The Oak Park Historic Preservation Commission denied a proposal last week that would add a 10-story, art deco-style addition behind the landmark Boulevard Arcade Building.
The proposal was submitted by architect John Schiess on behalf of the owner of the property at building at 1031-35 South Boulevard.
The seven members agreed that the guidelines were not met by the proposal.
Chair Lou Garapolo said the proposal did not appear to meet nine of the 10 guidelines that the HPC was charged with considering. Citing the proposal’s scale, height, width, materials and façade as areas that overwhelmed the existing historic structure, he noted that the only area the proposal met the historic guidelines was in setback from the street.
Commissioner Amy Peterson noted that the massing and scale of the new building overwhelmed the existing historic structure, as did the proposed ornamentation.
Commissioner Asha Andriana said that not only were the design and scale of the proposed building overpowering for the existing building, but also that she didn’t see a compelling reason to vacate the guidelines for this development.
“We always talk about diversity in this town, especially when it comes to affordability,” she said. “I don’t understand why a luxury apartment building, especially on top of this building, is something that needs to be done. As someone who lives in downtown Oak Park, all of the development around me has been luxury apartment buildings.”
At the onset of the meeting, Village Urban Planner in Historic Preservation Atefa Ghaznawi said that since the last HPC meeting in December, during which the commission was introduced to the project, the village attorney determined that the proposed development met the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness and a COA would be required for the project to move forward.
At last week’s meeting, Schiess again introduced the project and noted that the design team had made several changes to the original proposal since the December meeting. One of these changes included reducing the height of the proposed addition from 124 feet to 115 feet. Current zoning restricts heights to 60 feet.
Schiess reiterated statements he made in December that the expiration of an historic tax freeze for the property was a driver behind the owner’s decision to build a 24-unit residential unit behind the Boulevard Arcade property.
The meeting was well attended, with more than a dozen individuals voicing their opposition to the project, speaking out against the height, design and materials of the proposal.
Robert Royals, a neighbor of the proposed project and Oak Park resident since 1981, cited his experience in construction, finance and real estate when he said he was “not opposed to development, but was vehemently opposed to this project.”
Bill Bower, resident of the Opera Club on Marion Street that is adjacent to the proposed site, said that he had gathered more than 70 signatures on a petition against the proposed building. Noting that the proposal fails to meet historic guidelines in size and material, he stated that it was “more befitting to a speakeasy in Pottersville than a structure in Oak Park.”
Several other concerned neighbors cited the precedent that would be set by ignoring historic guidelines, with Rick Van Dyke warning of a “dangerous domino effect” that would be hard to retract if the proposal was approved.
Diane Connolly said she moved to Oak Park recently because of the human scale of the village and the historic neighborhood character.
“Is one owner’s self-reported financial problem worth disregarding historical guidelines?” she asked.
Andrew Elders, a former HPC commissioner and current resident of Pleasant Street, said that project did not meet the historic guidelines necessary for a certificate of appropriateness.
“It’s important to note we’re in an environment where the village board is not really supportive of historic preservation,” he added. “I can imagine this being appealed. If it’s allowed, I feel it should be limited to 60 feet in height.”
Josh Vandenberg, who is a candidate for Oak Park village trustee in the April election, was the lone commenter in support of the proposal. Citing his love for the Boulevard Arcade Building and the neighborhood, he stated that the thought the new building was “well-designed and tasteful” and entirely the right amount of density for downtown Oak Park.
Others reached out to the HPC in advance of the meeting to voice their opposition to the proposal, including Kendra Parzen, advocacy manager for Landmarks Illinois. Parzen wrote in a letter to the Commission that Landmarks Illinois opposes the development and found it was not compatible with the Village of Oak Park’s architectural review guidelines.
“The proposed addition is placed at the rear of the property, in keeping with preservation best practices, but its proposed height will overpower the historic building when viewed from the street,” Parzen wrote. “The ‘dynamic uplighting’ and digital clock face will intentionally draw attention to the addition over the historic building. The metal panels proposed for the new addition are incompatible with the finish materials of the historic building.”
According to village architectural review guidelines and historic preservation ordinance, if a certificate of appropriateness is not issued the applicant can submit a revised application that conforms to the guidelines, request a public hearing before the commission or withdraw the application.
If the COA is denied after a public hearing, the applicant can appeal to the Village Board or, if applicable, request a public hearing before the HPC for a certificate of economic hardship.
When asked what the next steps might be for him and his client, Schiess said in an email: “We heard the HPC and the neighbors. We are considering what they said and our next steps.”