Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2013/03/20 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the March 20, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, March 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 Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Fred Moyer, Jim Preschlack, Susan Rafferty Athenson and Mary Ellen Swenson Commissioners absent: Commissioners Bill Ransom and John Travers City staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 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 meeting minutes of the February 27, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the February 27, 2013 meeting were approved with corrections on pages 9 and 21, as requested by Commissioner Moyer. RETURNING PETITION 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new awning and wall and window signage for a new business at 270 Market Square, Jolly Good Fellows. Owner: Shawgate Lake Forest LLC Tenant/Business Owner: Laura Fellow Chairman Pairitz asked the members of the Commission to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Fellows presented the revised sign plan and proposed awning for her new business in Market Square. She stated that she took all of the Commission’s comments and suggestions from the last meeting into account and revised the plan consistent with that discussion. She described the plan st arting from the westernmost extent of the store front. She described the awning that is proposed over the westernmost window noting that the color has been changed to a dark green consistent with other awnings in Market Square. She stated that the store name will be shown in 4” letters on the loose awning valance. She stated that three descriptive words, in 6” letters are proposed at the bottom of the window, below the awning. She moved to the next window stating Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 2 that the business name will be located in the band above the window using pin mounted letters. She moved around the corner to the east facing window noting that three descriptive words are proposed in the band above that window again, using pin mounted letters. She stated that the final component of the signage is a board sign proposed on the east facing wall. She explained that the design of the board sign is based on other board signs in Market Square. She noted that the sign will have lettering and a cupcake graphic with muted colors consistent with the Square. She discussed the proposed location of the sign set in from the corner, near the window and described the mounting hardware. She stated that the proposed sign is the same length and width as other board signs in Market Square. She stated that the projecting sign proposed at the last meeting is no longer part of the proposal. She stated that the traditional Market Square blue - green color is used prominently on the proposed signage. She stated that the board sign conforms to the Code. She commented that she listened and responded to the Board’s comments at the last meeting and stated that the signage as now proposed fits well into Market Square. She stated that the signage as now proposed does not set a precedent since it is based on existing signage in the Square. She added that the proposed signage balances the signage on the south side of the Square. She conclude asking for approval of the project as now presented noting that it is consistent with the character of Market Square. Ms. Neuman explained that signs and awnings that do not strictly conform to the Code and to the City’s guidelines are presented to the Commission for review. She clarified that the Commission has the ability to approve awnings and signage so long as the Commission determines that the standard review criteria are met. She reviewed the location of the space in Market Square noting that it is a corner space, at the base of the north tower. She noted that the space has some distinguishing features. She stated that since the last meeting, the petitioner looked at each component of the awning and signage plan and made revisions in response to the Commission’s comments at the last meeting. She confirmed that the lettering proposed on the band above the window is in the same location as the sign for the previous business. She confirmed that the overall signage is in compliance with the amount of signage permitted by the Code. She noted that the previously proposed projecting sign is replaced with a board sign as described by the petitioner. She stated that the current proposal takes cues from other awnings and signs in Market Square. She noted that a mock-up of the board sign was in place over the weekend reflecting the approximate location, size and design of the sign. She asked for input from the Commission on the board sign particularly with respect to its location in relation to the arch of the window. She stated staff support for the petition. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Neuman confirmed that it is appropriate for the Commission to consider the request as a whole, the awning and all proposed signage. She confirmed that there is currently an awning over the westernmost window of the storefront. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 3 In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the outdoor seasonal seating was reviewed and complies with the Code. She explained that as with any outdoor seating area, City staff will work with the business owner and property owner if any problems arise and make any modifications that may be necessary. Commissioner Athenson thanked the petitioner for taking the Commission’s comments at the last meeting into consideration and making modifications in response to the discussion. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Fellow confirmed that the ends of the awnings are open. She explained that the board sign will be set at the same height as the bottom of the balcony. She noted that on the south side of Market Square, the board sign is higher, lining up with nearby architectural elements. She confirmed that she tested the board sign on the stone, but it did not read well. She pointed out that the entrance door to her store is hidden and not immediately visible like most other store entrances in Market Square. Commissioner Moyer observed that the north tower is quite iconic and different from the south tower. He noted that the north tower is illuminated during the date with light from the east, south and west. He commented that first floor occupancy of a five-story element does not necessarily come with the opportunity to put a sign on the tower. He pointed out the repetition of the arch as it turns the corner noting that the design did not anticipate a future sign. He commented that in that respect, a hanging sign would be better, but still not something that should be done for other reasons. He observed that the proposed sign covers a part of the masonry. He suggested that signage be placed in the void of the window area to respect the opening as designed. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Fellows confirmed that wood letters, not plastic, are proposed. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none, he commended the restraint shown with respect to color on the proposed board sign and questioned whether the sign would be more successful as a hanging sign. Commissioner Moyer re-stated that a hanging sign is not appropriate in Market Square. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Fellows pointed out that the arch at Williams Sonoma is much higher arch and has a different curve than her store front. She added that the letters at Williams Sonoma are 20” tall and are located above the keystone detail. She stated that on her store front, letters above the arch could only be 11” due to the balcony located above. She explained that she considered hanging the logo in the arch, but commented that it would need to hang on the outside of the window due to the divided lites. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 4 Commissioner Moyer commented that a sign could be independent of the window plane, bracketed out from the window assembly. He commented that his objection is the conflict between the proposed sign and the way the tower turns the corner in a uniform, clean, continuous way. Commissioner Preschlack acknowledged the points made by Commissioner Moyer comparing it to a previous Commission discussion of awning color and how a change in color changed the look and feel of the building. He acknowledged that the proposed board sign, in relationship to the arch, could change the look and feel of the building. He noted however that Market Square is not a museum and that there needs to be a balance between preservation and the need to announce a business and be distinctive. He commented that at this location, there are limited options and some give and take is needed. He acknowledged the concessions made so far by the petitioner and commented that Market Square is an area of commercial businesses and not a monument. Commissioner Athenson wondered what the right solution is to assure that the business has the visibility needed. She stated appreciation for all of the alternatives that were explored by the petitioner. She questioned whether the brightness of the white on the sign, or the logo itself, may be too much. Chairman Pairitz agreed that the proposed board sign is well done. He stated however that his reaction is that a blade sign, in the same manner as proposed for the board sign, may be more appropriate because of the tower. Commissioner Moyer stated agreement that businesses should be able to distinguish themselves, but not at expense of the architectural integrity of Market Square. He commented that in his opinion, there is unlimited potential to accomplish a successful result. He reiterated that the void in the arch is a good opportunity noting that it faces the train station and the entrance to Market Square. Chairman Pairitz clarified that the Commission is not suggesting that the signage at Williams Sonoma be replicated on this storefront. He clarified that the suggestion is that signage for the new business be located below the limestone of the arch, in the glazed area, to fill in the existing void. Commissioner Moyer stated that the signage should be within the zone of the window, in the transom. He stated that it would be acceptable to alter the window area, but not the surface of the tower In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Fellows stated that in her opinion, covering the window is not the best option. She noted that a sign at that location would mask the divided lites. She added that she did not think hanging a sign in front of the window would be permitted. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 5 Commissioner Swenson commented that the signage plan as now presented is more successful than the plan previously presented to the Commission. Commissioner Athenson agreed stating a willingness to support the petition as presented. Chairman Pairitz stated that Commissioner Moyer’s points merit some further discussion. He explained that the Commission’s goal is to work with the petitioner to find a satisfying solution that balances all interests. He noted that in the past, some signs and awnings that have gone up in Market Square and nearby have been disappointing. He affirmed that the Commission and the City overall is interested in supporting new businesses but added that finding the right sign age solution is important. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Fellows stated that either a wall or blade sign would be acceptable. Commissioner Moyer pointed out that there is a great signage opportunity that could provide the desired visibility from the east. He stated that a sign could be located on pegs, independent from the surface of the window. In response to a concern about blocking or interfering with the windows, he offered that the sign could have cutouts to give it transparency. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Fellows stated that the current proposal is intended to be responsive to comments from the Commission at the last meeting. She stated that she is anxious to settle the sign aspect because other aspects of her business need her attention. Commissioner Athenson stated that the petitioner responded to the questions and direction offered at the last meeting. She stated that the proposed signage is consistent with the spirit of other signs in Market Square located above businesses and will give visibility to the business without being overdone. She noted the muted colors of the sign and commended the petitioner for the background work done in developing the proposal. Commissioners Preschlack and Swenson agreed with Commissioner Athenson’s comments. In response to Chairman Pairitz’s comments about further consideration of a blade sign, Commissioner Preschlack reminded the Commission that a blade sign was discussed at length at the prior meeting. He reiterated that the present proposal is responsive to the discussion at the previous meeting. Chairman Pairit z stated that is not the Commission’s job to design the signage, but to offer possible concepts that are worth considering in an effort to achieve the best overall solution to meet various interests. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 6 At the request of Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Neuman noted that a letter was submitted in general support of the petition with some questions about the height at which the wall sign is proposed. She stated that the letter was provided to the Commission. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage, awnings and outdoor furniture for a new business, Jolly Good Fellows, at 270 Market Square subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Digital photographic documentation of the complete existing façade including detailed images of the affected storefront and the storefront in the larger context of Market Square shall be submitted to the City for the City’s historic files. 2. Further refinement to the size and placement of the sign shall occur with final approval by staff in consultation with the Chairman as needed. 3. Information on how the board sign and awning will be mounted shall be submitted with the permit application for verification by staff that the hardware is installed into mortar joints and does not impact the integrity of the brick. 4. Any modifications to the components of the signage plan, consistent with the direction of the Commission, shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as necessary, that the plans are in conformance with the Commission’s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. 5. Dimensioned drawings of the storefront window and wood band shall be provided for verification that the height and location of the pin mounted letters is consistent with the graphic representation reviewed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and was approved by a vote of three to two with Commissioner Moyer and Chairman Pairitz voting nay. RESIDENTIAL PETITIONS 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for facade and roof modifications at 441 E. Westminster. Owners: Jim and Maureen Goodwin Representative: Bob Gebelhoff, designer Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Goodwin introduced the project explaining that since his family purchased the home a few months ago, they have been doing cosmetic changes; painting and repairing water damage. He stated that at this time, they would like to address the rear of the house, the 1960’s addition noting that it is not in keeping with the Tudor style of the house. He explained that it is his intent to bring the house back to its Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 7 original style and to bring consistency to the various elements of the house. Ms. Neuman confirmed that the 1960’s addition to the house was not in keeping with the overall architectural style. She stated staff support for the new owners’ intent to modify the earlier addition to be more consistent with the original house. She stated that the project appears to be generally consistent with the applicable standards and will improve upon the existing appearance of the house. She noted some areas of the proposed project that could benefit from further refinement such as the proportions of the windows, the window in the dormer, the use of the railing and the timbering details and asked for Commission input recognizing the location of the project, out of view from the streetscape. She explained that because the house is currently non-conforming to the zoning setbacks and work is proposed on the portion of the house that is within the required setback, a zoning variance is required. She noted that this project will be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals at an upcoming meeting. She noted that a letter was received from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation stating general support for the project and encouraging further consideration of the windows and proposed railing. She noted that the letter was provided to the Commission. She added that the petitioners expected an e-mail indicating support of the project to be sent to staff by a neighboring property owner, but to date, it has not been received. She stated that the staff report presents findings in support of the project subject to condit ions of approval and refinement of details in some areas. At request of Chairman Pairitz , Mr. Goodwin reviewed photos of the existing house. He pointed out the area proposed for alteration at the rear of the house indicating the area of the 1960’s addition . He pointed out that the windows do not match and noted the sliding doors which are in poor condition. He pointed out areas where water damage is occurring and stated that the roof needs to be addressed to fix the leaks. He stated that addressing the addition at the same time as the roof makes sense. He agreed with the suggestions of staff regarding the need for consistency of the windows and reviewed the proposed French doors and balcony. He confirmed that the window on right gable will rem ain. He stated that the remodeled addition will be stucco with timbering to match the front of the house. He confirmed that there is timbering on the front of the house but it is hard to see because it was painted. He stated that after this project is completed, the house will be re-painted so that the timbering is visible. Chairman Pairitz stated that in general, the project will be an improvement to the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Goodwin reviewed the back of the house noting the existing windows that will remain and the proposed windows. He reviewed the proposed decorative iron work and noted that consideration is being given to a copper awning over the back door. He confirmed that the brick will not be painted and confirmed that simulated divided Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 8 lites will be used. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the foot print of the house is not being increased. She explained that the area where construction is proposed is located within the required setback and because modifications are proposed, a zoning variance is required. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Goodwin confirmed that there is no stucco on the existing house. He reviewed the west elevation noting that it is currently brick and noted that the addition was stuck on to the corner. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none; he complimented the project adding that the areas needing some refinement, the middle window and the iron work on the right gable can be finalized with City staff. Commissioner Athenson suggested that the windows be reviewed for overall consistency and that the railing be removed to simplify the elevation. Chairman Pairitz complimented the house noting that it is in a great neighborhood. He complimented the proposed project and noted that execution will be important to the success of the project. He suggested some areas where careful attention should be paid including the double gable and the area of transition between the brick and stucco. He noted that the roof s of the two gables do not match up and commented that reviewing the intersection of original gable and new roof form, which will extend toward the rear of the house, will be important. Commissioner Moyer complimented the project and commented that the proposed alterations are not visible from the streetscape. He observed that the house has a number of eccentricities already and that allowing that character to continue is not a concern. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving alterations to the elevation and roof of the existing non- historic addition subject to conditions of approval. 1. Refinements as discussed by the Commission and as detailed below shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that they are in conformance with the Commission’s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. a. The new 2nd story window shall be modified to be consistent in height with other 2nd story windows. b. The proposed metal railing over the existing window on the south elevation shall be removed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 9 approved by the Commission in a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a detached coach house and alterations to the residence at 950 E. Westminster. A building scale variance is also requested. Owners: John and Anastasia Svigos Representative: Thomas Rajkovich, architect Chairman Pairitz asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Rajkovich introduced the petition noting that the property is known by the historic name “Pinewold”. He explained that due to a death in the family, the property owners are not present. He noted that his firm often is hired to work on residences that have a sense of history and he noted that he has appeared before the Commission on several occasions. He stated that this house was built in 1907-08 and was designed by Zimmerman, in the Prairie style. He noted that Jens Jensen designed the ground of the property. He reviewed the boundaries of the original estate noting that it extended to Lake Road prior to subdivision of the property in the 1960’s. He provided a photo showing the historic entrance to the property. He noted that the original coach house for the property was subdivided off from the main house and is now a single family home in separate ownership from the main house and is accessed from Woodbine. He explained that his clients want to build a structure that will serve as a garage, a coach house, since there is currently no garage on the property. He reviewed the surrounding homes that were constructed after the historic residence noting that there is a mix of architectural styles in the neighborhood. He pointed out the original coach house noting that it provided some direction for the project. He reviewed the layout of the property noting the proposed location for the new coach house. He reviewed a study diagram that was done to evaluate the impact of the proposed structure at various locations on the property on the neighboring homes. He stated that at the proposed location, the new structure is exposed to three adjoining properties. He noted that alternative locations for the new structure were studied and commented that the option of building the new structure in front of the house was not pursued. He reviewed an alternative that locates the new structure to the east of the residence, but noted that location impacts the Jens Jensen landscape and would be in proximity to a greater number of homes than the proposed location. He added that at the east location, there is less opportunity to screen the structure from neighboring homes with plantings. He discussed the existing residence and reviewed some characteristics of Zimmerman’s architectural style noting the series and clusters of windows, the cubic massing and the use of vertical elements. He pointed out key features and details of the residence and discussed the balance of vertical and horizontal elements. He stated that all of these elements were considered in designing a new coach house work that will work well with, use the same vocabulary as and be deferential to the historic property. He offered further Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 10 comments in support of the selected location for the new coach house noting the importance of siting the structure close to the service area of the house including the kitchen. He added that the proposed location makes the most sense from a utilitarian perspective and is respectful of the existing architecture. He noted that this location is generally consistent with the historic location of the service area for the property. He pointed out that the orientation of the coach house is based on the house, not on the property line. He explained that this orientation allows the wall of the new structure to be located 20’ 3” away from the property line. He acknowledged that the eave extends to the 10‘ setback line. He stated that the concept of an attached garage was explored, but was not pursued due to concerns about overwhelming the historic residence with a continuous structure. He stated that the location for the new structure as now proposed was determined to be the best alternative based on a review of the various factors. He showed images of the proposed location for the coach house and views from that location in all directions. He stated that in addition to carefully selecting the location for the coach house, a study was done to determine whether the structure could be simply done as a garage noting that the family did not have any other specific requirements for the structure. However, he noted that after study, it was apparent that the low slung form of a garage would not be suited to the vertical aspects of the historic residence. He explained that design development then focused on a structure that would maintain the rhythm of the clustered windows and have a character sympathetic to the main house which led to the two-story structure now proposed. He reviewed the floor plan noting the car stalls, mechanical room and the location of the stairs on the first floor. He explained that the second floor is simply a multi-function room that provides informal family space. He noted that the historic residence has many formal spaces, but no informal family areas. He explained that the point of the composition is to respect the design, form and character of the historic residence and gardens. He noted the dense landscape cover along the property lines where the coach house is proposed and explained that plants in that location currently do not get much sunlight. He noted that the surface of the coach house will provide reflected light in this area to support increased plant growth. He reviewed the elevations of the coach house. He concluded stating that throughout the study and deliberations, the focus of the project was how to respect the important historic house, be good stewards of the property and provide a functioning garage to meet the family’s needs. Craig Bergmann, landscape architect, stated that he was struck by the fact that no owner of the property has ever pursued construction of a garage since the property was subdivided. He said that the petitioners have been good stewards of the property since purchasing it 8 years ago. He noted that during that time, they have carried their groceries into the house through the front entrance and through to the kitchen. He pointed out that shortly after purchasing the home; the petitioners had to replace the green terracotta roof. He pointed out that the roof is really green and with the roof at a higher elevation, it is less visible due to the vegetation. He stated that a green roof at a lower height would be more visible to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 11 the neighboring property owners. He stated that the higher roof gets lost in the trees with proper plantings. He noted that all of the adjacent neighboring properties have some landscaping which will provide a screen in front of the 6’ fence around the petitioner’s property. He pointed out that only a two car garage is requested. He noted that the two car garage footprint preserves space for additional landscaping. He commented on the original Jens Jensen landscape plan and the proposed location of the coach house in the context of the overall property. He stated that the coach house is located appropriately on the site. He noted areas where gardens will be developed on either side of the walkway on the south side of the coach house. He confirmed that there is sufficient space for the intended buffer of vegetation around the coach house. He provided a streetscape view of the property noting that the coach house will not be visible from the street. Ms. Neuman stated that the process and design rationale for the project was described thoroughly by the petitioners. She reviewed concerns raised by the neighbors including how the second floor space will be used and concerns about the mass, height and location of the proposed coach house. She reviewed the role of the Commission noting that the Commission is responsible for evaluating both the design aspects of project and the request for a building scale variance. She explained that the existing historic residence exceeds the current allowable square footage and as a result, a building scale variance is requested to allow the enclosure of the porch and construction of the coach house. She explained that the property was subdivided prior to the adoption of the Building Scale Ordinance and through the subdivision, was left without a garage. She explained that the proposed coach house meets a functional need by providing a garage where none exists. She noted that the design of the structure evolved into a two story coach house after consideration of the historic context of the property. She added that the proposed enclosure of the porch contributes to the increase in the building scale overage. She pointed out that other than a building scale variance; no other variances are required for this project. She reiterated that staff received calls about the intended use of the second floor space. She clarified that the second floor of the coach house is intended for use as a family room, not a separate living unit. She stated that the coach house will be an accessory structure to the main house. She stated that the most impacted neighbors expressed concern about the visibility of the structure. She noted that to date, details of the landscaping intended along the property lines has not been provided to the City. She stated that it will be important for the Commission to understand the density and height of the proposed landscaping to determine whether it will be sufficient to meet the criteria that must be considered for a building scale variance. She added that a concern was raised about the additional impervious surface proposed for the property. She noted that based on a preliminary review by engineering staff, the project will not interfere with any overland drainage routes. She noted that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation stated support for the project and asked that although the front entrance pillars Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 12 are not part of the request, they be restored. She stated that findings in support of the project are included in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Rajkovich confirmed that no garage has existed on the property since the property was subdivided. He noted that a house of this size and stature requires a garage. He commented that the owners want to be good stewards of the property and explained that they explored how to accomplish a garage on this property in a way that would meet the standards of the Preservation Ordinance. He noted that a single story garage was considered, but would be incompatible architecturally with the historic house. He stated that after study, the structure was designed as a two story coach house. He reviewed the proposed location of the coach house and explained that a Jens Jensen landscape is located on the property and stated that the owners did not want to interfere with that element of the property. He added that the owners are also interested in providing a way to enter the house other than through the front entrance hall. He noted that the proposed coach house would be located near the service part of the house, away from the front door. He discussed the other aspect of the project, enclosure of an existing screen porch. He explained that the enclosure would allow use of the space all year round. He stated that the footprint of the porch is not changing. Commissioner Preschlack stated that he understands the need for a garage, but questioned the overall scale and compatibility of the structure as proposed. He noted that what started out as a need for a garage is now presented as a project that adds further square footage to a property that is already over the square footage that is permitted under the current ordinance. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Neuman reviewed that the Code provides criteria that the Commission must use to evaluate requests for building scale variances. She clarified that the Commission is charged with evaluating each request for a variance based on its own merits. She stated that the evaluation criteria allow mitigating factors to be considered by the Commission including whether the additional mass will be visible from the streetscape, the extent to which the structure is screened by new or existing landscaping and the architectural compatibility of the project with the surrounding structures and area. Chairman Pairitz explained that the building scale Code provisions are not a “one size fits all”. He noted that these provisions are generally used to assure that a very large house is not proposed in a neighborhood of smaller homes. He stated that in this case, a very large house already exists on the property. He stated that the Commission is charged with using the building scale Code provisions to monitor and control the context in which additions occur. He stated that the Commission is charged with using the building scale variance criteria to assure that the context of an area, the property and the surrounding historic district, remains intact. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 13 In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Rajkovich stated that the proposed coach house will be at least 150’ away from neighboring homes. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Chairman Pairitz confirmed that there is no upper limit for building scale variances and again noted that the context of the site must be considered and each request evaluated on its own merits using the Code criteria. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Rajkovich explained that he always approaches a design from the perspective of minimizing impacts to all surrounding properties. He acknowledged that everyone will want the structure as far away from their property as possible. He stated that he, along with his clients, looked at the site in good faith and assessed viable locations for the new structure. He stated that he did his best to design it in a way that would complement the existing historic residence and combine with the residence in a way that it would allow it to be understood as an amplification of the house, acceptable and appropriately fitting with the residence. He stated that to his knowledge, the project was not discussed with the neighboring property owners. Chairman Pairitz stated appreciation for the approach used by the petitioners and architect, trying to understand the options available to achieve the project. He stated that the Commission is in the business of working with property owners to make grand old houses livable for today. He noted that allowing changes to occur encourages investment in homes. He stated that a garage is a necessary evil but noted that only a two car garage is proposed and applauded that decision. He stated appreciat ion for the design presented and the sensitivity to the historic residence. He pointed out that the structure proposed is not a utilitarian structure , but one that will enhance the property. He stated that in his mind, the landscaping need not completely block views of the structure noting that it will be a rich and enjoyable view. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson and Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Bergmann stated that before preparing a landscape plan, the petitioners are waiting for direction from the Commission. He stated that the petitioners are in complete agreement that there needs to be a softening of the west and north edges of the property, along the coach house. He noted that to allow construction, two 12" to 14 “ White Oaks will be lost. He discussed the existing vegetation near the property lines. He noted that the west property line is irregular rather than straight. He noted a row of mature Norway spruce commenting that they were probably part of the Jens Jensen plan. He noted that a native wood area wraps around the corner of the property. He stated that the property to the west was likely cleared of buckthorn in the past and noted that the white oaks in that area are like telephone poles, with little branching due to the limited sunlight that gets into the area. He stated that the best screening will be provided by the established evergreen trees. He noted however that there is room to enhance the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 14 woods with a native understory to provide further screening. He explained that the plan is to create a shaggy, appropriately scaled planting around the new structure, a combination of evergreen and deciduous plantings. He pointed out that there is a stockade fence to the west and north which limits light so no spruce trees will be planted, instead, native species such as white pines and swamp white oaks will be used along with other appropriate species. He noted that the height of the existing woods is taller than the historic three story residence. He stated that trees and plantings that are persistent in holding their leaves will be used noting that they will not all be evergreens, but will provide screening for three-quarters of the year. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Rajkovich confirmed that alternative locations and forms for the structure were studied. He noted that if a one story structure was used, but raised in height to relate to the historic residence, a solid brick wall would result above the garage doors. He pointed out that with the proposed plan, the expanse of brick wall is limited and the difference in height is not substantial in exchange for the design benefits. He noted that the ground drops off in the area of the proposed structure mitigating the height. He stated that the foot print of the proposed structure is about half of the size of the original coach house constructed for the house and noted that the massing is much the same as the original structure. He noted that the petitioner gave up a third car stall to diminish the structure in exchange for doing a composition that would work well with the house. He stated that the proposed plan strikes a balance of all factors. Commissioner Preschlack complimented the architectural design but again questioned whether there is a smaller alternative to what is presented, perhaps a medium alternative. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Rajkovich confirmed that smaller schemes were considered early in the process. He noted that in the design presented, ceiling heights are kept low and minimum clearance hardware is used for the garage doors. Commissioner Athenson stated that the one story option does not work with and would detract from the original house. She stated that it is important to preserve the dominance of the historic house. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Rajkovich described the detailing planned for the new structure. He noted that a loggia is proposed at the corner nearest the house to create a void to counter balance the tightness on the site. He confirmed that the level of detailing will be appropriate for a subordinate structure. He noted the importance of looking at buildings as ensembles, groups, and assuring that they are not trying to compete with each other. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 15 Commissioner Swenson commended the petitioners for not proposing an attached garage house noting that approach would diminish the integrity of the house. She stated that in this instance, something would have been lost with that approach. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Neuman stated that the enclosure of the screen porch accounts for about half of the additional overage that would result from this project. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Herbert Prochnow, 949 Woodbine, stated that he is the neighbor to the northwest. He stated that he does not dispute the necessity for a garage but stated concern about the proposed second story living space above the garage. He stated that as proposed, the second floor space provides the opportunity for a residential use and stated that there should be some restriction on the use of the space. Tom Hunter, a Lake Forest resident, stated that he is representing his parents who live immediately west of the proposed structure. He commented that prior to receipt of the mailed public notice, there were no communications about this project from the petitioners to the neighbors. He stated that based on the presentation by the petitioner and the Commission’s discussion, he believes that his parents preliminary questions have been answered. He summarized the points made in the letter that he submitted to the Commission on behalf of his parents noting that due to previous subdivision of the property; there is no garage on the property. He stated that his parents’ concerns are not related to the architectural aspects of the project, but are related to the over building on the lot and the proposed location of the new structure near the neighboring homes. He noted that the petitioner purchased the home in 2004 and at that time, there was no garage on the property. He commented that the purpose of building scale regulations is to prevent the overbuilding or over dividing of properties. He noted that the allowable square footage for a house on this property based on the lot size is 7,200 square feet and the house today is 10,700 square feet, a 50% overage. He noted that with the proposed conversion of the porch and the construction of the coach house the structures on the property will total about 12,000 square feet. He stated that his parents have no objection to the construction of a garage, but stated that the proposed garage is the size of a modest house. He stated that the idea of adding a family room suite above the garage is not based on a hardship and a variance is not justified. He stated that his parents do not want a vertical brick wall 18‘ tall within 10 feet of their property line. He stated that a two story structure will not be adequately screened with landscaping. He pointed out that the dimensions of the coach house are suited to three cars despite the fact that only two garage doors are proposed. He stated that the structure is just too big and there is no hardship to justify the variance. He noted that his parents are not opposing the conversion of the existing porch space even though that element of the project also exceeds the allowable square footage. He stated that enclosing Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 16 the porch will not result in a change to the footprint of the structure. He noted that his parents are lifelong residents of Lake Forest. He requested that the Commission deny the request for a building scale variance to allow construction of the coach house as presented. He reiterated that the existing house is already over the allowed square footage. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Pairitz asked for staff explanation of the permitted use of the structure. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that recently, a community forum was held to discuss the potential use of existing coach houses as secondary residential living units but to date; second living units are not currently permitted on properties zoned for single family use. She confirmed that decisions on the use of accessory structures are not under the purview of the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Neuman confirmed that it is appropriate for the Commission to consider the specific details of the landscape plan since the adequacy of landscape screening is appropriate to consider as a factor in determining whether the criteria for a building scale variance are met. Commissioner Athenson commented that architecturally, the alternative presented is the obvious solution. She stated that by adding the second floor space, a solid brick wall is avoided. She stated that there is a functional need for the accessory structure since there is currently no garage on the property. Chairman Pairitz clarified that the Commission is reacting to the specific solution proposed in this petition and the context in which the building scale variance is requested. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the request must be considered in the context of the surroundings. He stated an understanding of the interest in doing what is in the best interests of the property owners with respect to architectural consistency and stated an appreciation for the investment in the property. He noted however that the project must be thought of in the context of the request for a building scale variance. He stated that there are likely many solutions noting that the right one has not yet been found. He noted that there is some excessiveness to the project as proposed noting the two chimneys and excessive space proposed. He stated that as presented, he cannot support the project. Commissioner Swenson commented that the challenge was created when the property was subdivided. She stated that some accommodation is appropriate since the owner is paying the price for no allowance for a garage being made at the time of subdivision. She stated support for the project as presented stating that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 17 a one story garage does a dis-service to the property. Commissioner Moyer stated general support for the petition acknowledging the legitimacy of the issues raised by the neighbors. He stated confidence that the project will achieve the stated intent of providing adequate landscape screening. He complimented the architect stating that in his opinion, the project is sensitive to the issues raised and enhances the neighborhood. Commissioner Preschlack requested that a detailed landscape plan be brought back to the Commissioner for review and to allow a decision on whether it meets the building scale variance criteria. He stated that the Commission owes it to the neighbors to review the details of the landscape plan. Chairman Pairitz agreed that a detailed landscape plan should be presented to the Commission for consideration. He suggested that preparing the landscape plan is an opportunity for the petitioners to communicate with the neighbors and make an effort to address their concerns. He stated that different points of view should be considered and asked that the petitioner incorporate reasonable requests from the neighbors in the landscape plan. He stated that in his opinion, a satisfactory landscape plan can be developed to provide proper screening. He stated that to give the neighbors a venue for further discussion, it would be appropriate for the detailed landscape plan to come back to the Commission. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged Mr. Hunter in the audience who stated that he understands where the petition is headed, but expressed continued concern about the potential use of the coach house. Chairman Pairitz explained that the use of the structure will be governed by the Zoning Code, not the Historic Preservation Commission. He noted that as explained by staff, under the current Code, use of the coach house as a second living unit is not permitted. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to support the project as presented subject to presentation of a detailed landscape plan to the Commission for evaluation of whether adequate screening of the coach house is provided. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was approved by a vote of 4 to 1 with Commissioner Preschlack voting nay. Mr. Bergmann assured the Commission that the project team will communicate with the neighbors in an effort to reach a solution. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 - Page 18 There were no additional public comments. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development