City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission met March 14.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 p.m., Chairwoman Salamasick called the meeting to order and asked Staff to call the roll.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Salamasick, Commissioners Becker, Illes, Pierce (remotely), Sogin,
& Reinstein
Commissioner Absent: Bernstein
Councilman Present
(remotely): Blumberg
Student Council Present: Arbetter
Student Council Absent: Steves
Staff declared that a quorum was present.
Staff Present: Cross & Jackson
Also Present: (Joe) Arcus (Intern) & Cerabona
Chairwoman Salamasick asked audience members to introduce him/herself.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Commissioner Sogin moved to approve the February 14, 2019, regular meeting minutes.
Commissioner Salamasick seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Chairwoman Salamasick Commissioners Sogin, Bernstein, & Pierce
Voting Nay: None
Chairwoman Salamasick declared that the motion passed unanimously.
SCHEDULED BUSINESS
1. Certificate of Appropriateness for the Property at 1014 Central Avenue
Senior Planner Cross reviewed the house:
Built in 1894; became a local landmark in 1985
Attention to wood floors and fixtures
Requires a COA
Previous consideration was highlighted; meeting was continued to 2/14/19
Applicants opted to learn more
Alternatives and process were shared
Procedural summary was reviewed
Petitioner advised they wanted to explore moving the house or reconfiguring it; both options are costly. The zoning is RM-1; adjacent property is in the right-of-way. Moving to the west shifts the building 35 ft. (Conceptual Relocation Plan was shown).
Audience comments are:
Renee Boyle (lives in Lake Bluff)
Ms. Boyle stated she doesn’t see this as an economic hardship. She believes the house should remain.
Sharon Dershin
Ms. Dershin stated it costs $100,000 to move the home. She advised if it is moved further, it would be more costly. She believes it doesn’t need to be moved; landmarks are in place to protect homes.
Monty Davis (lived in this house for 10 years)
It was noted the house is falling apart. The zoning could be changed; would be a great house as
you enter Highland Park.
Scott Witten
Mr. Witten asked, if the house is moved, who would be able to access it? Chairman Salamasick stated it depends on the usage and homeowner.
Senior Planner Cross reviewed and explained the COA standard (in particular #12).
Vice Chair Sogin stated the reason it was asked if alterations could occur, if it was office space, is that the zoning would change.
Senior Planner Cross stated an accessory structure is feasible.
Vice Chair Sogin continued that she would be supportive if this was being used; difficult to support demolition.
Petitioner advised he is disturbed about the sequencing; end result would not be different. He noted they would be preserving these features on the overall site.
Vice Chair Sogin stated the duty of the HPC is to preserve a landmark structure.
Petitioner stated the original application cited criteria #4; the HPC cited criteria #4, 5, and 6 and expounded on those. He believes this is inconsistent. This is a Queen-Anne house. This is significant. Criteria #5 and 6 change. No one has seen the floors and fixtures. These items would be displayed.
The following audience member commented again: Sharon Dershin
Ms. Dershin stated the house was landmarked in its entirety. She shared that 225 signatures have been received to keep this home. Family members are present at this meeting. This would be a travesty.
Petitioner highlighted that all signatures are not residents of Highland Park – but they do care.
Councilman Blumberg suggested staying on track. He applauds the Petitioner for wishing to display the historic elements. The COA represents saving a house, intact.
Some HPC comments are:
Support the Councilman and Chair’s comments
For item #12, would not support removing the floors of this house
What is the recourse if we don’t support the COA?
Senior Planner Cross responded that the code allows an appeal to City Council (an interested party – Chapter 24 of City Code). The denial of the COA allows the applicant to file for an economic hardship. Councilman Blumberg asked for clarification. Senior Planner Cross stated there is an appeal process which is not uncommon and is standard.
Commissioner Reinstein advised he did not attend the previous two meetings. He wishes to acknowledge the Petitioner’s attempt to restore the historic elements of the building. He believes the previous determination of the HPC. He also values historic and especially landmark homes. He suggests the motivators in the audience may wish to attend the next (City Council) meeting.
Audience member, Ms. Dershin, asked if this house could be landmarked at the federal level. Chairwoman Salamasick advised that is not part of the HPC’s purview and conversation.
Commissioner Becker moved to deny the COA due to criteria #12. Commissioner Illes seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Chairwoman Salamasick, Commissioners Becker, Illes, Sogin, & Reinstein
(Note: Commissioner Pierce did not vote) Voting Nay: None
Chairwoman Salamasick declared that the motion passed 5-0. Petitioner stated he appreciates the HPC’s time. Chairwoman Salamasick stated the HPC appreciates the professionalism and manner of the Petitioners.
Vice Chair Sogin stated she does not believe this is a travesty; it’s what local government does. Audience member, Ms. Dershin, retracted her statement.
Chairwoman Salamasick recused herself at 8:08 p.m. Vice Chair Sogin directed the HPC meeting. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness for the Property at 175 Ravine Drive
Planner Jackson reviewed the house:
Pingrey house is Tudor-Revival style
Built in 1925
Landmarked in 2002; meets criteria #4 and 6
Architect is Roy Pingrey; designed Highland Park Hospital and buildings in the Exmoor Country
Club
COA summary (modifications) was highlighted
There was a structure on the left side (previously); Staff could not locate such records
Site plan was illustrated
Letters of support were distributed (as they were not in the packet)
Standards of COA were identified
Vice Chair Sogin asked if those are solar panels on garage roof. Petitioner James Sayegh, Principal, Elmdale Partners, advised they are not. Commissioner Becker stated it is a railing.
Petitioner Sayegh shared that this home brings tremendous joy. He stated this is a beloved house. He enjoys that a landmark home has inherent benefit. There are challenges (water-infiltration issues).
Mr. Sayegh complimented Public Works for adding a pipe to assist in protecting the home. He noted he and his staff have received awards for various buildings.
The garage is set back 12 ft. It replaces the arch. This house is landmarked, has a steep-slope zone, and the front-yard setback is behind the house. Mr. Sayegh stated he likes to reuse materials and explained same.
The deck is where nothing else happens. The addition to the east is in terrible disrepair (unmatched brick). Alterations were displayed. The rear of the house has tiny windows with a world-class view.
Some HPC comments are:
very thoughtful, thorough
are we looking at only the front of the house? Senior Planner Cross suggested referring to the standards and expounded on same.
Vice Chair Sogin stated she would like to arrange this discussion into three parts:
deck
two-story dining room
garage
Deck:
was the structure moved (by the patio)? Petitioner advised – no, it was collapsed; pavers were
added
looks like it was enclosed. Petitioner concurred.
For the back, where would panes of glass be? Petitioner stated he would like the windows
without divided light. Commissioner Reinstein referenced a home where there were large solid-glass picture windows. The owner returned it to its glory.
Petitioner displayed window samples. He shared that the current windows are thick wood. All windows are casement except the attic.
Some HPC comments (on the deck):
It’s a pleasure having a landmark home preserved
Thoughtful plans
Plans look fabulous
The deck and addition to the east are compatible
Vice Chair Sogin asked if Petitioner would like to return when he is in design-development stage. Mr. Sayegh advised he is happy to return. He referred to page 7 of his application. Mr. Sayegh reiterated he is reusing materials (and salvaging brick). There is very little stucco on this house and a lot of wood. He referenced where leaded windows will be. Mr. Sayegh stated the process makes the home better.
Commissioner Reinstein moved to approve the deck with the Petitioner returning with the design of the railing and windows. He withdrew the motion and restated it.
Commissioner Reinstein moved to approve the deck and divided-light windows and not the railing. Commissioner Illes seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Vice Chair Sogin, Commissioners Becker, Illes, & Reinstein Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Sogin declared that the motion passed unanimously. East Addition:
very thoughtful
Commissioner Reinstein moved to approve the east addition. Commissioner Illes seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Vice Chair Sogin, Commissioners Becker, Illes, & Reinstein
Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Sogin declared that the motion passed unanimously.
Garage:
The steep slope is not our purview
Petitioner explained the garage was originally going to be on an angle.
The line of the new circular drive was the entrance of an angled garage? Mr. Sayegh stated – yes and illustrated same
Love that it’s pushed back
Love that the one-door is mimicked
The stucco inset should be tracked
Did you consider having a railing; wrought iron on all 3 sides? Petitioner advised the goal is to
have privacy in front. It could be painted all the same color. Commissioner Beck stated she likes
that idea better.
There is a deck above the garage
Foot print of the existing house is 900 sq. ft.
It’s good that the garage is pushed back
Would landscaping help privacy.perhaps lattice?
Concerned that the solid wall, on southwest corner, seems jarring. Mr. Sayegh stated changing it
to a railing doesn’t go well with the house.
It presents as a two-story piece. Mr. Sayegh reminded of the 42 ft.-high (railing) code
Likes the mass of the railing; echoes the panels of the house; thoughtfully done
Councilman Blumberg departed the meeting, remotely, at 9:11 p.m.
Commissioner Reinstein moved to approve the garage with the caveat that the Commission would like to
see the resolution of the railing feature. Commissioner Becker seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Vice Chair Sogin, Commissioners Becker, Illes, & Reinstein Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Sogin declared that the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Sayegh asked if a COA is needed for the driveway. Senior Planner Cross asked Mr. Sayegh to describe same. Mr. Sayegh advised there is a giant drain at the base. Water is being deterred from the garage. This has a low and high foundation. He explained turn cycles of cars out of the garage. Civil engineering problems need to be resolved. The driveway is asphalt.
Commissioner Reinstein moved to approve the driveway-plan concept. Commissioner Illes seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Vice Chair Sogin, Commissioners Becker, Illes, & Reinstein Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Sogin declared that the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Reinstein stated the arched wall is extremely charming and would be missed; goes with the house.
Vice Chair Sogin moved to continue the railing discussion. Commissioner Reinstein seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea: Vice Chair Sogin, Commissioners Becker, Illes, & Reinstein Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Sogin declared that the motion passed unanimously.
Chairwoman Salamasick returned to the meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
HP 150 Initiatives
Planner Jackson advised notices went out to 400 significant homes. There are 183 approvals already.
The order is for 220 signs.
She stated the Architectural Committee is arranging bus tours.
Intern Arcus is creating a web site of the 400 homes.to be launched in April.
Vice Chair Sogin noted homes like 405 Sheridan will not have a sign as the home is not visible from the street. The signs would be installed in April and removed in May. She thanked Intern Arcus.
BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
There was no Business from the Public.
OTHER BUSINESS
The next HPC meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2019.
STAFF REPORT
There is no Staff Report.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Reinstein moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Becker seconded the motion.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2174&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up