Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/11/16 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the November 16, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, November 16, 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 Wells Wheeler, Susan Athenson, Robert Alfe, Carol Gayle and Bill Redfield. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Elizabeth Sperry City staff present: 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 October 26, 2016 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the October 26, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued 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. Commissioner Gayle recused herself from participating in the review of the petition because she is employed by the property owner. She stepped down from the dais. Mr. Richert introduced the petition noting that at the last meeting, the Commission identified three areas of concern: the orientation of the house, the need to simplify the materials and details, and the material used for the downspouts and gutters. He noted that the owner has agreed to the use of copper for downspouts and gutters. He provided a color rendering of the proposed house as requested by the Commission at the previous meeting. He reviewed the site plan presented at the last meeting. He reviewed alternative site plans that were considered including an alternative that turns the house to face Rosemary Road, with a front loaded garage. He noted that this alternative located the house significantly within the zoning setbacks but Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 2 acknowledged that turning the garage to face Rosemary makes the garage more functional . He reviewed another alternative site plan with a side loaded garage. He noted with this plan, a significant encroachment into the Sheridan Road setback still occurs. He reviewed a third alternative noting that it attempts to eliminate the encroachment into the zoning setbacks but noted that there are many difficulties with the layout. He reviewed the site plan as now proposed. He stated that the house was rotated a bit and the garage pulled toward the east property line, reducing the impact on the Ohio Buckeye tree. He added that the parking courtyard as presently configured fits better with the house than the plan originally presented to the Commission. He noted that the plan is improved from the original plan as a result of the refinements made. He noted that stepping stones were added out to Sheridan Road from the front of the house. He reviewed the floor plans and pointed out the changes made since the last meeting. He provided a rendering and discussed the simplification that has occurred. He noted that the v-groove siding was removed and replaced with stucco. He noted that all of the windows are now casement windows. He stated that the stone arch over the mudroom entrance was removed and the bay window and roof were also simplified. He added that the copper inset over the open porch was also removed. He noted that the changes carry around to all elevations and stated that overall, the materials were simplified. He noted that on the rear, the bay window was simplified and is now proposed to be stone and stucco. He stated that on the north elevation, the garage was shifted to the east. Ms. Czerniak stated that at the previous meeting, the Commission requested that staff look at setback patterns along Rosemary and Sheridan Roads to determine if there was a basis for requesting a variance from the zoning setbacks. She stated that there is not a strong justification for a setback variance as most houses conform to the zoning setbacks. She noted that the exterior materials and design elements were further simplified and recommended a condition requiring that copper be used for gutters and downspouts and that further details be provided on the covered entry as part of the plans submitted for permit. She stated that staff recommends approval of the petition subject to the conditions as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Redfield stated support for the project with the refinements as presented. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the changes made since the last meeting accomplish the simplification requested by the Commission. He stated appreciation for the siting study that was done. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Richert confirmed that there will be a covered front entry element to provide protection from the snow. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Richert stated that there were no changes on the tower element. Commissioner Athenson suggested simplification of the trim, windows, finial s and rounded doorway on the tower. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 3 Mr. Richert stated that the mudroom doorway was simplified by removing the arch. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the siting alternatives and a request for a zoning variance were not brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals because there is not a justification for a zoning variance. She noted that in cases of a new house, it would be unprecedented to grant a variance without a clear hardship. She confirmed that the property could be assigned a Sheridan Road address. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Richert confirmed that the stepping stones from the front door go out to Sheridan Road. He stated that stepping stones are proposed to avoid calling too much attention to the walkway since there is no sidewalk on this stretch of Sheridan. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Richert stated that on the east elevation, the stone on the chimney does not extend down to the first floor in order to accentuate the stucco bay window below it. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated appreciation for the changes made. He questioned how the half timbering detail will be done on the curved tower. He thanked the petitioner for the refinements made since the last meeting. In response to questions from Mr. Miller, Mr. Richert stated that the timber detail will not be difficult to construct on the curve. Hearing no further request to speak from the public, Chairman Grieve asked for final questions and comments from the Commission. Commissioner Redfield stated support for the project. Commissioner Wheeler noted that in general , turrets are not a preferred architectural element in his opinion, but stated that he is supportive of the project with the changes made since the last meeting. Commissioner Athenson stated, for the record, that deferred maintenance as has occurred with this house, is not justification for approval of a demolition. She noted that in this case, the demolition is justified because the request meets the criteria in the Code. She stated that this petition does not set a precedent for supporting demolition as a result of deferred maintenance. She stated support for the alternative site plan that turns the house toward Rosemary Road. She emphasized that the turret should be further simplified by refining or eliminating the finial, trim, windows and door. She suggested removing the cupola on the garage. She noted that on the north elevation Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 4 of the garage, the doors appear awkward with only small windows. She suggested that the stone should extend to the ground on the chimney, on the east elevation. She thanked the petitioner for looking at alternative site plans and making adjustments based on the Commission’s comments. Commissioner Alfe expressed support for the project. Chairman Grieve summarized that the majority of the Commission appears to agree that the petitioner has addressed the issues raised at the last meeting. He stated that it is important for the Commission to evaluate each petition based on the design criteria and set aside subjective opinions. He noted that he agrees that since the last meeting, the design was simplified and acknowledged that the selected French Eclectic style calls for some decorative elements. He expressed some concern that some appropriate elements have been removed from the house as a result of simplification. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Richert stated that in his opinion, adding back the copper over the open porch and the v-groove siding on the garage would benefit the overall design. He noted that the v-groove siding is intended to make the garage appear as an older element that was not originally attached to the house. He acknowledged that the need for simplification is valid. He stated that he is comfortable with the project as now presented or with some of the detailing added back in to the design. Chairman Grieve asked that consideration be given to removing the cupola to improve the overall balance and to make the tower the most prominent element. He noted that the focal point should not be the garage and pointed out that the scale of the cupola draws attention to the garage. He encouraged consideration of reintroducing the paneling in a narrower, shutter-type approach on the garage. He noted that on the east elevation, the shuttering effect could be introduced on the small window area. He stated that these elements will contribute to the eclectic style of the house, but are not overly busy or dominant. He stated that the stepping stones orient the house to Sheridan Road and make sense. He agreed that the stepping stones should not be too bold and suggested that flagstone be considered. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence at 831 Rosemary Road. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 - 0 to approve the motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new single family residence, site plan and preliminary landscape plan for the property located at 831 Rosemary Road based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 5 additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Plans shall be revised consistent with the direction detailed below. If any further modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change 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. Copies of the plans submitted to the Commission shall be submitted along with the construction plans submitted for permit for comparison purposes. a. Copper shall be used for the gutters and downspouts. b. Detail drawings shall be provided on the front entrance projecting roof element. c. The house shall be shifted south to the extent allowed by the zoning setbacks. (At grade patios are permitted to extend into the setback.) d. A pervious material shall be used for, at a minimum, the portion of the driveway closest to the tree intended for preservation and the driveway shall be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes the impacts to the existing tree. e. Further consideration shall be given to: removing the cupola from the garage, extending the stone at the chimney, refinement of the windows in the garage doors and adding back some v-groove siding. 2. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures, including those on the piers, shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 3. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the extent 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 permitted overall height. 4. 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. c. Replacement tree inches of a minimum of 28 inches are 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. 5. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 6 approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall reflect the required replacement inches and detail the existing perimeter plantings that are to be retained and any enhancements proposed in the perimeter areas. 6. 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. 7. 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. All construction vehicles should be parked on the site. No on street parking is permitted. 8. 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. 9. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 10. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 11. 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 Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 - 0 to approve the motion. Commissioner Gayle rejoined the Commission. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a partial demolition, additions and driveway modifications to the existing residence located at 205 N. Mayflower Road. Owners: Robert and Amy Krebs Representative: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 7 Mr. Witmer introduced the petition and explained that demolition of the existing house was initially considered, but the owner did not want to proceed in that manner. He noted that the goal is to reorient the house to give it more presence on the street. He reviewed a site plan showing the existing house and the prop osed addition. He stated that the project proposes to change the driveway location from the current access off of the private drive to the north, to Mayflower Road with the addition of a new curb cut. He reviewed changes that were made to the house in the past. He reviewed the proposed addition. He noted that he relooked at the roof mass ing and made some refinements in response to the comments from the Preservation Foundation. He reviewed the roof forms and eave heights of the existing house and the proposed addition. He provided a revised elevation with the roof element of the addition lowered. He provided various perspectives drawing of the house with the proposed changes. He noted that the center mass of the house is still the largest, with two smaller wings. He reviewed some sections and streetscape views. He discussed the proposed new curb cut and driveway alignment and noted that the house across the street is 250 feet back from the street. He stated that they will further study the curb cut and driveway location noting the intent is to direct the headlights to the south, away from the driveway across the street. He provided a photo of the existing landscaping in the area. He noted that cars leaving the site will be moving downhill, from the house, to Mayflower Road and as a result, the headlights will be directed down to the street, rather than up toward the house across the street. He stated that the exterior materials on the addition will match the existing house. Ms. Czerniak noted that comments were received from the Preservation Foundation and a neighbor across the street. She stated that as noted by Mr. Witmer, the house across the street is setback a significant distance from the street. She added that the homeowner to the east of the house expressed support for the project and the relocation of the driveway. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Witmer clarified the overlay plan and the location of the proposed addition. He stated that no variances are requested. He noted that all of the siding will be removed from the house and replaced with brick. He stated that the siding will only remain on the detached garage. He stated that brick will be used on the addition. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Witmer stated that clad windows will be used rather than wood for maintenance reasons. He clarified that the shutters will be the same as the existing shutters. He confirmed that an ash tree will be removed. He stated that the maple tree has not yet been looked at but said that if it is worthy of preservation, it will be considered in the final drive location. He stated that the intent is to move the driveway away from the oak trees. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Witmer stated that the impervious surface on the site will be increased about 5 percent. He stated that some Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 8 additional impervious surface will be added near the pool. Commissioner Wheeler agreed with the change to lower the gable made in response to the comments of the Preservation Foundation. He noted that the site was not staked when he visited noting that staking would have been helpful. Commissioner Gayle noted that she appreciates that the house will not be demolished. She noted that it appears that the additions and the existing house will be unified. She stated that the petitioner appears to be making the driveway changes with sensitivity to the site and neighbors. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Witmer consideration can be given to reducing the amount of impervious surface. He stated however that the intent is to work with the existing pavement which limits the options. He stated that the driveway circle will be reused. Commissioner Redfield agreed that consideration should be given to reducing the impervious surface which can impact the nearby trees. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Witmer said that the detached garage is functional and that in his opinion, it benefits the overall composition. He confirmed that the brick on the addition will match the existing brick. He explained that the driveway change is desired due to traffic on the private road. He stated that shared driveways cause issues. He stated that the current configuration of the driveway makes the house feel like a secondary structure to the larger house to the east. He discussed the west elevation and stated that consideration was given to an asymmetrical roof, like the existing roof. He stated however that the desire is to achieve a continuous ridge. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Preservation Foundation, stated that the Foundation is supportive of relocating the driveway as proposed and said that the modification of the roof addresses the Foundation’s concern. He noted the original architect and pointed out that the gambrel roof is a Colonial form. He complimented the petitioner for working with that form. Sanjay Gandhi, 210 Mayflower Road, expressed support for the project and appreciation for the responsiveness of the petitioner to the requested changes. He questioned whether a hardship needs to be demonstrated for a new curb cut. He stated appreciation that Mr. Witmer took into account the headlight impacts. He questioned whether anyone walked the proposed alignment of the driveway noting that it appears that the driveway is almost directly across from his house. He questioned whether the driveway could be moved further south. He stated that his house has large windows which could be impacted in spite of the fact that it is Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 9 setback 250 feet from the street. He suggested moving the driveway to the south avoid light impacts on his house and to protect the trees. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Commission received Mr. Gandhi’s correspondence and photos. She explained that staff reviewed the plat of subdivision and found no restrictions requiring the driveway to be located off of the private drive. She noted that no variances are required for the proposed driveway change noting that it is a functional and aesthetic decision. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Witmer reviewed the site plan noting that the revised driveway location is moved as far south as possible without impacting the maple tree. He acknowledged that the original plan did direct headlights toward the house across the street. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited further public testimony. Diana Moore, 255 Mayflower Road, stated that she is the neighbor to the east and shares the private drive. She stated that the changes to the house are an improvement and the changes to the driveway celebrate the house with a streetscape presence. She stated that the expanded area near the pool will make it more useable adding that the additional impervious surface seems warranted. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Redfield stated support for the project. Commissioner Gayle stated support for the project and recognized the efforts made to address the comments of the neighbors and the Preservation Foundation. She noted that staking the site would be worthwhile to allow resolution of the driveway location but acknowledged that the existing slope of the property will minimize the impact of headlights and will address drainage concerns. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the proposed driveway location is still somewhat unknown due to the recent changes made. He suggested that the final driveway alignment be worked out with staff taking into account the concerns of the neighbor across the street. Commissioner Athenson noted that Mr. Witmer responded to every issue that was brought up and stated that she is confident that the driveway issue can be addressed with a condition of approval. She thanked the petitioner for responding to all of the issues raised. She encouraged use of natural materials including wood windows noting that the patina and quality of materials are important in the historic district. Commissioner Alfe stated support for the project. He stated that staking the site will Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 10 clarify the impact, or lack thereof of the driveway for all parties. He expressed support for retaining the existing detached garage. Chairman Grieve stated support for the project and stated that the concerns raised were responded to within reason. He suggested considering a pervious surface in place of asphalt near the detached garage noting a different hardscape treatment could also add character. He acknowledged that shared drives require some trust and appreciates the neighbor’s comments. He stated that conditions could be added regarding the grading of the site in relation to the impacts from the headlights on the neighboring home. He noted that adding vegetation to help screen lights in the winter and careful consideration of the angle of the driveway will also help to minimize impacts to neighbors. He added that in his opinion, staff could work with the petitioner on the open issues. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition and an addition at 205 Mayflower Road based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If any modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, plans clearly detailing the areas of change must be included with the submission for permit along with the plans 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. Prior to the issuance of a permit, sight line studies and staking should be completed to determine the alignment of the driveway and location of the curb cut that best minimizes the impact of headlights from cars exiting the property on neighboring properties. Consideration shall be given to the grading, location of the curb cut and landscaping. The final curb cut location and alignment of the driveway shall be subject to final approval by staff. b. Consideration shall be given to reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site particularly near the detached garage. c. The roof form shall be consistent with the revision presented at the Commission meeting. 2. Prior to removal of the non-original addition, comprehensive photo documentation of the existing residence 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. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 11 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. Additional landscaping may be required along the north and west property lines to screen the new parking area and to minimize any headlight spillover to the neighboring properties. 5. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be included with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be shielded from view. 6. 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 in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. All construction vehicles should be parked on the site. No on street parking is permitted. 7. 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 Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve the motion. 5. 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 Owner: L3 Capital, LLC (Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Representative: Karen Dodge, Municipal Resolutions Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Dodge introduced herself as the representative of South Water Signs on behalf of My Eye Doctor. She explained that My Eye Doctor will be replacing the current signage related to Spex and that the existing awning will be recovered with a new fabric. She stated that a sign is proposed on the valance. She stated that the fascia board above the storefront window will be painted and a pin mounted letter sign totaling 7.1 square feet, is proposed on the fascia board. She stated that a new vinyl sign is proposed on the door containing the doctor’s name. Ms. Czerniak stated that the total square footage of the proposed signs is consistent with the Code. She stated that pin mounted letters are consistent with signs used on nearby business. She noted that although the Code does not regulate font, the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 12 selected font has a different character than neighboring signs. She added that the Code permits a door sign containing the business name and hours; however, the petition also proposes the doctor’s name on the door which would require specific approval from the Commission. She requested the Commission’s input on the selected font and door sign. She stated that the owners of Market Square are continuing to work on updated guidelines for signage in and around Market Square. She stated that she expects that the Commission will see the proposed updates soon. She stated that with respect to this sign, the building owner has reviewed the proposed signage and noted that the petition is generally consistent with the guidelines being developed. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak explained that the new signage parameters may necessitate changes to the Code. She noted that existing signage would not be affected by any new regulations; however, as signage is replaced or added, the new regulations would apply. She added that if future petitions are consistent with the parameters, once adopted by the Commission and City Council , approvals may be streamlined; however, if a signage request is not consistent, Commission review would be required. She clarified that white lettering is consistently uses on awning valances throughout Market Square. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Dodge confirmed that the lettering as proposed is a corporate standard for My Eye Doctor. She stated that the company has used alternative fonts on occasion but noted that the proposed font is consistent with the My Eye Doctor brand. She stated that using a less bold font may be possible. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the proposed sign is essentially a logo and stated that he is hesitant to approve a logo. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the renovation work in Market Square is being carried out in phases. She stated that at this time, renovation of the My Eye Doctor storefront is not scheduled. She stated that signage for the current business is needed in the interim. She reiterated that the Code does not dictate a particular font and noted that there are other situations where businesses have used stylized letters in the business name. She noted that the Code restricts the size of graphics in relation to the overall sign. She noted that based on the petitioner’s presentation, it is staff’s understanding that “My Eye Doctor” reading as one word is important to the corporate identity. She suggested that consideration could be given to spacing the letters differently or using a different letter width. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Dodge confirmed that there is a valance on the awning where the signage is proposed. She acknowledged that the sign on the awning valance may be visible when the awning is rolled up. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Dodge stated that the type style is all lower case, except for one letter. She agreed that the letters could be thinner, but then will not be consistent with the corporate logo. She stated that consideration can Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 13 be given to adjusting the letter thickness. Commissioner Redfield stated that considering different size letters without changing the logo would be a useful exercise. Ms. Dodge stated that the adjoining storefront signs are quite large so reducing the size of the letters may be inconsistent with the neighboring businesses. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak suggested that it may be helpful to consider different fonts. She added that her understanding is that the new signage guidelines that are being developed move away from awnings in Market Square. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and the President of the Preservation Foundation, noted previous efforts to clean up signage throughout Market Square. He stated that although the building in which My Eye Doctor is located was not designed by Shaw, it is part of the larger whole. He stated that the proposed signage is not consistent with the design of the building and is not legible. He stated that the Preservation Foundation would be dismayed to see this approved as proposed. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Redfield requested to see schemes with the size of the letters reduced. Commissioner Gayle stated that reducing the size of the letters may increase the legibility issue. She suggested making the letters thinner, but retaining the type face. She noted that the photos presented show the awning from the former tenant in the space, the Frame Forum, and the awning sign is only visible when the awning is unfurled, not when the awning is retracted. Commissioner Athenson stated that it is possible to not retract the awning fully so that the valance of the awning and awning sign may be visible. Commissioner Wheeler stated that upper case and lower case letters should not be mixed up. He stated that another approach to the lettering should be considered. Commissioner Athenson stated that signage is for identification purposes, not advertising. She questioned whether a logo is needed to identify the business. She requested that alternatives to the logo signage be presented and options for font styles that are more legible and thinner. She stated that the signage should be simplified and consistent with other signs in the Central Business District. She noted that the selected font and thickness of the letters is inconsistent with signs in the area. She Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 14 stated that she is pleased to hear that awnings are being discussed by the owners of Market Square noting that there are better alternatives to provide shade for storefront windows. She expressed concern that signs on awning valances could result in double signage. She requested that the doctor’s name be eliminated from the door sign. She stated support for continuing the petition. Commissioner Alfe stated that he is concerned with the second color in the middle of the sign as it is too similar to the background transom color. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the blue color is only proposed on the door sign. Chairman Grieve stated that he is torn because there is not a single consistent signage standard. He stated that he looks forward to the presentation on signage from the Market Square owners in the future. He noted that the Commission should not come up with its own standards and noted that need to be sensitive to business identities. He agreed that some adjustments could be made while still aligning with the business identity. He stated that the thick letters appear bulky. He noted that one option is to reduce the entire sign and making the letters thinner is another option. He stated that he would not suggest requiring a change to the font. He suggested that minor adjustments should be made for further consideration by the Commission at a future meeting. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler suggested that consideration should be given to making the door sign consistent with the awning and wall signs. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to respond to the comments of the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve the motion. 6. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for an existing business at a new location, Starbucks, located at 672 N. Western Avenue. Property Owners: L3 Capital, LLC (Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Representative: Justin Livingston, Hilton Displays, Inc. Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Livingston introduced himself as the representative of Hilton Displays, a contractor for Starbucks. He stated that the letters on the front façade are proposed as bronze and will be located above both storefront windows. He provided samples of the letters to the Commission. He noted that aluminum white channel letters are proposed to be attached to the rear metal awning. He stated that a projecting sign is also proposed on the rear elevation and will be non-illuminated and 18 inches in diameter. He stated that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 15 the projecting sign is wood with black metal trim. He noted that all 3 signs are non - illuminated. He stated that the letters on the front façade are pin mounted with a 2 inch offset and reviewed the details for each sign. Ms. Czerniak stated that on the Western Avenue façade, the proposed signage is appropriately located within the sign bands above the storefront windows and the size and colors as proposed are consistent with the character of Market Square. She stated that the sign is understated and is used for identification purposes, not advertisement. She noted that the storefront was recently renovated. She stated that a sign is proposed on the west façade, the rear façade, facing the courtyard. She explained that for purposes of calculating the overall signage square footage that is permitted, the building was considered a corner storefront since the Code does not address a space that extends through a building with two distinct storefronts. She noted that the proposed signage is significantly under the allowable square footage. She stated that a projecting sign is proposed on the west façade and because the sign is a logo, it cannot exceed 15 percent of the overall signage square footage. She noted that the sign is consistent with the character of the rear façade of the building and is functional in identifying the space from the pedestrian walkway. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Katie, Senior Design Manager for Starbucks explained that the “Star R” sign shown on the front elevation is hand painted that identifies that a certain coffee is available. She stated that the sign will be drawn by an artist and was not included in the sign packet provided to the Commission. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Star R sign was not called out in the plans and was not included as part of the overall signage calculation. She noted that normally, the door sign would contain the business name and store hours only. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, a representative of Starbucks stated that the sign is a logo and identifies the store type. She stated that they initially considered white letters on the front façade, but selected a bronze color to match the window frames. She added that the color appears more authentic to the historic building. She confirmed that there is no signage proposed on the windows other that the Star R sign on the door. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Livingston stated that the standard blade sign includes the logo, rather than just text. He stated that the sign is very recognizable. Commissioner Athenson pointed out that she did not see a mock up on the rear elevation. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Livingston stated that 18” blade sign is smaller than the standard blade sign. He noted that the sign will be visible, but not intrusive. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 16 Commissioner Wheeler questioned whether the 10” letters are too large. Commissioner Gayle noted that the mock up on the front façade was helpful. She also noted that there was no mock up on the west side. In response to a question from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff recommended that a mockup be provided on the rear façade. She offered that if desired, the Commission could approve the sign on the front façade, on Western Avenue, and continue consideration of the signs on the rear facade and the door sign so that a mock up can be provided. Mr. Redfield agreed that a mock up would be helpful on the west side. Chairman Grieve stated that the selected font is a more typical type set than the previous petition and given the scale of the storefront, the signage works well. He noted that typically, older storefronts that benefit from pedestrian traffic work well with blade signs. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, President of the Preservation Foundation, provided a photo of the storefront noting that the storefront was restored. He stated that signage should be consistent among storefronts that have and have not been restored. He stated that the character of the streetscape is important and noted that efforts were made in the 1980s to establish some consistency among signs. He added that the Frame Forum sign may have preceded the established guidelines. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the blade sign have the logo, but suggested that the other signage should be downplayed. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler stated support for approving the 5 inch sign on the front facade and the blade sign on the rear facade. He stated that he is hesitant to approve the 10 inch sign on the west façade. Commissioner Alfe requested a mockup of the sign on the west facade. Commissioner Athenson agreed that a mockup should be installed to illustrate the signs proposed on the west elevation as well as on the door sign. She stated that she is appreciative of the design sensitivity to the historic storefront. She stated support for approving the signage on the front façade. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, the Starbucks representative stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 - Page 17 that the signage on the door could be smaller or located elsewhere. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving 2 pin mounted letter signs on the front façade based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. Commissioner Gayle seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve the motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to continue consideration of the pin mounted signage blade sign on the west façade and the door sign on the east façade. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 – 0 to approve the motion. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Commissioner Athenson asked that the Preservation Commission provide input to the Commission on the signage guidelines that will be presented to the Commission in the future for Market Square. Art Miller, on behalf of the Preservation Foundation, distributed information on the work completed to date on the exterior renovation of the train station. He noted that the Foundation will hold an event at the train station on November 19th to celebrate the work completed to date and showcase the interior work that still needs to be funded and completed. In response to a question from Commission Athenson, Mr. Miller said that the signs previously approved for the depot are expected to be installed soon. 8. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner