Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014/09/24 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the September 24, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, September 24, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Pairitz and Commissioners John Travers, Robert Alfe, Wells Wheeler, Mary Ellen Swenson and Jim Preschlack Commissioners absent: Susan Athenson City staff present: Bailey Muller, Planning Intern and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Pairitz reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes. This item was postponed. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an addition to the rear of the residence located at 210 Vine Avenue. No variance is requested. Owners: John and Caroline Ballatine Representative: Austin DePree, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree introduced the project noting that the existing residence is designed in a Queen Anne cottage style. He reviewed the later additions to the house that are planned for removal noting that they are not consistent with the character of the residence. He reviewed the locations and elevations of the proposed replacement additions at the rear of the house. He stated that the detailing and materials will match the existing residence. He presented photos of the existing rear additions and images of the proposed additions. He presented a colored elevation illustrating how the new elements relate to the existing residence. He stated that the applicable standards are met and noted that no variances are requested. Craig Bergmann, landscape architect, stated that the new addition will not jeopardize the existing landscaping. He noted the massive red oak behind the house which is visible from the streetscape. He stated that to protect the tree, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 2 the size of the terrace is limited. He stated that construction access will be from Vine Avenue, over the lawn area, to protect the tree. He stated that the tree will be root pruned if it is determined to be necessary. He pointed out a smaller tree noting that it will remain in place during construction, to protect the oak tree, but may be removed after construction depending on its condition. He commented that the large oak and the elm on the property are both in very good condition. He stated that the goal is to not change the overall appearance of the streetscape. Ms. Muller stated that the materials submitted by the petitioner and included in the Commission’s packet are comprehensive. She confirmed that no variances are requested. She stated that the proposed additions and alterations do not change the character of the residence and stated that the historic integrity of the property will remain intact. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition. Hearing no questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he invited Commission comments and deliberation. Commissioner Travers commented that there is a beautiful garden in the backyard and noted that the red oak is monumental. He urged that all steps possible be taken to protect and preserve the oak tree. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the removal of existing rear additions, replacement additions including an enclosed porch and family room, and approval of the replacement of some of the existing windows. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and stated that the information presented to the petitioner is incorporated as additional findings in support of the petition. He stated that the approval is conditioned on the following: 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission If any modifications are proposed, plans clearly 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. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan for protecting 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 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 3 review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist and other City departments as appropriate in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction. 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 Preschlack seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the petition. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the addition of a screen porch at the rear of the residence and modifications to the approach to the front entry at 575 E. Westminster. A building scale variance is requested. Owner: Lance M. Chody Representative: Mark DiGanci, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Chody stated that since purchasing the residence, they have made modifications to make the house more livable. She stated that after a number of years, two further modifications are desired, modification of the front entrance to better call out how to approach the house and the addition of a rear screen porch in the footprint of the existing terrace. She noted that the front entrance currently causes confusion for visitors. She explained that the proposed alterations involve re-aligning the sidewalk to allow for a more open, simple approach. She stated that landscaping will be added to soften the area. She noted that the opportunity for parking near the front entrance will still be provided. She discussed the proposed screen porch noting that the existing terrace, at the rear of the house, is under-utilized noting that is has no protection from the hot sun. She stated that by locating a screen porch in that area, the ability to use the backyard will be enhanced. She added that the screen porch will add interest to a plain façade and will not be visible from off of the property. Ms. Czerniak stated that a building scale variance is requested as part of this petition. She reviewed that the building scale provisions were added to the City Code in the 1980s primarily in an effort to prevent inappropriate infill and out of scale redevelopment in older neighborhoods. She stated that the criteria for consideration of a variance specifically provide the opportunity for variances to allow additions and upgrading to historic residences recognizing that often the style of historic homes results in substantial pre-existing overages. She explained that Ms. Chody received approval for a variance to allow a previous addition and alterations in 2003 to make the historic house more livable for a family today. She noted that the work completed at that time was in keeping with the original Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 4 style of the home. She stated that the variance now requested will allow a screen porch to be constructed over a terrace at the rear of the residence. She stated that the screen porch will not be visible from the streetscape and will only have limited visibility from one neighboring property. She stated this is the type of project for which the opportunity for consideration of a building scale variance was established. She stated that the staff report includes findings that the applicable variance criteria are satisfied. She stated that the staff report also presents findings in support of the design of the screen porch and the modifications proposed to the front entry approach. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak stated that no increase in impervious surface is proposed with the screen porch. She stated that there may be a slight increase that results from the modifications at the front entrance but any increase would be negligible. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the Commission is a recommending body to the City Council with respect to variances. She stated that variances must be considered based on the applicable criteria. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he invited comments or deliberation from the Commission. Commissioner Travers stated that any request for a building scale variance is a concern and should be considered carefully by the Commission. He stated however as long as the project is consistent with the applicable criteria, as appears to the case with this petition, he can support the request. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness recommending approval of a building scale variance for a rear, one-story screen porch addition in the location of the existing terrace, the design of the screen porch and modifications to the hardscape and landscape at the approach to the front entry. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report and noted that information presented to the Commission at the meeting and the comments and deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. I f any modifications are proposed, plans clearly 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. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 5 2. Tree Protection Plan – No trees are indicated as being impacted by this project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan for protecting trees shall be submitted, if determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall be subject to the Arborist’s review and approval. 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. 4. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 approve the petition. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of a non-original garage and construction of a new garage at the residence located at 111 W. Westminster. A building scale variance is requested. Owner: ATG Trust Co L010-194, Liam and Francesca Connell Representative: David Poulton, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Poulton introduced the petition stating that the property is a remarkable example of French architecture and landscaping. He provided some historical background on the property noting that the estate was originally 40 acres. He explained that the estate was subdivided many years ago and reviewed the current configuration of the lots on the property pointing out the locations of the estate buildings, now in different ownerships, on the various lots. He explained that through subdivision, the manor house was left without a garage or outbuilding to serve as a garage and noted that the existing, non-sympathetic garage was constructed in the 1980’s. He presented photos of the existing garage noting the lack of cohesion with the original manor home. He pointed out the fact that the garage is right up against the house, not in conformance with the separation distance required by the current Code. He added that the garage restricts views of the east elevation of the historic residence and limits natural light from the east. He pointed out the historic wall that is compromised by the existing garage noting that the wall will remain if the garage is removed. He reviewed the siting of the proposed garage noting that there are some challenges with the location. He explained the proposal to move the garage to the east, very close to the property line, to be continuous with the historic stone wall. He acknowledged that a zoning variance will be required. He stated that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 6 the entry to the motor court, through the stone wall, will be appropriately landscaped noting that the access to the motor court will remain in its present location. He reviewed the proposed garage in the context of the property to the east which used to be part of the original 40-acre estate. He presented photographs illustrating the current sightlines from the property to the east to the petitioner’s property. He pointed out that the main mass of the new garage will be centered on the original coach house which is now located on the neighboring property to the east. He reviewed refinements made since the Commission’s packet was distributed noting that the dormers were modified to work better with the neighboring property. He stated that the landscaping and the stone wall provides the connection between the coach house on the property to the east and the main house noting those elements will not change. He stated that the exterior materials will replicate those on the manor house. He stated that the views of the new garage from the streetscape are screened by existing vegetation and noted that the vegetation on the site will be further enhanced. Ms. Czerniak stated that the property is extraordinary and noted that since the Connells purchased property, they have completed significant restoration work. She stated that in staff’s opinion, this is the unique type of property that the building variance process is intended to benefit. She noted that in this case, although the property was subdivided, the subdivision was completed in a manner that allowed the outbuildings and gardens to remain relatively intact and preserved the original relationships between the elements even though they are on different properties and in different ownerships. She noted that fortunately, the different owners are supportive and working to maintain those relationships. She stated state the demolition request for the existing garage satisfies the applicable criteria. She reviewed that the new garage will be larger than the existing garage. She stated that the design was carefully crafted with great attention to preserving and enhancing the historic integrity of the site. She stated that the proposed garage relates well to the neighboring property to the east and to the historic perimeter wall. She stated that as a result of the architectural style of the manor house and the earlier subdivision, the existing conditions on the site exceed the allowable square footage. She stated however that the project as proposed satisfies the criteria for a building scale variance. She explained that if the Commission recommends approval of the variance, this project will be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration of a zoning variance since the garage is proposed virtually on the property line. She stated that findings in support of the petition, including the variance from the building scale limitations, are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Poulton stated that a five car garage is proposed noting that there are four drivers in the family. He explained that to achieve a five car garage, a transfer of some property from the neighboring property owner is necessary and that the neighbor is agreeable. He stated that if the building is not taken all the way to the corner, the roof would Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 7 appear awkward. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Connell stated that presently there are parking issues on the site due to the configuration of the courtyard. He added that a part of the garage will be used for storage noting that with the historic tennis court and gardens, there is no other appropriate area on the property to construct an outbuilding for storage. He stated that before coming to the Commission, they spent a great deal of time considering options and a design that would complement the neighboring property. He confirmed that the neighbors are in full support of the project. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Poulton reviewed the reasoning for the treatment of the west elevation. He provided precedent images noting that the treatment is very appropriate for the architectural style. He noted the space that is intended as an exterior walkway noting that for that reason, it is not framed. He noted the use of a similar arch elsewhere on the property. He agreed that further consideration should be given to the form of the arch and using perhaps a half round arch. Mr. Connell commented that he is writing a book about the property. He told the Commission that he visited the structure in Normandy which was used as a reference for the manor house he now owns. He stated that he takes his responsibility for the stewardship of the property very seriously and has completed appropriate research. He commented that arches were used to transition from one element to another rather than a gate or a break in the wall. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he invited Commission comment and deliberation. Commissioner Travers stated support for the building scale variance given the unique conditions surrounding the property. Chairman Swenson complimented the design of the project. Chairman Pairitz commented that this is an extraordinary example of neighbors working together. He stated support for the building scale variance noting the specifics of the property which warrant a variance. He complimented the massing of the proposed garage in relation to the manor house. He commented on the arch noting that preferences will vary. He commented that it would not be appropriate to reduce the size of the opening if the arch is expanded. He commented that there is precedent for both types of arches. He commended the project and stated that the proposed changes will be a great improvement to the site. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 8 Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness recommending approval of a building scale variance, demolition of the non-original garage and the design of a new garage and motor court. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and noted that the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. I f any modifications are proposed, plans clearly 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 approve the petition. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of the existing residence at 20 E. Laurel Avenue and approving a replacement residence, attached and detached garages, a pergola, and hardscape and landscape plans. No variances are requested. Owners: Donald and Nancy Surber Representative: Tom Donahue and Betsy Williams, architects Orren Pickell Group Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he has a potential conflict of interest due to a business relationship and recused himself from participating in the review of the petition. He left the Council Chambers. Hearing no further declarations from the Commission, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Williams introduced the petition stating that the property is located at the edge of the Green Bay Historic District. She stated that the house is not significant architecturally and was not designed by a recognized architect. She noted that the neighboring houses are larger than the existing home. She stated that reuse Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 9 of the existing house was explored, but due to numerous problems, keeping the original home would be difficult if the needs of the owners are to be achieved. She explained that the owners desire a country cottage and are attracted to the traditional gambrel roof form. She stated that the new house is designed in a period revival Dutch Colonial style. She noted that this style often uses a variety of window and dormer types . She provided photos of Dutch Colonial houses. Mr. Donahue stated that in designing the new house, many of the forms on the existing house were taken into consideration. He noted that like the existing house, the replacement house will be configured in an L-shape. He noted that like the existing house, the new house will be set back from the street to provide an expansive front yard. He reviewed the proposed driveway location noting that it will wrap across the property from west to east. He pointed out that the garage and motor court are repositioned from the west side of the house, to the east. He reviewed the front elevation noting the gambrel roof forms. He pointed out the wrap around porch leading to a gazebo with a standing seam copper roof. He noted that garages are proposed at the rear of the house using forms similar to the forms on the front elevation. He reviewed the side elevations noting the repeated use of gambrel roof elements. He reviewed the site plan noting the proposed filling near the detached garage due to the change in the topography of the site. He reviewed the floor plans noting that the second floor is designed to allow for future buildout. He stated that the proposed plan is appropriate for the property and relates to the original house. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition includes a request for approval of the demolition of the existing house, construction of a replacement structure and modification of the site plan. She stated that the petitioners submitted historical assessment and structural reports in support of the demolition. She confirmed that the existing residence is identified as a Contributing Structure to the Green Bay Road Historic District but noted that the nomination does not include a basis for that designation. She stated that the “contributing” status was likely based on the age of the original house. She noted that the petitioner has submitted evidence that many unsympathetic alterations have been made to the house over the years. She stated that the property is unusual in that it is immediately adjacent to five other properties. She noted that questions and concerns have been raised by neighboring property owners and staff about extending the driveway across the property and along the east property line. She stated that the proposed relocation of the driveway should be considered in the context of potential impacts on trees, vegetation and on the neighboring homes. She commented on the replacement residence and asked the Commission for input on the form of the gambrel roof elements. She noted that the height of the garages, in combination with the filling in the area, appears to exceed the permitted height for accessory structures. She suggested that consideration be given to simplification of the front elevation. She stated that the gambrel roof, the gazebo and the dormers together create a complex elevation. She stated that one neighboring property owner told staff that she did not receive mailed Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 10 notice of the petition. She stated that after checking City records, it was confirmed that proper notice was sent out for this petition. She stated that staff recommends that the petition be continued to allow further work on the site plan and refinement of the design for the replacement house. She asked for Commission discussion and direction on the petition. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, regarding the south elevation and its inspiration, Mr. Donahue explained that because the house is sited so far back from the street, the gazebo element, typically an element located at the rear of the house, is located at the front to take advantage of the expansive front yard. He noted that the Dutch Colonial style often uses a mix of shapes and forms. He explained that the overall height of the elements was determined by the gambrel roof form. He acknowledged that the height could potentially be reduced by a couple of feet. He confirmed that the space above the garage is not planned to be built out. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Donahue described the gambrel roof, the frieze detailing and the proposed materials. He stated that consideration could be given to simplifying the materials. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Donahue confirmed that the color would differ with the materials. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Donahue stated that elements of the existing house were not incorporated into the new house because the styles are different. He explained that the existing house is designed in a Colonial style and the elements are not appropriate for the new house. He noted that efforts were made to keep the main forms of the new house in generally the same locations as the existing house. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Donahue stated that the petitioners are open to communicating with the neighbors. He noted however that the sightlines from the neighboring properties are very limited due to the amount of foliage present. Commissioner Preschlack emphasized that it is important to communicate with the neighbors. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Robert O’Donnell, attorney representing three neighboring property owners, clarified that the reference to one of the neighbors not receiving notice is not intended to imply any error on the City’s part noting that the City records show that notice was sent. He stated that one of his clients simply did not receive it. He stated that the neighbors simply want the Commission’s consideration of the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 11 petition to be continued to allow the neighbors to better understand what is proposed and consider potential impacts on their properties. He stated that the concerns relate to the driveway relocation, the proposed location for the new garage, the proposed grade change, drainage, impacts on vegetation and the adequacy of any proposed additional landscaping. Mr. Surber stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He stated a willingness to meet with the neighbors and to work diligently to satisfy everyone’s concerns. He noted that the existing driveway is on the west side of the property and is located about 5’ feet from the existing house. He stated that repositioning the driveway will allow for increased landscaping to shield the neighbor. He asked for contacts for the neighbors. Chairman Pairitz stated appreciation for the petitioner’s interest in meeting with the neighbors. He asked the Commission to provide input on the design of the proposed replacement house to allow the petitioner to be as productive as possible if this matter is continued. He stated that the design appears complicated and suggested consideration of simplification. He asked that further study be done of the massing and noted that the garage elements appear to be competing with the residence. He suggested retaining the original grade to the extent possible to minimize the appearance of massing. He commented that the residence may benefit from being a bit taller. He stated that the composition of the structure does not yet appear to be completely resolved and should be studied further. He commented on the siting noting that the two houses to west are angled with respect to the street and suggested that consideration be given to how these homes relate to the proposed new house. He stated that he is not uncomfortable with the proposed driveway location but acknowledged that the plan as presented may impact some neighbors. He stated that plan presents a good start for the project. Commissioner Preschlack stated that with some of the massing issues addressed, he could support the petition. He noted that the south elevation and massing of the garage are the areas that require further refinement. Commissioner Travers stated that it is appropriate and worthwhile for the Commission to spend some time reviewing the demolition request. He pointed out that the property is in the Historic District and that the house is listed as a Contributing Structure. He stated that the house was built 1895 and is one of the older homes in Lake Forest. He stated that the house has been occupied by many important individuals. He stated that the records show an extraordinary history of the maintenance of the property in meticulous detail. He acknowledged that because Lake Forest is a living, dynamic community, there is always a need to balance current needs with the historic importance of properties. He suggested that even if this historic property is ultimately demolished, efforts should be made to document its historic significance. He stated that consideration should be given to incorporating design elements of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 12 the existing house into the new construction that replaces it. He stated that care should be taken to identify and preserve any historic artifacts that may be uncovered in the demolition process. He stated that in looking at the demolition criteria, many of the elements considered to determine historic importance are present on the property. Commissioner Preschlack reviewed the demolition criteria stating that in his opinion, the criteria are satisfied. He stated that understanding the basis for identification of the residence as a Contributing Structure is important. He noted some similarities to the Gardener’s Cottage the Commission considered a few years ago. Chairman Pairitz noted that the criteria for considering demolitions are open to some personal interpretation. He noted that he is not concerned about losing the house as an artifact in the community, but agreed that understanding the reasoning behind the identification as a Contributing Structure, is important. Commissioner Swenson pointed out that there have been so many alterations to the house over time that it lacks historic integrity. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to respond to the comments and questions raised with respect to both the proposed demolition and the replacement residence and site plan. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion and it was approved by the Commission in a vote of 5 to 0. In response to questions from the petitioner, Chairman Pairitz explained that the Commission cannot take action on the demolition without also approving a plan for the new house. He stated that as discussed by the Commission, further study and discussion with the neighboring property owners is needed. Commissioner Preschlack offered th at in general, a majority of the Commission appears to be supportive of the demolition of the existing house. Commissioner Wheeler rejoined the Commission. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a significant addition and various alterations to the existing residence located at 20 E. Onwentsia Road. No variances are requested. Owner: Katrina Kline Representative: Michael Hrusovsky, contractor Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 13 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Hrusovsky introduced the project and provided an overview of the history of the residence. He stated that the house was built at what was the end of Onwentsia Road at that time. He stated that today, the property is included in the Green Bay Road Historic District. He reviewed a map of the area dated 1928 noting that this was a small property, about three acres in size, among other large estate properties in the area in the 1920’s. He stated that the property is wooded and noted that the house is setback a considerable distance from the street. He noted one very large oak tree in the backyard, located well back from the house. He noted that there is a stable on the rear portion of the property. He reviewed the massing of the house as it exists today noting that the house was originally designed in an English Cottage style. He reviewed the various additions and changes made to the house over time but stated that the original form of the house remains generally intact today. He reviewed the existing floor plan and provided some historic photos of the house. He stated that Mr. Pope, the original owner and a family member of the current owner, lived in the house from the 1920’s through the 1970’s and then rented the house into the 1990’s when Ms. Kline took ownership of the property. He reviewed the concepts for the addition to the house now proposed. He explained that consideration was given to various massing concepts before the decision was made to move forward with the option now presented. He stated that the selected option best preserves the integrity of the original home and creates a stately feel for the house, consistent with the neighborhood. He reviewed the existing and proposed floor plans. He explained that the design emphasizes the gardens around the house noting the many windows on the rear elevation to take advantage of the gardens and wooded property. He described the conservatory proposed at the rear of the house and the skylight proposed in the kitchen. He reviewed the front elevation with the proposed changes. He reviewed some perspective drawings of the house with the proposed addition and explained that some further simplification has occurred since the materials were prepared for the Commission’ packet. He presented a massing model pointing out that the house grows to the east, respecting the privacy of the neighboring houses. He noted the heavily wooded buffers around the perimeters of the property. He stated that the petitioner contacted the neighbors to let them know what is planned for the house and stated that the petitioner is willing to work with the neighbor to the east to enhance the landscape buffer if needed. He introduced some longer term ideas for the property but noted that only the work reflected in the plans presented to the Commission is proposed at this time. He reviewed a comparison of the house as it exists today and the changes now proposed and requested Commission input and approval. Ms. Muller stated that a significant addition is planned however due to the large lot, the house, with the addition, remains significantly under the allowable square footage. She stated that the massing of the addition as proposed appears Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 14 appropriate but added that some additional information is needed to understand the transition between the existing house and the proposed addition. She noted that skylights are proposed and asked for Commission input on the appropriateness of skylights given the character of the house and the neighborhood. She stated that overall, additional details will need to be provided as the design is further developed. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Hrusovsky described the porch in relation to the windows. He clarified that the front porch is not changing and the windows will not be impacted. He explained that the roof on which the skylight is proposed will have only a minimal slope and noted that the skylight is centered over the island area in the kitchen. He reviewed the massing model describing the link between the family room and the rest of the house. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the skylight is down in a well. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the large front deck is intended as a play area with not much furniture. He pointed out that the deck, rather than a roof element, provides for nice views from the second floor windows and breaks up the massing of the front elevation. Commissioner Swenson observed that the street has a formal character and that the original home is also formal and ordered and expressed concern about the appropriateness of a deck on the front elevation. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Hrusovsky reviewed the size of the patio and the type of railing that is proposed. He confirmed that the exterior materials of the proposed addition will match the existing clapboard siding and that simulated true divided light windows will be used. He confirmed that the existing and new roof will be cedar with wood trim. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that the rhythm of the columns on the screen porch should respond to the width of the door. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the existing house is structurally sound. He stated that as part of this project, the house will be painted and maintenance issues will be addressed. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that substantial interior work has already been completed. He stated that the exterior of the house will be restored and the original detailing preserved. At the request of Chairman Pairitz , Mr. Hrusovsky responded to the eight points in the staff report. He agreed to provide additional information about the extent of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 15 demolition proposed noting that there will be very little demolition of elements of the existing residence. He stated that the detailing from the original house will be replicated on the addition. He stated that although there is a vision for the longer term, there is no intent to do work beyond that presented in the plans now before the Commission. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that concerns were expressed by neighboring property owners about ongoing work at the site. She stated that the neighbors asked for a clear understanding of the scope of the project and the extent of work proposed. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none, he asked for any further Commission questions and for deliberation. Commissioner Swenson expressed concern about the large terrace on the front of the house. She noted that the casual nature of the terrace does a disservice to the design. Commissioner Preschlack commended the efforts to preserve the integrity of the original house. He stated support for the proposed massing noting that the end product is well balanced. With respect to the terrace, he acknowledged that the area could become cluttered like a yard, but noted that the Commission cannot legislate common sense. He agreed with the comments from other Commissioners about the integrity of the existing structure and recommended looking closely at that integrity before moving forward with the addition. He suggested that a phasing plan be developed and encouraged the homeowner to expedite the phases of the project to avoid ongoing construction activity at the site for a prolonged period of time. Chairman Pairitz stated there are ways to mitigate the impacts of construction on the neighbors. He complimented the proposed massing but noted that sections are needed to verify the details of construction. He noted that the interior spaces are growing larger and as a result noted that the front porch may appear diminutive in comparison with the larger scale of the house. He commented that the addition appears to continue the casual feel of the house. He commended the intent to use a cedar roof noting that the appearance of the house will be enhanced. Commissioner Travers stated that his primary concern is the feasibility of the proposed expansion of the house given the apparent current condition of the property. He cautioned that issues may arise during construction that could necessitate significant changes or make the project unfeasible. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 16 Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner time to continue the development of the design details, conduct additional study and provide the additional information as discussed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alfe and was approved by the Commission by a 6 to 0 vote. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new single family residence, garage and associated landscaping on a vacant lot located at 940 Illinois Road. (The correct address for the vacant lot is 980 Illinois Road.) No variances are requested. Owner: Admiral Builders Corporation, Martin Rootberg Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the address noted on the agenda for this project is incorrect. Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Streightiff introduced the project noting that a new 5,500 square foot residence is proposed on the vacant lot. He stated that the lot was created by a subdivision approved by the City in 1986. He reviewed the surrounding neighborhood noting the variety in house styles and sizes. He showed a photo of the estate house, constructed in 1926, that sits to the north of the vacant lot. He reviewed the proposed residence noting that one and a half and two story masses are proposed. He explained that the proposed residence has a central mass of 34’ with secondary masses of 28’ noting that the overall massing is comparable in size to other homes in the area. He noted that the proposed home is modest in character and symmetrically balanced with asymmetrical one story masses to minimize the overall appearance of mass. He stated that high quality natural materials and detailing are proposed. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials and hardscape. He reviewed each elevation and the site plan noting that the residence is sited to minimize impact on the mature trees. He added that the design of the house is compact which also minimizes impacts on the site. He noted that conservancy easements were established around the perimeter of the lot as part of the subdivision to provide a buffer of vegetation between the new house and the adjacent properties. He stated the intent to design a house that integrates with the wooded character of the lot. He noted that the landscape plan that was just submitted to the Commission is a preliminary plan which will be refined as the new house takes shape and modified to provide adequate screening. He stated that the project is designed to conform to the applicable criteria and balances the needs and desires of the property owner with those of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Muller noted that the residence as currently designed is slightly over the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 17 allowable square footage but noted that it is the intent of the petitioner to modify the design to eliminate the overage. She stated that the vacant parcel is heavily wooded and acknowledged that trees will need to be removed from the building area and added that some additional trees, outside of the building area, will likely be impacted by the construction activity. She stated that all measures should be taken to protect trees that are identified for preservation. She asked for Commission input on the front entry noting that it appears more ornate than the rest of the house. She stated that the Commission received a letter from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation which noted that careful attention to design is important in this neighborhood given the significant historic residences located in the area. She stated that the staff report provides findings in support of the petition and suggests conditions of approval. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitiz, Ms. Muller confirmed that some slight modifications are needed to eliminate the 3% overage. She clarified that a building scale variance is not requested and stated that a variance for a new residence would be highly unusual. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff, stated that a 3% overage is not significant at this stage in the design development. He stated that as the construction plans are developed, the overage can be eliminated without a significant impact to the design. He stated that the reduction would likely be spread throughout the house to avoid any significant impact to a specific area. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Streightiff stated that the curb cut was established by the subdivision and explained that the design of the house is based on the established location. He explained that the driveway approach is configured to create a sense of arrival. He responded to comments regarding the angle of the house noting that few houses in this neighborhood are squared up to the street. He also noted the location of the Conservation Easement on the property noting that it creates a tight area within which the house must be located. He confirmed that the petitioners met with the neighbor to the west and discussed how to provide for privacy of both properties. He stated that the patios align, but will be separated by 40 feet of vegetation. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the location of the curb cut was established at the time of subdivision. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Muller reviewed the staff recommendation relating to simplification of the detailing at the front entry. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff stated that the windows are fairly consistent around the exterior of the house. He stated that the proportions of the windows were carefully considered. He noted that there are no vertical muntin bars. He pointed out there is also consistency in the arches found on the house. He stated that he is willing to study the front entry further Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 18 with an eye toward simplifying that element. Chairman Pairitz agreed that the hierarchy of the front entry details need study and refinement. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Streightiff stated that much of the perimeter plantings are invasive species. He stated that the petitioners want to preserve a wooded buffer around the property and are currently working to determine the best way to achieve that goal. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak responded that new trees will be required on the site to replace those that will be lost. She stated that some of the required plantings can be used to enhance the perimeter buffer and added that additional plantings can also be required as determined to be needed to provide appropriate screening. In response to questions from the Commission, the project l andscaper stated that the hickory trees on the property are significant in size and are a native species. He stated that he does not expect to see any significant loss of important trees on the site. He stated there are oak trees within the Conservation Area and said that in his opinion, the proposed construction will have minimal impact on the health of the significant, healthy trees. He stated that based on an evaluation completed by Bartlett Trees, many of the trees on the property are not in good condition. He commented on the proposed landscape plan stating that the intent is to integrate the outdoor area of the site into the house. He added that the design of the yard and gardens will complement the architecture of the house. Commissioner Wells complimented the hand drawings presented by the architect. He commented that the design appears overly ornate and may benefit from some simplification. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Carl Schmidt, 950 E. Illinois Road, stated th at he is the neighbor to the west of the house and closest to the proposed construction. He stated that his major concern is preserving the privacy of his property. He pointed out that there is only a 20 foot conservation area to protect his property while a 50 foot setback exists on the other sides of the property. He suggested consideration of locating the house more toward the middle of the property to better protect the privacy of his property. He asked the Commission to consider the privacy of his property and how it can be preserved. In response to public testimony and questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Conservation Easements on the property were established at the time the property was subdivided for the purposes of preserving the wooded Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 19 character of the property and protecting the character of the streetscape and surrounding properties. She stated that in order to modify the Conservation Easements, the plat of subdivision would need to be amended. She stated that the Conservation Easements are intended to remain in a natural state, with dense vegetation, both high canopy trees and understory. She stated that non-native plantings within the Conservation Easements can be removed, but only after a plan for replanting in a manner that will achieve the same densities is approved by the City. She acknowledged that since this property has never been developed, there will be significant tree loss because areas will need to be cleared for the driveway, house and some yard area. She stated however that the layout of those elements must not encroach into the Conservation Areas. She noted that if determined to be appropriate by the Commission, plantings outside of the Conservation Easement area could be required to provide further screening from the neighboring house to the west. Commissioner Preschlack commented that assuring appropriate screening between the new house and the property to the west will likely be as important to the new homeowner as it is to the existing homeowner. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, the project landscaper stated that deciduous trees are planned to enhance the conservation area. He said that he is reluctant to add evergreens within the conservation area since it is intended to be a natural, not a formal, area. Mr. Streightiff reviewed the boundaries of the conservation areas and identified a small additional area where landscaping is needed to provide further screening between the new house and the house to the west. In response to questions from Commissioner Wells, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that consideration was given to rotating the footprint of the house on the lot and agreed that further consideration could be given to the siting. Commissioner Travers referenced the previous plan the Commission saw for this property some time ago. He noted that various angles were considered as the siting of the house was discussed and it was determined that siting the house perpendicular to the street was not the favored approach. Commissioner Preschlack agreed with Commissioner Travers regarding the siting of the house. He suggested that consideration be given to rotating the patio to pull it away from the neighboring patio. He encouraged discussion of options with the neighbors. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak suggested that if the Commission finds that the applicable criteria are met, a Certificate of Appropriateness could be granted for the house with a condition that staff work with the petitioner on the final siting of the house and the final landscape plan. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 20 Commissioner Preschlack reiterated that a slight rotation of the patio should be considered. Commissioners Travers and Swenson stated support for the siting of the house as proposed. Commissioner Wells suggested that consideration be given to some minor modifications to address the concerns raised by the neighbor to the west. Chairman Pairitz encouraged consideration of a slight rotation of the house in an effort to offer more protection to the trees and improve drainage. He suggested to the Commission that staff be authorized to approve a slight modification to the siting of the house consistent with these goals. He stated that the project is in good hands and stated confidence that the outstanding issues will be resolved through refinement of the plan as construction drawings are developed. Commissioner Preschlack stated that further refinement of the front elevation is needed. He added that any modification of the siting of the house should take into account the impacts on the neighboring property. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to Grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new residence, the overall site plan and the conceptual landscape plan for vacant property located at 980 Illinois Road. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporates the testimony presented at the public hearing and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated 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 following modifications and considerations. a. Consideration of slight modification to the siting of the house to preserve trees, improve drainage and provide privacy to the extent possible between the new house and the neighboring house to the west. b. Consideration of slight rotation of the patio to maximize, to the extent possible, the privacy between the new patio and the patio on the property to the west. c. Simplification of some elements of the front elevation and the front entrance and adjacent windows in particular. d. The plans should reflect details of the various elements of the residence to assure that construction will occur consistent with the representations made to the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 21 e. The house must be in full compliance with the Building Scale provisions of the Code. f. If any other 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. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Protection Plan identifying which trees are intended to be preserved and detailing how those trees will be treated and protected before, during and after construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Tree removal shall be limited to the extent possible. All trees that may be able to be preserved through pre and post treatment and careful protection during construction should remain on site to allow a good faith effort to preserve them. 3. A landscape plan drawn on the approved grading plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to a rough framing inspection on the site. The landscape plan shall provide for enhanced screening and privacy on the west side of the house. 4. Grading on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices and to properly direct drainage. 5. 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 the site. 6. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alfe and was approved by the Commission by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairman Pairitz encouraged the petitioner to work with staff and the neighboring property owners in the spirit Commission’s discussion. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 - Page 22 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development