill Redfield City staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Grieve reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the August 24, 2016 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the August 24, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Recognition of past Chairman Jim Preschlack and Commission member John Travers. Chairman Grieve thanked former Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Preschlack for his time on the Commission and noted the many, significant projects that were reviewed by the Commission during his tenure. Mr. Preschlack commended the work of the Commission and those who serve on it noting that the work of volunteers is what makes the community special. He encouraged residents to volunteer for Board and Commission positions. Chairman Grieve recognized Commissioner Travers for his 4 years of service and noted the various, significant projects the Commission reviewed during his tenure. 4. Consideration of a request for an extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness that was previously granted approving an addition at 999 Lake Road. No changes are proposed since the original approval. Owners: Ronald and Karena Garriques Representative: Ray Basso, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 2 contacts, hearing none; he invited comments from staff. Ms. McManus noted that this is a request for an extension of a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness which was granted to authorize a significant addition and a building scale variance for a project the Commission approved in 2014. She stated that given the complexity of the project and proximity to the bluff area, the owners are requesting more time to complete the necessary due diligence. She explained that no changes are proposed to the project and stated that staff recommends the extension be granted for an additional 6 months. She added that the architect is available for any questions. Hearing no questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Hearing none, he invited a motion. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a 6-month extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness for additions and a building scale variance. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve the motion. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a revision to previously approved plans for a new residence at 1120 Elm Tree Road. Owners: Harry and Bea Hoopis Representative: Nate Lielasus, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Lielasus introduced the petition and provided a comparison of the entry as previously approved by the Commission and the entrance as now proposed. He noted that the design of the new residence is modest in a vernacular tradition with a cottage garden in the front. He stated that as buildout of the house progressed, the owner had concerns that the approved entrance portico may overwhelm the garden and appear too formal for the house. He stated that the proposed revision is influenced by the Adler tennis house located to the north. He stated that the owners favor a glazed double door instead of a more prominent entry with flanking windows. He showed a color rendering of the garden in relation to front door. He noted that the revised front door is proud, but understated. Ms. McManus stated that the request is for a revision to previously approved plans and explained that staff, in consultation with Chairman Grieve, determined that the proposed revision should be considered by the full Commission given the visibility of the change. She noted that the comments on the proposed change from the Preservation Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 3 Foundation were distributed to the Commission. She requested Commission discussion and action on the proposed revision. Commissioner Gayle stated she visited the house and noted that her initial reaction was that the door receded and was not prominent as an entry when viewed from the streetscape. She noted however, that the rendering showing the entrance in the context of the garden concept is helpful. She suggested that consideration be given to adding a slightly larger frame around the door while keeping the desired concept. In response to Commissioner Gayle’s comments, Mr. Lielasus stated that other design options were considered. He agreed that the color rendering is more successful at conveying what the entry would actually look like than the line drawings. He explained that shutters at the front door were considered, but noted that approach was not consistent the vernacular of the shutters on the wings of the front elevation. He stated that the doors will have paneled jambs and a recessed light. Commissioner Athenson questioned if there is a middle ground between what was approved and what is now proposed. She observed that the revised design gives the appearance of a utility or side door. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Lielasus explained that the desire is for simplistic detailing to emphasize the craftsmanship of the stone. In response to a question from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Lielasus noted that each door panel is 27 inches wide. Commissioner Wheeler expressed concern that the width of the door is not practical and noted that the front entrance needs more identity and definition. Commissioner Alfe noted that the splay panels seem more obvious in the rendering than on the elevation. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Lielasus stated that the panels step back 7 inches and are canted towards the door with a brick mold between the edges of the panels and the stone. He added that the owners desire French doors with glazing. Commissioner Sperry stated that the design is consistent with the elements of the Adler tennis house. She noted however that the entrance as proposed appears too diminutive for the residence and needs some refinement. In response to Chairman Grieve, Mr. Lielasus stated that the door recess is 2 feet deep from the front façade. He explained that the owners prefer a recessed light over flanking lanterns. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 4 testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated support for simplifying the entry, but noted that hierarchy is an important consideration. He observed that the proportions are very different from the proportions of the tennis house. He added that it is very difficult to transport an entry from one building to a different building. He suggested considering a lintel to give the appearance of a more upward thrust. He noted that having shutters only on wings of the house calls attention to that element. He stated that a very simple element above the door or wood framing would be helpful. Mr. Lielasus explained that the Adler tennis house was used as an influence, but that the intention is not to directly copy it. He agreed that the proportions of the two structures are different and that a stone lintel could be very successful. He stated that the entry will be well detailed, but not grand. He added that the splayed jambs and millwork will be visible. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Gayle stated that a stone lintel may be a good compromise noting that some further refinement is necessary. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the splayed sides may give an appearance of a surround, but noted that the entry still needs more definition. He acknowledged that this is a new house, not a historic house, and acknowledged that the clients’ preference is important. Commissioner Athenson stated that further definition of the entry is necessary and suggested that consideration be given to the options discussed: a wider door, shutters, trim or a flat portico. She stated that she is supportive of the petition, with some modification. Commissioner Alfe expressed general support for the concept and stated that the splays should be more obvious. In response to a question from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Lielasus stated that the recessed door provides shelter, but also gives a quality of weight to the stone. Commissioner Sperry noted that the recessed door makes the entry less prominent. Chairman Grieve stated support for revisions to the previously approved entry. He stated however that there is consensus among the Commissioners that further some modification is necessary. He noted that the renderings are misleading and give the appearance that the wings are further apart than they are in reality. He stated that the space between the wings will be an intimate space with a garden. He suggested that consideration be given to the details of the external lighting and to adding a Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 5 cornice, lintel, door surround, or key stone to enhance the entry. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Chairman Grieve clarified that if approved by the Commission, the petitioner could modify the entry in response to the Commission’s comments and direction and final review could be delegated to staff. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Ms. McManus stated that staff is clear on the direction provided by the Commission. She stated that the Commission could approve the petition with conditions or continue the petition. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a revision to the front entrance reflected on the previously approved plans for a new residence at 1120 Elm Tree Road subject to the following condition of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the modifications as detailed below. If any additional modifications are proposed in response to the Commission’s deliberations or as a result of final design development, plans detailing and highlighting the areas of change along with a copy of the plans on which the Commission’s decision was based must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. The front entry shall be modified to further define the front entry. Consideration should be given to adding trim or ornamentation to enhance the vertically of the entry. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 - 1 to approve the motion with Commissioner Athenson voting nay. She noted that in her opinion, the condition of approval does not provide sufficient detail and direction. 6. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for a new business, My Eye Doctor, located at 724 N. Western Avenue. Property Owners: L3 Capital, LLC (Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Representative: Karen Dodge, Municipal Resolutions The petition was postponed at the request of the petitioner. 7. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and alterations to the existing residence located at 677 Spruce Avenue. Property Owners: TMJC Holdings, LLC (Jamie Childs and Thomas Mazarakis) Representative: Michael Breseman, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 6 Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Breseman reviewed the neighborhood and noted that the nearby homes were constructed at various dates and designed in various styles. He stated that the subject home was built in 1966 and is modest in detailing and massing. He stated that no exterior alterations have occurred since construction. He stated that the property was recently purchased by Childs Development and noted that various improvements are proposed. He noted that there is an awkward off center entry and window spacing on the front façade and flat roofs over the mudroom and sun room which have created water issues. He stated that the proposed additions help add symmetry to the front façade. He stated that the porch slab will be saved. He noted that the heritage oak tree at the rear of the house is in poor condition. He stated that the garage expansion as proposed requires a zoning variance. He noted that the rear additions are broken up into separate elements. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials; aluminum clad double hung windows, wood shutters, aluminum gutters, copper flashing and clapboard siding. He explained that the existing bay window on the rear elevation will be relocated and stated that gable end vents are proposed. He noted that the proposed portico has simple square pilasters and copper roofing is proposed on the cupola and bay window. He reviewed photos of the home and neighborhood and provided a site plan noting the areas where the proposed improvements will require a zoning variance. He reviewed the landscape plan noting the foundation plantings and a driveway turnaround area at the front of the house. He reviewed the demolition plan and noted that the garage addition is setback from the existing house. He provided alternative floor plans showing additions that comply with the setbacks but noted that a variance is needed to make the expanded garage functional. He provided a color rendering and reviewed the rear elevation and roof plan. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed additions are consistent with the style and character of the home. She noted that because the existing house is nonconforming to zoning setbacks, the additions will require a zoning variance. She stated that an existing tree at the rear of the residence will be removed and was deemed a potential hazard by the City’s arborist. She stated that a driveway turnaround area is proposed at the front of the property, but does not meet zoning regulations as parking is not permitted within the front yard setback and will necessitate the removal of a second tree. She stated that s taff recommends that it be removed altogether. She stated that staff also recommends that copper be considered for the gutters and downspouts . She stated that one letter was received from a neighbor expressing concerns regarding the removal of the tree at the rear of the residence and visual impacts from the addition. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Childs agreed that the shutters are randomly placed and stated a willingness to consider adding shutters to the east elevation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 7 In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Breseman stated that the new chimney is wider than the existing chimney in order to meet current code requirements. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. McManus stated that less than 50 percent of the house is proposed for demolition. She stated that detailed information on the extent of demolition will need to be submitted at the time of application for a building permit to confirm that the demolition does not exceed 50 percent. She confirmed that the house, with the proposed additions, is under the allowable square footage. Commissioner Athenson suggested simplifying the portico railing and using wood windows in place of aluminum clad windows. In response to Commissioner Athenson’s comments, Mr. Breseman stated that wood windows deteriorate and aluminum clad windows have the same profile as wood windows, but are more practical. He stated that ultimately, the decision to use wood or clad windows will be up to the developer. He confirmed that the color rendering accurately reflects the proposed color palette. He stated that the shutters are a deep blue color and agreed to consider more screening on the east side of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Breseman agreed to consider simplification of the portico. He stated that there is an ice and water shield on the low pitch roof. He confirmed that the home will be offered for sale. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Breseman clarified that the proposed driveway turnaround is the only addition area where hardscape will be added on the site. He stated that the walkways will be bluestone or concrete. Commissioner Gayle stated that the paved areas should be minimized if possible and commented that the proposed removal of 2 trees is unfortunate. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Hearing no further public testimony, he invited final comments from the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. McManus clarified that the proposed turnaround does not comply with zoning restrictions and necessitates the removal of a mature tree. Commissioner Athenson stated that since the property is in the Historic District wood windows and copper gutters and downspouts should be used. She stated that the portico should be simplified and landscape screening should be enhanced on the east side. She added that the turnaround area should be eliminated. Chairman Grieve agreed that the portico should be simplified noting that the overall massing of the portico appears somewhat out of proportion with the house. He stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 8 that the question of window material is part of a broader discussion that the Commission may have in the future. He stated that certain materials may be appropriate for new homes, as opposed to historic homes, even though the new homes are in the historic district. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for additions and alterations to the existing house subject to the following conditions. He noted that the approval is based on the findings in the staff report incorporates the presentation, public testimony and Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. 1. Plan submitted for permit shall detail of the demolition work and demonstrate that in total, the demolition does not constitute more than 50% of the existing house. 2. The plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modifications as detailed below. If any further modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted, along with the plans as originally presented to the Commission, and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. Copper shall be used for the gutters and downspouts. b. The driveway turnaround area shall be eliminated. c. The front portico shall be simplified. Consideration shall be given to adjusting the proportions of the portico, eliminating the finials and simplifying the balustrade. d. Consideration shall be given to using wood windows in lieu of aluminum clad windows. 3. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 4. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the ex tent possible with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices. The height of the house, in combination with any grade change, must conform to the height reflected in the plans presented to the Commission. 5. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 9 c. Replacement tree inches are properly noted on the plans and that the required replacement is provided on site or, if replacement plantings cannot be accomplished on the site consistent with good forestry practices as determined by the City Arborist, payment in lieu of onsite plantings may be accepted by the City to support parkway plantings in the general vicinity of the project. 6. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan and detailing the required replacement inches, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 7. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval. Parking on Spruce Avenue shall be limited to no more than two vehicles directly in front of the property to minimize impacts to the surrounding homes. 9. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, the overall property and the streetscape must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest- Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 10. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. Commissioner Athenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve the motion. 8. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing residence located at 831 Rosemary Road and a replacement residence and associated landscape plan. Owner: Lake Forest College Contract Purchaser: Miklos Bende Representative: John Richert, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Commissioner Gayle recused herself as she is employed by the property owner, Lake Forest College. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 10 Commissioner Wheeler stated that he had contact with the owner on a previous project, but can review the petition impartially. Mr. Richert reviewed the location of the property noting that the Lake Forest College Campus is located to the west. He reviewed photos of neighboring homes and the surrounding neighborhood and stated that there is a dense buffer of landscaping along Sheridan Road. He provided photos of the house noting that it is in poor condition. He stated that the replacement house is similar in size to the current house, but will face Sheridan Road. He stated that no street parking is permitted in the area so guest parking on the property is important. He stated that the contract purchaser desires a house designed in the French Eclectic style and he provided precedent images of the selected style. He stated that identifying features of the style include steeply pitched roofs, a tower and a great variety of forms and detailing. He stated that arched entry doors are typical of the style and stated that the style is consistent with neighboring historic homes. He stated that the complexity of the proposed residence is dictated by the style. He provided elevations and floor plans of the house. He stated that the garage gives the appearance of being a separate structure that was later connected to the house. He stated that the garage location is dictated by the configuration of the site and explained that there is heavy landscape screening on the property. He reviewed the landscape plan and the proposed color palette. Ms. Benjamin, a preservation consultant, stated that she prepared the historic assessment report which was provided to the Commission. She stated that the house that was originally designed for this site was never constructed. She stated that a more modern approach can be seen in the window treatments and noted that the overall the design is awkward with no artistic detailing. She added that the structure is in very poor condition and its demolition would not impact the character of the historic district. Ms. McManus stated that the request is for approval of demolition of the existing house and approval of a replacement residence. She stated that the house is not architecturally significant and the demolition criteria appear to be met. She noted that the proposed replacement residence appears to be consistent with the selected style and high quality materials are proposed. She stated that there is a mature buckeye tree near the driveway and conditions in the staff report provide recommendations to increase the chance for its survival. She added that staff recommends that copper be used for the gutters and downspouts. She noted that the Preservation Foundation provided a letter noting some concerns with the replacement structure and that a letter was received from a neighbor regarding construction traffic and parking. She stated that both letters were provided to the Commission. She stated that a condition of approval is recommended to note that on street parking is prohibited in this area. She requested that the Commission provide input on the details of the design of the home in response to the Preservation Foundation’s comments. She noted that the staff report recommends approval of the petition subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 11 In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Richert stated that the intention is to protect the Buckeye tree. He stated that orienting the garage toward Sheridan Road would be a mistake because Sheridan Road is the more prominent street and most houses along that stretch of Sheridan Road face the street. He noted that there is no sidewalk along the east side of Sheridan Road, but agreed that the house could be shifted further south to increase the chances for the tree’s survival. He stated that the V groove siding will appear less busy than it appears on the drawings because it will match the trim. He stated a willingness to consider some simplification. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Richert stated that Sheridan Road is very heavily screened from the house by existing landscaping. He stated that the plan is to open up an area to provide views from Sheridan Road to the main part of house. He stated that he explored several iterations of the footprint and orientation for the house. He stated that the internal functions led to the tower design. He stated that the proposed design is consistent with neighboring homes and al though more ornate than some, fits into the neighborhood. He stated a willingness to consider simplifying the detailing and forms, but given the constraints of the property, he stated that options for re-siting the house are limited. He stated that the garage cannot be easily accessed off Sheridan Road and noted that the narrower frontage off the lot faces Rosemary Road. He requested input from the Commission on ideas for re-siting the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Richert stated that the siding is dark brown and explained that a saddle was added to the front elevation to provide scale to the roof. Commissioner Sperry stated that the drawings are distracting and appear busy. She requested that a color rendering be provided at the next meeting. She suggested that the copper roofing be eliminated as one aspect of simplifying the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Richert stated that the porch is 8 feet deep and the house is up against the setback along Sheridan, so moving the house closer to the street, is not an option. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a hardship must be demonstrated to justify a zoning variance. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Czerniak stated that as proposed, the parking area encroaches into the setback area and a variance would be required. She noted that minor adjustments could be made to bring the parking area in full conformance with zoning setbacks. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood, stated that the siting of the house is appropriate, but Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 12 accessing the front door is difficult. He agreed that the garage should front on Rosemary Road. He stated that the design elements as proposed compete for attention and acknowledged that the buildable area on the lot presents some challenges. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler acknowledged that he existing house is not unique, but noted that the City is slowly losing many ranch houses to demolition. He stated general support for the project but noted that a continuation may be appropriate to allow further refinement. Commissioner Athenson stated that the demolition meets the applicable criteria adding however that deferred maintenance is not a justification for demolition. She acknowledged that the site is very challenging and stated that the screening along Sheridan Road should be retained. She suggested that the form and detailing of the proposed house be simplified and that consideration should be given to orienting the front door toward Rosemary Road. She stated that as designed, the front door will not be used. She noted that due to the current siting, the back yard is very small. She stated that the selected style is appropriate, but noted that some of the detailing should be simplified. She recommended that the petition be continued. Commissioner Alfe agreed that the materials could be simplified, but noted that the drawings likely make the elevations appear busier than they would actually appear. Commissioner Sperry acknowledged that the site is difficult and agreed that it makes sense to have some visibility of the house from Sheridan Road. She encouraged the petitioner to look at ways to optimize the site including enhancing landscaping in the front yard. She also suggested simplifying the exterior materials. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Richert stated that the color palette is comprised of beige Lannon stone and stucco and dark brown trim and wood panels. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff can review setbacks to determine whether there might be justification for a variance. She noted that if a variance is requested, it may be appropriate for the request to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals before coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the majority of houses on Sheridan Road face Sheridan Road. Chairman Grieve stated that the existing house is not visible from Sheridan Road, but observed that the increase in mass will result in some views of the new house from the streetscape. He stated that he is inclined to support the siting of the house as Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2016 - Page 13 proposed adding a peekaboo view of the house from Sheridan Road, makes sense. He suggested that a flagstone walkway be added to direct visitors to the front door. He stated that it is difficult to provide specific direction on simplifying the elevations, but noted that the color palette and design elements could be toned down but not diminished in quality. He pointed out that as reflected on the elevations, V grooved panels are going in different directions and suggested that there may be some opportunity to simplify that element. He noted that the 2 archways are inconsistent in shape. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to continue the petition to allow further study, refinement and simplification of the overall design. Commissioner Athenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 - 0 to approve the motion. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. 10. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner