Village of Arlington Heights Design Commission met Sept. 26.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Acting Chair Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ted Eckhardt, Acting Chair
Scott Seyer
Kirsten Kingsley
Members Absent: John Fitzgerald
Jonathan Kubow, Chair
Also Present: Kevin Davis, Fairfield Homes for 1222 N. Walnut Ave.
Steve Hautzinger, Planning Staff
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 22, 2023
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2023. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Acting Chair Eckhardt stated that with only 3 of the 5 commissioners present tonight, a majority vote from all 3 commissioners is needed for approval of a project.
ITEM 1. SINGLE-FAMILY TEARDOWN REVIEW
DC#23-040 – 1222 N. Walnut Ave.
Kevin Davis, representing Fairfield Homes, was present on behalf of the project.
Mr. Hautzinger presented Staff comments. The petitioner is proposing to demolish an existing single-story residence and detached two-car garage to allow construction of a new two-story home with an attached, three-car garage. The project does comply with the R-3 zoning requirements. The existing neighborhood consists of primarily smaller scale, single-story houses with detached garages. However, there are three teardowns with attached two-car garages and two second-floor additions previously completed on this block. The subject property is located across the street from two of the newer two-story homes.
Overall, the proposed design is nicely done in a traditional style which will generally fit well in this location. The single story front porch and single-story garage roof helps the home to fit in with the scale of the adjacent homes, and the hipped main roof limits the height of the side walls. However, the proposed three-car front loading garage would be the only three-car garage on the block, which the Design Commission should evaluate. The amount of garage makes the front porch look small, but it helps that the porch projects out in front of the garage wall. To soften the impact of the three-car garage, it is recommended that the third car garage space be further recessed from the front garage wall.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed architectural design with a recommendation to further recess the third car garage space from the front garage wall.
Mr. Davis had no comments to add. Acting Chair Eckhardt asked him to respond to Staff’s comments to recess the third car garage. Mr. Davis said there are point loads and costs related to recessing the garage; however, he did not see a problem with a slight recess, but a major push back might be a problem.
Acting Chair Eckhardt asked if there was any public comment on the project and there was a response from the audience.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A member of the audience who lives directly south of this site wanted to know how much space will be left on each side of the new home. Mr. Hautzinger presented the proposed site plan that showed a setback of 6.4 feet to the property line on the side south of the home, which meets code. With regards to the third car garage being proposed, the adjacent neighbor said that the recently built home across the street sold for $1.2 million with a 2-car garage. He asked about the square footage for this new home, and Mr. Hautzinger said the proposed home is 3,549 sf, which per code does not include 400 sf of the garage area in the total square footage.
Public comment was closed.
The commissioners summarized their comments. Commissioner Kingsley thanked the petitioner for the nicely drawn drawings. She agreed with Staff’s concerns about the third car garage on this side of the street, which has at least 5 homes in a row that are single-story. She felt the garage should be pushed back to at least the face of the two-story portion of the home, which will make the home look a lot narrower. She asked about the ceiling height on the first and second-floor of the home, and Mr. Davis said the first floor is 9-feet and the second-floor is 8-feet. Commissioner Kingsley said it would be nice if the eave lines of the new home line up with the other surrounding homes. She liked the board and batten on the second-floor, but suggested continuing or wrapping it around the side of the home, or changing to horizontal siding on the second-floor. She liked the front porch, but suggested increasing the usable depth of it for better functionality. She asked Staff if the required frontyard setback is 20-feet and why 37-feet is being proposed for the new home. Mr. Hautzinger replied that the platted 20-foot building line governs, however, none of the homes on the block are at 20-feet, so the proposed front yard setback is appropriate. He added that the front yard setback is measured to the front of the front porch, which is 33.8-feet. Commissioner Kingsley reiterated that in this neighborhood, the front of all the homes line up; therefore, she felt the home should be pulled closer to be more in line with the other homes, and the porch to be deeper, if possible.
Commissioner Seyer said it is a nice design and it feels appropriate. He recommended the third garage stall be pushed back an additional 1.5-feet to create a 3-foot setback, but he was okay with it either way. He asked for clarification if the roofing to the left of the garage gable is just a saddle that is recessed back, which Mr. Davis confirmed. Commissioner Seyer said he could see the small area of board and batten siding to the right of the garage gable changed to horizontal siding, to be more consistent with the materiality, and he was unsure how pulling the porch forward might impact the rooflines. He had no further comments.
Acting Chair Eckhardt said this home is a perfect opportunity to push a third car garage further back, with a combination of taking out 1-foot and pushing the stall back to achieve a 3-foot setback. He liked the idea of making the garage line up with the home, but felt it might not be that noticeable. He agreed with the suggestion to increase the depth of the front porch, and he pointed out that the drawings show 5’-10” to the outer edge, which is 2-feet away from being a great front porch. A combination of moving the home forward and adding a little bit of depth to the porch will also help to take away from the wall of garages. He encouraged a motion that makes this a very strong recommendation, as well as a requirement for a bigger setback from the third-car garage stall to a minimum of 3-feet or more. Acting Chair Eckhardt said it is a great home and he was okay either way on the mix of siding.
Mr. Davis referred to the side elevation and said he was unsure he could meet the required window egress in the bedroom if the roofline was pushed back. Acting Chair Eckhardt replied that only one 1 egress window is required, and 2 are currently shown. Mr. Davis understood and agreed. Commissioner Kingsley added that the garage bay could get shorter as well, and the back wall could remain where it is. Commissioner Seyer agreed with Commissioner Kingsley’s recommendations and felt that the setback of the third-garage should be a requirement.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, TO APPROVE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 1222 S. MITCHELL AVENUE. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RECEIVED 8/11/23, REVISED SITE PLAN RECEIVED 9/12/23, DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND VILLAGE CODES, REGULATION AND POLICIES, THE ISSUANCE OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, AND THE FOLLOWING:
1. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE THIRD-CAR GARAGE BAY BE PUSHED BACK TO ACHIEVE A SETBACK OF 3-FEET, TO BE ALMOST IN LINE WITH THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE.
2. A REQUIREMENT THAT THE VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING ON THE SECOND-FLOOR OF THE HOME ABOVE THE THIRD-CAR GARAGE BAY BE CHANGED TO HORIZONTAL SIDING, AND THE REMAINING BOARD AND BATTEN ON THE FRONT OF THE HOME CAN REMAIN.
3. A RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE FRONT PORCH TO INCREASE THE DEPTH, AND REDUCE THE ROOF PITCH TO 3/12 TO KEEP THE GUTTER HEIGHT WHERE IT IS.
4. A RECOMMENDATION THAT SOME TYPE OF COVERING BE PUT OVER THE BACK DOOR ON THE REAR OF THE HOME.
5. 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.
SEYER, AYE; KINGSLEY, AYE; ECKHARDT, AYE.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Davis asked for clarification on the siding requirement and Mr. Hautzinger explained.
ITEM 2. OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comment
Mary Ann Crosby-Anderson, has lived at 728 N. Dunton for 27 years, and she has been a resident of the HANA neighborhood for 36 years. She has attended a few Design Commission meetings since 2020, and is always impressed with the amount of thought and conscientiousness put into the reviews of projects that come before this commission. Many of her fellow neighbors of the HANA neighborhood are also here tonight.
In 2020, the home across the street from her was torn down and a new home was built. Since then, a different developer built a new home at 710 N. Dunton on a vacant lot and is currently building a new home at 720 N. Dunton, also on a vacant lot. Residents of her neighborhood are concerned about information they have obtained about this developer also purchasing other existing homes and vacant lots on that same 8-house strip. It seems like their block is in a state of flux, and they are all concerned. She and her neighbors started to meet as a historical preservation committee, to research and learn more about the current process of approving homes in the Village. They are not here tonight to ask the commission for anything, but to present certain aspects of what they found in their research.
After reviewing documents and information obtained from various Village departments and Staff, she learned that Design Commission approval is needed before a home can be demolished and a new home can be built. Design Commission approval can be administrative only, without any notification of the neighbors, or a full Design Commission review that involves posting a public meeting sign on the property. If the Design Commission approves a project, then a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is issued, and if they do not approve a project, then a petitioner can appeal directly to the Village Board. After attending Design Commission meetings, she noticed that comments from Staff at the beginning of each project review do not evaluate the pluses and minuses of the home being torn down, and the commissioners have said that they do not have the authority to prevent a home from being torn down, and can only review the design of a new home. She said they did more research and found that in Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code, both in 2003 and a revision in April of 2018, it states under Section 13.7c, that the Design Commission will issue a Certificate of Approval if “the existing property or structure is determined not to have significant architectural, historical, aesthetic, or cultural value”. They were very encouraged when they found this in the Municipal Code, and she presented copies of this page to the commissioners. Based on this section of the Municipal Code, they believe the Design Commission does have the authority to deny the issuance of a COA for the reason that if the existing property or structure is determined to have significant architectural, historical, aesthetic, or cultural value.
Ms. Crosby-Anderson said that they are here tonight to ask the commissioners to put this information on their radar for future reference. They hope that in the future, when faced with a situation at a full Design Commission review, that the commissioners are able to place more emphasis on this information and feel empowered to use their authority to deny demolitions that fall under Section 13.7c. They are very worried about beautiful homes in their community that they think are architecturally, historically, aesthetically, or culturally valuable, and they are worried that very soon a developer will want to knock them down and built a new home. They hope the commissioners will be aware of this section of the Municipal Code and help them preserve their neighborhoods’ historic character. She thanked the commissioners for everything they do and hoped the information presented tonight helps them in their future reviews.
Laurie Turpin-Soderholm, 717 N. Dunton Avenue. She also thanked the commissioners for everything that they do and for allowing them to speak tonight. This is such an important commission and she loves attending these meetings and learning so much. To provide perspective and to highlight why this part of the Municipal Code is important, she wanted to briefly show the impact of teardowns in the historic district. In 2004, the School of the Art Institute graduate students provided a study in which they listed and categorized homes within a set range in a historic district. Their HANA group has now checked this list against where we stand today, literally walking the entire 13-page list of addresses, and noting the changes since 2004. Of the 517 homes on the original list, 378 homes are still intact, 87 have been remodeled or in some way renovated, but 52 of these homes have been demolished and replaced with new construction, which is roughly 10% of the homes in the last 19 years. When this study was done, the homes were categorized as either Exceptional, Noteworthy, Contributing, or Unrated. Of the 52 homes that were demolished, 2 were noted as Exceptional, 10 as Noteworthy, and 35 as Contributing, and 5 as Unrated. The HANA community is very concerned about the loss of historic homes in Arlington Heights, especially on Dunton Avenue, which many people consider to be a jewel in the Village’s crown. This street has been referred to by Chicago television reporters during July 4th live coverage, as a scene from a Norman Rockwell painting. She said we are all here tonight because we care, we care about preserving the history of Arlington Heights, and we hope this commission will take community interest into consideration, per Section 13.7, with these very special homes that come before the commission for review.
Tom Gaynor, 208 W. Fremont St. He thanked the commissioners for everything that they do. HANA is a very collaborative organization and he is proud to serve as the HANA Board President. He attended the Village Housing Commission a few weeks ago and heard significant discussion about affordable housing as it pertains to the Eastman project, specifically the ‘in lieu of 3 units’ for that project. Mr. Gaynor said that in the last 19 years since the School of the Art Institute study was done, there have been 657 single-family home teardowns in the Village, which is roughly 2000 units of housing. This does not appear to be on anyone’s radar, and he expressed to the Housing Commission that since their responsibility is affordable housing and the Design Commission’s responsibility is teardowns, it would be interesting if both commissions got together to figure out, based on the Village’s priorities that includes affordable housing, how to consider these two matters in a more holistic way. He felt there was opportunity here to do the right thing for the balance of affordable housing that the Village is looking for. It is concerning that just in the HANA neighborhood, 10% of the homes were torn down, and without a better perspective in place going forward, we may find ourselves without the character that this Village once had. HANA will continue to be here, be collaborative, and be very respectful of this commission and all the commissions.
Keith Moens, reiterated the comments about teardowns and its effects on affordable housing. Teardowns have been adversely impacting neighborhoods severely, just look at Virginia Terrace and Hasbrook Park. In his opinion, the teardown previously reviewed tonight should probably not have been approved because it just did not fit in. Teardowns in the Village have trended lower over the last few years, so this might be the time to start enforcing Section 13.7c of the Municipal Code and putting some restrictions on teardowns, from an affordable housing standpoint, rather than waiting for it to get out of control like back in 2003 when everything was being torn down.
Mr. Gaynor said that in the spirit of collaboration and creating a possible new perspective on teardowns, we do not want contractors who are buying properties to think it is just a business opportunity; we should somehow convey to them that certain properties are not going to be allowed to be torn down because of its historical nature; no surprises should be the mantra.
Public comment was closed.
Mr. Hautzinger provided a comment regarding collaboration between the Housing and the Design Commission. He reported that whenever a teardown that has been approved by the Design Commission comes through for building permit, the applicant is charged an affordable housing fee for that teardown, with the money going into a fund that to his knowledge is used to assist people in the community with affordable housing.
Acting Chair Eckhardt gave the commissioners a few minutes to discuss their thoughts on this matter. Commissioner Kingsley said she has a background in historic preservation, and over 20 years ago this commission saw that teardowns were coming, and some people made noise about it; however, it is very difficult to make changes with ordinances, etc. The Design Commission was established in 1995 and it is a very good commission, but the best part is having residents in the community who care. There are many times at Design Commission meetings when there are no members of the public present, with the exception of Mr. Moens, who always attends these meetings to remind the commissioners of the importance of teardowns. Commissioner Kingsley said that she loves everything that residents bring to this commission and she loves when residents are involved because what they are doing is really important. To her knowledge, the report that was done by the School of the Art Institute was a result of teardowns in Arlington Heights being brought to the school’s attention. The Village did not request that this report be done, the School of the Art Institute created it on their own, and the Village of Arlington Heights has not adopted it. She felt the study was a great tool, but as a commissioner on this commission, she found that difficult because the Village has not adopted the study. As a Village, she felt there should be a list of homes, characteristics, or something to help this commission determine whether or not a home has historical, architectural, or cultural importance. Commissioner Kingsley also said that it was important to remember that when someone buys a property, they have the right to do what they want with it, as it pertains to the Municipal code that refers to zoning restrictions. This commission looks at design which is considered subjective, and she felt the commission needed more tools and the community should continue to be active and present at these meetings, it is really important. She referenced the recent down-zoning approved in this neighborhood that was a direct result of community activism. She felt the HANA group is a great example of looking out for their neighborhood, and she encouraged spreading this throughout all neighborhoods in the Village. She thanked the residents for being here tonight.
Commissioner Seyer echoed the comments from Commissioner Kingsley; this commission appreciates all of the public comments and the time spent to attend tonight. Resident input about homes this commission reviews has been impactful, and in some situations has directly changed the outcome of a project. He said there is a bigger picture here that is tricky, with every instance being its own criteria, and the big picture has to come into play at some point. This commission wants to preserve character of a neighborhood and does not want every home looking the same; however, some homes that come before this commission to be torn down, no longer meet code, are extremely inefficient, and are not conducive to today’s standards. This commission cannot deny a teardown just because of the number of teardowns being done. He urged this commission to look at the big picture.
Commissioner Kingsley asked Staff how Section 13.7c would affect a project that is also going to the Plan Commission. Mr. Hautzinger clarified that Section 13.7c is under the ‘Design Commission’ section of Chapter 28, so that authority is specifically given to the Design Commission, with the Design Commission being the first stop for any new development.
Acting Chair Eckhardt referenced the ‘Design Guidelines’ that were created to establish and clarify the parameters of the Design Commission and their duties, because there needs to be a standard and this commission tries to use that standard. However, there is an aesthetic issue associated with reviewing projects that come before this commission, and there is no official Village landmark on historic homes. He explained ‘spot zoning’, where some streets have their own zoning classification within another zoning classification, which would prevent and further regulate the development. However, the Village feels that spot zoning is not desired, although spot zoning is what those present tonight are committed to keeping their neighborhood unchanged. Every person has the same rights to build according to the current Municipal Code, which does not really talk about aesthetics, with the exception of the Design Commission who determines whether or not a design is compatible, which this commission has argued. Until there is something in the code that this commission can work with, the commissioners have to follow what is in the Municipal code, which is basically about height, square footage, setbacks, etc.
Acting Chair Eckhardt was sympathetic to what is being said tonight by the public. He wanted the code to be clearer than it currently is, because there are homes in the Village that do have historic significance and should be recognized with a discussion by this commission. If this commission rejected every home they believe to have an inkling of historic character, he felt that residents would complain to the Village Board and there would be a discussion. However, he felt there was potential for new law with this matter, and the sooner this issue gets addressed the better. Other communities have done so with their historic buildings. This commission supports the efforts to save a home and add on to it instead of tearing it down, and they support the efforts to construct new homes as well; everyone has the same rights to do what they want with their property. He also felt there is a commitment from some builders to not tear homes down and to add on to them instead. With regards to affordable housing, Acting Chair Eckhardt said this is an important issue; however, he felt that in Arlington Heights it falls under the category of well-intended but not realistic.
Mr. Gaynor said that the HANA group is a collaborative bunch who are very motivated and more than willing to do anything to further engage in this matter; they feel this matter should be Village-wide and not just in their neighborhood. Chapter 6 (Historic Preservation) of the Comprehensive Plan not only summarizes the study that was done by the School of the Art Institute, but it also talks about how historic preservation is key to the character of the Village. Since the Village has already started down the path of historic preservation with the study that was done, he would suggest moving things along on this, and they are open for guidance from the commissioners on this matter.
Commissioner Kingsley encouraged the residents to learn about Certified Local Governments (CLG), which is an organization that helps with historic preservation in a Village; however, the Village needs to be part of that organization because the only way to protect a building is to do so at the local level.
Acting Chair Eckhardt reiterated that the Village should be able to say that there are specific historic homes in the Village, and the process for residents to achieve something like that is through the Village Board. Mr. Gaynor asked if there is any precedent as to how to do this, and Acting Chair Eckhardt suggested starting a conversation with Staff to help the residents determine what they ultimately want to achieve with historic preservation.
With regards to affordable housing, Mr. Moens agreed that Arlington Heights is very well intended on achieving affordable housing; however, he did not agree that it is not realistic, because if it is well intended, it can be realistic and has to be realistic, and this commission is a good start in preserving affordable units in the Village.
While being respectful of this commission, Mr. Gaynor said that their level of enthusiasm about historic preservation and teardowns in their neighborhood is off the scale, and they want to make certain that the upcoming proposed teardown on North Dunton does not pass under the radar. Acting Chair Eckhardt encouraged the residents to bring correct representation of that particular street, block or even two blocks, because voices heard in the audience of this commission do make a difference.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SEYER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSLEY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:50 P.M. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
https://arlingtonheights.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/DisplayAgendaPDF.ashx?MinutesMeetingID=1624
Alerts Sign-up