Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2013/09/25 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the September 25, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz and Commissioners John Travers, Robert Alfe, Jim Preschlack, Bill Ransom and Mary Ellen Swenson Commissioners absent: Commissioner Susan Rafferty Athenson City staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Michelle Friedrich, Planning Assistant 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz 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 of the April 24, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the April 24, 2013 meeting were approved with one correction as requested by Commissioner Travers. 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving alterations to a garden wall with the incorporation of a new breezeway and mudroom at 885 Maplewood Road. A building scale variance is requested. Owners: Troy and Michele Ihlanfeldt 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 and explained that since the last presentation on this project, he was hired by the owners to develop a solution that responds to the concerns previously raised by the Commission while at the same time provid ing for safe passage between the house and garage. He showed images of the existing house, garage, overall site and streetscape. He pointed out the 7- foot wall that surrounds the property noting that the wall represents a theme that is carried throughout the site. He reviewed the neighborhood by presenting images of surrounding homes and streetscapes. He reviewed the existing conditions on the site explaining that an addition , constructed in 2002, included a stepped, curved garden wall, aligned flush with the front entry door, which is now Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 2 proposed for removal. He noted that the wall is the only curvilinear element on the site and stated an interest in replacing it with an element that is in keeping with the existing garden walls which are rectilinear in form. He noted that the challenge of the project is to connect the two story garage to the house in a manner that is in keeping with the rest of the property. He noted that the modifications to the w all in this area, and the planned landscape improvements, will enhance the axial symmetry through the center of the home, extending out in to the rear yard. He reviewed an enlarged plan and commented that programmatically, since the kitchen is on the far east side of the home and the garage is on the west, a transition space between the garage and more formal parts of the home, in the form of a rear entry hall and mud room, is planned. He stated that in addition, the project will resolve some architectural inconsistencies that exist on the front façade. He reviewed the proposed and existing front elevation. He stated that design cues for the project were taken from the existing garden walls and the paneled, arched doors on the front elevation. He noted that as now proposed, no openings are introduced in the connector element to avoid competing with the main entry and existing front façade. He pointed out that removal of the curved wall puts more focus on the original front façade of the home. He noted from the rear of the home, an existing pergola, at the back of the garage is visible. He stated that the pergola will be removed and replaced with a wall to be more consistent with the relationship of courtyards and garden walls found throughout the property. He noted that the appearance of the garage will be simplified by removing the brick wall and stand alone column, and that the garage will appropriately appear as subservient to the house. He reviewed images of the existing condition and a rendering of the proposed changes. He showed an image of the proposed project from the interior yard noting its appropriateness in relation to the existing house. He noted that the changes provide the opportunity for a stronger connection between the house and the yard. He introduced Mr. Ihlanfeldt, the property owner, to speak to the landscaping. Mr. Ihlanfeldt reviewed the proposed landscape plan noting that the plantings are sympathetic to the historic home. He stated that after purchasing the house, his family did extensive restoration work inside the main part of the house. He noted his family’s connection to Lake Forest and gardening. He reviewed the landscape plan noting the efforts to add access points and views from the house into the gardens. He stated that traditional parterre gardens are planned on the rear terrace with plantings including boxwood and roses. He stated that the gardens are influenced by French gardens, but are not intended to be formal replicas. He pointed out that the gardens are set back from the house providing a clear path to move through the space and to provide views of the gardens from various windows in the house. He discussed the symmetry, and in some areas, the asymmetrical nature of the house and gardens noting the use of consistent themes. He pointed out some areas of gardens that were added since his family purchased the property. He said that two of the garden gates original to the property were located and he explained how they will be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 3 incorporated into the planned gardens. He noted that espalier plantings are planned to highlight the gates and noted the existing red bud espalier on the garden wall . He stated that the garden is planned to have a fresh, European character and to interact with the house to a greater extent than it does today. He pointed out that today, the backyard is only accessible from the formal living room and stated that the proposed plan will make the back yard more useable for the family. Chairman Pairitz invited staff comments. Ms. Neuman noted that this petition was first heard by the Commission in June at which time it was continued to allow further exploration of options for a connection between the house and garage. She stated that staff is aware that the petitioner and the project architect explored several designs before selecting the design now presented. She noted that the property has unique characteristics and noted that the intimacy of the courtyard and garden spaces and the garden wall surrounding the property influenced the design now presented. She noted that as proposed, the project re-exposes the corner of the front entry element by pulling the curved wall away from the house. She noted that this allows the front entry to be viewed as originally intended. She added that the mass of the garden wall is pushed back on the property and as a result, it will not be as prominent from the limited streetscape view or upon entering the property as it is today. She stated that a building scale variance is requested and that based on staff’s review, the request meets the variance criteria. She stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report. She noted that a letter was received from the Preservation Foundation and was provided to the Commission. She added that prior to the June meeting, some correspondence was received from neighbors regarding construction traffic and materials staging. She stated that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan for access; staging and storage will be required and will be reviewed by staff with an eye toward minimizing neighborhood impact to the extent possible. Chairman Pairitz invited questions from the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman reviewed that the square footage of table land is counted fully in calculating the allowable square footage for a house; however, the square footage of the non-table land portion of a property is only counted at 50%. She stated that in this case, the total lot is 38,000 square feet however due to the presence of the ravine and non- table land, the allowable square footage for the house is calculated on only 35,600 square feet. Mr. DePree added that in the case of this house, non-livable area in the attic is counted as part of the square footage of the house due to the steep pitched roof. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 4 In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Ihlanfeldt reviewed the landscaping proposed in front of the proposed connector element. He stated that the landscaping will be simple and similar to what exists today with the intent of allowing the architecture to dominate. He pointed out that with the planned changes; there will be a wider planting bed due to the greater setback of the wall than what exists today. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. DePree reviewed alternatives that were explored before settling on the solution now presented. He noted that the curved wall, especially as a full height structure, became overwhelming. He stated that little can be done to minimize the overwhelming effect because the wall curves toward the front of the property and as a result, the perception of height and mass increases. He shared his observation that the charm of th e house is in part the small windows punctuating the large mass. He stated that if more windows are added, they would detract from the dominate massing of the house and the overall character. He stated that the intent with the plan presented is to construct something that does not attract the eye but instead, keeps the focus on the original structure, strengthening the front façade and gable end. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. DePree stated that the intent is to keep the wall as short as possible. He stated that a parapet was explored, but instead, a limestone coping, with a flat copper roof; similar to the detail on the original garden wall , is planned. He described the slight drip edge that will be visible at the front of the wall but stated that the wall will not appear to have a roof and will appear similar to the original wall. He stated that the copper drip edge could be zinc coated to blend with the limestone to appear as lead, a product which is no longer available. He confirmed that the intent is to minimize the appearance of flashing at the top of the wall. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Plan, stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Preservation Foundation and commented that the project is well designed. She stated that she discussed the project with Paul Bergmann, the keeper of the Stanley Anderson archives, and he provided input that great care should be taken to protect the detail of the existing stonework noting that it is some of the finest in the community. Commissioner Ransom stated that in his opinion, the solution presented is a good one. He commented that removing the curved wall and setting the new wall further back benefits the property. He stated support for the building scale variance noting that the magnitude of the variance is small and as a result, a good solution is achieved. Commissioner Preschlack concurred with Commissioner Ransom’s comments in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 5 support of the project. Commissioner Travers stated support for the project. He noted, for the record that the City Council will consider this petition since a variance is requested. He stated that the request for a building scale variance was evaluated by the Commission and staff based on the standards in the Code, the same standards used by the Building Review Board. He noted that the Commission considers whether residential buildings appear over scaled for a particular lot. He noted that in this case, there is considerable land area removed from the calculation due to the non-table land in the ravine. He noted there are factors that mitigate the proposed mass of this project. Commissioner Swenson commented that the project presents an elegant solution and enhances the façade in a subtle manner. Chairman Pairitz stated that moving the wall back is a strong element of the proposed project. He added that this property is surrounded by a 7 foot wall noting that the proposed elements will be hard to see from off the site. He stated that in this case, the building scale overage is mitigated because the addition will have very limited visibility from off of the property. Commissioner Travers made a motion to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed additions and alterations to the residence and approval of a building scale variance to allow the addition to exceed the allowable maximum square footage by up to 12.2%. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and noted that the public testimony and the Commission’s deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation for approval is subject to the conditions listed below and to final approval of the building scale variance by the City Council. 1. 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. 2. Any modifications to the plan presented to the Commission shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the intent of the project as presented to the Commission prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved in a 6 – 0 vote. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 6 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the addition of a driveway gate and pillars at 39 S. Sheridan Road. Owner and Representative: Todd Buffington representing the 39 S. Sheridan Road LLC Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Buffington presented the project noting that the Commission previously approved renovations to the house and pointing out that entry pillars and a gate were approved as part of that project. He stated that after reviewing the work done at the site, it became clear that the pillars and gate were located at a pinch point in the driveway and would have the appearance of being in the yard, rather than at the entry. He presented a plan relocating the pillars and gate 20 feet closer to the street than originally proposed. He stated that the new location was selected to maintain a distance of at least 10 feet from a large oak tree to avoid impacting the trees. He noted that the natural streetscape vegetation in this area provides a good screen from the street. He reviewed the setback distances of the pillars from the historic wall next door, the property line and the road surface. He presented an elevation of the proposed pillars and gate. He stated that a simple wood gate with iron hardware is proposed supported by brick columns with limestone caps. He stated that the pillars will be painted white to match the house and the gate painted light to medium gray. He said that the address will be placed on one pillar and a mailbox will be set into the other pillar. He again noted the significant vegetation located near each of the pillars. He stated that a small area near the pillars will be landscaped more formally to announce the entrance. He reviewed some of the proposed plant materials. He provided views of the area in which the pillars and gate are proposed from various directions noting the limited visibility and limited impact on the streetscape. He showed images of other entrance gates and pillars along Sheridan Road. He stated that no illumination of the pillars or gates is proposed. Chairman Pairitz asked for staff comments. Ms. Neuman confirmed that a Certificate of Appropriateness was previously granted by the Commission approving significant modification s to the residence on th is property and stated that work on that project is well underway. She stated that after the project began taking shape, the petitioner identified the need to reconsider the location of the pillars and entrance gate. She asked that the Commission review the relationship of the proposed pillars and gate to the historic wall associated with the property to the south, the relationship of the pillars to the street and the proposed design of the pillars. She stated that the proposed pillars and gate are generally consistent with others located along Sheridan Road. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Buffington pointed out that there is significant vegetation surrounding the historic walls on the neighboring Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 7 property. He stated that as a result, the walls are not very noticeable from the street. He stated that he envisions the pillars and gate as a stand- alone element, not associated with the historic walls. Commissioner Ransom stated that when he visited the site, the historic walls were not easily visible behind the vegetation. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Buffington stated that the existing entrance lighting is not functional and will be removed. He stated that there will not be an automatic opener on the gate and stated his expectation that they will be left open. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Buffington reviewed other gates in the neighborhood from which he took inspiration . He reviewed the width of the columns noting that they are planned to be two full bricks, about 16 inches wide. He stated that the height of the pillars was reduced at the suggestion of staff and stated that the height as now proposed appears appropriate. He confirmed that the pillars will be painted to tie back to the house. He acknowledged that the width of the columns could be reduced, but stated that a mail box probably could not be accommodated in smaller pillars. He reviewed other pillars in the neighborhood pointing out that they are generally comparable in size to those proposed for this property. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Buffington stated that the distance between the pillars as proposed is similar to the distance between other pillars of similar size. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Buffington stated that the intent is to paint the gate to match the front door although he noted that a final decision on whether to paint or stain the front door has not been made. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment; hearing none, he stated that the project as presented appears to be acceptable. He noted that the pillars and gate are setback from the road and stated that the intent to keep the gate open most of the time is helpful. He stated that overall; the scale as proposed is acceptable noting that the pillars and gate will be well screened with landscaping. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for two non-illuminated brick pillars and a wooden gate. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and noted that the comments from the petitioner and the deliberations of the Commission are incorporated as additional findings . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and approved in a 6 – 0 vote. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 8 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the residence at 230 Mayflower Road and approving a replacement residence and related landscape plan. Owners: Scott and Nancy Krapf Representative: Mike Culligan, 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. Culligan introduced the project noting that when he was first contacted by the owners about demolition of the house he was concerned given the location on Mayflower Road. He stated however that after visiting the site, he was relieved to see that the house was not one that was in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood. He noted that the house had been vacant for several years before his clients purchased it. He explained that once he walked into the house, he understood the desire of the owners to demolish the house due to the 7 foot ceiling heights on the first floor. He stated that the site is magnificent. He noted that during early discussions, the owners raised questions about whether the house could be renovated, rather than demolished. He stated that renovating this house is difficult. He noted that there is an interior courtyard and presented photos of the courtyard. He acknowledged that the interior courtyard was probably a statement made by the original architect in design ing the house. He noted however that the courtyard presents difficulty in how the house is used and for the interior circulation pattern. He noted the location of the entrance hall, again pointing out the 7 foot ceiling height. He explained that the exterior and interior of the house are masonry and noted that as a result, there is hard feel to the structure. He stated that although the courtyard was a bold design move, the space does not get much light and is not inviting. He stated that when he is working with clients trying to decide whether to renovate a house or start over, he focuses first on the structure. He stated that in this case, the structure is excellent noting the oversized concrete foundation and concrete flooring throughout the house. He stated that the challenge is how to make the structure work in a way that meets current building codes and square footage restrictions. He noted that the house has a large footprint due to the hole in the middle. He stated that the courtyard cannot simply be filled in because with the addition of a second floor, the house would be considerably over the allowable square footage. He stated that the owners are very concerned about the understated design of the house and the fact that the house does not make a statement and is not in scale with other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that in considering how to make this house work, it was recognized that working within the footprint of the existing house will do less damage to the environment. He noted that initially, a Dutch Colonial style was considered and the massing and square footage seemed to work however, the design was difficult. He noted that moving on from those discussions, the work of David Adler was used as a reference and in particular, an Adler home in Libertyville was considered. He noted the low eave lines and stated that common brick is being considered with a white wash finish for an old world look. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 9 He introduced his colleague to provide detailed information on the project. Joel Rafferty reviewed the topography of the site noting the generally flat table land that slopes to the ravine just beyond the property line. He pointed out the circular drive and provided a section through the property. He reviewed the proposed plan noting that the existing footprint will generally remain and pointed out areas that will be infilled or removed. He noted that a bay window will be added to the front of the house and noted that the wing walls will remain and a wing wall will be added to the north side of the house. He stated that the existing landscaping will be cleaned up noting the heavy landscaping on the street side of the property. He stated that some crab apple trees and some diseased trees will be removed. He pointed out that the existing front elevation has a horizontal feel with a low roof and low ceiling height and as a result, is uninviting and harsh and except for the entry area, is devoid of details. He noted that the existing house appears lopsided with a second floor only in one area. He stated that the existing single pane windows are not energy efficient. He stated that the intent of the redesign of the house is to establish more bulk in the center of the home. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting key features. He noted the addition of windows in various areas. He described the front entry noting the use of glass, columns and a solid door. He stated that to keep the scale of the house down, the gable end is turned to the street. He noted that a bay window is added for ornamentation. He commented on the symmetry of the windows and the door and pointed out that existing lines are carried through the new design. He pointed out the new roof with a higher pitch noting that the raised roof brings scale to the center of the house and creates more solid planes. He described the proposed dormers and the arched transom proposed in the dining over the sliding glass door. He described the back entry noting its relation to the front entry and commenting that the back entry will be covered. He noted that many of the brick piers from the original house will be reused although some will be removed. He stated that the garages will remain and dormers will be added to bring light into the rooms above. He stated that new doors and windows will be installed throughout the house noting that the existing brick walls will be broken up with new windows. He provided a section through the center of the home. He stated that programmatically, the house remains much the same as the original house except that the kitchen will have a new layout. He stated that the second floor will be spread across the house, ceiling heights will be raised and some areas of the ceiling vaulted. He stated that one bedroom will be added on the second floor and all bedrooms will have bathrooms. He noted that currently on the second floor, there are three bedrooms and one bathroom in the hallway. He reviewed the roof plan, noting the areas that will remain and areas that will be added. He reviewed some of the other homes in the neighborhood and discussed the scale of those homes in relation to the house proposed. He provided a rendering of the proposed house and reviewed some of the details and proposed materials. He provided aerial images of the house and images of some of the architectural references used in developing the design. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 10 Chairman Pairitz invited staff comments. Ms. Neuman stated that the Commission does not see many requests for approvals of demolition s but noted that the Commission has specific review criteria on which to base review of such requests. She stated that this petition is presented at this time for information and to get initial comments from the Commission on the proposed demolition. She noted that the standards require evaluation of whether the structure proposed for demolition contributes to the character of the neighborhood or historic district, is an example of a unique or significant architectural style or is associated with a noted architect. She commented that the house proposed for demolition is a contemporary structure and noted that there are not many structures of this style in Lake Forest. She noted that the petitioner submitted an evaluation of the house prepared by an historic preservation consultant. She stated that the intent of the project is to change the character of the home and to achieve this goal; the changes that will be required constitute a complete demolition despite the fact that as proposed, the footprint of the house will be reused. She stated that if the Commission determines that the proposed demolition satisfies the demolition criteria, then consideration of the proposed replacement residence, based on the applicable standards, will be required. She stated that in considering the replacement residence, an evaluation of whether working within the existing building footprint will allow a design that meets the standards should be considered. She noted that a letter was provided to the Commission from the Preservation Foundation. She added that staff received several phone calls from neighboring residents asking for information about the scope of the project and size of the proposed home. She noted that callers commented that the existing house sits quietly in the landscaping. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Neuman explained that due to the magnitude of changes proposed to the existing structure and the significant change to the character, the project constitutes a complete demolition. She noted that over 50% of the existing structure and materials will be removed. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Rafferty discussed the term used to the architectural styles, “streamlined Tudor”, and added that Adler was looked to for reference as well. He noted that the front of the house is more “streamlined Colonial” with Tudor influences on the rear elevation . In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Culligan explained that in considering whether to reuse the existing footprint and walls, the existing floor plan was evaluated early in the process to determine if it was workable. He confirmed that he asked the question whether the floor plan is what would have been designed if the project started with a blank slate. He stated that the existing footprint is logical and provides good views into the yard. He stated that the problems are with the aesthetics of the elevations and the quirky void in the middle of the house. He stated that the interior courtyard is not desired by the new owners. He stated that the house is well built and there is economic and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 11 environmental value to reusing a significant portion of the house. He stated in this case, since the floor plan and structure of the house are good and the desired design can be accomplished reusing the existing house, the project is a win-win. He stated that what is proposed is a complete transformation of the house to a design that is the opposite of what exists today and acknowledged that from that perspective, the project is new construction. He acknowledged that there are constraints since the walls are existing and the new project needs to conform to those limitations. Commissioner Preschlack observed that fitting the new into the old presents some problems. He noted the importance of having a unifying design concept to understand the motivation for the design presented. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Culligan reiterated that the existing floor plan makes sense for the project. He stated that the scale of the project is consistent with the scale that would have resulted from designing a house from a clean slate on this property. He stated that starting with a fresh design would have likely ended up in about the same place as the design presented. He noted that many aspects of the existing house work. He stated that the proposed design is appropriate for the neighborhood noting the presence of garden walls on many properties in Lake Forest. He acknowledged that the replacement residence will need to achieve an appropriate scale and an appropriate level of design and detailing. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Culligan referenced an image of a house that was used as a precedent for this project noting the mix of window styles uses. He stated that all elements of the structure do not need to be strictly traditional. Chairman Pairitz stated agreement with the point raised by Commissioner Swenson noting that the detailing and relative size of the masses on the house referenced are different from what is proposed. He suggested that the relationship between the two be further studied. He noted for instance that as presented, the bay window appears diminutive relative to the entry. Commissioner Travers suggested that more discussion of the demolition request is appropriate before focusing on the proposed replacement structure given the Commission’s charge. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the property is within the east Lake Forest Local Historic District. Commissioner Travers referenced the report presented by a preservation consultant hired by the property owners. He noted that the report describes the property as a “large suburban lot” and described Mayflower Road as “a little traveled cul-de-sac”. He stated that in his experience, Mayflower Road is not a Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 12 little traveled cul-de-sac, but a unique and prominent location. He stated that the existing house offers a distinctive presence and that except for some existing foliage; the house would be visible from Mayflower Road. He stated that the site is significant and briefly commented on the history of the area. He asked the petitioner to speak to how the conclusion was reached that the house and site are not unique. He commented on other homes in the neighborhood noting the various styles and the proximity of the only Frank Lloyd Wright commission in the City of Lake Forest. He noted that many of the comments presented in the consultant’s report could be presumed to also apply to the Wright house. He stated his observation that this is a unique site. Mr. Culligan commented that as he drove up to property he realized that it was a great site. He acknowledged that he is not aware of the history of the site. He stated that the preservation consultant conducted a review and determined that the existing house does not represent one of the better works of the architect. He stated that evaluation of the design of the existing house is subjective noting that people have different tastes and opinions. Commissioner Travers noted that Mr. Lanza has in the past been identified as a significant architect in the City of Lake Forest. He noted a brochure published by the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation that describes the existing house and identifies Mr. Lanza as a noted architect. He stated that the information available is as odds with the consultant’s report. Mr. Culligan stated that he has no comment on the significance, or lack thereof of the architect. Chairman Pairitz noted that this petition is presented at this time for comment and direction. He stated that various questions, areas of interest and concerns have been raised making it clear to the petitioner and staff where more information and study is needed. He noted the Commission’s intent to be helpful in providing direction to the petitioner in relation to whether convincing evidence has been presented that the criteria on which the Commission is charged with making its decisions are satisfied. He stated that he does not expect the Commission to get to the point of being able to make a motion on this petition on this matter this evening. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Rafferty reviewed the height of the existing house in comparison to the proposed house. He stated that the residence proposed is 10 to11 feet below the maximum allowable height permitted in the Code. He stated that the wall height will be raised by a couple brick courses. He noted that the increase in height will eliminate the squatty look of the existing house in relation to the new roofs. He stated that the increase in the wall height improves the proportion of the wall in relation to the roof and stated that the increase is necessary to provide the desired taller ceiling heights and provide more room in the second floor bedrooms. He stated that the wing walls Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 13 remain at the existing height. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Rafferty confirmed that at the present time, views of the house from the street are limited to down the driveway noting that the vegetation along the street will be opened up with the proposed plan providing views of the house from the street. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Kerry, from Mariani Landscaping, described the existing vegetation on the site and stated that the intent is to retain the existing mature spruce along the perimeter of the site. She stated that diseased, dead and hazardous trees will be removed. She stated that keeping the healthy, mature trees is important to give scale to the project. She stated that the trees proposed for removal are crab apple trees, ash and are generally insignificant. She stated that the streetscape will be similar to what exists today however; the crab apple tree in the center of the driveway is proposed for removal opening up views to the house from the street. She stated that some shrubbery will be added to replace vegetation along the streetscape that has gotten leggy. Commissioner Alfe stated that he is regrets seeing the changes proposed and stated that the changes will result in the loss of a modern piece of architecture. He stated that the significant amount of modification proposed will make the original house unrecognizable. He stated that in their present form, the elevations are confusing. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Rafferty explained that the windows reflected by dots on the south elevation will not be visible from the exterior. He explained that the elliptical transom windows help to break up the existing brick wall and the repetition of windows. He pointed out that the new building element on which the elliptical forms are used extends out from the house and adds a different character with the copper roof. He explained that no muntins are proposed in the windows on the rear elevation because they will not be visible from the street. He added that a different effect was desired in this area along with clear views out to the rear yard. Chairman Pairitz suggested that the Commission think about the big picture and not get mired in the details at this point. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Raf ferty pointed out that matching the new courses of bricks to the existing bricks and mortar will be difficult. He stated that painting the brick is a solution to that problem and will hide any mis- matched brick. He added that the client desires white brick. He said that those involved in this project are aware of the role of Chicago common brick. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Place, stated that she is representing the Preservation Foundation. She invited everyone to read an article in last week’s Lake Forester Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 14 about a family that bought a modern home in Lake Forest, were uncertain at first, but after renovation, fell in love with it. She stated that the Preservation Foundation recently presented an award to those property owners. She stated that there is not a good reason to demolish this house. She stated that in five years, the house will be designated as a Contributing Structure to the District noting that it meets the criteria for a Local Landmark. She stated that Bal Lanza, the architect, fit the house to the landscape and did it well. She noted that in each of Mr. Lanza’s houses, there is light within the house, and forest outside. She noted that if additional space is needed, that could be accommodated by appropriate extensions. She stated that one of the nice things about the property is that it cannot be seen from the street noting that the common brick blends into the landscape. She stated that the house presently fits into the forest. She stated that there is a mix of houses in Lake Forest and that make up is special to the community. Charenton Drake, 255 Mayflower Road, stated that she lives in Shaw’s first house, constructed in 1897. She stated that she had the privilege of putting the house back together after someone else “modernized” it. She stated that the work took about 6 years and she acknowledged that the house is not perfect for today’s modern family. She questioned why someone would buy a traditional house if they wanted a modern home, and why someone would buy a modern house if they wanted a traditional one. She noted that this house appears to be very different from what the owners want. She stated that she lives across the street and noted that the existing house is nestled into the site, is inconspicuous and is constructed of beautiful brick. She stated that the neighborhood has an interesting architectural character and the existing house blends in architecturally to the surroundings. She acknowledged that the landscaping needs some attention, but stated that it does not need to be removed. She stated her hope that the house will not be demolished. She stated that if the house is torn down, rather than deal with mis- matching brick on a new home, why not consider a different material? She stated that a big white house will not be consistent with the quiet streetscape. She stated that the existing home is interesting and quiet. She stated that the existing home was described as having no character and various challenges. She stated disagreement with those conclusions. She asked that if a new house is constructed, the Commission carefully consider the height, color, materials and the various kinds of windows that are proposed. She asked that the Commission require a design consist with good architectural concepts. She stated that the proposed change will have a big effect on the neighborhood. Rommy Lopat, 410 E. Woodland Road, stated that she disagrees with the claim that the proposed structure is Adler-esque adding that the description does a disservice to Mr. Adler. She asked the Commission, staff, the architect and the homeowner to appreciate the contemporary architecture of Lanza and the setting of the house. She reiterated that this residence is within 5 years of becoming designated as a Contributing Structure to the City’s Historic District. She stated that she has driven down Mayflower Road many times and agrees that the Glore house is a good comparison. She stated that she has been in the Glore Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 15 house many times and stated that the entry is about 6 feet in height and then opens up to a wonderful view of the natural setting through the windows. She stated that both homes are all about the landscape. She noted the importance of the interior courtyard noting recent discussions about the courtyard at the Krebs home, an Italian villa. She stated that the courtyard brings nature into the house. She stated her hope that the Commission will help to find a way to preserve the house. She pointed out that Adler had lesser houses and that they are preserved and improved, not torn down. Sanjay Gandhi, 210 N. Mayflower Road, stated that he lives directly south of this house. He stated that he has not yet met the new owners but stated an interest in working with them and surrounding neighbors to understand the impact the proposed changes will have on the community. He noted that bikers, joggers and vehicles travel down Mayflower Road but noted that he and the other neighbors in the area are the ones that will be truly impacted. He stated that he was in this home when it was on the market and considered whether it would be right for his family. He commented that architecture in Chicago is all about modifying structures for contemporary use. He stated that every day, he faces challenges due to the way his house is designed and laid out. He stated that historic homes need to be modernized but noted that there are amazing design elements on the home. He questioned the appropriateness of changing the fundamental character of the home. He stated that if the house is changed, it will be important to consider the details on all elevations. He noted the importance of the views of this property from the neighboring homes and encouraged the property owners and the Commission to view this home from neighboring properties and from the streetscape. He concluded noting that the removal of ash trees along his shared property line with the subject property should be taken into account as well. Chairman Pairitz stated that there is a high bar for demolition in this community. He summarized that the Commission has questions with respect to the historic report that was presented and suggested that moving forward; it would be good to have the historic preservation consultant in attendance at the meeting to answer specific questions. He suggested that the Commissioners provide additional specific questions to City staff which can be forwarded to the petitioner. He stated that he has not been in the house and commented that it would be helpful to have access to the house. He stated that at this point, the Commission has not heard enough information to support demolition of the house. He stated that there may be an avenue for demolition ; however the Commission will need additional facts to reach that decision. He stated that with the facts, the Commission will have a qualitative discussion about whether the house should be lost. Commissioner Preschlack stated that this project reminds him of the project on Westminster in which a Contributing Structure was proposed for demolition. He stated that the house now under consideration is of higher quality, more usable and more compatible with the surrounding homes than the house previously considered. He stated however that he is sensitive to the petitioner’s request. He Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 16 stated that the case for demolition needs to be made. He commented that the replacement structure, as described, is designed on a Lanza foundation, with Adler and Dutch Colonial influences and as presented, does not have a unifying theme and does not appear consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that there may be benefits to working with a lead architect who has a good understanding of the broader community and the context of the immediate neighborhood as occurred recently with architects brought in on the First Presbyterian Church and the Maplewood projects. He stated that the replacement structure should not be constrained by the Lanza footprint if that approach is taken. Commissioner Ransom articulated that there are two questions before the Commission, the demolition question and the evaluation of the replacement house. He stated that he found the replacement structure confusing with competing roof heights, various openings, different window types and expanses of solid walls. He acknowledged that perhaps his confusion stemmed from the two dimensional drawings. He noted that with respect to the demolition request, there are specific criteria on which the Commission must evaluate the request. He stated that based on the information available, this appears to be a close call. He acknowledged that after careful consideration, approvals have been granted to structures designed by significant architects. He noted that Lanza is known and different examples of Lanza properties are available. He noted that there is local interest in the property. He stated that the burden is on the petitioner to convince the Commission that the demolition criteria are met. He stated agreement that providing the Commission with the opportunity to talk to and question the preservation consultant will be very important to help the Commission reach a conclusion. Commissioner Travers stated that he read the materials provided and studied the petition. He agreed that he would like to view the interior of the structure. He stated his intent to address, specifically, the work of the preservation consultant. He stated an interest in challenging the report. He stated that based on the information available, the report does not appear to be the work of someone interested in preservation. He stated that the following should be taken into account: the property is within the Local Historic District and local National register district , the site is historically significant , and is located on a premier residential street in Lake Forest. He noted that if the v egetation is removed, the house would have a strong presence on Mayflower Road and would be visible from neighboring homes. He continued noting that the house was designed by a noted local and well respected architect who is considered to be of historical importance by local residents. He stated that if the Preservation Foundation publishes information about a home; that is a good indication of historic importance. He noted that this neighborhood is an interesting mix of modern homes. He pointed out that the Glore house is not even mentioned in the consultant’s report. He stated that the home is in good condition and appears well suited for continued habitation. He stated that when the Glore House was on the market, he visited the site because of an interest in living in a Wright house. He noted that he and his wife visited the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 17 property three times before realizing that they could not figure out how to live in the house. He noted however that he discovered that the family that bought the house figured out how to live in the house very graciously. He stated as a result of his decision, he purchased a house that is much less aesthetic, on a much less beautiful lot, but fits his lifestyle. He stated that modern houses are well regarded. He suggested that the petitioner might consider engaging a consultant who is more familiar with Lake Forest noting that a more comprehensive analysis taking into account the surrounding homes would be helpful to the process. Commissioner Swenson noted that the house on Westminster which was considered by the Commission had under gone significant demolition prior to Commission review due to a prior project that was not completed and a different set of circumstances. Chairman Pairitz added that the house on Westminster was replaced with a house of a similar architectural style. He summarized that the Commission highlighted various issues for further study. He acknowledged the various challenges face by the architect and petitioner on this petition stating appreciation for the effort put forth. Commissioner Alfe noted that he knew Mr. Lanza personally and stated that it is hard to not see the house preserved. He questioned whether there was any attempt to modify the home within the existin g vernacular or whether the new owners simply do not like the style . He stated that modification within the original style is work examination . Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue the petition to allow further study and to allow additional information to be presented to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and was approved by the Commission by a 6 to 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 25, 2013 - Page 18 Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development