Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/04/05 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the April 5, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, April 5, 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 Preschlack and Commissioners Pete Schaefer, Wells Wheeler, John Travers, Susan Athenson, Robert Alfe, and Carol Gayle. Commissioners absent: None 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 Preschlack reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the February 24th 2016 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the February 24, 2016 meeting were approved with a revision as requested by Commissioner Travers. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an elevator addition to an existing residence located at 1167 N. Sheridan Road. Owners: Robert and Susan Wood Representative: Monica Artmann Ruggles, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Ruggles introduced the project noting that the intention of the project is to provide access to the second floor via an elevator for the current owners. She stated that the property was part of Thornhurst Estate and was originally a coach house and stables for the estate. She explained that the property was awarded a Lake Forest Preservation Foundation award in 1998. She reviewed the setbacks for the property noting that the majority of the structure is non-conforming to zoning regulations. She showed floor plans and elevations of the existing residence. She explained that the goal was to make the addition as unobtrusive as possible. She reviewed photos of the existing chimney proposed for removal noting that the chimney on the west elevation is not original to the coach house. She stated that a building permit was issued in 1961 for a new chimney. She explained that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 2 elevator encroaches 2 feet into the living room and showed images of the interior space. She noted that the elevator will have access from the hall and existing stairs. She noted that the addition has a gable roof similar to existing gables found on the house. She pointed out that the addition will be minimally visible from the street and the wall of the elevator will align with the existing chimney. She stated that the over run for the elevator extends above roofline. She explained that other alternatives were considered and showed elevations of the alternatives. She stated that adding the elevator behind the existing chimney would create structural issues. She stated that the elevator could not be incorporated into the interior of the home due to floor plan restrictions which would require relocating existing mechanicals. Ms. McManus noted that the residence is a contributing structure to the historic district and was designed by Howard Van Doren Shaw. She stated that staff met with the petitioner 2 times to discuss potential alternatives for the addition. She stated that the existing house presents challenges and the proposal presented is the least obtrusive option. She stated that in this situation the architect is trying to strike the proper balance between preservation and adapting a historic house for livability for the owners. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition as presented. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Ruggles stated that a stair lift is not a feasible option because the existing stairs are only 3 feet wide. She stated that the proposed elevator is ADA accessible. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Ruggles stated that the elevator is a Waupaca elevator and there is no machine room. She stated that the elevator is driven by hydraulics which are enclosed in a small space. She stated that the intent is to match the stucco on the addition with the existing stucco as closely as possible. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Ruggles explained that the gable on the addition is required because the existing hip roof is only 6 feet tall and a height of 8 feet is required for the elevator door to open. She stated that she did not consider adding a window to the dormer because the elevator rail is located on that elevation and the goal was to make the addition as simple and unnoticeable as possible. She explained that the addition could be relatively easily removed if a future owner desired its removal. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Ruggles confirmed that the general contractor is aware that there are a number of pipes around the base of the chimney. She verified that the gutters will be continuous around the addition. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Ruggles stated that the home is not ADA accessible and the owners desire an elevator for future use. She Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 3 added that the elevator is of very high quality. Commissioner Gayle stated that the Commission should be open and willing to consider requests such as this, because accessibility in historic homes is a growing issue. Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Susan Daly, 1160 N. Sheridan Road, stated that incorporating the elevator into the interior of the house is an elegant solution. She stated that she is not pleased with the proposed addition and requested that the addition be treated in a way to appear as a chimney. She added that the bricks should match the existing chimney and that the existing balance of the chimneys should be retained. Owner of 1165 N. Sheridan Road stated that her home faces the proposed addition and stated that an internal elevator is more appropriate. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Preschlack invited final comments from the Commission. He stated that he is sensitive to the property owners’ concerns, but noted that it is necessary to find a balance between the property owners’ needs, the neighbors’ concerns and maintaining the streetscape and integrity of the structure. Commissioner Travers stated that he is impressed with the property history provided in the survey form and noted that the petition is an example of adapting historic homes to improve livability. He noted that the project preserves the best qualities of the structure. He acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns, but noted that the addition supports preservation by adapting the historic structure. Chairman Preschlack stated that the elevator does not detract from the integrity of the home and said that in his opinion, the project meets the standards. He added that the central issue is the question of whether the design can be improved. Commissioner Gayle stated that she reviewed the structure primarily from the front elevation which will not be affected. She noted that she did not consider the view from Sheridan Road. She stated that she has reservations about faux treatments that simulate historic elements, such as making the elevator element appear as a chimney as suggested by the neighbor. She stated she is not in favor of that approach. She added that a stucco finish is a reasonable solution. Chairman Preschlack stated that the petitioner intends to not call attention to the elevator and the neighbor’s solution could be problematic in making an elevator look like a chimney. Commissioner Alfe expressed also expressed concern about making the addition Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 4 look like a chimney because it will not match the other chimney. Commissioner Athenson stated that she is very sensitive to the neighbors’ comments and stated that her initial concern is the view from Sheridan Road. She noted that there may be a compromise, such as a change in material . She stated that the dormer is the main problem on the proposed addition because it looks like a faux element. She suggested considering a blind window and a brick exterior. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Ruggles stated that there were no attempts to reach out to the neighbors to discuss the project. She added that her clients are out of town. She stated that a faux chimney was initially considered but it was concluded that the addition would be too top heavy. She suggested that detailing could be added to the dormer such as a louvered vent. She added that the brick on the chimney dates from 1961 and is not significant. In response to a question from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Ruggles stated that she does not like using vegetation to hide buildings. She stated that the architecture should be able to stand on its own. She added that she understands the neighbors’ comments, but noted that the addition is smaller than what is there now. Ms. Daly stated that her property was part of the same estate and noted that the addition will have a larger overhang that exists on the structure. She added that there are better solutions such as locating the elevator inside the house. Ms. Czerniak explained that the structure was not a residence originally which creates unique challenges on both the interior and exterior. Commissioner Travers expressed support for the petition and added that it is appropriate to consider the addition of a louver to the dormer and to direct staff to review the refined details. Commissioner Athenson stated that she is concerned that the neighbors were not consulted and suggested allowing time for the owners to share a refined plan with the neighbors. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Ruggles stated that there are time constraints with the project and that the owners plan to begin construction this summer. She added that the owner has difficulty using the stairs and delaying the project by continuing the petition is a concern. She stated that the intention is to be as sensitive as possible to the architecture of the home, but also make it more livable. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the structure was not originally a formal house Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 5 adding that the 2 chimneys are not original. He stated that the existing chimney does not work with the architecture of the house and is not essential. He suggested sculpting the stucco on the proposed addition, or recessing the stucco to add detailing. He stated support for the petition and agreed that it would be appropriate for staff to review any refined detailing on the addition. He acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns. Commissioner Schaefer stated that he is supportive of the petition, but also mindful of the neighbors’ concerns. He added that moving the elevator to the interior may not be feasible. He stated that Standard #12 is the most pertinent to the project and concluded that it is met and that distinguishing features of the house are preserved. He noted that the chimney is not original. He stated that he is supportive of making the structure more livable for the owners and the elevator will encourage them to stay in the home. He stated that he is supportive of adding elements to improve the appearance of the addition. Commissioner Athenson stated that the petition requires a zoning variance and said that the neighbors should be consulted during that process. Roger Mohr, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that this project strikes a balance between preservation and the needs of home owner. He stated that the neighbors’ comments should also be taken into consideration. He stated that Art Miller, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, suggested a small , interior elevator concept to staff, but noted that it may not be appropriate for this situation. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff is evaluating whether the elevator alternative offered by Mr. Miller satisfies current building codes. Chairman Preschlack stated that a continuance does not seem appropriate, but rather suggested that the project could be improved with a condition of approval regarding the design. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an elevator addition to an existing residence 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the modifications detailed below, as directed by the Commission. If any additional modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction or as a result of design development, plans clearly detailing the areas of change must be submitted at the time of submission for permit, along with the plans originally presented to the Commission, and will be subject to review Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 6 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. Refine and enhance the fenestration and exterior detailing on the elevator element. 2. Prior to demolition of the chimney, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence and existing chimney 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. 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. 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. 5. 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 Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 1 to approve the petition with Commissioner Athenson voting nay. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Market Square, for three projects: an elevator and stair addition in the Northcourt Alley, a small pavilion in the Northcourt Alley and a façade restoration of a portion of Market Square. Owners: L3 Capital, LLC (Principals Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Representative: Michael Fitzgerald, OKW Architects, Inc. Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Fitzgerald introduced himself and stated that it has been just over a year since his firm last presented to the Commission. He stated that Market Square is an evolving space and continues to serve the community in a variety of ways. He stated that owners and the design team are stewards of Market Square and intend to make it a viable part of the community. He stated that the petition includes 3 components: 1) the façade restoration at 680 Western Avenue, the previous location of the Lake Forest Book Store 2) an elevator and stair addition, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 7 and 3) a garden pavilion. He stated that north façade of the 680 Western Avenue building consists of 5 bays. He explained that the existing conditions of the building and original plans were studied and it was determined that some of the bays were infilled with brick. He stated that some brick appears to be original and other brick was replaced over time. He noted that historic photos and original drawings were sourced and the drawings indicated that the 5 bays were open. He stated that the intent is to replace the brick bays with storefronts and renovate the outer bays to match the existing building elements. He stated that the original fluted transom glass and the knee walls will be replicated. He stated that the restoration will be similar to work done at the Starbucks storefront and opening the bays will create more visibility for pedestrians. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed work to the storefront appears to be consistent with previously approved work at Market Square and meets the standards. She stated that staff is recommending support of the petition. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the research has not been able to clearly indicate exactly how the storefront was constructed or changed over time. He stated that below the bowed windows is a wood panel and it is unclear if the panels are original. He noted that the façade was drastically changed over time with less sympathetic modifications. He added that the windows were removed and later reinstalled. He stated that the original drawings clearly show Shaw’s intent of glass in all 5 bays. He stated that storefronts in Market Square are balanced but not identical and explained that the storefront will not exactly match the Forest Bootery storefront. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there is aluminum framing on the 2 outer bays and that they propose to replace the frames with copper trim panning. He stated that the transom panels are in good condition and will remain and will be matched in the other bays. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the space works best as a Western Avenue storefront and explained that there is no intention to divide the space into two separate storefronts. He added that the Starbucks storefront has a combination of existing and new transom glass and a company is replicating the existing glass. He added that if it is determined that the glass does not match, then the glass in all 5 bays will be replaced for consistency. Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Roger Mohr, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, noted that the petitioner presented the project to the Foundation recently and the Foundation is very supportive of the work being done in Market Square. He added that Lake Forest if very fortunate to have investors restoring Market Square in a thoughtful way. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 8 Commissioner Schaefer thanked the owners for investing in the community. He expressed concern that the rents may increase for the tenants but acknowledged that the concern is outside the Commission’s purview. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the change proposed is a nice evolution for the storefront and the work appears to be consistent with other parts of the Square. Commissioners Travers and Athenson and Chairman Preschlack stated support of the project and thanked the owners for investing in the Square. Commissioner Alfe stated that he is looking forward to seeing the finished project. Commissioner Gayle noted the attention to historic detailing in the proposal. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a façade restoration at Market Square 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If any further 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 submitted at the time of 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. 2. Staff is directed to conduct ongoing inspections as the work progresses. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the second and third components of the petition: an elevator addition and garden pavilion in the Northcourt alley. He noted that the owners and the design team take very seriously the sensitivity of adding new structures to the site. He reviewed previously approved plans for the north alley including an archway, garden wall and arcade. He stated that current work in the alley includes relocation of utilities. He explained that the concept of an elevator and stair addition were introduced to the Commission last year at which point the Commission provided feedback on the design and location of the addition. He stated that the elevator is proposed behind Sweet Pete’s. He stated that the function of the elevator lobby has evolved. He noted that the recessed area behind Sweet Pete’s will be infilled, projecting out into the alley as the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 9 elevator space. He stated that the elevator aligns with the proposed garden pavilion. He explained that research was conducted on structures throughout Lake Forest for design influence. He stated that like the City Hall addition, the intent is to design an addition that is compatible and sensitive to the historic structures. He added that the design team looked to Shaw and his contemporaries for inspiration. He stated that the elevator lobby has a service door and space under the stair for a public restroom. He noted that the addition reads as a transparent 2 level bay capped with a hip roof. He stated that the oriel window on the second floor is located at the stair landing and balances the composition of the façade. He showed alternative studies for the elevator addition noting the different options considered for the stucco detailing. He also showed other options for the oriel window noting that all are viable options, but the proposed design resonated with the design team the most. He stated that the materials will be consistent with the rest of Market Square and that the oriel window will have a copper roof. He showed perspectives from different points in the alley. He stated that the proposed garden pavilion can be opened up for retail or additional seating. He stated that the pavilion is similar to what you might see in an English landscape. He added that the structure helps guide the eye away from the various heights of the surrounding buildings and noted that the proposed additions will increase the viability of Market Square. Ms. McManus stated that the Commission was introduced to the concept of an elevator addition in spring of 2015. She stated that the Commission approved the proposed location and footprint for the elevator, but did not take action on the proposed design. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition as presented. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed that the elevator addition is not visible from the train station. He added that the hip roof on the addition projects above the parapet, but not above the ridgeline of the Western Avenue façade. He stated that the simplicity of the stucco panels was developed after looking around Market Square and the community and noting other very simple detailing. He noted that the elevator and pavilion sit directly opposite from one another and from an architectural standpoint, the architecture of the elevator is reflective of its function. He stated that for safety reasons, visibility, glass is desired on the elevator addition. He noted that the pavilion is less open, but will use consistent materials and have a form consistent with the elevator. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the specific elevator has not been selected yet, but the overrun height is taken into account in the proposed design. He noted that the elevator will have 2 or 3 stops and the machine room may be located in the basement. In response to questions from the Commission, Michael Schreiber, L3 Capital, LLC, stated that there is a full time porter on the site and confirmed that the public Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 10 restroom will be locked and secured every night. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed that there is a service walk behind the pavilion and noted the location of the property line at the north end of the pavilion. He stated that the gang way will be open to encourage movement in and around the spaces. He described the location of the existing mechanical equipment acknowledging that it will be visible. He stated that screening of the equipment was considered, but it was determined that the screening might call more attention to the area. He explained that the alley is still a service alley and the restoration will reflect that original use including a mix of windows and brick consistent with the character of a service alley. He stated that the elevator lobby will be the primary entrance for 2nd floor tenants. Commissioner Athenson stated that there is considerable use of glass on the elevator addition, but noted that the design is improved from the initial proposal. She suggested consideration of a different type of window, such as a double hung window. In response to Commissioner Athenson’s comments, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that double hung windows were considered, but appeared clunky and boxy. He confirmed that the height of the elevator element was reduced and noted that the stucco panels were added visually break up the expanse of glass. He stated that a brick base was also added below the windows. He noted that they looked at different locations for the doors, but chose the proposed location because it provides continuous protection from the weather from the pedestrian arcade and is the most functional and aesthetic option. He stated that the finial design on the roof is not final, but the intention is to have a more modest finial that is generally consistent with the existing finials. He stated that the pavilion will have a very simple spire. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the depth of the brick base on the elevator element is 2-2.5 feet. He added that the brick base has a brick cap and is not meant to be used for seating. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that more glass could be incorporated into the pavilion design perhaps in the form of transom windows. Commissioner Athenson expressed support for adding transom windows and suggested that lightening up the elevations of the pavilion may make the structure more useful. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Schreiber confirmed that the open entry at the elevator lobby will be open year round and exposed to the elements. He stated that snow removal and maintenance will be handled appropriately. He added that the space will be heated and insulated and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 11 confirmed that a bike rack will be provided in an appropriate location. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that a wind study was not done. He noted that a benefit to having the door on the side elevation is that it is not in alignment with the elevator door, which can create wind issues. He stated that 2 types of bricks are proposed: common brick and hard fire brick. He explained that the wall on the elevator element serves as an extension of the existing north façade wall and is best articulated in a manner similar to north façade, in common brick. He noted that the lobby bay projection appears as a newer element and fired brick is the most appropriate treatment. He stated that the roof pitch of the garden pavilion is shallower than the roof pitch on the elevator element due to the different proportions of the structure. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the elevator roof visually relates to the clock tower and the alignment of the element is dictated by the function. He added that the scale was chosen so not to compete with the clock tower. He stated that the elevator addition eaves flare out, but the same flare detail is not used on the pavilion. Chairman Preschlack suggested that it could be interesting to hold a competition for the finial designs. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. McManus clarified that the Commission’s previous approval for enhancements to the alley included lighting, landscaping, a garden wall , a pedestrian arcade and balcony modifications. She noted that there are no changes proposed regarding those elements. Hearing no further questions, he invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson thanked the petitioner and asked that the door location on the elevator lobby be reconsidered. She stated that relocating the door to the north elevation would be more welcoming and may define the function of the space better. She suggested simplifying the finial and agreed that the idea of holding a design competition could be interesting. She expressed concern regarding safety and asked that care be taken to provide good visibility into the elevator lobby space. She suggested that consideration be given to adding more fenestration or transoms to the pavilion. In response to Commissioner Athenson’s comments, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that that a fire safe door is required, and suggested that a magnetic closure could be added to hold the door open. Mr. Schreiber added that more windows were added specifically to provide greater visibility into the space for safety purposes. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 12 Chairman Preschlack stated that the petition meets the design criteria and has no substantive comments on the design elements. He noted that he is comfortable with the petitioner taking into account the Commission’s specific suggestions and is confident in the petitioner’s ability to create a successful project. Commissioner Travers stated that he is very supportive of the petition and as a previous 2nd floor tenant; he noted the importance of upgrading the very long steep stairs. He stated that from a public safety standpoint, the proposed stair, rest room and elevator lobby are a tremendous improvement. Commissioner Gayle stated that the project will improve the space and enhance the spirit of Market Square. She noted that the elevator lobby looks almost Elizabethan and stated support for the glass as proposed. She concurred with Commissioner Athenson’s suggestion that design refinements be explored to allow more light to be brought into the pavilion. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Schreiber confirmed that a future phase of work will address the west façade of Einstein’s and will consider an historically appropriate egress stair for the second floor spaces in that area. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the alley was a dismal space and stated that he is excited about project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Schaefer made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving enhancements to the Northcourt alley including an elevator addition and garden pavilion 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If any further 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 submitted at the time of 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. 2. Staff is directed to conduct ongoing inspections as the work progresses. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. OTHER ITEMS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 13 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Pauline Mohr, 527 Barkley Circle, clarified to the Commission that any structure over 50 years old is considered historic. Chairman Preschlack stated that there were some concerns that a t a previous Commission meeting, he failed to ask for any conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. He asked that for the record, the Commission clarify if there were any conflicts or ex-parte contacts regarding the 3 petitions presented at the January 27, 2016 meeting: Consideration of a request for an extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness that was previously granted approving modifications to a detached garage and driveway and construction of a new pool and pool equipment shed at 815 Barberry Lane. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts regarding this petition. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a replacement awning, awning signage and window signage for a new business at 248 Market Square. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts regarding this petition. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and alterations to an existing residence located at 20 E. Onwentsia Road. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts regarding this petition. Commissioner Athenson expressed concern regarding the amount of posters in the windows in Market Square, particularly at the Sweet Pete’s storefront. Ms. Czerniak stated that Sweet Pete’s has removed the deteriorated wall sign and tuck-pointing is needed where the sign was attached to the wall. She stated that the existing posters are set back 28 inches from the display windows, so the signs are in full conformance with the Code. She stated that staff is following up with the business regarding taped up signs and that there are exceptions that allow for handbills. She noted that the posters are permanent and permitted. She stated posters set back 28 inches are considered an interior fixture. 6. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 5, 2016 - Page 14 Kate McManus Assistant Planner