Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2015/08/26 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the August 26, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Preschlack and Commissioners John Travers, Susan Athenson, Wells Wheeler, Carol Gayle and Pete Schaefer. Commissioners absent: Robert Alfe City staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Preschlack reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the July 22, 2015 of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the July 22, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining from the vote. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving revisions to a previously approved greenhouse proposed at Elawa Farm located at 1401 Middlefork Drive. Owner: The City of Lake Forest Tenant/Petitioner: Elawa Farm Foundation Representative: Austin DePree, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree stated that the gentleman’s farm complex was designed by Alfred Hopkins and noted that some of the surrounding buildings were designed by David Adler. He explained that he took over the project from when it was previously before the Commission last year. He noted that the previous plans consisted of an independent greenhouse structure almost twice the size as the current plan. He noted that due to budgetary issues, adjustments to the proposed greenhouse were made. He provided an overview of the location, noting that the greenhouse will be at the southwest corner of the complex. He stated that the design is more similar to the historic greenhouse previously located on the site and conforms more closely to the proportions and scale of original head house to which it will be attached. He noted that the curvilinear detail at the eave is Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 2 reminiscent of the historic greenhouse. Craig Bergmann, landscape architect, stated that the previously approved greenhouse was larger than necessary. He noted that the structure will be used for educational purposed and will bring the historic use of the farm back. He noted that the proposed location is consistent with the original attachment point and only one bird cage will be relocated. He added that the main venue for rental is the open field and the intention is to retain the green space north of greenhouse. He added that the architect’s time has been generously donated. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Commission reviewed and approved a previous design for a new head house and a larger green house last year. She explained that due to budgetary issues, the design was reconsidered. She noted that the present design improves upon the scale and commented that the design more closely replicates the historic greenhouse. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. DePree stated that the knee wall is an important element and that the intention is to use reclaimed brick to match the original farm buildings. He noted the proportions of glass and the single door entry are important. He explained that the height of the structure as now proposed was dictated by the greenhouse kit and noted that the chosen design is the closest replication of the historic greenhouse which is made possible by using a kit of parts. He added that the pitch of the roof matches the existing potting shed roof. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree clarified that the proposed greenhouse does not completely replicate the original structure, but that the entry door is custom to replicate the original door with a lower panel and 9 lite configuration. He added that the knee wall, brick and coping are consistent with the original greenhouse. He confirmed that a decorative ridge element and ball finial could be added to the new greenhouse, but that any further customization would require a customized kit and would not be cost effective. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Bergmann stated that the original door overhang is available, but that safety and the condition of the overhang should be reviewed prior to reuse. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree added that unless the greenhouse design is completely historically accurate to the original, it is best to keep the new structure simple and to not detract from the complex. He noted that a simple finial is appropriate. He stated that historic photos indicate a light color for the trim on the building and the goal is to use a similar color. Mr. Bergmann clarified the overall site plan for the greenhouse and surrounding fence. He confirmed that the entry to the greenhouse is through the potting Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 3 shed. He discussed needs for temporary storage. He stated that the goal it to construct the greenhouse by Christmas and the surrounding corral by spring. In response to Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. DePree stated that the greenhouse will be heated by gas fired units hung from the ceiling. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Hearing no public comments, he stated that costs should not drive design, but noted however in this case, he believes the petition meets the standards for architectural design and is consistent in character with the historic greenhouse. He invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Gayle stated that the greenhouse is attractively presented and commented that it does not need to be a replica of a 19th century greenhouse. She added that the structure is functional and attractive, and commented that the corral appears to be for temporary storage. Commissioner Athenson stated that the greenhouse is an improvement from the previous proposal and is more in scale with the surrounding buildings. She complimented the roof line and suggested that the corral be relocated in the future. Commissioner Wheeler complimented the design adding that he is comfortable with its simplicity. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the greenhouse appears as if it has always been on the site and thanked the architect for his time and effort. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving revisions to a previously approved greenhouse proposed at Elawa Farm based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff, in consultation with the Commission Chairman as appropriate, is directed to review the plans and materials submitted for permit, and to view on site mock-ups, if determined to the necessary, to confirm that the details of the work and the materials are consistent with the representations made to the Commission at the public hearing. a. The plans should clearly detail how the greenhouse structure will be attached to the potting shed and staff shall verify that the integrity of the potting shed is not harmed by the proposed attachment. 2. Staff is directed to conduct ongoing inspections as the work progresses. Commissioner Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 4 approve the petition. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an addition to the accessory structure located at 946 Elm Tree Road. A building scale variance is also requested. Owners: Duncan and Brooke MacLean Representative: Edward Deegan, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Deegan presented a model to the Commission and introduced the owner of the home. Mr. MacLean stated that the house was constructed in the 1920s and explained that they have systematically made improvements to the property over time. He stated that the coach house was constructed sometime between 1920 and 1960. He explained that he does not want more structures on the property, but would like to make the coach house more functional. Mr. Deegan stated that the exact age of the coach house is unknown. He reviewed the property and the design of the main house. He stated that the area of concern is the south portion of the coach house which is not usable for car storage. He added that the buildings on the property currently exceed the allowable square footage. He explained that alternatives were studied, including a side loaded garage which would require more asphalt. He noted that this alternative is functional, but not ideal. He stated that the proposed design requires a minimal increase in asphalt. He explained that the small addition will make the coach house functional the metal and shingle roof is intended to tie the addition to the main residence. He reviewed another alternative design with a 2nd story balcony. Mr. MacLean added that the neighbor’s pool is located adjacent to the site and that car traffic, near the pool, was a concern raised by the side loaded garage option. Ms. McManus stated that a building scale variance is requested and the property is already over the allowable square footage by 275 feet. She noted that the proposed addition will add 150 square feet to the front of the coach house converting storage space into usable garage space. She stated that the addition will be partially visible from the street, but will visually balance the façade of the coach house and create more usable space for the owners. She added that staff recommends use of shingles only on the addition, rather than a combination of metal and shingles and that staff is recommending approval of both the addition and building scale variance. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 5 In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Deegan stated that there is very little historical information available on the coach house. He stated that the goal is to be sensitive to the historic design. Mr. MacLean added that when he originally purchased the house, he obtained the blueprints from the 1940s, but found no information on the coach house. He added that it is evident that the structure was modified at some point with an addition. He explained the intent to improve the functionality of the space while keeping the coach house subservient to main house. He added that the building is located at the rear of the lot and the side loaded garage option is not a functional solution. He stated that the standing seam roof element is borrowed from the main house. He explained that the windows on the main house face west toward the coach house and that the proposed addition will be more pleasant to look at. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a mud room was added to the house in 2013. She noted that the square footage calculations today, with the proposed addition, show that a variance is required. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. MacLean stated that other uses were considered for the space, but garage space is needed for their large family. He stated that they lived on the property for several years before making any changes and that it is not feasible to use the storage space in the coach house as additional living space. He added that they considered demolishing the coach house and replacing it with a new garage, but want to preserve the structure. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Deegan stated that he had not explored other alternatives for use of the coach house. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Ms. Czerniak clarified the building scale calculation noting that because the proposal if to change storage space to garage space, the calculation is not straight forward. She clarified that as calculated, the proposed addition only comprises part of the total overage. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that the criteria for building scale variances provide specific latitude for historic properties to encourage preservation of and investment in historic structures and to allow improvements to meet current needs. She added that the petitioner spent significant time researching the history of the coach house, with no success. She stated however that it is evident that modifications were made to the structure in the past. She pointed out that a replacement structure could not be rebuilt in the existing location due to current zoning regulations. Commissioner Travers stated that hardship is not part of the criteria that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 6 Commission is required to consider when evaluating variance requests. He added that the preservation ordinance provides tools to encourage preservation and as appropriate, allow variances to be approved. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Mr. MacLean confirmed that there is interior remodeling currently taking place in the house, but no changes are being made to the exterior. In response to a question from Commissioner Travers, Mr. MacLean stated that ideally he would prefer option 3, with terrace and balustrade. Commissioner Wheeler stated support for the option with the balustrade noting it ties the coach house to the residence and could increase the value. He added that the 2 materials proposed on the roof are not appropriate. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Maureen Grinnell, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the addition is better than demolition of the coach house, but stated that a more puritan design is appropriate for the garage doors. She stated that there is an unnecessary amount of accessorizing proposed for the coach house. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Preschlack invited response to public testimony from the petitioner and staff. Mr. Deegan clarified that all 5 garage doors will be a carriage style door confirming that the existing doors will be replaced. Mr. MacLean stated that he is open to using a different style of door more in keeping with the style of the home. Ms. McManus explained that staff suggested moving away from the balustrade option because the design competes with the main house and simplicity of the addition seemed like the best approach. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Commission can consider option 3, but that the design would result in additional square footage and a more complex structure. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is not comfortable deliberating on option 3 since detailed information is not presented. He stated support for a more simplified design. Mr. MacLean stated that he would like to move forward and would prefer the Commission deliberate on option 2. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 7 Commissioner Schaefer agreed with Chairman Preschlack that option 3 should not be considered without additional information. Commissioner Wheeler stated his support of option 3 because it pays homage to the main house and stated that he would support approval of that option. He added that the garage doors would likely appear less busy once they are in place as opposed to the appearance on the drawings. Commissioner Travers stated that the addition does not result in a significant increase in size and improves the usability for the owners. He noted that it meets the standards for a building scale variance. He stated that he is leaning toward approving the 3rd option because that is the option the owner desires and given the input of Commissioner Wheeler. He stated that he is not concerned with the building scale variance and would feel comfortable approving either of the two options discussed. Chairman Preschlack stated that neighbors were only notified of the 2nd option and suggested that the petition should be continued to allow proper notice if the 3rd option is to be pursued. Commissioner Athenson stated that the Commission should be considering option 2 only and stated that the variance is her main concern. She added that she has not seen a compelling reason to grant the variance and stated that different uses should be explored. She stated that it is a utilitarian building and should not compete with the main house. She stated that the new garage bays will detract from the main house and requested that the petition be continued to allow exploration of other uses. Chairman Preschlack stated that use selected for the building by the owners is not under the purview of the Commission. He stated that the Commission should look at the neighborhood and the property and determine if the design and the variance request are appropriate in those contexts. He added that the variance requested is a relatively small overage compared to past petitions. Commissioner Athenson stated that use should drive the design and stated that she is not convinced that all designs options were explored. Commissioner Gayle stated that the coach house is a secondary structure on the site and is set far back on the property. She added that the variance seems reasonable. She pointed out that having cars parked on the asphalt drive, near the house is a visual impediment. She stated support for simplifying the garage doors noting that there is value in simplicity. She expressed support of the staff recommendations adding that she can accept the roof materials as proposed or as modified based on the staff recommendation. Chairman Preschlack stated that he cannot support concept 3. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 8 Mr. MacLean reiterated that he is seeking approval of option 2 because it is more prudent and an appropriate concession given the pre-existing building scale overage. Commissioner Wheeler expressed concern about the two roof materials and change in the pitch of the new roof, but acknowledged that it is a practical solution to avoid obstructing the existing windows. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an addition to the front of the coach house, slight modifications to the driveway, and a building scale variance of 324 square feet based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modification noted below. If any further modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, plans clearly detailing the areas of change must be submitted at the time of submission for permit, along with the plans originally presented to the Commission, and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. The roof material on the addition shall be limited to asphalt s hingles. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking on Elm Tree Road is not permitted. 4. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion and the Commission voted 4 to 2 to approve the petition, with Commissioners Wheeler and Athenson voting nay for the reasons previously stated. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve a new single family dwelling on a vacant lot located at 810 Barberry Lane. Owner: Elizabeth Hoffman Representative: Erik Johnson, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 9 Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Johnson stated that the owner desires a smaller home than others in the area with white brick and a metal roof. He noted that the vacant lot is less than 1 acre. He stated that the architect Ralph Milman and the various styles of homes along Lake Road influenced the design. He stated that the façade is generally symmetrical and noted that in order to make the garages less obvious since they are located at the front of the property, he added niches, landscaping and scalloped corners. He noted that the rear elevation opens up with more expansive windows than on the other elevations, but is overall fairly symmetrical. He noted the cascading massing of the residence and the different elements including a central turf area, outdoor pavilion, one detached garage, a pavilion and a screened porch. He reviewed historic precedent photos showing examples of integrated gutters, fluted dentils, thin columns, and jack arches. He added that the proposed house is diminutive in size in comparison to others in the neighborhood and is 28 feet tall. Ms. McManus stated that the vacant lot is fairly open and that only a minimal number of trees will be impacted. She stated that the proposed residence meets all zoning and building scale requirements and is designed in the Hollywood Regency style. She added that the Commission does not often see this style, and it is somewhat of an uncommon style in Lake Forest; however the style does have historic precedent and the proposed design appears to be consistent with the chosen style on all elevations. She stated that diverse architectural styles are found in the area and stated that staff is recommending approval of the new residence subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Johnson stated that the surrounding neighborhood contains a number of modern homes. He stated that the owner of the new house wants a soft entry, but also desires privacy. He clarified that the treatment along the streetscape is proposed as 6 foot brick piers with hedges between each pier and noted that the iron fencing is proposed along the side and rear perimeters. He stated that alternative designs for the garages were explored. John Mariani, project landscaper, stated that landscaping consists of a hedge between piers and a mixed shrub border. He stated that some trees on the site will be preserved and noted that the interior of the lot is open. He noted that there is existing screening along the perimeter of the property and that further plantings are planned around the border. He confirmed that the hedges and piers as proposed are 6 feet tall. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Johnson explained the massing, a series of cascading elements with gambrel roofs to reduce bulk and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 10 transparent elements such as porches and pavilions. He stated a willingness to consider ways to break up the side elevations explaining that the window openings are in part driven by functions of the interior spaces. He agreed that white brick is unusual, but noted other examples of white brick in Lake Forest and pointed out that the owners prefer white brick as the primary exterior material. He added that using white mortar will give the impression of a common brick house that is painted white. He stated that the piers have a limestone coping and base and that the hedges were selected so that the fencing will not appear fortress-like. He agreed to revisit the fencing, possibly lowering the hedge and using wrought iron. In response to a question from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code limits building coverage to 30 percent, but does not limit the total impervious surface area. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. John Doheny, 815 Barberry Lane, stated that a 6 foot tall hedge is incongruent to the neighborhood. He added that white brick piers do not seem appropriate and asked for clarification of the landscape plan for the courtyard. Warren Harshbarger, 1150 Lake Road, stated concerns about the adequacy of the proposed landscaping along the north and east property lines and the potential for light spillover from the north elevation. He requested additional landscape screening to prevent light impacts on the private areas of his home. Craig Bergmann, 1060 Acorn Trail, stated that he applauds the scale and siting of the house and the classically inspired design. He stated that the gate should be transparent and the white brick piers should be reconsidered. He added that there is no precedent on Barberry Lane for this type of fencing. He suggested that other materials, such as limestone, could be considered for the columns. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Preschlack invited final comments from the Commission. Chairman Preschlack stated that the proposed fencing does appear fortress-like and inconsistent with Barberry Lane which has a unique character. He suggested exploring alternatives other than lowering the hedge. He also expressed concern about the adequacy of landscaping and fencing at the rear of the property, in response to the neighbor’s comments. Commissioner Travers stated that the Commission has reviewed many plans showing fences and hedges noting that these elements fall under the purview of the Commission and have a history and precedent in Lake Forest. He observed that the drawing gives the hedge a more solid appearance than it would likely Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 11 appear once planted. Chairman Preschlack stated that the streetscape and neighborhood context should be considered. He noted that this is a vacant lot and there is an opportunity to design something consistent with the streetscape. Commissioner Athenson stated that design should be appropriate for the site noting the open streetscape of Barberry Lane. She stated that the white brick and hedge are not in character with the street noting that there are other ways to deal with security concerns. She added that the design of the residence appears complicated on the side elevations and suggested adding fenestration to the 2nd floor to break up the appearance of mass. She requested that additional landscape screening be added at the rear of the property to respond to neighbor’s concerns. She asked that the white brick be reconsidered. Commissioner Schaefer complimented the design of the residence and requested that the hedge and fencing at the streetscape be reconsidered. Commission Wheeler stated that he is intrigued by the design and suggested a more transparent hedge at the streetscape with wrought iron segments. Commissioner Gayle commended the design noting its art deco influences. She stated that the white brick is acceptable and that the guidelines are open to a variety of styles based on good design. She stated that Barberry Lane is a narrow street and agreed that the hedge does not seem appropriate. She suggested that a wrought iron fence be considered. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Johnson stated that any exterior lighting will be very soft and minimal. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is comfortable with the white brick, but is concerned about the fencing. Commissioner Travers stated support of the white brick. In response to a comment from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Johnson stated that he suggested to his client’s that a white washed brick be used. He stated that white mortar will help soften the brick color. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Johnson stated that a 3-D rendering may not effectively convey the appearance of the white brick and mortar. He stated that a larger sample could be provided. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Athenson moved to continue petition to allow the project to be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 12 refined in response to the Commission’s and the neighbors’ comments and questions. Commissioner Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion was approved in a vote 6 to 0. 6. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve demolition of the existing residence and garage located at 33 S. Sheridan Road and a replacement residence and garage, site plan and landscape plan. Owner: John Richert Representative: Jonathan Clair, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Clair stated that the existing residence is a contributing structure in the historic district and is located on a wooded lot. He noted that the house was constructed by a builder and designed by Lawrence Smith, a structural engineer. He stated that the house is a Garrison Colonial with a cantilevered 2nd floor and was built in 1959. He noted the lack of detail and simple massing of the house, stating that the cantilevered 2nd floor was cost effective and allowed builders to build more cheaply. He stated that the structural report found the house to be structurally sound, but noted some grading and mold problems. He stated that the site is heavily wooded with ample screening from the street. He noted that a similar house was constructed on King Muir adding that the design was reused as a spec house. He stated that he met with the City Arborist onsite and identified insignificant and poor quality trees which will be removed. He stated that the new house will be sited similarly to the existing house and noted that there will be less hardscape with the new plan. He reviewed the landscaping plan. He stated that initially, consideration was given to modifying the existing house, but noted that it was determined that demolition will result in a better end product. He noted that the design of the proposed replacement house was influenced by the existing house and is based on a Colonial Revival structure with properly sized, operable shutters, a hierarchy of massing, Juliet balcony, French doors, and Palladian windows. Ms. McManus stated that the request is for approval of the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a replacement residence. She clarified that the house was deemed contributing not only because of its age, but because it possesses architectural integrity. She stated that properties identified as contributing warrant further research and study to assess their architectural significance to the historic district. She stated that in this case, the historic assessment found the residence to not be architecturally significant, but instead, a builder’s house, without distinction. She added that a structural evaluation was also completed and found nothing remarkable about the house. She stated that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 13 the replacement residence is designed in a similar Colonial Revival style as the existing house. She noted that the proposed house is true to the chosen style, traditional in design, and appropriate for the neighborhood. She added that staff is recommending approval of the demolition of the existing residence and approval of the replacement structure and overall site plan. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Susan Benjamin, author of the Historic Structure Assessment Report, stated that her firm completed the 2011 update of the City’s historic survey which identified this house as a Contributing Structure. She explained that it is her practice to err on the side of designating structures as contributing if they meet the age criteria and are of a distinct style to assure that if demolition is proposed, a closer look and further study is completed prior to allowing a demolition to occur. She stated that the house has excellent integrity and is consistent with the chosen architectural style, but is not architecturally significant. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Benjamin stated that she has not seen a great example of the Garrison Colonial style in Lake Forest. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Clair stated that the tree on the north side of the site will be lost. He noted several sick trees on the site. He added that the site is heavily wooded with a lot of invasive species which may be cleared out. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Clair stated that the bays and front entry way are copper and the rear 3 story glass area is a stair hall. He added that the windows bring light into the basement and explained that the landing has French doors that open on to a Juliet balcony. He agreed to take a look at the large glass element and consider breaking it up to appear more traditional. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Clair stated that the shutters are wood, the windows are aluminum clad, and the siding is wood. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Resident at 39 S. Sheridan Road stated that he recently moved into the neighboring home and is concerned about drainage and grading impacts as well as adequate landscape screening. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Preschlack invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Travers stated that the historic assessment helps mitigate for the loss of the existing residence and suggested that a condition of approval be added Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 14 to make the document available to the public as part of the City’s historic records. Chairman Preschlack stated that the petition meets the demolition standards. He added that he was initially concerned that the demolition did not meet Standard 3, but based on the additional information presented, the standards are met. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that it is appropriate for the Commission to include conditions requiring landscape screening and in depth review of the drainage and grading plan to call attention to these issues and potential .impacts to the neighbors. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Ms. Czerniak explained that neighbors can request a copy of grading and drainage plans when they are submitted for permit. She noted that in some cases, neighbors hire an independent engineer to assess drainage impacts. She added that the City Code requires light fixtures to shield light sources from view and to direct light downward. In response to questions from the petitioner, the neighbor stated that the ownership of the fence is unclear. Commissioner Athenson stated that the criteria make it difficult to deny a demolition and noted concern that the character of Sheridan Road is changing. She added that this style of house is disappearing and suggested consideration of revising the demolition criteria in the future. Commissioner Gayle stated that everything is historic in a sense and thoughtful preservation is important. She added that it is a shame to see a sound building demolished and agreed that modest, ordinary buildings are still important. She stated that she reluctantly supports the demolition. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the house is not significant and has served its purpose. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the demolition criteria have been met and complimented the design of the new residence. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence and a new single family residence, site plan and preliminary landscape plan for property located at 33 S. Sheridan Road based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 15 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modifications as noted below . If any modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. Alternatives to the large span of glass on the rear elevation shall be explored. If appropriate, adjustments shall be made to the window elements to appear more traditional in design and character. b. A final lighting plan, including illustrations of all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. The dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with and fixtures shall be selected to direct light downward and shield the source of light from view. 2. The petitioner shall work with City staff to reasonably address drainage and landscaping concerns particularly regarding the potential impacts to the neighboring property to the south at 39 S. Sheridan Road. 3. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the extent possible with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices. a. Attention shall be given to assessing potential drainage impacts to neighboring properties. 4. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, Tree Protection Pl an – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and that the required replacement is provided on site or, if replacement plantings cannot be accomplished on the site consistent with good forestry practices as determined by the City Arborist, payment in lieu of onsite plantings may be accepted by the City to support parkway plantings in the general vicinity of the project. d. Adequate screening along the south property line. 5. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 16 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval. No parking or staging of construction vehicles is permitted on Sheridan Road. 7. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 8. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 9. Prior to demolition, two copies of comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, the overall property and the streetscape must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 10. Two hard copies and one digital copy of the historic assessment report prepared by Susan Benjamin Certifications, LLC must be provided to the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 11. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code, 12. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 13. This project must abide by all of the term s, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. Commissioner Gayle seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 1 to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 17 approve the petition with Commissioner Athenson voting nay. The Commission voted to extend the meeting beyond the 11 p.m. mandatory adjournment time to 11:15 p.m. 7. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve a new single family dwelling and associated site plan and landscape plan on a vacant lot located at 1500 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: FB, LLC and EBC, LLC (Anne Marie Carton Boardman and Elizabeth Beidler Carton) Contract Purchaser: Childs Development, LLC Representative: Michael Breseman, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Breseman reviewed the history of the Thorndale Manor estate noting that it was designed by Howard Van Doren Shaw and has remained in the Boardman family ownership for many years. He stated that it was a conscious decision not to tie the design of the new residence too closely with Thorndale Manor but instead, to aim for a complimentary style. He stated that the design of the new house is influenced by Sir Edward Luytens. He noted that the garage is submissive to the main structure and the house consists of asymmetrical massing with a symmetrical front and rear. He stated that the hipped gables control the massing and noted the wood battens on the front gable. He stated that subdivision restrictions limit the house on this lot to 3,600 square feet and noted that the building pad is quite small due to tree preservation and conservation areas which determine the footprint of the building. He reviewed the site plan and floor plans noting the 3 car garage at the front and the use of casement windows, board and batten detailing and scrolled brickwork. He stated that there is a retaining wall near garage which helps to screen the garage. He explained that the double gable is not repeated on the rear of the house and noted that the garage is designed as a separate hyphenated element. He showed section drawings and noted the patio and prominent fireplace. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed structure will be the first residence in the subdivision. She confirmed that the plat of subdivision limits the size of a house on the lot to 3600 square feet due to the limitations on the property. She confirmed that the proposed residence meets the square footage requirements and all zoning regulations. She stated that the developer created architectural guidelines for development in the subdivision and noted that the guidelines were reviewed and generally endorsed by the Commission in 2013. She noted that the developer established an architectural review board for the subdivision including the property owner and the real estate agent and noted that the board approved the plan presented to the Commission. She stated that the residence appears to be consistent with the developer’s guidelines except for the proposed Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 18 materials for the gutters and downspouts. She stated that given the high quality of design and most of the materials, and because the residence will set a precedent for later development in the subdivision, staff encourages the use of copper for the gutters and downspouts. She added that the subdivision’s Architectural Review Board submitted a letter in support of the aluminum gutters and downspouts but requested the Commission’s direction on the matter. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the new residence subject to the conditions as detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Breseman clarified that a conceptual plan was presented to the developer’s Architectural Review Board and provided a model to give a sense of massing. He stated that he met with the developer/owner, the Boardmans, first and then met with the Architectural Review Board, which approved the design. He stated that the shape of the gutters is more important than the material, and stated that aluminum gutters are appropriate. He added that in response to the letter from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, he is always involved in his projects through construction to assure conformance with the approved plans. He stated that he hopes to design all the houses in the subdivision. In response to a question from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Breseman stated that he is unaware if the Architectural Review Board voted on the design, but confirmed that they did approve it. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Childs, the contract purchaser, stated that because the size of the residence is restricted, it is not cost effective to use copper for the gutters and downspouts. He confirmed that the Architectural Review Board did vote on the project. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Breseman stated that his own wood windows are rotting and believes aluminum clad windows are the best option. Chairman Preschlack pointed out that cost considerations are outside the purview of Commission. Ms. Czerniak offered that the Commission could condition the approval on a mock-up of the gutters, prior to installation for City staff review. She also offered that the Commission could clearly establish, as part of the record, that the use of aluminum gutters is approved due to the specific limitations on this lot and in not intended to establish a precedent for other lots in the subdivision. She added that this lot has limitations and is very unique. Commissioner Wheeler stated that because the house is a spec house, the option of copper or aluminum gutter materials could be offered to the owners. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 19 In response to questions from Commissioner Schaefer, Mr. Breseman stated that future homes in the subdivision may pick up more design elements from the estate house. He added that this lot is removed from the estate, so a different architectural style is appropriate. He stated that the orientation of the house is dictated by the lot and the garage will have limited visibility from Green Bay Road. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Breseman stated that changing the hipped roofs to shed dormers would increase the perceived mass of the house and would add square footage. He stated that he feels strongly that the existing roof forms are appropriate to the chosen style. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the concerns expressed by the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation are addressed with the architect’s confirmation that he will be involved throughout the construction process to assure that the approved plans are followed. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Donelek, from the Lake Forest Foundation, stated that the Foundation is concerned about construction that has occurred in a manner inconsistent with approved plans in other situations and wants to assure that in the future, construction is consistent with the Commission’s approvals. Mr. Breseman stated that the details of the house are simple and stated a willingness to provide working drawings to verify consistency with the approved plans during the construction process. Commissioner Wheeler stated that there should be another tread near the garage to align the plans with the elevations. Commissioner Athenson asked that alternative roof forms be explored. She noted that high quality materials should be used throughout the project. She stated that with further study of roof forms, she is supportive of the project. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that the roof forms are complex and encouraged some simplification of the materials and texture. He added that the design is more ornate than it needs to be and noted that the quoins may not be necessary. Chairman Preschlack stated that the Commission’s role is not to design the residence, but to confirm that the project meets the criteria and to provide feedback to achieve consistency with the criteria. Commissioner Schaefer stated that in his opinion, the roof forms and ornamentation are not inconsistent with the chosen style. Commissioner Gayle stated that the design does not seem inconsistent with historic examples of the style. She noted that various elements appear to have Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 20 been added overtime. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is supportive of requesting some further study of the roof lines, materials and ornamentation. Ms. Czerniak noted that further design development will occur as construction drawings are developed and the Commission could require that further study occur as part of that process to address the areas of concern raised by the Commission. She offered that the Commission could consider appointing a subcommittee of the Commission to review the results of the further study. Commissioners Wheeler and Athenson stated support for approval of the project subject to a condition requiring further study be reviewed with a subcommittee. In response to Commission comments regarding the roof form, Mr. Breseman stated that changing roof lines could add about 500 square feet. He noted that the lot presents unique challenges. Ms. Czerniak noted that there is no opportunity to grant a building scale variance in this case because of the restriction on the plat of subdivision. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new single family residence, the overall site plan and the preliminary landscape concept plan for property located at 1500 N. Green Bay Road based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. A subcommittee shall be appointed by the Chairman to review further studies of the roof forms, materials and ornamentation with the goal of achieving some simplification. 2. All modifications made altering the plans from those presented to the Commission either in response to Commission direction, or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Commission shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Commission’s and the sub committee’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. A mockup of the proposed gutters shall be erected for review and subject to approval by City staff, in consultation with the Chairman, prior to installation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 21 3. All construction shall be consistent with approved plans. 4. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage and that the overall height of the residence is consistent with the information presented to the Commission with respect to the height of the residence. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 5. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the framing inspection. The final landscape plan shall include the following: a. Adequate understory trees. b. Replacement inches for trees removed. c. Additional screening along Green Bay Road and the south property line. 6. Preservation of trees on this site is critical to achieving the intent of the subdivision as a wooded development. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. Tree protection fencing must remain in place for the duration of construction and until removal is authorized by the City to assure protection of significant trees and conservation and tree preservation areas. 7. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines and the Thorndale Estates Guidebook. The dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with and sources of light shall be shielded from view and directed downward. Prior to installation, all exterior lighting fixtures are subject to City review and approval. 8. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. No parking is permitted on Green Bay Road. 9. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 26, 2015 - Page 22 Commissioner Gayle seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the petition. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the heaving sidewalk in Market Square is being repaired. 9. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak informed the Commission that the Commission will receive an update on the Lake Woodbine Bridge project at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner