Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission met April 6.

By Wadi Reformado

May 11, 2017

Here is the minutes as provided by the Commission:

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO

APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2017. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO

MOVE PROJECT DC#17-025, MAGO GRILL & CANTINA, TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA. ALL WERE

IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ITEM 1. SIGN VARIATION REVIEW

DC#17-025 – Mago Grill & Cantina – 115 W. Campbell St.

Michael Brito-Amador, representing Mago Grill & Cantina, was present on behalf of the project.

Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is seeking a variation from Chapter 30, section 30-201.h.4

Number, to allow two wall signs where only one is allowed, and a variation from Chapter 30, section 30-201.h.3 Wall

Signs, to allow a 9 sf wall sign, where 0 sf is allowed. The existing Mago Grill & Cantina restaurant is located in the

first floor of the Metropolis building in the Downtown. The Metropolis building has two tenant spaces facing Campbell

Street that are separated in the middle by a main common building entrance. Mago currently occupies the west

tenant space, and they have recently expanded into the east tenant space (formerly Z Spa). The existing Mago

restaurant has two awnings above their storefront windows, and a 9 sf wall sign on the center brick pier. The

petitioner is proposing to use the same signage on the new east side of their restaurant, where awnings are

permitted by code, but a second wall sign for the same business on the same street frontage is not allowed.

The existing awnings are proposed to be updated with new graphics, which is nicely designed, and code compliant.

The existing Mago wall sign has a brown background, and it is proposed to be refaced with a colorful new sign on a

white background. The existing Z Spa wall sign is proposed to be updated with a matching white Mago sign. The

petitioner has submitted a letter addressing the above criteria, with the primary hardship identified as the need to

create signage reflecting that the two spaces are owned and operated by one individual business.

Staff agrees with the proposed variations for the following reasons:

 The shared common building entrance divides the restaurant into two halves which is a unique situation that is

not self-created. The expanded restaurant is completely separated by the main building entrance and lobby.

This situation is substantially different and unique from other establishments with only one street frontage.

 The proposed signage is nicely designed and fits the character of the Downtown.

 The size of the two wall signs combined is well under the allowable sign size for just one of the tenant spaces.

Staff recommends approval of the sign variation requests as proposed.

Mr. Amador had no comments to add to Staff’s presentation.

Commissioner Fitzgerald was okay with the variation request because of the unusual situation with the restaurant

being divided by a hallway. Commissioner Fasolo agreed with all of the comments made by Staff and

recommended approval as submitted. Chair Eckhardt agreed with the comments made by the other

commissioners.

Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was a response from the audience.

Joe Keefe, Executive Director for Metropolis Performing Arts Centre, said that they are also a first-floor tenant in the

Metropolis building with Mago, and fully support the sign variation request being made. They feel the new signage

will beautify the front of the building and be a vast improvement to the previous signage.

There were no further comments.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO

RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPROVAL OF THE SIGN VARIATION REQUEST

FOR MAGO GRILL & CANTINA LOCATED AT 115 W. CAMPBELL STREET, AS SUBMITTED. THIS

RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RECEIVED 2/23/17,

DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND

VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE

FOLLOWING:

1. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-201.h.4 NUMBER, TO ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS WHERE

ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED.

2. A VARIATION FROM CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-201.h.3 WALL SIGNS, TO ALLOW A 9 SF WALL SIGN,

WHERE 0 SF IS ALLOWED.

3. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO

BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT

APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND

USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER

REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE

REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR

BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL

REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS,

AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL

ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.

4. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS AND

POLICIES.

FASOLO, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.

ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

ITEM 2. SINGLE-FAMILY TEARDOWN REVIEW

DC#17-018 – 845 S. Bristol Ln.

Anthony Massarelli, the homeowner, and George Evangelopoulos, the architect, were present on behalf of the

project.

Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing single story residence

and attached two car garage to allow construction of a new two story residence with an attached four car garage.

This project received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 13, 2017 to allow an exterior side setback

of 15.7 feet where 36.3 feet is required. Also, the proposed building height is approximately 25’-4”, which exceeds

the maximum 25’ and will need to be adjusted, and the driveway width is 23 feet, which exceeds the maximum 22

feet and is in conflict with an existing parkway tree which will need to be resolved. Otherwise, the proposed design

complies with the R-E zoning requirements.

This neighborhood originally consisted of primarily single story homes with attached garages, but there have been

numerous teardowns previously approved throughout the neighborhood that are mostly larger two-story homes.

Typical lots in this neighborhood are 100’ wide x 200’ deep, and 20,000 sf. The subject property is a larger corner lot

with a 200’ wide frontage facing Bristol Lane, although the lot tapers in width towards the rear. The proposed new

home design has an overall width of approximately 117 feet facing Bristol Lane. For comparison, the widest possible

house on a typical 100 foot wide lot would be 80 feet, so the proposed design is roughly 37 feet wider. The scale of

the proposed house is the primary reason for the project appearing before the Design Commission.

Overall, the proposed design is very nicely done in a symmetrical, center entry, traditional style that will fit in very well

with numerous other newer homes that are adjacent to this property. The proposed exterior materials and colors are

a very nice classic combination of red brick, limestone base, white windows, white trim, and black shutters, and the

design includes the same level of detailing on all sides of the house. The proposed four car garage is arranged in a

side loaded configuration which works well on large lots to turn the garage face away from the street. There is

abundant space (approximately 46 feet) between the face of the garage and the adjacent house, but it is

recommended that landscaping be provided along the edge of the driveway to soften the view of the garage form the

adjacent property.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed new home with the recommendation to add landscaping as previously

stated.

Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was no response from the audience.

Mr. Evangelopoulos stated that the building height will be brought down to meet code, and they intend on screening

the adjacent neighbor to the north by adding landscaping along the driveway. Mr. Massarelli added that landscaping

will be added all the way up the driveway to help screen the adjacent neighbor, and the driveway will be tapered in to

allow the existing parkway tree to remain, with a planting bed added around the tree.

Commissioner Fasolo felt it was a nice looking home with great materials and great details, and will fit in well based

on the lot size. He agreed with Staff’s suggestion to screen the driveway and he supported the petitioner’s decision

to save the existing tree, and he also agreed with lowering the roof.

Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with Staff’s comments; he liked the new home and was okay with this corner lot

having a bigger home, which is seen throughout the area. He added that he lives in this neighborhood and there are

a lot of water issues that the petitioner should be aware of and prepared to take care of.

Chair Eckhardt agreed with the comments made by the other commissioners and felt it was a great home. He

pointed out that one of the two front porches appears to not be connected with a door into the home, although he would not discourage the petitioner from having the porches. With regards to Commissioner Fitzgerald’s comments

about water issues, he added that this neighborhood has no storm sewer system, and a deep pond swale currently

exists at the northwest corner of this property. He encouraged the petitioner to consider some underground tank or

some bio-swales, and Mr. Massarelli stated that he is aware of the deep pond swale, which will be addressed and

taken care of.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO

APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE

LOCATED AT 845 S. BRISTOL LANE. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DATED

AND RECEIVED 2/23/17, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL

APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF

ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:

1. A REQUIREMENT TO LOWER THE ROOF HEIGHT TO MEET THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY

CODE.

2. A REQUIREMENT TO ADD LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT TO SCREEN THE

DRIVEWAY FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.

3. A REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THE EXISTING PARKWAY TREE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE

SITE.

4. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO

BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT

APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND

USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER

REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE

REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR

BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL

REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT

DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY

WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.

5. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS AND

POLICIES.

Chair Eckhardt asked that the motion include a statement that the homeowner acknowledges the stormwater issues

in the neighborhood, and he is going to address them.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO

AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:

6. THAT THE PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGES THE STORMWATER ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND

WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

FASOLO, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.

ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

DC#17-019 – 919 N. Fernandez Ave.

Scott Nielsen, representing Fairfield Homes, and Chris Russo, representing ALA Architects, were present on behalf

of the project.

Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing single story residence

to allow construction of a new two story residence with an attached, two car garage. The project does comply with

the R-3 zoning requirements. The existing neighborhood consists of primarily smaller scale, single-story, and oneand-a-half-story

homes with predominantly detached garages; however, there are a couple of major second floor

additions and four teardowns previously completed on this block, one of which is directly south of the subject

property.

Overall, the proposed design is very nicely done with a single story front porch and single story garage roof that helps

the house to fit in the scale of the neighborhood. Additionally, the main side-to-side roof gable is recessed towards

the back of the house, so the massing of the home along the street frontage will have a very nice scale that will fit in

well in this location. The Design Commission should evaluate the proposed front loaded garage where the majority

of the block has detached garages, but the porch does extend in front of the garage wall placing the focal point on

the entry instead of the garage.

Staff’s only comment on the design is that the first-floor plan does not allow for any windows on the left side

elevation. Staff recommends approval with the recommendation that landscaping be provided to soften the large

blank wall.

Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was response from the audience.

Mr. Russo said that at the time of this submittal, the proposed new home was a spec home; however, since that

time, the new home has been purchased and revisions are now being proposed. He presented updated drawings to

Staff and the commissioners that included the following; the first-floor will remain the same, and the second-floor was

re-designed to allow for an additional bedroom, for a total of 5 bedrooms. The second-floor wall is still set back from

the garage wall, and an additional window was added to the front of the home. He asked for flexibility on the revised

garage door, which the homeowner wants to be something more than a standard raised panel door; however, the top

of the door could be changed out with glass.

Mr. Hautzinger questioned whether the new design still meets code with respect to the bedroom that was added,

and pointed out that the side elevations appear different; the gable comes forward much farther now. Mr. Russo

replied that the square footage did not change and the new home still meets code, and he would provide new zoning

information to Staff. Mr. Hautzinger stated that Staff would verify zoning compliance once the revisions were

received.

Commissioner Fitzgerald liked the changes that were made, and also had no issues with the original design that

was submitted. He liked the colors being proposed and he was okay with the comment on the garage doors. He

agreed with the suggestion to soften the left side elevation with landscaping, and pointed out that the front of the

home has a lot of details and the rear of the home does not. He suggested adding a belly band down the sides and

across the rear of the home, or adding shingle siding to the top of the gable on the rear of the home, and a covering

above the patio door.

Commissioner Fasolo was in support of the stone base that was added on the front elevation, which is similar to

other homes in the neighborhood, and he suggested continuing the base onto the side elevations; down to where the

second-story starts on the right side elevation and up to the first first-floor window on the left side elevation. He also

suggested adding windows in the garage and a belly band at the second-floor level on the side elevations.

Chair Eckhardt agreed with the comments made by the other commissioners, and asked the petitioner if they had

any response to the comments and suggestions made. Mr. Russo said that he was fine with suggestions that were

made.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ken Simpson, 915 N. Fernandez Avenue, said that he lives directly south of the site. He has no real issues with the

design of the new home, which blends well with his home; his issues are during construction. He asked if the

existing chain link fence between the 2 homes would remain during construction because of the tight space between

the two properties, and Mr. Russo replied that it would. He also asked if additional fabric screening could be put up

between the homes to help with dirt and debris, and if shoring could be done during excavation to avoid any

problems on his property. He reiterated the existing water issues in the neighborhood and his concerns about the

new home not blocking the existing flow of water. Chair Eckhardt clarified that water issues are not under the

purview of this commission, and that residents should direct these concerns to the Village Engineering Department.

Mr. Simpson also said that he liked the revised window placement on the left side elevation.

Pete & Meri Beth Constan, 927 N. Fernandez Avenue. Meri Beth Constan said that they live 2 homes north of the

site and they are not happy with all of the teardowns in the neighborhood. She referred to the photos of the

surrounding properties which clearly shows that these teardowns are far too big for the neighborhood and do not

match the existing neighborhood at all. She is bothered by the Staff report stating that although this neighborhood is

primarily smaller scale, single-story homes and 1-1/2-story homes with predominantly detached garages, previous

teardowns have been approved on this block and will continue to be approved with this new home. She also pointed

out the issue of detached garage versus attached garage, and that the proposed 2-car frontload garage does not

match the neighborhood at all. She and her husband bought their home 20 plus years ago because it was a

neighborhood of modest homes, which they liked and could afford; however, now there are new homes that are 2 to

3 times as expensive and almost 3 times as big, which they are not happy about. She felt that the Village is trying to

get more and more people that make far more money than they do to move into the Village, by allowing these kinds

of homes. She would not argue that these new homes are attractive; however, she felt that they are massive and the

Village is not making an effort to make the homes look different. She reiterated that they are very upset to see

another teardown on the block and she asked what the percentage of approvals versus the number of applications is.

Chair Eckhardt said that he has been on this commission for more than 23 years and the commission has denied

approximately 5 homes; however, the commission also makes revisions to almost every home that comes before

them, to improve them. He explained that new homes are designed according to the current zoning regulations, and

this new home does not exceed those regulations. He added that neighbors’ rights are being protected as much as a

petitioner’s rights to design a new home the way they want and Ms. Constan asked how this could be when these

new homes are too big for the lot. Chair Eckhardt replied that this new home is not too big for the lot because it is

code compliant. Ms. Constan felt that the Village should start thinking about the people that already live here in the

Village; don’t we want more people to live here that can afford a smaller home like hers. She also asked how the

suggestions being made by the commissioners tonight are actually done by the builder, and Chair Eckhardt

explained the approval process. He added that the purpose of this commission is not to encourage teardowns, and

every resident has the same rights when building a new home or an addition, and he added that the commission

rarely sees new one-story homes being built in the Village. Ms. Constan appreciated the commission listening and

reiterated her previous comments to keep in mind the other people in the community.

Travis Juracek, 905 N. Fernandez Avenue, said that he lives 3 homes south of the site, and wanted to address some

of the things mentioned by the 2 previous neighbors. He acknowledged the change in the neighborhood, and said

that 2 years ago he had a debate with this commission about the modern design of his new home; however, he felt

the commissioners did a great job in the review of his project, which included some revisions. He agreed with the

previous neighbor that many of the new homes look the same, although he liked this particular home. He said that

the economy is driving the change in the neighborhood, as well as the top notch School District and people with money. He added that ranch homes are too expensive to build compared to 2-story homes, and the poor quality of

some of the existing older homes in the Village contribute to the number of teardowns; houses have a life span. He

commended the petitioner for finding a buyer for this new home, even if it meant that changes are being proposed.

Deb Artman, 1720 N. Kaspar Avenue, said that she has lived in a smaller home in the Hasbrook neighborhood for 30

years, and she is not opposed to seeing new homes being built in the neighborhood, although she appreciated the

comments made by the previous neighbors.

Meri Beth Constan stated that Mr. Juracek spoke very nicely and she felt his new home was very nice; it is very

different and not gigantic.

Chair Eckhardt closed the public comment portion of the meeting. There were no further comments from the

commissioners.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO

APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE

LOCATED AT 919 N. FERNANDEZ AVENUE. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE REVISED ARCHITECTURAL

PLANS DATED 4/04/17, RECEIVED 4/06/17, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE

WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE

ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:

1. A REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUE THE STONE BASE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION AROUND THE RIGHT

SIDE ELEVATION UP TO THE BREAK POINT IN THE ROOFLINE, AND UP TO THE FIRST WINDOW ON THE

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION.

2. A REQUIREMENT TO ADD A BELLYBAND OR TRIM BOARD BETWEEN THE FIRST-FLOOR AND SECONDFLOOR

ON THE SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS.

3. A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD MORE DETAIL ON THE REAR ELEVATION, INCLUDING OPTIONS FOR A

COVERED CANOPY OR TRANSOM WINDOW OVER THE SLIDING DOORS, DETAILS IN THE GABLE

SIMILAR TO THE VERTICAL SIDING ON THE FRONT ELEVATION.

4. A REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL CARE DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR DUST AND WATER AND

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.

5. A REQUIREMENT TO ADD LANDSCAPING ON THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION TO SOFTEN THE

APPEARANCE OF THE WALL.

6. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE

AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR

DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION

TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY

WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS.

IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING

PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND

SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.

7. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS AND

POLICIES.

Chair Eckhardt clarified the difference between a recommendation and a requirement.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, TO

AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:

8. A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD GLASS TO THE TOP ARCH PORTION OF THE GARAGE DOOR.

ITEM 4. SINGLE-FAMILY TEARDOWN REVIEW

DC#17-022 – 948 N. Fernandez Ave.

Joe LaBelle, representing Rize Properties, and Chris Russo, representing ALA Architects, were present on behalf of

the project.

Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing single story residence

to allow construction of a new two story residence with an attached, two car garage. The subject site is located on

the same block as the previous project, although on the other side of the street, and the subject site is located next to

one of the existing teardowns on the block and an older one-story home on the other side. The project does comply

with the R-3 zoning; however, there are two zoning issues that need to be corrected prior to building permit:

- There is a bay window on the south elevation that encroaches into the required side yard setback which is

not allowed.

- Basement window wells are required to be a minimum of 3 feet from the side property line. The basement

window well on the south is less than 3 feet from the property line which is not allowed.

The proposed design has a unique and interesting traditional style with a one-and-a-half-story massing that works

very well in this location. However, the Design Commission should evaluate the proposed front loaded garage where

the majority of the block has detached garages. Overall, the garage is nicely designed with a single story eave line

and attractive dormer above, but the front door is recessed back from the garage wall, leaving the garage wall as the

prominent feature on the front. Additionally, the second floor window above the front door looks crowded by the

garage roof. It is recommended that the garage be further recessed to make the front entrance more prominent and

to allow more space for a double window above the front door, similar to the sketch shown in the Staff report, and

Staff recommends approval.

Mr. LaBelle said that their goal was to do something different with the proposed new home. They made a conscious

effort to take the typical design that they build and refine it to add character to the neighborhood and make the new

home fit in. The current design was a lengthy process, and includes a first-floor flex room that could be used as a

bedroom or an office, which resulted in a smaller second-story with lower massing. He appreciated Staff’s suggestion

to push back the garage and he met with Staff regarding this; however, this poses a challenge to the design because

pushing the garage back would change the first-floor significantly and also change the second-floor and roofline. He

is hopeful that the commissioners would approve the design as currently proposed.

Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was response from the audience.

Mr. Russo stated that this is a really unique home that will fit well on the street, and a very good example of 4-sided

architecture. It’s a very complicated design when a second-floor fits within a roof. Pushing the garage back will

affect everything about the floor plan, and they tried very hard to achieve an open first-floor and then worked

backwards to create usable rooms on the second-floor. He explained that the proposed FAR is just under the

allowed amount; however, the FAR includes all of the sloping areas on a 1 and ½-story home, which is difficult to

work with. Chair Eckhardt said that he would argue that. Mr. Hautzinger clarified that an attic space with less than

a 6’-8” ceiling height would not count towards FAR; however, the entire floor space of a finished room with a sloping

ceiling that continues below 6’-8” would count towards the FAR of the home.

Commissioner Fitzgerald liked the design of the new home and felt it was charming and would fit in beautifully,

which the rooflines help with. He liked the colors being proposed and that the home looks great on all four sides, and

he was not bothered by the garage doors. He liked the design as submitted.

Commissioner Fasolo said that it was definitely a unique home, with funky rooflines that he has never seen quite

like this before; however, he felt it was a nice design. He pointed out that the elevation shows a single window above

the front door and the rendering shows a double window. Mr. Russo replied that the drawings were revised to show a single window above the front door, which was a result of the minimum garage width needed. Commissioner Fasolo understood the situation with the garage butting into the roof and more windows in the second-floor space above the entry would be nice; however, he was okay with how it is currently proposed. Chair Eckhardt felt the new home was nicely designed, with the exception of the single window above the front entry, which looked crowded up against the roof. Mr. Russo suggested changing the garage roof line into a hip roof to allow for a double window above the entry. Chair Eckhardt was in favor of the suggestion and had no further comments. PUBLIC COMMENT MeriBeth Constan, 927 N. Fernandez Avenue, said that she liked the garage as it is proposed and the way the front porch is recessed back, which gives some character to the home. There were no further comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 948 N. FERNANDEZ AVENUE. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RECEIVED 2/24/17, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING: 1. A REQUIREMENT TO HIP THE ROOF ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE GARAGE AND ADDING A DOUBLE WINDOW ABOVE THE FRONT ENTRY, TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. 2. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES. Commissioner Fasolo asked about the 2 zoning issues that need to be corrected, and Mr. Hautzinger replied that these items will be taken care of by Staff, regardless of whether they are in the motion. Chair Eckhardt felt these items should be appropriately added to the motion for Staff to review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: 4. A REQUIREMENT THAT STAFF REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE, THE 2 ZONING ISSUES OF THE BAY WINDOW ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THAT THE WINDOW WELLS BE A MINIMUM OF 3-FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. FASOLO, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

ITEM 5. SINGLE-FAMILY TEARDOWN REVIEW DC#17-026 – 828 N. Forrest Ave. Brent Widler, representing Widler Architecture, and Megan Carlson, the homeowner, were present on behalf of the project. Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was response from the audience. Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing two story residence and attached two car garage to allow construction of a new two story residence with an attached three car sideloaded garage. The proposed design complies with the R-E zoning requirements. This street consists of large lots, generally 100 feet wide x 297 feet deep on both sides of the street. The subject property is extra wide, at 156 feet in width. The proposed house is large, but it fits comfortably on the large lot with generous setbacks on each side, and there have been numerous similar scale teardowns completed on this street. Overall, the proposed design is nicely done with a contemporary farmhouse style. The white board and batten siding is one of the defining characteristics of the design, and this is generally a very nice detail. However, due to the size of the home, there is a large amount of board and batten siding, so it is recommended that other materials be added to break up the amount of board and batten siding. The garage has a stone base on the right side of the front elevation that has a very nice appearance, but the full wall of stone on the single story gable on the left side of the elevation seems random. For a more balanced composition, it is recommended that stone be added on the gable in the center of the front elevation, possibly up to the sill of the second floor windows, and the full stone wall on the left side be reduced to match the garage. Another suggestion to break up the amount of board and batten siding and add interest to the design would be to combine it with other siding styles, such as horizontal siding on the first floor with board and batten siding above. The metal roof features above the garage window and the adjacent door are very nice details, however they have a flat appearance, so it is recommended to slightly increase the pitch of those metal roofs. Staff recommends approval of the proposed new home with the suggestions to revise the exterior materials to include a better balance of stone and siding, consider combining horizontal siding with the board and batten siding for more variety, and increasing the roof pitch of the small standing seam metal roofs at the garage window and adjacent door. Mr. Widler stated that they are proposing a contemporary modern farmhouse design with an expansive front elevation on the large-width lot, with a goal to create some massing elements on the front of the home. It is their intent that the stone not be the main focal point of the home, but that it be an accenting element, so not to take away from the clean board and batten aesthetic the homeowners want. They explored the suggestions made by Staff, including a siding option, and ultimately came back to the current design that they feel best suits the homeowners’ objectives. He also explained that the metal roofs are at a 4/12 pitch and the main gables of the home are at an 8/12 pitch, which are a lower pitch to avoid high reflectivity onto the adjacent neighbors. Also, the back porch is a longer porch roof, and increasing the pitch on that side would negatively affect the ability for windows in the back. Commissioner Fasolo said that overall he liked the design of the new home, although he was unsure how it fit into the neighborhood since it is basically all board and batten and most of the homes on the street are masonry. He felt that adding masonry would help break up the large amount of board and batten and also tie into the neighborhood more. He felt the main entry façade appeared blank, and he suggested adding a window to the right of the front door that lines up with the window above. The petitioner said that a porch swing will be added on the front porch. Commissioner Fasolo liked that details were continued onto the sides of the home, although the trim under the windows on the rendering looks out of place. Mr. Widler felt that this was deceptive in the rendering; the trim is the same all the way around. Commissioner Fasolo also commented that an abundance of landscaping was necessary on this large lot. Commissioner Fitzgerald loved the home and how it appears older and maybe updated and added on, yet brand new at the same time, and very modern. He liked the balance of the stone as proposed because it gives a sense of time that it has maybe been here awhile and added on to; he really liked the front elevation and felt the 3 other sides were even better, which is rarely seen and very much appreciated. He was okay with the rooflines as proposed and he questioned the area to the right of the front door, although the porch swing would take care of that and give it some interest. He loved the home. Chair Eckhardt felt that the rear elevation looked more like a front elevation; however, he felt the home was spectacular. He pointed out the relationship of the roof to the window sills on the rear elevation, compared to the windows on the front elevation that look like they want to be bigger; there is a lot of space between the sill and the roof. He thought it was appropriate to add stone at the front entrance to the right of the front door; this area is too plain as proposed and adding stone with nice lighting in this area would add texture to the front entrance, which would be a huge improvement to the front entrance. He would not suggest to add stone any place else. He liked the home and was happy to vote for it as proposed. PUBLIC COMMENT Dori & Carsten Frank, 630 N. Forrest Avenue, have lived on the street for 32 years. Ms. Frank asked about the size of the home and who the builder is. The petitioner stated that the amount of livable space would be 4,600 square feet, and a builder has not yet been selected. Mr. Frank said that he loved the design of the new home, which will be something different on the block. He was here tonight to address engineering issues with water on the block, which they have done with previous projects on the block. They are at the low point on the block and have had 7-1/2-feet of water in their basement, although they understand that this issue is not part of the design review. Ms. Frank said that they know the previous owners of the original farmhouse home and are happy to see the farmhouse design of the new home, although she is also worried about safety. Chair Eckhardt sympathized with the neighbors and stated that stormwater is a very big issue in the Village and these concerns should be directed to the Engineering and the Village Board. Ms. Frank replied that they have done everything that they can do with addressing these issues with the Village, and want the make sure the builder knows about these issues as well. There were no further comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 828 N. FORREST AVENUE AS SUBMITTED. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DATED 2/24/17 AND RECEIVED 3/3/17, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING: 1. A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD MORE STONE TO THE FRONT ELEVATION, WHETHER IT BE TO THE RIGHT OF THE FRONT DOOR OR ON THE TOWER ELEMENT. 2. A RECOMMENDATION TO STUDY THE SLOPE OF THE TWO OVERHANGS OVER THE GARAGE WINDOW AND THE SMALLER DOOR. 3. THIS REVIEW DEALS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE AN APPROVAL OF, OR TO HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, NOR REPRESENT ANY TACIT APPROVAL OR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE OR ANY OTHER ZONING AND/OR LAND USE ISSUES OR DECISIONS THAT STEM FROM ZONING, BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS. IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, PERMIT DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER COMMISSION OR BOARD APPROVAL CONDITIONS. IT IS THE PETITIONER’S RESPONSIBILTY TO INCORPORATE ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTO THE PERMIT

DRAWINGS, AND TO ENSURE THAT BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND SIGN PERMIT PLANS COMPLY

WITH ALL ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE AND SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS.

4. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS AND

POLICIES.

FASOLO, AYE; FITZGERALD, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.

ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

ITEM 6. SINGLE-FAMILY TEARDOWN REVIEW DC#17-028 – 905 W. Maude Ave. Tomasz Augustowski, representing Avas Atelier Design, and Agnes Piersa, the homeowner, were present on behalf of the project. Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing single story residence with a one car attached garage to allow construction of a new two story residence with an attached, three car garage. The proposed design does not comply with the following zoning requirements which will either need to be corrected or variations requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals: - The proposed side yard setback (south) is 5 feet, where a minimum 8 feet minimum is required. - The proposed exterior side yard setback (north) is 25.1 feet, where a minimum 25.7 feet is required. - The proposed building height is 25.5 feet, where 25 feet is the maximum. - The proposed driveway is 27.5 feet wide, and it is required to taper to 22 feet maximum within 18 feet of the garage face. Otherwise, the project complies with the R-3 zoning requirements. The existing neighborhood consists primarily of single-story homes with one car attached garages. This project is appearing before the Design Commission due to past concerns in this neighborhood regarding teardown/new construction, and to evaluate the proposed architectural design with the context of the neighborhood. Although the neighborhood is predominantly single story homes, it should be noted that there are numerous teardowns previously completed throughout the neighborhood. The subject property is a corner lot, and the proposed design includes a three car garage facing Kaspar Avenue. In a neighborhood of primarily one car garages, a three car garage prominently facing the street is out of context in this location. There have been a few newer homes with three car garages approved in this neighborhood, but they have been on interior lots and have recessed the third car garage to diminish the appearance. Corner lots should be considered as having two front facades, and it is recommended that the garage be relocated to the west end of the property facing Maude Avenue. Existing parkway tree locations need to be shown on the Site Plan and coordinated with the driveway location. In addition to concerns about the garage, the proposed front elevation for the home fails to address the scale of the neighborhood. The design includes many tall features such as the two story front entry portico and a raised second floor balcony that do not fit with the scale of the adjacent single story homes. It is recommended that some single story design elements be included on the front elevation. Relocation of the garage to the west side of the house may help the transition to the adjacent home. The brown tone color palette for the exterior materials on the home, and the low hipped main roof do work well in this location. Because of the issues with the garage orientation dominating the exterior side elevation, and with the 2-story features on the front, Staff is recommending revisions to the proposed design and a re-review by the Design Commission. Mr. Augustowski stated that revisions were made to address the zoning issues, and he presented revised drawings to the commission. The entire home was moved back to meet the exterior side yard setback of 25.7 feet; the garage was pushed forward to allow for a side yard setback (south) of 8.48 feet; the bay window on the rear elevation is now the required 8.4 feet; and the roof pitch was lowered from 4/12 to 3.5/12 to meet the maximum building height of 25- feet. The square footage of the home has not changed, and the driveway was reduced to meet code. The front elevation was also changed by lowering the window above the front door and bringing down the gable. The side and rear elevations are substantially the same. Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was no response from the audience.

Commissioner Fasolo felt that overall it was a really nice home with nice details; however, he felt it was a bit massive for this neighborhood, especially with the 3-car garage and the towering front elevation. He pointed out that flipping the garage to face Maude would result in not seeing the garage from either street, which he felt was a great suggestion and would help cut down on the massive garage that currently faces the street. He also felt that lowering the front entry and adjusting the roofline helped as well. He wanted to hear the petitioner’s thoughts about flipping the entire home. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt it was a beautiful home, although it was large for the lot and this neighborhood, and the 3-car garage facing the street was imposing. He liked that the tower element and window above the front door were lowered, and he was also curious to hear the petitioner’s comments about moving the garage to the other side. Chair Eckhardt felt it was a shame that a 3-dimensional drawing of the new home was not provided, because the drama of the design is not being understood as presented tonight, and the front elevation is very attractive. He was glad to see that the tower element at the front door was lowered, and although he understood the petitioner’s preference for the garage to face Kaspar, he pointed out that there is an accessibility issue from the driveway to the front door. He thanked the petitioner for resolving the zoning issues, because he was hesitant to allow projects to move forward without zoning compliance. He reiterated that he liked the home, although it was big, and he clarified that the new home is approximately 1,000 square feet smaller than the maximum FAR allowed. He also felt that there were always zoning difficulties on a corner lot. With regards to the garage, Mr. Augustowski explained that the homeowner has children and needs a backyard, and if the garage was flipped to the other side to face Maude, there would be no backyard. Also, locating the onestory garage on the east elevation allows for a better transition to the adjacent one-story home on Kaspar. Ms. Piersa added that she has two small children and has been looking for a beautiful neighborhood with an amazing school district, and she plans on living in this neighborhood until her children are grown and out of high school. Moving the garage to the other side of the site will close the backyard space, and having the backyard at the southwest corner where it is currently proposed will allow for a lot of natural light and warmth for her children to play, as well as flow with the open floor plan and most usable part of the home. She prefers a corner lot because of all the options available, and the proposed 3-car garage is consistent with 3 or 4 other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Fitzgerald understood the need for the backyard space, and he asked about the color of the garage doors, which Mr. Augustowski replied would be the same ‘Khaki Brown’ as the siding. Commissioner Fitzgerald was in favor of a darker versus lighter color for the garage doors and he liked that the door style shown is an upgrade from the usual standard style. He was okay with the home as proposed, with a requirement to add landscaping on each side of the driveway, to help soften the amount of space there. Commissioner Fasolo understood the homeowners’ concerns about the backyard. He acknowledged that the garage is a one-story element, and he did not realize the lack of space on the south elevation for a backyard until the homeowner pointed it out. Chair Eckhardt also understood and agreed with the homeowners’ reasons why the garage is not being located on the Maude side of the lot. He also agreed with Commissioner Fitzgerald’s comments about adding landscaping. Chair Eckhardt again asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was response from the audience. PUBLIC COMMENT Deb Artman, 1720 N. Kaspar Avenue, said that the new home is beautiful and pointed out that there are 2 other teardowns nearby on Maude, as well as multiple teardowns on Kaspar. She appreciated the concerns about the garage location; however, it was not a boring garage and the landscaping will help.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FASOLO, TO

APPROVE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE

LOCATED AT 905 W. MAUDE AVENUE. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DATED

2/20/17 AND RECEIVED 3/03/17, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL

APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF

ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:

1. BASED ON THE REVISED DRAWINGS RECEIVED AT THE DESIGN COMMISSIONER MEETING TONIGHT.

2. A REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE THE VENTS FROM THE GARAGE DOORS SHOWN IN THE DRAWING.

3. A REQUIREMENT TO CREATE LANDSCAPING ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAY, ENOUGH TO

SOFTEN THE AMOUNT OF GARAGE DOOR THERE IS, TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.