Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2013/11/20 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the November 20, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, November 20, 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 Pairitz, Commissioners William Ransom, John Travers, Robert Alfe and Susan Athenson Commissioners absent: Commissioners Jim Preschlack and Mary Ellen Swenson City staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Acting Chairman Ransom 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 October 23, 2013 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The approval of the minutes of the October 23, 2013 meeting was postponed. 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a patio expansion and new outdoor lighting at Market House Restaurant, 655 Forest Avenue. Owner: MSQ Partners, LLC Mark and Carla Westcott Representative: Mark Westcott, Market House Restaurant, MH Fish House Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Westcott introduced the petition, provided background and showed photos of the restaurant before and after the improvements that have occurred under his ownership. He explained that this information demonstrates that good work has been completed to date with talented people involved in the improvements. He stated that the same people are involved in the redesign of the outdoor patio. He noted in particular the involvement and expertise of Mark Knauer, noting that he understands successful restaurants and the elements needed to support success from lighting to overall layout. He provided a photo of the existing patio noting that although it looks good, the wear is evident. He noted that the patio is on two levels with a step transitioning from one area to the other. He explained that the step is an uncommon height, is not well marked and is a trip hazard. He explained that due to the uneven grade of the patio, the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 2 tables are not level. He reviewed the existing layout of the patio and stated that with the planned improvements, the entire patio will be at one level. He reviewed the paver bricks proposed for the redesigned patio and commented that the color blend was selected to be compatible with the pavers used in Market Square. He noted that four or five different colors of bricks will be used. He confirmed that other hardscape materials were considered including bluestone and decorative concrete, but the bricks were selected for consistency with what exists in Market Square. He acknowledged that bricks can become unsettled and uneven, but noted that the same is true of other materials. He noted that bricks are easy to reset and create less of an impact on the trees. He stated that his team concluded that bricks are the right choice for this space. He noted the existing mix of lighting on the patio and explained that rather than replace and repair the existing lighting fixtures, new lighting is planned. He reviewed the lighting plan noting the intent to add 7 lights on posts along the streets, 5 sconces in the interior of the patio and 4 up lights into the trees. He reviewed photos of the intended fixtures. He stated that the posts will be 3 to 4 inches shorter than the existing lighting on the patio. He stated that the lights will have open tops to spread the light more evenly. He stated that the challenge is to determine how much how much light is needed to allow diners to enjoy their meal without over lighting the area. He stated his intent to not add more illumination than necessary. He noted that a lighting consultant was brought in with expertise in this area. He stated that the lights proposed were recommended to create the best balance of light on the site. He reviewed the fencing along the perimeter of the patio stating that it will remain, but will be reconfigured. He noted that at the northeast corner, the fence will be configured in a Z shape to work around elements in that area. He reviewed the landscape plan and explained that an exit, wide enough to meet life safety requirements, is required in the southeast corner of the patio. He talked specifically about the modifications to the overall patio plan since the last Commission meeting. He explained that it is critical to gain enough seating to justify the investment being made in the patio. He pointed out the after further review of the plan, consideration of the comments from the Commission and further discussion with the City’s Certified Arborist, a decision was made to remove the large Elm tree in the northeast corner of the patio. He noted that the tree has been trimmed extensively at the top and is nearing the time when it will pose a hazard to those below it. He noted that removal of the tree allow the patio to be configured more efficiently. He stated that a significant street tree will be planted on Bank Lane to, over time; replace the Elm that will be removed. He noted that landscaping will be added at the northeast corner of the patio to create a buffer between the patio and activity on the adjacent public sidewalk and street and reviewed various planting schemes for the area. Ms. Neuman stated that when this petition was before the Commission last month, the Commission provided input and direction to the petitioner. She stated that since that meeting, the petitioner has worked quickly to respond to the comments and prepare a revised plan. She noted that several alternatives were considered for the landscaping and configuration of the planting beds. She noted that staff, including the City’s Certified Arborist, met with the petitioner on site to discuss various options. She stated that after further evaluation, it was confirmed that the Elm tree in the northeast corner Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 3 of the patio is in declining condition and would likely not survive the modifications proposed to the patio. She noted that as it stands today, the tree has been trimmed and topped drastically and is supported by cables. She stated that the City’s Arborist concluded that it is likely that soon, the tree could present a hazard to the area. She explained that staff suggested that with removal of the Elm, a larger planting bed could be established at the corner in which, over time, a new large canopy tree could be re- established. She added that as replacement for the large tree that will be lost, the declining Ash tree on Bank Lane, across the street from the patio, would be replaced by the petitioner with a tree that would, over time, restore some level of a tree canopy to this area. She noted that staff recommends the plan that proposes boxwood hedge around the patio which will serve as a green buffer between the private patio and the public streetscape. She noted that a new tree is proposed in the corner planting bed which will over time provide a further buffer and a smaller canopy to soften the corner. She stated that questions remain for staff about whether the dimensions of the planting bed as proposed allow sufficient space for plants to grow and thrive over time. She commented on the proposed lighting plan noting that up lighting of trees is not common in Market Square today. She suggested that before up lighting is approved, it would be helpful to first install the other lighting as proposed and understand the intensity and impact it has on this corner of Market Square. She noted the importance of respecting the dark sky consistent with the City’s lighting guidelines and to not overwhelm the Market Square streetscape. She stated staff support for the proposed concepts for modification of the patio subject to the conditions of approval detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the plan reflecting the boxwood buffer, as opposed to the low ground cover, is presented as the preferred plan and the plan recommended by staff. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Westcott explained that the proposed lighting plan is intended to produce subtle, but even, lighting. He noted that information from the lighting consultant was included in the Commission’s packet in support of the plan. He stated that the intent is not to more intensely light some areas than others, but instead, to provide a consistent overall level of light. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Westcott clarified that the intent is to achieve a lighting level that is about three quarters of what exists on the patio today. He explained that lights on the patio were added over time without an overall plan and in an inconsistent manner. He reviewed the locations of the existing lights and explained that currently, some areas of the patio are brighter than they need to be and other areas have no light. He stated that the goal is a consistent level of lighting. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Westcott stated that the lighting consultant is not present and clarified that no specific report on lighting levels was prepared. He explained that the two existing post lights have four bulbs each and are randomly located. He confirmed that the existing fixtures are closed at the top and do not emit light upward. He explained that the proposed seven new post lights will have Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 4 one bulb each reducing the total number of bulbs in the post lights by one bulb. He confirmed that the fixtures are proposed as clear and will emit light in all directions. He confirmed that the fixtures are proposed at a height of 8’1”, above head height. Commissioner Travers pointed out that as proposed, three-quarters of the light produced by the fixtures located at the perimeter of the patio will be directed away from the patio, upwards or out to the streetscape, and only one-quarter of the light will be directed on to the patio where the light is desired. In response to comments from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Westcott noted that the sconces shown in the proposed plan will only shed light on to the patio. He noted that the consultant who developed the lighting plan has developed lighting plans for many exterior spaces. He stated that the proposed plan will yield a good dining experience and will be consistent with the overall area. Commissioner Travers stated appreciation for the photos of the lights provided in the packet noting that they offer good examples of how certain fixtures work and others do not. He noted that in the photos, the fixtures with open tops appear to be located under a roof area so that the light emitted upwards is reflected back down to the desired area. He noted that as proposed, the lights at the perimeter of the patio will emit light upwards and it will be lost to the sky and will not serve a functional purpose of lighting the patio. He added that lights on the building will provide focused lighting on the patio and avoid lighting areas off the site. In response to questions and comments from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Westcott explained that his team thought about a lot of options: open fixtures, closed fixtures, more light and less light. He stated that the goal was to try to strike a balance and provide enough light to assure a pleasant dining experience. He reiterated that the consultants who developed the plan have developed lighting plans for many restaurants and the plan presented is the best option. He stated that open fixtures are not uncommon. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Westcott noted that lights around the perimeter of the patio allow the space to be flexible. He noted that the patio may be set up differently for lunch and dinner. He confirmed that the patio lights will only be on during the outdoor dining season. He stated his intent to reassess the lighting once it is in place and adjust it as needed. He reiterated that the intention is that the light produced by the new fixtures will be close to what is produced by the existing fixtures. Commissioner Athenson commented that with the removal of the large tree and some of the understory plantings, the patio will have a very different appearance than exists today. She noted concern about whether there will be enough light in the interior of the patio. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Westcottt confirmed that after Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 5 installation, he will consult with staff to evaluate the lights and adjust the bulbs if necessary. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Westcott explained that the intent of the lighting is to achieve a brightness comparable to a full moon. He stated that he is following the recommendations of his lighting consultant. He stated that after installation, there will be some room for flexibility and he stated a willingness to work with the City to achieve an appropriate lighting level. He acknowledged that with the lights around the perimeter of the patio, a portion of the light will leave the site. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Neuman reviewed the recommendation from the City’s Arborist that the planting bed be adequately sized to allow a new tree and understory plantings to thrive. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Westcott commented that the tree proposed for removal looks healthy in the summer due to the leaves but pointed out that without the leaves; it is shocking to see how much of the top of the tree is gone. He noted that the City Arborist recommended that now is a good time to consider removing the tree in coordination with the work planned on the patio. He stated that the planting bed for the tree that will remain will not change. He confirmed that replacement trees will be planted to account for the tree that will be removed. In response to comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz suggested that the City Arborist be charged with determining an adequate size for the planting bed and the appropriate size for replacement trees. Commissioner Athenson stated that as presented, the landscape plan is not sufficiently detailed to allow approval by the Commission. Chairman Pairitz invited public comments. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, noted the importance of this site, at the heart of the City, between City Hall and Market Square. He suggested that the light fixtures should have a hood and direct light downward. He also suggested that stained glass could be used on the fixtures to mitigate the impacts of lighting. He commented on the lights at Ragdal e acknowledging that the application is different, but noted that the light is controlled and directed downward. He stated that the investment planned on the patio is good and he supported using a landscape architect who knows Lake Forest well. He also suggested that the Garden Clubs may be interested in offering input. He cautioned that the patio may change from a garden space to a single level terrace as a result of the landscape and lighting changes. He noted that a landscape architect will help to m anage that change appropriately maximizing the color opportunities and assure appropriate lighting. He suggested that container gardens could be used to provide a burst of color here and there. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Pairitiz invited comments from the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 6 Commissioner Athenson recognized the need to keep the restaurant viable. She stated that appropriate landscaping of the patio is the key to a successful project noting that what is proposed will be a dramatic change from the garden feel that exists today. She asked that the lighting be appropriately screened from both outside and inside the patio. She asked that a detailed landscape plan be provided noting that the addition of boxwood is a good concept. Mr. Westcott noted that Mark Knauer, a professional restaurant designer, is involved in the project as he was in the earlier improvements to the restaurant. Commissioner Travers noted that the dark sky concept is related to historic preservation. He questioned whether it is necessary to configure lighting fixtures in a way that directs three quarters of the light off of the site. He suggested that as a condition of approval, the petitioner be directed to redesign the perimeter lighting to minimize illumination of the sky, public way and neighboring areas while at the same time improving the lighting in the patio as desired. Commissioner Ransom agreed that a more detailed landscape plan is needed. He stated that based on the material presented, he does not have a sense of the proposed landscaping. He stated that he is not concerned about the lighting noting that the 40 watt bulbs proposed are minimal. He stated that with the staff recommendation to remove the up lighting, some of the lost lighting will be eliminated. Mr. Westcott stated that he is unclear of what a more detailed landscape plan would look like. Commissioner Alfe asked for clarification on the staff recommendation. Chairman Pairitz summarized that his understanding is that staff is recommending approval of the petition without the up lighting and with a condition requiring further clarification of the landscape plan. He noted that he was not present at the earlier meeting when this project was discussed but commented that the patio does not appear to be a historic relic of a garden but the proximity of the area to Market Square raises the bar for scrutiny. He commented that for prior petitions, the Commission has requested and received photometric studies. He stated that the studies are not hard to produce however; he acknowledged that unless one has an understanding of what they mean in terms of the appearance of light, they are not helpful to the pedestrian observer. He noted that people react to light differently in different situations. He stated that today, the patio area is dramatic with varying lighting levels which he acknowledged can make it hard to read a menu. He noted that a point of concern for him is that as it exists today, the patio is a dramatic and intimate space. He stated that what is proposed appears to be turning it into a larger and more brightly lit venue. He stated that he laments the loss of the existing condition but at the same time, he fully supports the investment, new talent and new operators. He stated that he accepts change but noted that in trying to accommodate new parties in historic areas, the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 7 Commission has not always been pleased with the results and in some cases, the approved plans and conditions have not been followed. He encouraged the petitioner to treat the property and the patio with kid gloves given its importance and prominence in the community. He stated that a restaurant planner is not a landscape architect. He stated that he could support the petitioner with a condition that a detailed landscape plan be brought back to the Commission for approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Chairman Pairitz stated that the Commission would have to make the decision on whether the detailed landscape plan should also revisit the lighting. He noted that to be useful to the petitioner, the approval will need to establish a clear baseline of what is approved so he can move forward with developing final plans. He suggested that the plan could be approved based on the configuration of the patio as presented with a requirements that a detailed landscape plan provide information on the specific plantings proposed in each area. He stated that is it important to see that proper attention is paid to the landscaping. Commissioner Athenson questions whether a landscape architect would support the angular beds or would want to soften them . She added that the lighting may be impacted by the plant material selected. She stated that she is not necessarily suggesting that the landscape beds be increased in size, but that some reconfiguration may be appropriate. In response to comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitiz acknowledged that the petitioner is seeking more space on the patio and may not be open to increasing the size of the planting beds. He added that staff has reviewed the proposed lighting and supports the plan presented with the elimination of the up lighting. He stated that his understanding is that a low level of lighting is proposed using low wattage, amber colored bulbs. He stated that he can support the lighting plan as recommended by staff with a requirement that the detailed landscape plan be returned to the Commission. Commissioner Ransom agreed with the comments of the Chairman. Commissioner Alfe stated that at the level proposed, the light is not going to impinge on surrounding areas. He stated support for the lighting plan as presented subject to a future determination of whether up lighting is appropriate. He stated support for Commission review of a detailed landscape plan. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Commission’s deliberations and public comment as additional findings. He stated that the motion includes the following conditions of approval. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 8 1. The 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. The following modifications are required: a. Level the corner planting bed with the grade of the sidewalk. b. Set the fence back from the corner within the corner planting bed. The fence should not extend all the way to the corner. c. Remove the up lighting from the lighting plan. 3. Final plans shall be submitted for review and verification by staff, prior to submitting a final set of plans for permit, to allow verification of compliance with the Commission’s approval and direction. Staff is directed to consult with the Chairman as appropriate. 4. After installation of the lighting, City staff is directed to conduct a nighttime inspection to verify that 1) the fixtures properly shield the sources of light from off of the site, and 2) that the intensity of any individual lights and the overall light level is compatible with the character of Market Square. If necessary, modifications to the lighting shall be made to satisfy the above criteria. 5. A detailed landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted for final review and approval by the Commission. The landscape plan should include, but not be limited to the following: a. Protect existing trees and vegetation to the extent possible given the approved plan. b. Include a pre and post construction maintenance and protection to protect and preserve the remaining large Elm tree. c. Provide detail on the replacement trees proposed. 6. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted to show the areas and amount of fill proposed around the existing planting beds and throughout the area where work will occur. The plan will be reviewed by the City Arborist and Engineering staff to verify the proposed work minimizes negative impacts on the remaining Elm tree. Chairman Pairitz clarified that the planting beds are approved with the minimum size as shown on the plan. He added that the peek-a-boo effect created by boxwood could be interesting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alfe and was approved by the Commission in a 4 to 1 vote with Commissioner Athenson voting nay. 4. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving façade modifications, demolition of the existing garage and a replacement garage at 326 E. Westminster. Owners: Marina and Maria Gipps Representative: Thomas Heinz, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Heinz stated presented the revised plans noting that the Commission’s comments at the last meeting are addressed in the plans. He provided samples of the proposed materials and photos showing the of use stucco on other houses. He noted that the two car garage previously proposed was reduced to a one- car garage with some extra width to accommodate a wheelchair. He noted that a ramp is provided connecting the breakfast room of the house to the garage. He stated that the exterior of the house will be smooth stucco similar to the Baytree Bank on Western Avenue. He noted that almost all Four Square houses have stucco soffits and said that the wood soffits will be replaced with stucco. He explained that the foundation currently is about 50% stucco and some of the stucco is in disrepair. He stated that the entire foundation will be finished with stucco. He stated that stucco will be used on the garage as well to tie the elements of the project together. He stated that the entire house will be stucco from the foundation to the soffit. He stated that cedar shingles will be used on the roof of the house and garage. He reviewed the proposed colors for the house and garage. He stated that the colors will change slightly from the existing colors. He stated that the front steps will not be changed. He stated that AZEK will not be used and will be removed from the areas where it was previously installed. He stated that the chimney caps were removed but are on the site and will be reinstalled. He stated that the copper chimney top will be removed. He acknowledged that various materials were used on the chimney before he was involved with the project. He noted however that the chimney is not highly visible from off of the property. He noted that the windows are all single pane glass and will be replaced to conserve heat. He stated that the roof, porch and garage will all be insulated as required by the Code. He reviewed the landscape plan pointing out the large tree with a huge canopy at the front of the property and noting that little grows in the front yard because of the tree. He pointed out the other trees on the property. He stated that some smaller trees will be planted to begin to prepare for the time when the larger tree is no longer on the site. He added that trees will be planted to screen the apartment building to the west. He stated that the fence on the east and north perimeters of the property will remain. He reviewed changes that will be made to a window on the east elevation to provide an escape window from a bedroom. Ms. Neuman noted that since this petition was presented to the Commission, several modifications have been made to the plan. She noted that the garage was reduced in size and an accessible ramp is provided between the house and garage. She explained that the existing garage, which is about three feet from the house, will be demolished and the new garage will be attached to the house to provide slighting more space for maneuvering. She noted that stucco is proposed on the main body of the house and on the garage. She said that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation suggested that traditional detailing be used on the foundation as opposed to bringing the stucco to the ground. She stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 10 that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions presented in the staff report. She stated that due to construction within the setback areas, the new garage will require review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the access to the garage will be generally the same as exists today. She confirmed that engineering staff found the plan to be workable. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Heinz explained that constructing a driveway through the property from Westminster would add considerable impervious surface to the site. He pointed out that the turn into the garage would be difficult and noted the impact a long driveway would have on the garden area. He confirmed that the bay window was originally wood. He also confirmed that changes to the front porch were originally proposed, but no changes are now proposed. He stated that the garden would likely be planted with annuals. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman clarified that staff agrees with the comments of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation that extending the stucco to the ground could be a problem. She offered that an additional condition could be added by the Commission requiring a detail of the treatment planned for the point at which the stucco meets the foundation. Chairman Pairitz suggested that staff be directed to evaluate the proposed condition for how the building meets the ground. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman confirmed that engineering staff reviewed the plans and determined that continued use of the alley for access is workable. She stated that the new garage will encroach into the zoning setbacks approximately the same extent as the existing garage. She explained that any garage location would require a zoning variance due to the alley access and the configuration of the parcel. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Heinz reviewed how the stucco will meet the foundation. Chairman Pairitz suggested that consideration be given to the movement of joints as the building shifts and whether the joint should be covered. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, he invited public comment. Mr. Semmelman, 189 Summit Place, state d that his wife owns the adjacent property. He stated that the revised plan addresses previous concerns about the oversized garage which would have been out of character with the area and would potentially create drainage problems. He stated that he is impressed with the change made to the garage to reduce the overall size. He asked for careful Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 11 review of any grade change by the City to avoid drainage issues. He noted that for ease of access, the exact location of the garage door on the north elevation will be important. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Heinz discussed the ramp and the design intent for the garage doors and the man door. Chairman Pairitz invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson thanked the petitioner for responding to the comments from the Commission. Commissioner Ransom stated appreciation for the reduction in the size of the garage. He noted that the petitioner took the comments offered and developed a good solution. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. She stated that the motion includes the following conditions of approval: 1. The 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 shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Commission and consistent with any direction or conditions of approval established by the Commission. Final plans shall be submitted for review and verification of compliance by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. a. Staff is directed to review the details of the treatment of the foundation to confirm that a workable solution is presented and that traditional detailing is provided to the extent possible. 3. The previously installed AZEK soffit shall be removed and replaced with the installation of a true stucco soffit with wood fascia and trim. 4. The previously installed AZEK wood boards on the bay windows and trim shall be removed and replaced with wood boards. 5. A landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to final inspections and the closing of the building permit. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: a. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 12 b. Replacement plantings adequately buffer views of the structure from neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and was approved by the Commission by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new detached garage at 901 Rosemary Road. Owner: Eugene Martin Trust Contract Purchasers: Brian and Michelle Flynn Representative: Gene Martin, Martin Custom Homes Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Martin introduced the petition explaining that an additional garage is proposed to meet the needs of contract purchasers of the property. He stated that he has been working on the renovation of the house for two years and the interior renovation is now completed. He noted that the garage previously approved by the Commission is under construction and about 60% complete as well as work on the mudroom. He pointed out that the contract purchasers plan to keep the property together rather than sell off the buildable lot. He reviewed the property noting the 460 feet of frontage along Rosemary Road and the location of the buildable lot. He noted that the main house is about 10,000 square feet. He pointed out the location of the four car garage which is under construction and noted the adjacent green space where an additional two car garage is proposed. He stated that the two car garage will have similar, but shorter elevations, as the previously approved garage. He explained that a garden wall similar in height, design and materials to the original garden wall is proposed between the two garage structures to create a courtyard. He noted that restoration of the wall along Rosemary Road and the garden walls on the site was recently completed commenting that they had fallen into disrepair. He stated that the new garage will be about 500 square feet and noted that the construction is within the allowable square footage for the property. He reviewed some of the details of the garage stating that the gable, stone cap, finial and eyebrow element above the windows will all match the garage that is now under construction. He explained that the doors of the new garage will face the doors of the garage that is now under construction creating a motor court. He pointed out that with the additional garage, all of the garage doors will be shielded from view from the shared driveway to the west. He added that the garden wall will shield views of the garage doors from the front driveway approach to the main house. He pointed out that the slope of the roof will be the same as the slope of the roof on the house. He stated that the garage doors will be custom and will be designed as historic carriage house doors. He stated that the necessary time will be taken to get the details right. He reviewed an alternate concept for the garden wall noting the similarity to the wall behind the main house with a radius and a separation in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 13 middle to allow for landscaping. He stated that the contract purchasers may consider some driveway reconfiguration in the future noting they have engaged Mariani to develop an overall landscape plan for the site. He stated that the request before the Commission is for approval of the two car garage at this time. Ms. Neuman commented that a full size model of the proposed garage is under construction on the site noting that the Commission approved the new garage several months ago. She commented that the details of the garage are clear however the details of the garden wall and the scale of the proposed opening are not fully developed. She noted that there are several types of garden walls on the property. She asked for input from the Commission on the proposed wall and suggested that details of the wall be brought back to the Commission at a later date. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Martin explained that the opening in the garden wall is proposed to accommodate a possible driveway entrance to the motor court at that location in the future. He stated however that this element is open to further discussion and will ultimately be resolved by the new owners. He explained that the dormers on the four garage are functional and since there will be not functional attic space in the two car garage, dormers were not proposed on that building. He stated that dormers could be added on the west side if desired in an effort to soften views from the driveway. He explained that the two car garage is planned for specialty cars, not for everyday use and as a result, there is not a need for a back door on the mudroom. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Martin confirmed that the opening anticipates a possible driveway in the future. He acknowledged that an overall landscape has not yet been developed. He explained that the new owners will prepare that plan noting that his obligations include only the garages. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Martin confirmed that the transformer would need to be moved and would likely be shielded by the wall. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the building scale calculation is based only on the land area of Lot 2. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, thanked Mr. Martin for saving the house noted that it was in disrepair and neglected by the previous owner. He asked that consideration be given to how the motor court looks from the house to the rear noting that house was the original coach house to the property. He commended the petitioner for repairing the wall at the entry and around the perimeter of the property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 14 Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson commented that a solid wall would create a more elegant look from the front of the property. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Martin stated no objection to approval of the project with a continuous wall acknowledging that a section could be removed in the future if necessary. Commissioner Ransom stated support for an opening in the wall but noted as currently proposed, it is awkward, leading to nowhere. He stated support for Commission approval of just the garage at this time to allow time for the new owners to determine how the wall should be configured. He expressed appreciation to the petitioner for the work done on the house and for the repair of the wall. Chairman Pairitz encouraged the petitioner to develop the wall further. He questioned whether an eleven foot opening is the right dimension and whether the pillars are proposed at the right height. He stated support for approving the project with a continuous wall with the understanding that after further study, the new owners may return to the Commission for modifications. He stated that he sees promise in the possibility of relocating the driveway noting that it could improve the optics of the home. He added that the elevations provided show only a snippet of the front elevation and noted that the elevation is extensive and the wall as proposed will be only a minor part of that view. He added that with the wall well landscaped, it will have minimal impact. In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Martin reviewed some of the ideas being considered for reconfiguration of the driveway. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitiz invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage and continuous wall based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the tes timony and the Commission’s discussion as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following condition. 1. Any modifications to the plan shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Commission and consistent with any direction or conditions of approval established by the Commission. Final plans shall be submitted for review and verification of compliance by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. a. The garden wall is approved as a continuous wall. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 - Page 15 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alfe and was approved by a 5 to 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Pauline Mohr, 927 Barclay Circle, commented that she noticed the wide variety of color and style of awnings in Market Square. She suggested that with the sale of Market Square, now might be a good time to establish clear standards to achieve consistency in the Square. There were no additional public comments. 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the new owners of Market Square have expressed an interest in working the City to update the standards for both awnings and signage. Ms. Neuman stated that the Commission is not scheduled to meet in December. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development