Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014/10/30 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the October 30, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 30, 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 and Jim Preschlack Commissioners absent: Susan Athenson and Mary Ellen Swenson City staff present: 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. Approval of the minutes. Approval of the minutes was postponed. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving minor alterations to the residence, breezeway and garages located at 255 N. Mayflower Road. No variance is requested. Owners: David and Diana Moore Representative: Carol Russ, 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. Moore introduced the project noting that his family just purchased the property and intends to make minor changes with a light touch. He stated that the house was remarkably preserved by the previous owner. He noted that the property has two garages, neither of which are historic or contributing structures. He explained the plan to enclose the existing breezeway between the house and the garage with no change in foot print. He stated that the breezeway will be in- filled with walls, windows and a door. He stated that the existing windows in the attached garage will be replaced with a higher quality product, in the same openings. He reviewed the changes proposed for the detached garage noting that the overhead garage door will be removed and replaced with a man door. He added that some changes are proposed to the windows on the detached garage as well. He noted that the last component of the proposed work is proposed on a later addition on the south side of the residence. He explained Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 2 that the double windows on the west elevation, in the master bedroom, will be returned to single windows. He reviewed the standards stating that the proposed improvements are consistent with the requirements of the Code. Ms. Czerniak stated the proposed work does not involve any changes to the original Howard Van Doren Shaw structure. She confirmed that the breezeway and attached garage are not original to the house. She noted that the detached garage was the garage for another house that was located in that area, but demolished at the time the original house was being restored. She stated that the garage has virtually no relationship to the main residence noting that when approaching the house, the detached garage is off to the side and not prominent. She stated that the work proposed involves high quality materials, consistent with the materials of the house. She stated that findings in support of the petition are included in the staff report along with standard conditions of approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Moore stated that the project architect is Carol Russ. He stated that the breezeway will be used as a laundry room and confirmed that the footprint will not be expanded. Chairman Pairitz observed that the open breezeway respects the historic structure and was executed in a manner that allowed it to be incorporated into the original Shaw design, using the same vernacular. He observed that a different perspective on how to treat the breezeway is proposed. In response to comments from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Moore agreed with the observation. He pointed out that with the infill proposed, the breezeway will remain subordinate to the historic structure with a lower roof height and clearly appearing as a connecting piece. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he invited final questions or comments from the Commission. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Moore stated that the detached garage will not be used as a garage but as a lodge for family members. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving minor alterations to the residence, breezeway and garages located at 255 N. Mayflower Road based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the comments and deliberations of the Commission and the testimony presented at the public hearing as additional findings. He stated that the approval is subject to the following conditions of approval. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 3 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. 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. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Protection plan, if determined to be necessary, to protect trees during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 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 Preschlack seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 0 approve the petition. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition of the existing residence, a replacement rear addition, alterations and a new garage at 995 Woodbine Place. Owner: Mary Ann Wells Representative: Amy Wells, resident of 995 Woodbine Place Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Wells, resident of 995 Woodbine, stated that there is very little known about the house. She stated however that it is clear that the rear element of the house is a later addition. She noted that this is the area proposed for demolition. She pointed out the garden shed, near the north property line and stated that it is not clear why the property was divided the way it was but noted that the various outbuildings were established on separate lots. She noted that the existing property lines can be documented as far back as 1943. She stated the intent to retain the farmhouse style of the house and noted that the streetscape view will change very little. She stated that the changes proposed are needed to make the house livable for a family with children. She addressed some items raised in the staff report noting that the horizontal banding on the house will be retained, but will be located higher on the house. She noted that the bay window was not part of the original structure. She stated that the proposed front porch will break up the plainness of the front elevation and is consistent with the farm house style. Ms. Czerniak noted the uniqueness of the Woodbine Place streetscape pointing out that all of the houses encroach into the front yard setback. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals heard this petition at the last meeting and continued the matter to allow for Commission review and comment. She noted that the Board’s focus was on the further encroachment into the front yard setback that would result from the proposed covered front porch. She noted Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 4 that at the time the project was presented to the Board, the dimensions of the front porch were not clear. She stated that the Commission’s comments regarding the front porch will be provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals to assist in the Board’s review of the variance request. She confirmed that the later rear addition is proposed for demolition. She stated that the demolition appears to meet the criteria given that it is not original to the house and was neither designed, nor constructed in a manner consistent with the original house. She stated that the replacement addition is a large two story element, with one story components, and will be located entirely in the rear of the existing house. She stated that the overall design of the addition appears to be consistent with the design of the original house. She explained that a garage is proposed noting that currently, there is no garage on the property. She stated that the garage will be setback from the front plane of the house and appears to be appropriately scaled and detailed. She noted that in the petition as originally submitted, the potting shed was proposed for demolition. She noted however that after further consideration and in recognition that the potting shed is an original outbuilding, the structure is not proposed for preservation except for a later lean-to addition that encroaches toward the north property line. She reviewed the other modifications that are proposed stating that replacement of the flat roof on the south element of the house with a gable roof is proposed. She added that some changes are proposed to the front elevation including changes to some of the detailing, removal of the bay window and the addition of a covered porch. She asked for Commission input on the proposed changes to the front elevation. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the overall petition subject to conditions and refinements as directed by the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak explained that the elements of the house that are proposed for demolition are not original to the house. She noted that for that reason, an historic assessment report was not required by staff. Chairman Pairitz pointed out that there have been petitions in the past that proposed demolition of a portion of a house and an historic assessment report was not always required. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff has the ability to waive submission requirements but noted that the Commission can request any information it deems appropriate. She stated that preparation of an historic assessment report takes time and money and stated that if a requirement does not appear to be directly applicable to a particular petition, staff may not require it as part of the submission. Commissioner Preschlack stated that generally, historic assessment reports are associated with petitions that are impacting work of a notable architect or a significant structure. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 5 In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Wells confirmed that the entire house will be re-sided. Commissioner Alfe commented that the existing siding is distinctive and has a unique profile. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe and Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Poprawski, general contractor, stated that it would be difficult to match the profile of the existing siding but noted that the new siding will be 4-inch bevel siding and will have the same exposure as the existing, but will be flat. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Wells confirmed that all of the work as recommended in the structural report will be completed. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Poprawski stated that the fish scale treatment of the gable ends is not consistent around the house at the present time. He stated that a similar, but different, treatment will be used to treat all of the gable ends on the house with a fiber cement product. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. John Dick, 900 Woodbine Lane, stated that he lives directly east of the property. He noted that with the large addition, the new two story building mass and chimney will extend toward his property a distance of 50 feet. He asked that a landscape plan be required to provide details of landscape screening proposed along the east property line. Chairman Pairitz asked for staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Commission could add a condition requiring that the proposed landscape plan be provided to the neighboring property owner for review and comment prior to final approval. She noted that a condition requiring a detailed landscape plan is included in the staff report. Chairman Pairitz invited petitioner rebuttal to public comment. Mary Ann Wells, property owner and neighbor, stated that trees were planted today and a berm was installed to address this issue. Chairman Pairitz noted that normally a landscape plan is submitted prior to landscape work proceeding. He added that permits may be required for the work that was completed. He invited any final comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler commented on the extension of the front porch noting Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 6 that the neighboring house has a two story portion that extends close to the front property line. He stated that some leniency in granting a zoning variance is reasonable to allow the extension and covering of the porch. Chairman Pairitz commented on the unique streetscape, character of the homes and the proximity of the structures to each other and the street. He stated that the existing conditions support a project with the right design in this location. He commended the project but noted that further attention to detail is needed particularly with respect to massing. He noted that on the western elevation, as proposed, the window breaks the banding. He suggested that consideration be given to whether the banding should extend all of the way around the house or just be located on the front elevation. In response to Chairman Pairitz comments, Mr. Poprawski pointed out that the banding serves as window sills on the various elevations. Chairman Pairitz spoke to the window in the stairway and suggested that consideration should be given to lowering the window. He observed that the overall mass of the house is increasing three times the current size. He suggested that consideration be given to whether the front elevation should reflect that increased massing. He commented on the proposed front porch noting that a shed roof may allow the porch to appear a little wider, and more like the mass of the rest of the home with the new addition. He encouraged further study of the massing. He stated that the front porch at a minimum could extend a little further to avoid appearing as a front porch for a little house, out of scale with the new, larger house. Commissioner Alfe commented on the doors on the east elevation of the new addition and suggested that consideration be given to designing the sidelights to emulate the double hung windows. Commissioner Preschlack reviewed the role of the Commission noting that the Commission is charged with looking at the totality of a project and whether it is conforming to the standards. He stated that using the approach of a partial demolition and preservation of the potting shed is a good choice for this property. He stated that in general, he is comfortable that the streetscape will be preserved and that overall, the project is appropriate. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the new garage approaches closer than 10’ to the potting shed, a zoning variance will be necessary in addition to the variance from the front property line for the porch extension. Chairman Pairitz stated that the comments offered by the Commission are intended to make the project as successful as possible while meeting the needs of the petitioner. He noted that details are important in achieving a successful Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 7 project. He stated that during design development in preparation for submittal for a building permit, the massing of the front porch should be studied further. He stated that the front porch will be very prominent and may look diminutive in relation to the new, larger house. He suggested that it will be in the petitioner’s best interest to get the details and the massing right. He stated that the proposed use of cement siding is acceptable and suggested that although a 4” profile may be appropriate, consideration of a 3” exposure would also be worthwhile. Commissioner Travers stated that in his opinion, an historic assessment report, as required by the Code, should be required. He noted that in addition to providing information necessary to determine whether the partial demolition meets the criteria, it would document what is being lost. He added that a structural report should also be submitted for Commission review. He commented that the history of the property is complex. He suggested that the Commission consider requesting that an historic assessment report be completed and presented at the next meeting noting that the other items identified by the Commission could be studied and addressed as well for further Commission consideration. He stated that it is important to focus attention on the submittal requirements in the Code. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that documentation of the portion of the house proposed for demolition could be required as a condition of approval. She explained that staff’s interpretation is that an historic assessment report should be required for a complete demolition or if approval of a partial demolition is requested for an original portion of a residence or an unusual or important historic element of a structure. Chairman Pairitz stated that his sense is that the Commission is informed enough to consider whether the partial demolition of the later addition is appropriate in this case. He acknowledged that the house, in its existing configuration, has some social significance. He stated that in this case, he is not inclined to burden the petitioner with the requirement for an historic assessment report unless the Commission believes that something of importance was missed in the information presented or that there is some distinguishing character to the rear of the house. Commissioner Wheeler stated the most significant part of the house is being saved and noted that the addition will replicate the existing house to a great degree. He added that the house will be transformed into something more livable than exists today. Chairman Pairitz observed that the house is on a rather large lot and a proposal for complete demolition and location of a new residence further east, in conformance with the setback requirements could have been presented for Commission consideration. He stated that he is not convinced of the value of adding an obstacl e to the project as proposed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 8 In response to a request from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak agreed that future staff reports will note the basis for waiving the requirement for an historic assessment report in the case of demolitions or partial demolitions. She suggested that the Commission add a condition to this petition, if approval is granted, requiring photo documentation of the house in its present condition prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the rear addition. She stated that despite landscaping that apparently was recently completed on the site, a condition requiring a detailed landscape plan is still appropriate reflecting both existing and proposed landscape screening along the perimeters of the property to allow staff evaluation of whether the landscaping adequately screens the mass of the addition. Chairman Pairitz summarized that the Commission is supportive of the front porch extension and a variance from the setback requirement. He stated that consideration be given to alternative roof forms for the porch adding that a change to a hipped roof, in keeping with the other roofs on the west side of the house, could be appropriate. He suggested that latitude be given with respect to the altering the banding from the existing condition and suggested consideration of wider banding than reflected in the current proposal. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Chairman Pairitz directed staff to add a finding noting that staff waived the requirement for an Historic Assessment Report and the basis for that decision. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the non-original single story rear addition and the lean to on the potting shed, the replacement rear addition, the new garage, modification of the roof on the south one story element, and various other alterations consistent with the materials presented as modified by the Commission’s comments. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report, including the additional finding as directed by Chairman Pairitz regarding the waiver of the Historic Assessment Report, and incorporates the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Photo documentation of the exterior of the existing house, including streetscape views, must be submitted for staff review, and subject to staff approval, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any portion of the house. 2. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the following modifications and accompanied by the following studies as directed by the Commission. a. Every effort shall be made to preserve the detailing and elements on the original residence. Where replacement or repair is necessary, matching materials and detailing shall be used to the extent possible. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 9 b. Consideration should be given to increasing the width of the horizontal banding around the house; some modification to the location of the banding is acceptable. c. Studies of alternative roof forms for the front porch should be completed including consideration of the use of shed or hipped roof forms. The porch should reflect an appropriate massing in relation to the increased massing of the house with the addition. d. The plans submitted for permit should clearly identify any and all changes proposed to the original structure. e. Exterior lights proposed for the house should be reflected on the plans and cut sheets of fixtures must be provided to demonstrate that light will be directed downward to eliminate impacts on neighboring properties and on the streetscape. f. If any other modifications are proposed to the plans presented to the Commission, other than those noted above, 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. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscape plan must be submitted reflecting plantings along the east and south perimeter of the property to provide some screening of the large, rear addition from neighboring properties. The plan shall be shared with the neighboring property owner to the east and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. 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. The narrow street may necessitate off-site parking for contractors. The street must remain open at all times unless a street obstruction permit is requested and issued by the City. 5. 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 in a 5 to 0 vote. 4. Consideration of renewal, extension and modification of a previously granted Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence, a replacement residence and restoration and adaptive reuse of various garden features on property located at 595 Circle Lane Owners: Terry and Lori Rozdolsky Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 10 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Travers stated that he has previous knowledge of the petition and has had some communication regarding this project from property owners in the neighborhood. He stated that he is able to rule impartially on this petition. Hearing no further declarations from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the project. He stated that the home owner, the owner’s attorney, and the restoration consultant for the project are also present. He stated that he is pleased that the owners remain dedicated to the restoration of the property and in particular, restoration of the terrace features on the bluff. He noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted for the various components of this project in November, 2012. He stated that due to the complexities of the project renewal, extension and some modifications to the Certificate of Appropriateness are requested. He stated that the design of the repl acement house has changed only minimally. He stated that no variances are requested. He reminded the Commission that the property is located on a heavily wooded, winding street. He reviewed photographs of the historic garden features pointing out the serious deterioration. He reviewed the plat of survey noting the location of the Lily Pond and noting that the existing home is not in conformance with the setbacks. He stated that the new residence will conform to the zoning setbacks. He reviewed the landscape plan noting that the most significant change relates to the elimination of the unground garage. He stated that with the elimination of the underground garage, the two flanking wings on the front of the house were able to be located further apart providing a more gracious and appropriate front entry. He noted that the conservatory wing is now a garage and mudroom. He noted that on the previous plan, the coping from the Lily Pond was adaptively reused to create a new feature, a pool-like element on the south side of the house which was to be filled with plants. He stated that during further study of the terrace garden features on the bluff it was determined that the coping from the original Lily pool is critical to the proper restoration of those features. He stated that any leftover coping from the original Lily Pond will be used to create a new water feature at the front of the house, as a reference to the Lily Pond. He showed a concept for the proposed new water feature. He reviewed the elevations of the house noting the changes primarily to the front elevation. He stated that the massing of the house, the roofline, gables, dormers and chimneys remain unchanged from the previously approved plan. He noted that as a result of the separation of the flanking wings on the front of the house, the house is more exposed and has more windows. He noted the efforts to minimally differentiate the southern wing with a lantern on the roof and some other decorative elements to avoid a symmetry that is too predictable. He reviewed the revised the floor plan. He stated that the replacement residence is consistent with the Italian Renaissance style, the style in which the original estate house was designed. He concluded noting that the most dramatic features on the property are the terraces above the Lake. He stated that it is commendable that the owners are willing to expend the significant resources Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 11 necessary to restore the dramatic access to the Lake. He introduced the restoration consultant who has been studying and developing a detailed plan for restoration of the garden features. Mario Machnicki, restoration consultant, stated that he has been in the masonry industry for over 30 years. He stated that when he was invited to help with the restoration of the Villa Turicum garden elements, he was excited about the opportunity. He stated that unfortunately, the state of the garden features is horrible as a result of natural deterioration, neglect and vandalism. He said that many hours have been spent trying to identify the repairs that are needed, the original materials, and possible sources for the materials needed to properly restore the features. He stated that sources for limestone are readily available however; Georgia marble is not commonly available. He stated that he was excited to find the marble scattered throughout the site and on the Lily Pond where it was used as coping. He stated that the Georgia marble on the site has been inventoried and about 30 to 50 percent of the coping on the Lily Pond is needed to restore features on the terraces. He reviewed various restoration techniques noting that the “dutchman” involves removing deteriorated pieces and piecing the element that is carved to replace the pieces that are removed and attaching it to the existing garden feature. He stated that the precision and minimum joints that result from the “Dutchman” technique allow the restoration to last for hundreds of years. He stated that he does not use epoxies. He stated that the advantage of using Georgia marble found on the site is that it has weathered consistently with the original terraces. He stated that in surveying the terraces, unsafe conditions were found. He stated that as a follow up to the evaluation of the terraces, three phases of work are proposed: Phase 1 will focus on eliminating hazardous conditions and removing materials from improper prior repairs that are creating or accelerating damage; Phase 2 will stabilize the conditions on the site by limiting the amount of infiltration and wear and tear on the structure until restoration and preservation takes place; and Phase 3 will restore the ornamentation using materials found on the site. He stated that the owners are willing to spend a fortune to restore the terraces which are at the end of their life cycle. Mr. Krasnodebski stated there are three conditions from the original Certificate of Appropriateness that the owner is requesting be modified. He stated that condition #2 ties a requirement for a full financial guarantee for the restoration work to the Certificate of Occupancy for the house. He stated that the restoration work is planned to be a 4 to 5 year project and will take longer than construction of the house. He asked that consideration be given to tying the financial guarantee to a time schedule for the restoration work itself noting that if critical dates on the timeline are not satisfied, or work falls behind, a financial guarantee would be required at that time. He noted that condition #4 requires a third party restoration consultant to oversee the project. He suggested that high quality and knowledgeable consults are involved in the project and can be relied on to provide reports to the City. He noted that condition 9 relates to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 12 activity within the steep slope setback area. He explained that to accomplish the restoration work, there will need to be activity in that area. He stated that the owner would like the condition to acknowledge that the project will require work in that work in that area. Ms. Czerniak stated that this project is complex and has been in the planning stages for several years. She stated that from the staff perspective, this may be the last best hope for preserving the terraces and unique features on the bluff. She stated that due to the complexity of the restoration work, the research and investigation has taken many months. She stated that as noted by the petitioner’s representatives, all of the garden features on the property are deteriorating. She noted that in 2012, the Commission discussed the possibility of the various garden elements falling into ruins and eventually disappearing or being required to be removed due to hazardous conditions. She stated that the property owners have been very diligent and committed to the restoration of the most unique features on the property, the bluff terraces and the associated elements. She stated that as a result of due diligence on the part of the petitioner over the past two years, some modifications are proposed to the previously approved plans. She stated that the key change proposed is that the Lily Pond will not be reconstructed on the site as a smaller garden element but instead, the only marble coping from the pond, would be used to restore the bluff terraces and if sufficient material remains, to create a new, smaller water feature at the entrance. She noted that the previous plan, to reconstruct a new garden element in the likeness of the pond drove some elements of the house in an effort to create a logical relationship. She noted that with the proposed elimination of the reconstructed pond, the front elevation of the house is also modified. She stated that the proposed plan will adaptively reuse the marble from the Lily Pond to properly restore other important garden features on the site. She reviewed that the Commission previously approved the demolition of the existing residence. She summarized that renewal, extension and modification of the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness is requested. She stated that once renewed, permits for work on the site will need to be obtained within one year of the approval. She added that the request to modify and clarify three of the previous conditions of approval is reasonable. She commented that once the replacement residence is completed and the owners are living on the property, completion of the restoration work will increase in importance. She suggested that a timeline for completion of the restoration work, subject to review and approval by the City, could establish critical path dates that would need to be met rather than tie the completion of the restoration work to the replacement residence. She stated that the petitioner has engaged knowledgeable and experienced consultants and noted that the City always has the ability, through the Code, to hire a third party consultant if determined to be necessary at the cost of the petitioner. She stated that the condition relating to the steep slope setback can be clarified to state that work as approved and permitted by the City may occur in that area. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 13 In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed the elevations of the garage noting that the limestone columns are half engaged and are relatively flat against the wall. He stated that the entire house is basically brick with limestone detailing. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that many of the proposed design elements on the new house are based on the Italian Renaissance style of the original estate house. He acknowledged that wood lattice was more prominent on the original residence than wrought iron. He suggested that the appearance of busyness could be addressed by simplifying the design of the wrought iron elements. Chairman Pairitz noted that Commissioners Wheeler and Alfe were not on the Commission at the time of the previous approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that in the previous approval the Lily Pond was approved for removal and reconstruction as a planter, in a smaller configuration, at another location on the site. She confirmed that the marble copping was planned for reuse on the new structure. She confirmed that the Lily Pond and other garden features are designated as Local Landmarks noting that the nomination was submitted by the previous property owner. Chairman Pairitz stated that through this project, a very significant artifact along the lakefront could be saved. He stated that the loss of the Lily Pond is the compromise that would be made. He stated that the existing housing is not historic. He noted that in 2012, the Commission’s discussion focused primarily on the historic garden elements. Commissioner Travers recalled that Commissioner Athenson raised concerns about the proposed demolition of the house. Chairman Pairitz stated that there are some significant changes to what was previously proposed. He noted that the underground garage has been eliminated and instead of reconstruction of the Lily Pond in a smaller form, reuse of the material from the pond is proposed to support restoration and to create a smaller water feature near the entry court. He commented on use of shutters on the front elevation noting that the center windows only have shutters on one side. He asked for an explanation of the reasoning for that approach. He noted that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation commented that the large window on the right side of the front elevation appears out of scale. He invited comments, questions and deliberations from the Commission. Commissioner Travers pointed out that when this matter was previously considered by the Commission a considerable amount of background material was provided. He stated that it would be appropriate for that material to be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 14 made available to the Commission, particularly the new members, and re- entered into the record at this point of the process. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak explained that since the request is for a renewal and extension, the previously submitted material is part of the record and can be re-distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Preschlack recalled that as previously approved, the removal of the Lily Pond was in exchange for restoration of the bluff terraces. He noted that the existing pond was approved for removal and some of the materials from the pond were going to be used to construct a new pond, about a third of the size of the existing pond. He stated that he understands the emotional attachment to the pond but noted that it is out of context on the site. He stated that the use of the original material from the Lily Pond will make proper restoration of the terraces and access to the beach possible. He stated that the material from the pond is an asset that can be leveraged. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mario Machnicki stated that at the time he was introduced to the project, the Lily pond was already approved for removal and reconstruction as a smaller feature. He stated that the quality of the restoration of the terraces will not be the same if the marble from the Lily Pond, which came from the same quarry as the materials on the terrace, is not available for reuse. He stated that for this project, having the opportunity to use the material from the pond is a once in a lifetime opportunity. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mario Machnicki reviewed the findings with respect to the condition of the terraces based on the additional assessment completed since the 2012 approval. He explained that the first two years of the restoration work will address hazardous conditions. He stated that the marble from the Lily Pond and the marble recovered from the Lake will be left to dry out and will not be used in the first years of the work. He stated that the material found on the site and in the Lake will be used for larger sculptures and the material from the Lily Pond will be used for the smaller work using the “Dutchman” method. He stated that at the completion of the restoration, the terraces and associated features will be close to original with all of the features recreated. He acknowledged that the areas where materials were replaced will be visible but will be part of the history of the restoration. He stated that the features will be well pronounced and that the terraces will be able to be enjoyed safely by the owner. He stated that some periodic maintenance over the years will be needed but noted that if the restoration is done properly, the need for ongoing maintenance will be minimized. He stated that proper restoration will be done and not plastic patches will be used. He stated that the “Dutchman” process results in hairline size joints and will allow the structure to last another 100 years or more. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mario Marchnicki, stated that 30 to 50 percent of the material from the Lily Pond will be used in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 15 restoration of the terraces at a minimum. He stated that the idea of using the remaining curved pieces to create a new water feature near the entry court is an excellent idea. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Czerniak stated that de- designation is not requested since reuse of the material on the site is planned. She stated that the only original element of the Lily Pond is the coping. She stated that the previous approval also involved removal and reuse of the coping. Commissioner Travers questioned whether any other designated landmarks have been demolished without City Council action. He stated that the petition was previously presented based on the fact that the Lily Pond was not being demolished. He suggested that to be on the safe side, de-designation should be considered. Commissioner Preschlack commented that the previously approved plan included construction of a new pond that was a different size and intended for a different purpose than the existing Lily Pond. He stated as approved, the pond was not preserved. He noted that the proposal for another water feature, in the spirit of the Lily Pond and using the coping, is consistent with the previous approval. Commissioner Wheeler stated the materials of the Lily Pond are being harvested for use elsewhere on the site. He stated that due to insensitive planning when the subdivision was designed; the pond is a white elephant on what today is essentially a fragment farm. Commissioner Travers stated that the Lily Pond is visible from the streetscape and could be improved over what exists today. He stated that there is no public access to the bluff. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, Hearing none, the opened the floor for deliberations. Commissioner Wheeler stated if the elements of the pond can be put to better use by restoring the Lake terraces, so be it. He noted however that the terraces are not visible to the public, except from the Lake. Commissioner Preschlack questioned whether the Commission is placing an inordinate amount of weight on preserving elements of an estate that were not well protected or planned for as a result of previous actions. He stated that the property owner is willing to do significant preservation work on features that have been neglected. He stated that the owners are proposing to do work that would not likely be a priority to others. He stated that in his opinion, the proposed project strikes the right balance and serves the community’s interest. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 16 In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Commissioners Alfe and Wheeler stated that they were unsure whether reviewing the previous materials reviewed by the Commission for this petition would change their inclinations to support the request to allow the coping from the Lily Pond to be used to restore the terraces. Both stated a willingness to review the materials previously submitted. Chairman Pairitz stated that in his opinion, if the petition is denied, it is likely that the Lake terraces will be lost over time. He stated that it is likely that the existing house will remain and that a new owner will likely do some further work to repair the Lily Pond to sustain it. Commissioner Wheeler stated the in its current state, the Lily Pond is totally out of context and has lost its significance. Commissioner Travers stated that the new members of the Commission should have access to the previous record on this petition. Chairman Pairitz asked for Commission comments on the changes proposed to the replacement residence. Commissioner Preschlack commented that the detailing appears overly ornate and suggested that some simplification would be appropriate. He reiterated the previous questions about the single shutter on the window on the front elevation. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged that the shutters have not changed from the plans previously approved but suggested that a response from the architect explaining the design rationale would be appropriate. He stated that he is not concerned that the front elevation is overly busy but suggested that further review of that point may be appropriate. He acknowledged that the appearance of busyness could also be a line weight issue on the drawings. He stated that he understands the link to the style of the original estate given the fact that the new residence will be alongside the Lake terraces. He questioned whether the large shutters are appropriate to the selected architectural style. He expressed an interest in understanding more about how the new residence will relate to the artifacts that will be restored. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that there is a back staircase and that the landing can be seen through the edge of the large window. Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to the November 19th Commission meeting. He stated that this will allow time for the materials previously submitted to the Commission as background on this project to be redistributed and to allow the question of whether de-designation is required to be explored with the City Attorney. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 30, 2014 - Page 17 Commissioner Preschlack seconded the motion and it was approved in a vote of 4 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments presented to the Commission. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development