Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014/11/19 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the November 19, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, November 19, 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, Jim Preschlack, Susan Athenson and Mary Ellen Swenson Commissioners absent: None 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. Consideration of the minutes of the October 30, 2014 meeting. The minutes of the October 30, 2014 meeting were approved with a correction as requested by Commissioner Travers. Commissioner Travers asked for an update on the outstanding minutes and requested that copies of the Certificates of Appropriateness be provided to the Commission. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve a new residence and the associated landscape plan on vacant property located at 1120 Elm Tree road. The Commission previously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new residence on this property for different owners. The project now proposed is similar to the previous proposal. No variance is requested. Owners: Harry and Bea Hoopis 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 petition noting that he was before the Commission earlier this year, in May, for a new house on this property but noted that since that time, the ownership of the property has changed along with the plans for the house. He stated that the design is similar to the design previously approved by the Commission. He reviewed the changes from the earlier design and the conceptual landscape plan. He noted that the changes include the addition of a screened porch and some reduction in other areas to accommodate the porch within the allowable square footage. He reviewed the floor plan and stated that the massing and scale of the house are consistent with other residences in the neighborhood. He reviewed renderings and elevations and described the exterior materials and detailing. He commented on the organized placement of the windows. He presented samples of exterior materials. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 2 John Mariani, Mariani Landscape, reviewed the landscape plan and tree preservation plan. He stated that the house now proposed has a smaller footprint than the previous house and as a result, there is little impact to existing trees. He stated that the important trees on the site will not be impacted; only the trees within the footprint of the new house, which are not significant trees, will be removed. He noted that in response to requests from the neighbors to the south and west, appropriate landscaping is planned to screen the new house from the neighboring homes. He reviewed the palette of plant materials noting that they are naturalistic and in keeping with the architecture of the new house and the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the intent is to plant the site so that it appears like the house has been on the site for a while. He stated that the existing hedge along Woodland Road will be removed noting that it is an invasive species. He stated that more formal plantings will be located closer to the house. Ms. Czerniak explained that as a result of the modifications to the plans, a slight adjustment is needed to bring the new house within the allowable square footage. She stated confidence that staff can work with the petitioner to eliminate the overage with no substantial change to the plans. She stated that as the final landscape plans are developed, the City’s Certified Arborist will work with the petitioner to ensure that appropriate plantings are planned along Woodland Road and to provide some screening from neighboring residences. She stated that findings are included in the staff report in support of the project along with recommended conditions of approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Dupree explained that there is a hierarchy of windows on the house. He pointed out that there are many examples in the community that blend casement and double hung windows. He stated that he does not believe that there is an inherent conflict with blending the window types as proposed. He stated that the intent is to make the house appear as though it has evolved over time. Commissioner Athenson commented that in her opinion, the windows appear inconsistent with the Colonial Cape Cod style. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. DePree reviewed the windows as they appear on the elevations and on the renderings. He stated that some variety in scale and character adds charm to the residence. He acknowledged that the windows are not repeated around the house but noted that importantly, the proportions are consistent. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. DePree reviewed the details of the screen porch. He stated that the detailing and windows on the screen porch will repeat those found on the house. He confirmed that the windows will be individual screened panels. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the setbacks for the property confirming that the plan presented conforms to the applicable setbacks. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that the plan is consistent with the Code limitation which limits building coverage of the lot to 30%. She stated that the Code does not limit the total amount of impervious surface. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. DePree stated the house has a low Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 3 profile to allow it to fit more quietly into the neighborhood. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. DePree acknowledged the considerable pitch of Woodland Road and stated that at the time plans are submitted for permit, all required drainage and grading plans will be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Mariani explained that the two evergreens identified are on the neighbor’s property and will be preserved. He reviewed the trees on the site noting those that will be preserved and reviewed the drainage patterns stating that the trees that are being preserved will not be impacted. He identified the trees that are located within the footprint of the proposed house and pool noting that they are slated for removal. He said that the rear yard is fairly open and stated that vegetation will be planted to screen the pool from Woodland Road. He described the existing vegetation that will remain and reviewed the proposed plantings along the west and south property lines. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment; hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson complimented the project and the elegant design. She commented that the design is consistent with traditional infill and is subordinate to the older homes. She asked that further consideration be given to making the windows more consistent around the house. Commissioner Preschlack agreed with Commissioner Athenson’s observations about the windows, but stated that he is willing to defer to the architect and homeowner in this case. He complimented the landscape plan and stated support for the project. In response to comments from Commissioner Athenson about the minor building scale overage, Chairman Pairitz noted that variances from the allowable square footage are usually granted based on a hardship or a need related to making the house more serviceable. He stated confidence that the petitioner can find a way to mitigate the overage since this is new construction. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the new single family dwelling, overall site plan and the conceptual landscape plan 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. a. The project must be in full compliance with the Building Scale Ordinance. b. 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. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 4 2. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the extent possible with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices. 3. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and that the required replacement is provided on site or through a payment in lieu of on site plantings. 4. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Canopy and mid-story plantings are provided along Woodland Road, particularly near the northwest corner of the site to screen views of the west elevation of the house including the shed dormer. b. The setback distance of the driveway from the south property line is maximized to the extent possible, and in no case is less than five feet, and that landscaping is provided in this area to provide screening between the two houses. c. Inch for inch replacement for the trees removed from the site is provided on the plan if there is adequate land area to support the plantings or is covered in part by a payment in lieu of on site plantings. 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. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 7. 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 Athenson and was approved in a 7 to 0 vote. 4. Presentation of preliminary concepts for replacement of the Woodbine Bridge located on Lake Road, north of Woodbine Lane. Commission and public input is requested. No action is requested at this time. Owner: City of Lake Forest Representative: Robert Ells, Engineering Superintendent, City of Lake Forest David Shannon, P.E. Lochner Ken Magnus, P.E. CFM, Bridge Program Manager, Bleck Engineering Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 5 Chairman Pairitz invited a presentation from City staff noting that this presentation is an introduction of this City project for initial input. Mr. Ells introduced the project noting that preliminary engineering is underway to identify options for addressing issues with the Woodbine Bridge. He stated that the bridge is located on Lake Road, north of Woodbine Road. He introduced the City’s consultant, Mr. Shannon, who is conducting the analysis. He said the project is presented to the Commission and the public at this time for input prior to the selection of a design for a replacement bridge. He provided some background on the bridge noting that it was built about 100 years ago and is in poor condition despite the rehabilitation that was completed 38 years ago. He stated that out of 100 possible points on the IDOT rating system, the bridge received 33 points. He explained that given the condition of the bridge, replacement, rather than restoration and repair, is proposed. He stated that replacement is recommended for bridges that score below 50 on the IDOT scale. He noted that the concrete arches and piers are original to the bridge and are in an advanced state of deterioration. He noted that the piers show signs of cracking. He pointed out that the bridge deck is 18’ wide, narrower than Lake Road which is 21’ wide. He stated that the existing sidewalk on the west side of Lake Road is only 3-1/2’ wide and does not meet accessibility requirements. He stated that the bridge railings were replaced in 1978 and are deteriorating. He added that they are a substandard height and that the gaps between the balusters do not meet the 4” maximum for safety. He said the State Historic Preservation Office accepted the recommendation for replacement of the bridge with the requirement that the design of the replacement bridge be submitted for State review for compatibility with the historic district. He explained that the City received Federal funds to support the preliminary design work. He explained that most of the preliminary work, including environmental and drainage analyses, and hydraulic studies, is completed. He stated that consideration of possible designs for the replacement bridge is underway. He reviewed photos of the existing bridge noting the deteriorated condition. He reviewed three styles proposed as options for the replacement bridge: a box beam design which could be slightly arched to mimic a spandrel arch, a steel plate girder design which is similar to the box beam design, or a spandrel arch design. He stated that staff recommends the spandrel arch option for the greatest consistency with the existing bridge. He acknowledged that the replacement is proposed with a single, open arch to avoid locating a pier in the ravine. He stated that although this will not replicate the historic design, this option will minimize any impact to the ravine and will result in the removal of all concrete structures from the ravine. He reviewed an elevation of the existing railings reiterating that they were replaced in 1978 and are deteriorating. He presented an option for a replacement railing that meets current standards for height and closely mimics the existing railing. He presented some other options for the railings. He stated that the intent is to construct a replacement bridge that appears much like the existing bridge. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that the initial technical studies have been completed and that input and direction is requested from the Commission prior to preliminary work on a design for a replacement bridge. She stated that input is requested on whether the design should mimic the historic bridge or go in a different direction. She stated that the design phase of the project is expected to take about 12-months. Chairman Pairitz questioned if it is possible to rehabilitate, rather than replace, the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 6 existing bridge and if not, whether it is possible to completely rebuild the bridge exactly as it exists today. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Shannon, the City’s consulting engineer, explained that a physical inspection of the bridge was conducted and a number of issues were identified. He stated that the bridge cannot be repaired because of the age of the concrete. He noted that there is failure occurring internal to the structure because of water infiltration. He explained that the concrete filled spandrel is collecting water because the top is not sealed. He stated that it would be prohibitively expensive to repair the bridge. He added that there are questions about whether the foundations of the piers are intact noting that the original plans for the bridge are not available. He stated that the bridge as currently constructed is a design that was popular 100 years ago. He pointed out that there are better ways to build bridges today. He stated that the State and Federal agencies may entertain a project that repairs the bridge but commented that in his opinion, there is no reason to pursue that approach. He stated that there are ways to recreate the existing bridge with a replacement bridge. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Shannon confirmed that it may be possible to restore the existing bridge but that approach would be too expensive. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Shannon confirmed that the railings were reconstructed in the late 1970s. Commissioner Preschlack stated that it will be important for the Commission to understand what elements remain from the original bridge and who designed the original bridge. He stated that understanding the historical context and the approach taken on other bridges in Lake Forest will be helpful to the Commission in considering how this project should proceed. He added that it would be helpful to have some information on projected costs for the different options noting that in the past, community members have gotten involved in preserving important structures. He stated that based on the information presented to date, he is less inclined to move toward replacement, rather than restoration. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Ells clarified that the concrete arches and the piers are original to the bridge. He stated that the rest of the bridge was replaced in 1978. He confirmed that original plans for the bridge have not yet been found but acknowledged that there may be local resources that could assist in finding the plans. He stated that there are 15 vehicle bridges in Lake Forest and 10 have been reconstructed or rehabilitated in the last 10 years. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Maureen Grinnell stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation. She stated that the bridge is a Century old and was constructed during the time of David Adle r and Howard Van Doren Shaw. She noted that the bridge was designed to allow unique views of the Lake and the ravine. She stated that the architectural integrity and the beauty should be preserved. She noted that the existing bridge only has a sidewalk on the west side of the bridge but the proposed plan adds a sidewalk on the east side where there are no connecting sidewalks. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 7 open balusters allow views through the bridge. She compared the proposed plans with the existing bridge noting that the three spans are replaced with a single arch. She pointed out that changes are proposed in the height of the railing and width of the railing cap. She stated that the thinner, taller bridge that is proposed will be inconsistent with the historic character of the bridge and will be detrimental to the character of the Historic District and the Lake Road streetscape. She stated that in recent conversations with the State Historic Preservation Agency, the Foundation learned that IDOT’s requirements can and will be waived for historic bridges. She stated that the Foundation urges that the bridge restoration be considered by IDOT under a special review. She urged ongoing discussion and planning and a focus on restoration of the bridge consistent with the current character. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Grinnell stated that when viewed in elevation, the existing bridge is a closed spandrel arch but the proposed plan indicates an open spandrel arch, a significant difference. She suggested that mimicking the current design would be more aesthetically pleasing. She noted that the existing railing is the same width at the top and at the base. Marina Currier, President of the Lake Forest Garden Club, stated the Garden Club’s interest in the history of bridges and past involvement in preservation. She stated that in the past there were discussions about filling in the ravines and the Garden Club was involved in seeking mutually beneficial solutions. She questioned why widening the bridge and adding a sidewalk on the east side of the bridge is important. She stated that a sidewalk on the east side will not connect to anything since there are no sidewalks on the east side of Lake Road. She stated that the best way to keep speeds down on the road is to keep the bridge narrow rather than widening it. John Dick, 900 Woodbine Road, provided photo shopped images of a closed spandrel bridge noting that the bridge will look different with one long open space. He noted that the information sent to the neighbors did not show the proposed expanded width of the bridge. He pointed out the additional mass that will be added with the proposed plan. He noted the comment that the ravine would not be disturbed but noted the side abutments of cement that would be needed. He stated that the abutments would be located in the steep slope setback and could disturb the ravine more than expected. He presented a photo with a second 8’ sidewalk drawn to reflect the increased overall width. He stated that the additional width of the bridge will impact some trees. He urged caution in considering the changes proposed. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Pairitz commented that a sidewalk on both sides of the bridge is not a good idea. He invited response to public testimony. Mr. Shannon clarified that the sidewalk on both sides of the bridge is proposed as a safety measure noting that it will give people a place of refuge on the east side of the bridge. He added that the sidewalk also separates the road from the bridge railing to protect the railing without installing a guard rail. He stated that to do something differently, variances will need to be requested from the Federal and State governments and the City will need to explain the reasons for the requested variances. Chairman Pairitz stated that he heard a preference for more focus on character and less Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 8 focus on execution. He invited comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson commented that the proposed increased width of the bridge seems to be an area of concern. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Shannon, stated that the bridge is not individually listed, but is in the historic district. He stated that any replacement would need to be designed in keeping with the character of the district. He discussed the possibility of a curb and how that would affect the width of the bridge. He reiterated that variances can be requested. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Shannon stated that the existing sidewalk is not wide enough to meet current requirements making it necessary to widen the bridge deck. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Shannon stated that the requirements are fairly strict with respect to the height of the railing and width of the gaps between the balusters. Commissioner Athenson stated that the balusters should be replicated to the extent possible. Commissioner Preschlack questioned how many accidents have occurred on the bridge and stated that information would be helpful. He stated a preference for remaining within the existing footprint of the bridge. He urged the engineers to be sensitive to the feedback from the neighbors regarding the appearance of the bridge. He stated that every effort should be made to replicate the existing bridge. Commissioner Swenson questioned whether the Commission, with the information now available, would support demolition of the bridge. Chairman Pairitz summarized that the intent of the presentation was to get information out about the Woodbine bridge project that is being considered and to provide input. He stated that the engineers have said that the bridge is not safe in its present condition. He stated that work is needed to determine whether the bridge can be rebuilt, or needs to be replaced. In response to comments from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Shannon stated that if the bridge was truly a historic bridge it could be repaired but cautioned that it may need the same type of repairs again in ten years. He stated that the bridge has reached the end of its life noting that it was already repaired in 1978. Chairman Pairitz stated that economic impacts are not under the purview of the Commission. He stated that it is important to understand if rebuilding the bridge is a real option and if so, any drawbacks associated with that approach including the longevity of the repairs. Commissioner Preschlack said that in the future, if the Commission is presented with a request to demolish the bridge and replace it, the standard demolition criteria will need to be considered. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz stated that safety issues need to be considered. Commissioner Travers stated if in fact it is demonstrated that the bridge needs to be removed, it seems that the best approach would be to replace it with a bridge that replicates the existing bridge to the extent possible. He stated that in his opinion, all modern safety standards should be met. Ms. Czerniak summarized that the Commission would like further information explaining whether or not the existing bridge can be repaired and what the drawbacks, if any, of that approach would be. She noted that if the need for replacement is justified, the Commission’s direction is that the replacement bridge should mimic, to the extent possible, the existing bridge while at the same time, meeting reasonable modern safety standards. She stated that updates on this project will be presented to the Commission throughout the design development and study process. She stated that eventually, the Commission will need to consider a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certification of Appropriateness approving exterior restoration of the Deerpath Inn, 255 Illinois Road. No variance is requested. Owner: Lake Forest Investments, LLC Representative: Mark Knauer, Knauer Incorporated Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Knauer noted that the team for the restoration of the Deerpath Inn includes experts in restoration, historic preservation and construction including Gunny Harboe, Cline Hoffman and Stephen Wright. He added that Craig Bergmann Landscape is also part of the team. He reviewed the restoration work presented to the Commission at a previous meeting which included restoration of the windows and exterior materials. He reviewed the various elevations of the building noting the different roof forms and exterior materials. He noted that all of the windows are steel casement windows and commented that Stanley Anderson put a lot of thought into the windows using a variation on a theme. He stated that all of the windows are original, but some have been modified over time. He stated that two glazing systems are used, putty and a lead pane diamond pattern. He stated that all of the windows will be restored to their original operating condition adding that where needed, the leaded glass sections will be rebuilt. He stated that for the most part, the windows are in good condition. He stated that the window air conditioner units will be removed. He stated that all original doors and hardware will remain. He discussed the exterior materials noting that there are two types of masonry on the building, a rough set stone which is in good condition noting that restoration will be completed as needed. He stated that the brick areas are not in good condition explaining that some of the red mortar has dried and fallen out. He stated that the brick will be restored including the brick sills and stone copping and as needed, replaced with like materials. He stated that all of the wood trim and faux half timbering will be refinished and restored. He noted that the stucco on the original building is cement stucco and that EIFS was used on the 1990’s addition. He stated that the true stucco is in good condition but there are areas of the EIFS that need repair. He added that the EIFS is slightly different in color and will be recolored to better match the true stucco. He pointed out that there are presently a series of dormers and skylights in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 10 roof structure and explained that the skylights will be replaced with dormers for consistency. He added that the third floor windows will be replaced with steel frame, divided light, thermal paned windows for the comfort of the guests. He stated that the various storm windows will be replaced with consistent interior storms. He explained that there are two roofing systems on the building noting that the missing clay tiles will be replaced with in kind materials. He stated that all of the flat roofs will all be replaced noting that they are not visible from the street because of their location behind the mansard roof. He stated that all of the non-original components of the drainage system will be replaced with original materials. He reviewed the garden room replacement structure. He stated that the existing structure will be removed and noted that currently it bifurcates the four arched windows in the main dining room. He stated that the windows will be opened up and restored. He explained that the garden room will be replaced with a conservatory with a planted roof and parapets. He reviewed images and the detailing of the proposed conservatory. He discussed the changes proposed to the entry to the Bar on the east elevation. He noted a covered entrance will be added and will be configured to respect the grandeur of the windows in the Hearth Room. He explained that the existing stairs to the entrance will remain and the awning will be replaced. He stated that the existing signs around the Deerpath Inn will be replaced with a new face and presented images of the proposed replacement signs. He stated that the signage is intended to be subtle and will be the same size as the existing signs and at the same locations. Ms. Czerniak stated that this project is very similar to the Market Square restoration. She stated that in conjunction with exterior restoration, significant interior upgrades and renovation is underway as well. She stated that the guest rooms and main dining room of the Deerpath Inn are currently closed. She stated that the intention of the new owners is to restore the Inn and preserve it as a community landmark. She noted that findings are included in the staff report in support of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Knauer stated that to the extent possible, the ivy on the building will be preserved but he noted that extensive work is planned and the ivy will be impacted. He stated that Craig Bergmann will be involved in the efforts to protect and replant the ivy. He acknowledged that the ivy is part of the historic of the Inn. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Knauer stated they are proposing lighting under the canopy, but none on the building. He added that there are street lights in front of the building which will remain. He stated that the existing lantern will be removed. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Knauer explained that replacing all of the EIFS on Windsor Hall with real stucco is not in the budget. He reiterated that the EIFS will be repaired where needed. He stated that for the most part, it is in fairly good condition. He stated that the color difference will be addressed. He spoke to the chimney caps and buttresses stating that the missing elements will be replaced. He stated that the intent is to return the appearance to the 1929 look of the building. Commissioner Athenson encouraged the petitioner to replace the EIFS stucco with cement stucco in the future when funds are available in order to match the historic original cement stucco. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 11 In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Knauer explained that the air handlers on the roof of the conservatory will be located behind the parapet wall. He explained that a very small unit is being considered and will be screened not only from the ground, but also from the guest room windows above. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment; hearing none, he invited further comments from the Commission. Hearing none, he invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving restoration, repair and replacement of limited exterior materials consistent with the plan presented by the petitioner. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the materials submitted and presented by the petitioner and the deliberations of the Commission as additional findings. The approval is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the approved work, staff, in consultation with the Commission Chairman as appropriate, is directed to review the plans and materials submitted for permit. Depending on the extent of replacement that is determined to be necessary, at the direction of staff, on site mock ups of replacement material shall be installed to allow confirmation of consistency with the original materials to the extent possible. 2. Staff is directed to conduct ongoing inspections as the work progresses. 3. The petitioner is directed to return to the Commission with detailed plans of 1) the Garden Room, 2) awning frames and fabric and 3) signage. These items are not included in the current approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Athenson and was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 6. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of the existing residence at 20 E. Laurel Avenue and approval of a replacement residence, attached and detached garages, driveway modifications and a preliminary landscape plan. No variance is requested. Owner: Donald and Nancy Surber Representative: Betsy Williams, Orren Pickell Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he is involved in projects with Orren Pickell but stated that he can rule on the petition objectively. Chairman Pairitz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Surber stated that when they purchased the home, their vision was to live near the Central Business District, have a home with a first floor master bedroom, on a country-like property. He stated that the property is 1.3 acres. He stated that since the last meeting, he met with and listened to the neighbors and City staff. He introduced the project Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 12 team to review the revised plan. Ms. Williams reviewed the concerns raised by the neighbors. She stated that there is concern about existing drainage on the properties to the east. She stated that the proposed plan will improve upon the existing drainage conditions. She pointed out that the footprint of the house was moved to the west to provide a larger area within which to construct a berm and plant landscaping to provide screening along the east property line. She reviewed a conceptual landscape plan for the east property line noting the enhanced plantings now planned. She stated that in response to suggestions from the Commission, the existing house will be well documented prior to demolition. She noted that in response to concerns about the height of the garages, they were lowered by 3 feet. She stated that concerns about the front façade were addressed by removing the gazebo and adding a wrap-around porch. She stated that the dormers, the overall front façade and the exterior materials were simplified. She stated that the roof forms were simplified and modified to achieve more consistency. She discussed the garages and explained that the amount of fill proposed in that area was reduced. She confirmed that the height of the garages will meet the City’s regulations. She reviewed the measures taken to mitigate the impact of headlights on neighboring properties. She reviewed views of the property as they exist today from the neighboring homes. She concluded stating that the drainage is addressed and that additional landscaping can be added to the plan if determined to be necessary. Jeff Cooper, project engineer, reviewed the storm water drainage patterns on the site. He stated that the new house will be at generally the same location as the existing house and noted that the top of foundation is proposed at the same height as the existing house. He stated that the main concern of the neighbors is that the driveway is relocated from the west to the east side of the property with the new plan. He reviewed the drainage patterns in the area east of the proposed house and noted the setback distance from the property line. He stated that the proposed drainage swale has about double the capacity needed to handle the runoff from the Surber property. He stated that in his opinion, the project will improve upon the current drainage situation on the neighboring properties. Ms. Czerniak noted that this project was previously before the Commission and several concerns were raised. She acknowledged that considerable work was done since the previous meeting to simplify the proposed replacement residence. She stated that at the rear of the site, some fill is still proposed and suggested that further work be done as the plans are developed to minimize the amount of fill to the extent possible, consistent with good engineering practices. She stated that the remaining concern is the proposed location of the driveway on the east side of the property. She acknowledged that shifting the house further to the west provides more space for a swale and plantings but noted that the swale may jeopardize some of the existing trees and vegetation. She added that the swale will limit the new vegetation that can be planted. She stated staff support for the project as detailed in the staff report subject to conditions of approval including a requirement that the driveway to remain on the west side of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Pickell explained that the relocation of the driveway has a strong design basis. He stated that the Surbers intend to use the front yard and porch often and would like cars to be able to approach the front porch. He talked about the layout of the house which maximizes natural light into key Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 13 living spaces. He pointed out that by removing the existing house, and the long addition to the rear of the house, the neighboring houses to the east gain open space. He stated that the setback of the proposed house is a significant improvement. He stated that the Surbers like the concept of approaching the house across the front lawn which is typical of how sites are designed today. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Pickell confirmed that options for retaining the driveway on the west side of the site were considered. He explained that be locating the driveway on the east side of the property, hardscape is eliminated from the back yard. In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Surber pointed out that the property is unique because it has five adjacent properties. He stated that the concerns raised focus on impacts to the two neighbors to the east, but not the other neighboring properties. He confirmed that the existing detached garage, in the northwest corner of the property, will be removed. In response to questions form Commissioners Alfe and Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff did not receive any alternative site plans that retain the driveway on the west side. She acknowledged that some alterations may be needed to the house to accommodate a driveway on the west side. She stated that a shift in the location of the curb cut to the east could impact neighbors and trees. Commissioner Athenson suggested that consideration be given to further simplification of the gambrel roof or removal of the swoop. In response to a request from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Pickell provided an overview on the architectural style of the house. He stated that at the last meeting, the Commission indicated general support for the style of the house, but requested simplification of various elements. He stated that in his opinion, the swoop on the gambrel is a classic detail. He stated that the gambrel style is desired by the Surbers. He pointed out that the gambrel entry ties in well with the main roof. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Pickell explained that since the last meeting, the height of the gambrel element was lowered and the board and batten treatment in the gambrel was removed. He stated that consideration was given to removing the swoop, but the owners decided to keep that element. He explained that if the driveway is relocated back to the west side of the property, the house will need to shift to the east, closer to the neighboring homes. He suggested that the driveway on the east side provides openness for the neighboring properties. Commissioner Athenson commended the historic assessment prepared by Ms. Benjamin’s office. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Benjamin stated that the information learned through the research about the people who lived in the house was fascinating. She stated however that the house is difficult to understand and that architecturally, it is not consistent. She noted that the later additions to the house are not sympathetic to the original structure and in fact make it difficult to identify the elements of the original structure. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 14 Commissioner Travers suggested the inclusion, if practical, of a facsimile of the memoir and related art by Marian Phelps Douglas, be submitted as a historical record to the City’s archives. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Steve Cross, Cross Engineering, stated that he represents the three property owners to the east. He stated that he reviewed the plans and concluded that the driveway should remain on the west side of the property. He noted that the impact of headlights from the driveway on the west side of the property is mitigated because the neighboring house is not in line with the driveway and is well screened. He stated that by relocating the driveway to the east side of the property, existing trees near the property line will be impacted and activity near the east property line will increase with landscapers, plows and other vehicles on the driveway. He stated that new trees will not provide adequate screening. He reviewed the existing impervious surface and current drainage patterns. He reviewed a section through the proposed swale and berm and commented that the images provided are misleading. He stated that in his opinion, the swale will not be able to accommodate the run off and stated that the swale is in conflict with both existing trees and with some of the proposed trees. He stated that there is no guarantee that the swale will work. He stated agreement with the staff recommendation that the driveway should remain on the west side of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Cross provided a more detailed description of the proposed swale and berm. He stated that the swale will not work as intended if it is cut around existing and proposed trees. He stated that the proposed berm is not very tall and commented that water drainage to the east could be exacerbated. Kathy Griffith, 50 E. Laurel Avenue, stated that she has no objection to the proposed demolition or plans for the new house, but has real concerns about the impact of the proposed driveway on her home and backyard. She stated that her yard is already very damp and that she is concerned about water coming toward her house. She stated that she has lost 11 ash trees on her property reducing the screening that previously existed. Hearing no more public testimony, Chairman Pairitz invited final questions and comments from the Commission. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that moving the driveway closer to the house as it crosses the yard may be possible, but she stated that a plan with that configuration was not presented for consideration. She noted that drainage and impacts on vegetation may still be concerns in the area where the driveway extends along the east property line. Chairman Pairitz noted that it is difficult for the Commission to approve the petition with the condition as presented by staff without understanding how the driveway issue will be resolved. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 15 Mr. Surber suggested that the Commission approve the demolition and the replacement residence. He stated that he heard new information during the testimony from the neighbor about water concerns. He stated that some re-working of the plans will be necessary to move the driveway to the west side of the property. Commissioner Athenson stated that locating the driveway on the east side of the site presents a significant hardship to the neighboring properties. She stated that since this plan involves demolition and new construction, modifications are possible. She suggested that the petition be continued to allow alternative site plans to be explored. Commissioner Swenson acknowledged that the impacts of the headlights on the neighboring properties is an issue, but questioned why the issue cannot be addressed with more vegetation, trees or fencing. Commissioner Preschlack stated that he is trying to understand whether the location of the driveway is causing concern because it is simply a change or whether the relocation is a true hardship on the neighboring properties. He stated that the relocation of the driveway to the east side of the lot creates an impact not just from headlights, but also from increased activity and possible drainage impacts. He suggested that consideration be given to a plan that retains the driveway on the west side of the property, but reduces the amount of hardscape in the rear yard. He commended the work done to modify the plan to simplify the house. He stated that he would like to see alternatives explored to address the remaining issues. Chairman Pairitz agreed that some refinement is needed and that further review may be appropriate. Commissioner Alfe agreed that relocating the driveway could necessitate some significant changes to the plan. He noted that changes could raise concerns from the neighbors on the west side. He stated support for the demolition and the overall design of the house. He stated that it is appropriate to offer the petitioner the opportunity to consider options. Commissioner Swenson stated that she can support the project with the driveway on the east side as proposed. Commissioner Preschlack stated that he is confident that there is an option that locates the driveway on the west side that could be approved. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that there are alternatives and stated confidence that a workable solution can be found. Commissioners Athenson and Travers stated support for the recommendation in the staff report and retaining the driveway on the west side of the property. Commissioner Alfe stated he that he has difficulty supporting the petition requiring the driveway on the west side of the site without seeing the site plan. Ms. Czerniak offered that the Commission could appoint a subcommittee to review a revised site plan with the driveway on the west side. She stated that the subcommittee Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 16 could be authorized to approve the site plan if the overall project is consistent with the materials presented to the Commission. Commissioner Swenson stated that the rear yard should not be paved. Chairman Pairitz explained to the petitioner that if the Commission approves the petition and appoints a subcommittee, the change of the driveway from the east to the west side could be approved without returning to the full Commission if the plan is acceptable to the subcommittee. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence and approving a new single family residence generally consistent with the plans presented to the Commission with modifications as detailed in the conditions of approval that follow. He noted that in particular, the driveway must be relocated to the west side of the site. He stated that the motion is based on the findings as 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. 1. The final site plan is subject to review by a subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Commission as appointed by the Commission Chairman. The driveway shall remain on the west side of the property and the site plan and buildings plans revised accordingly. 2. An Historic Assessment Report, complete with exterior photographs shall be submitted to the City, and be subject to City approval, for the purpose of documenting the existing house and its history for the City archives. A copy of the report shall also be provided to the Historical Society. 3. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as approved by the Commission. Staff is directed to confirm that the plans submitted for permit are in compliance with the Commission’s discussion and direction prior to the issuance of a building permit and staff shall confer with the Chairman as appropriate. a. Reflect modifications necessary to accommodate the driveway remaining in generally the existing location. b. If any modifications are proposed, beyond those discussed and directed by the Commission, 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. 5. Minimize the grade change on the site. To the extent possible, with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices, modify the plan to maintain to the existing grades to minimize tree impacts on and off the site, avoid changes in overland drainage patterns that could impact neighboring properties and avoid accentuating the height of the garages. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 17 6. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, and Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist is directed to review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chance of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are provided on site or through a payment in lieu of on- site plantings if there is not sufficient space to meet the required replacement plantings. 7. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: a. The west and east property lines are adequately landscaped to provide screening of the driveway, garage doors and the driveway apron. b. The landscaped character of the streetscape is preserved. c. Any increase in building height, as a result of the grade changes on the site, particularly for the detached garage, is mitigated by landscape screening. 8. 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. Given the large lot, all staging and parking shall occur on the site. No parking of construction vehicles is permitted on public streets. 9. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 10. 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 7 to 0 approve the petition. 7. Continued consideration of a request for renewal, extension and modifications to a Certification of Appropriateness for property located at 595 Circle Lane. No variance is requested. Owner: Terry and Lori Rozdolsky Representatives: John Krasnodebski, architect Susan Benjamin, Preservation Consultant Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 18 hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the project and the team noting that the Commission has reviewed this project several times in the past, most recently two weeks ago. He reviewed that the Lake access staircase and terraces are a key feature of the site and explained that in order to restore those features, use of the coping from the Lily Pool is proposed to achieve the best possible result. He showed photos of the property, streetscape and the historic elements on the site. He pointed out that there is some grade change from the street to the property and as a result, views of the Lily Pool from the streetscape are limited. He reviewed the proposed replacement residence noting that cues were taken from Howard Van Doren Shaw’s designs. He noted that at the last meeting, the Commission raised some questions about the large window on the front elevation. He provided references used for the window. He described the proposed wrought iron railings and provided images of precedents for the use of wrought iron noting that the petitioners like the lightness of wrought iron. He reviewed that removal of the Lily Pond is now proposed to allow reuse of the coping on the Lake terraces. He stated that any remaining coping will be used to create a water feature at the front of the house. He reviewed the site plan noting that the underground garage and access ramp were eliminated from the plan. He explained that with the removal of the Lily Pond, the two wings of the house are able to be sited further apart providing a more elegant courtyard. He stated that the plan complies with all requirements and no variances are requested. He reviewed the previously approved elevations and the elevations now proposed. He again noted the large window explaining that it provides an asymmetrical balance to the house. He described the shutters stating the intention to have bi-fold shutters with hardware on both sides and enough dimension to fully cover the French door. He introduced Ms. Benjamin to speak to the historic aspects of the property. Ms. Benjamin stated that she wrote a report on this property some time ago. She stated that this property presents difficult decisions. She stated that there are several historic features on the property, all in disrepair. She stated that in her opinion, the water cascade element is so significant, as part of the Lake terraces, that it should be preserved. She stated that walking around the water cascade; it is fascinating to understand the relationships and progression of space. She stated that this element is unique and unlike the Lily Pond, not found on other properties. She noted that the context of the Lily Pool has been lost. She explained that from historic photographs, it is clear that the Lily Pool was part of the much larger landscape treatment of the original estate. She stated that today, the Pool is isolated. She stated that the petitioners hired a superb masonry restoration expert, Mario Machnicki, to restore the Lake Terraces and water cascade element. She stated that using the coping from the Lily Pond will allow the restoration to occur properly preserving the most unique features on the site. She introduced Mr. Machnicki and his colleague, Donna Weiss. Ms. Weiss explained that along with Mr. Machnicki, she has spent a great deal of time studying the historic features on this site. She stated that the goal is to do the best possible job of restoring those features. She said that there were excited to find coping on the site that matches the color, texture and age of the coping on the terraces and water cascade. She stated that they conserve elements all around the world so harvesting materials from an historic element is not taken lightly. She explained that they spent much time studying the original drawings including an original plan of the Lily Pool. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 19 She stated that in the context of the larger plan, the Lily Pool was connected to a bowling green with an inner and outer walkway she stated that only the inner ring, which encompasses the pond itself, exists today. She stated that much of the coping is in a state of deterioration and the original fountains and marble basin are gone. She stated that the only historic feature remaining on the Pool is the coping. She noted that the brick pavers are part original, part replacement. She stated that in addition to using the marble coping from the Pool on the terraces, the original brick pavers will be used on the terraces as well. She showed photos of the original Pool and the Pool as it exists today. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the follow up that occurred since the last meeting. She confirmed that staff consulted the City Attorney and the Attorney confirmed that since the materials from one of the garden elements are being adaptively reused to restore another garden element on the site, de-designation is not necessary. She confirmed that the materials previously submitted for this property as part of an earlier petition were made available to the members of the Commission along with information on past Commission actions with respect to this property. She reviewed that the request now before the Commission is for extension and modification of the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness. She stated that the staff report offers findings in support of the request. She commented that extraordinary due diligence has been completed to date as part of this project. She stated that this may be the last opportunity to preserve a significant historic element on this site. Chairman Pairitz reviewed the Commission’s discussion at the last meeting noting that the matter was continued to allow the newer Commissioners to become familiar with the project and past Commission actions. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that a significant portion of the marble coping from the pond, 40 to 50 percent, will be used to recreate details on the Lake terraces. He stated that any leftover coping will be used to create a new water feature at the front of the house. He stated that the brick pavers will be reused on the brick terrace. He explained that efforts were made to find marble from other sources, but a good match was not found. He stated that marble from other sources was not compatible in color or texture. He stated that restoration without the marble from the pond would be inferior to what can be achieved with the marble on site. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Weiss confirmed that the floor of the Pool was marble based on the original drawings. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the designation of the property identified the historic garden features as a whole. Chairman Pairitz added that the original intent of the designation was to preserve the Lily Pool but the Commission is now faced with an opportunity to restore and preserve one element at the cost of another. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Benjamin confirmed stated the Lily Pool was awkwardly located on the lot when subdivision of the estate occurred. She confirmed that she reviewed the materials presented by Mr. Miller. She stated that there is a hierarchy of importance to the elements on the site. She stated that the relationship Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 20 that exists between the remaining elements is very important and the Pool is an orphan. Commissioner Athenson stated she was on the Commission when the earlier petition was presented. She stated that at that time, the Lily Pool was impacting the owner’s ability to construct the house they wanted. She stated that what is presented now, removal of the Pool, is very different. Mr. Rozdolsky, property owner, explained that after considerable thought, they realized that the plan previously approved was a forced design, a plan that tried to please everyone. He stated that the approved plan does not work. He noted that key windows of the house were blocked due to the configuration of the house and the courtyard was not appropriately sized. He stated that the design necessitated an underground garage and the house was unlivable. He stated that separately, a restoration firm was hired to conduct further due diligence to determine what was required to restore the Lake Terraces. He explained that he learned a great deal about how important careful restoration work is to a successful project. He stated that the Lily Pool is just a portion of the original Pool and nothing like the terraces which are deteriorating, but intact. He stated that previous work restoration on the garden elements was done improperly and has accelerated the deterioration. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Machnicki stated that garden features such as those located on this property are built to last hundreds of years. He stated that unfortunately, the previous efforts to repair the structures amounted to vandalism due to improper materials and poor workmanship. He stated that with appropriate repairs and proper materials, once restored, the Lake terraces should last hundreds of years with relatively little maintenance. He stated that longevity of the structures is contingent on using materials from the same quarry and veins like those that are available on site. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Krasnodebski noted the precedent for louvered, rather than panel shutters. He explained that the quoins will be similar in color to the brick and stated that the detailing is appropriate for the style of the house. He stated that the brackets under the windows on the first floor can be added back if desired. He reviewed the details of the columns at the front entry noting that the two center columns are circular and the side columns, square. He reviewed the precedent for the columns as proposed. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Pauline Mohr, 927 Barclay Circle, pointed out that the reference used for the large window was not part of the original estate house but instead, was installed as part of a major renovation of the house in the 1980’s. A resident of 75 Ashbury Court thanked the petitioner for his passion for the property and the desire to complete the restoration properly. She questioned what was going to happen with the chunks of concrete from the original pool now in the Lake. She agreed that the Lily Pool in its current location is awkward and noted that the Lake terraces can be seen by the public from the Lake. Chairman Pairitz commented that based on the information presented by the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 21 petitioner’s team, some of the remnant materials in the Lake will be harvested, dried and used in the restoration. In response to a request from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Machnicki reviewed his background and talked about some of the projects he has worked on around the world. He stated that he changed preservation standards in North America. Commissioner Travers commented that good has come from this review process and stated his hope that more good will come from it. He stated that the review of this petition has resulted in some greater clarity about the process and requirements. He noted that this review process has clarified that renewals of Certificates of Appropriateness are neither automatic, nor forbidden. He stated that as now presented, the petition proposes the demolition of the pond that was based on the work of Charles A. Platte whose work is significant. He stated that the reflecting pool is in good condition noting that the concrete floor was re-poured, the coping is generally in good condition and the bricks are in place. He stated that the primary basis for requesting removal seems to be that the subdivision was not well laid out. He stated that the petitioner believes that the best use of the reflecting pool is to salvage the materials for use elsewhere on the site. He noted that City staff consulted with the City Attorney and received the opinion that the Commission can approve demolition of the reflecting pond without first considering a de-designation of the element. He noted that staff has specifically evaluated the reflecting pool based on the demolition criteria. He stated that from a process standpoint, those are all good things. He noted that neighbors have been involved throughout this review process and several residents have written lengthy correspondence speaking to the proposed removal of the pond. He quoted from several letters. He stated that there is more than one layer of historic significance. He stated that further evaluation of the 1909 elements would be informative to the process. He stated that retention of the Lily Pool should be a condition of approval. Commissioner Athenson stated appreciation for all the work done on the project. She agreed that the Lake terrace is a fabulous feature but stated that unfortunately, not many people see it. She stated that the owners knew that the Lily Pool was a landmarked feature when they bought the property. She stated that she cannot support demolition of the Pool because a landmark feature will be lost. She said that in her opinion, demolition of the house should not be approved either. She stated that if the Lily Pool is demolished, a larger house can be built. She stated that the project should be approached differently. She stated that the demolition of the Lily Pond will be detrimental to the public interest because it is visible from the public street. She pointed out that in the future, the bowling green could be restored on the lot next door and the loss of the Pond would then be regretted. She stated that the larger issue is that the Pond is a landmarked feature and it is the Commission’s job to protect it. She stated there is probably another way to restore the Lake terraces without the use of the coping from the Lily Pool. She stated that she cannot support the project as proposed. Commissioner Wheeler said that he visited the site and was impressed with the uniqueness of the Lake terraces. He said that walking around the Lily Pool gave him the sense of an abandoned element. He stated that the original house gave the Pool meaning, however by itself; it is not a unique element. He stated that reuse of the marble coping from the Pool to restore the other features on the site is reasonable. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 22 Commissioner Preschlack stated that preservation is a balancing act. He stated that this property is not a museum. He acknowledged that the Lily Pool was called out in the designation but stated that the Commission is faced with a decision to allow the proper restoration of a very unique element, or require preservation of all of the elements and not support the proposed restoration. He commented that it is disingenuous to say that if someone supports what is proposed, they are against preservation. He stated that the Commission’s role is to be flexible. He said that he comes down on the side of the petitioner, in support of allowing the desired home to be built in the context of allowing reuse of the materials as necessary to properly restore the unique elements. Commissioner Alfe agreed with Commissioner Preschlack’s comments. He stated that he is convinced that the proposed plan provides for the best possible restoration of the Lake terraces. He acknowledged that is it unfortunate that a tradeoff needs to be made, but stated that he would like to see the restoration of the terraces done in the best possible manner. Commissioner Swenson stated that the water terraces are incredible and in her opinion, need to be saved. She stated preservation of the terraces outweighs preservation of the Lily Pool. Chairman Pairitz stated that it is the Commission’s job to consider all information presented and all points of view. He acknowledged that it is each Commissioner’s prerogative to evaluate the information in relation to the standards as they see fit. He stated appreciation for Commissioner Travers’ thorough review of the Code provisions and the required processes. He also applauded the efforts to salvage and restore the more important features on the site. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 motion approves a modified Certificate of Appropriateness as follows. 1. Approval of the reuse of the Lily Pool coping for the Lake terraces and the construction of a new fountain at the motor court subject to the condition that photo documentation of the existing Lily Pond is submitted, in a form acceptable to the City, prior to the issuance of a permit authorizing dismantling of the Pond. 2. Approval of the revised plans for the replacement residence. 3. Amendment of Condition 2 to require: 1) Submittal of a timeline for the restoration work subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a permit for the demolition of the existing house. The timeline shall be in the form of a signed agreement acknowledging that the demolition permit and subsequent permits are issued based on the representation that the restoration work will be completed in accordance with the schedule. 2) If work is not completed in accordance with the completion date specified in the approved timeline, the property owners shall post financial guarantees, in addition to those ordinarily required as part of the issuance of a permit, to assure Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 19, 2014 - Page 23 completion of the work and the open permits for the restoration work shall be recorded as open permits on the property deed. 4. Amendment of Condition 4 to authorize a single restoration consulting firm deemed to be qualified and acceptable to the City, to oversee the work and prepare progress and quality assurance reports for submittal to the City. As provided for in the City Code, the City reserves the right to bring in an independent consulting firm, at the expense of the property owner, if deemed necessary to verify progress and quality. 5. Amend of Condition 9 to acknowledge that to accomplish the restoration work, some activity will need to occur in the steep slope setback area and will be permitted only with prior review and approval by the City Engineer. Commissioner Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 2 to approve the petition with Commissioners Athenson and Travers voting nay. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments presented to the Commission. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development