Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2013/04/24 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the April 24, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, April 24, 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, William Ransom, John Travers and Susan Rafferty Athenson Commissioners absent: Commissioner 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 – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the October 24, 2012 meeting. The minutes of the October 24, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. RESIDENTIAL PETITIONS – No Variances 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for modifications to a previously approved replacement structure at 930 Lake Road. Owners: Miles and Lorna Marsh Representative: Steve Rugo, architect 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. Mr. Rugo introduced the petition explain ing that since the Commission’s approval of this project ; some refinements have occurred in the final design. He noted that a mudroom is now proposed to extend 8 feet beyond the previously approved footprint of the house. He stated that the driveway is shifted slightly, but remains between the trees. He responded to a concern raised in a letter from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation explaining that the garage doors are detailed with a diamond pattern that will be routed into the face of the doors. Ms. Neuman stated that the Commissio n granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project in 2012. She explained that as the project moved through final design, some minor modifications were made and are now presented to the Commission for consideration. She reviewed the modifications noting that there is a slight change to the massing along Westminster and changes to the window pattern on the rear elevation. She added that a more detailed landscape plan is now available. She stated that as presented, the project still fully complies with the Code, no variances are requested. She stated that as directed by the Commission in the previous approvals, the landscape plan preserves open views at the corner of the Lake Road and Westminster while giving the owner some desired privacy. She stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the proposed modifications and an amendment to the Certificate of Appropriateness previously granted to recognize and approve the changes. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 2 In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Neuman confirmed that a condition of approval of the previously approved Certificate of Appropriat eness required that the City’s Certified Arborist review the final landscape plan to confirm that at least some limited views on to the property are preserved through the vegetation from the corner of Lake Road and Westminster. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Rugo confirmed that in the revised plan, the driveway shifts a few feet further away from the Hickory tree. He reviewed the placement of the driveway in relation to the house across the street. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Rugo explained that the change to the window configuration relates to the interior layout of the kitchen. He explained that on the second floor, four equally sized windows are now proposed, instead of a double window and a single window. He reviewed the south elevation noting that glass doors were added. He pointed out that a hedge is proposed in front of the new doors noting that the doors will provide a convenient drop off area before entering the garage. He stated that a garden wall is being considered for this area noting that the hedge and wall will be maintained at a height of 7 feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the City’s Certified Arborist will verify that the species of hedge selected is one is able to be maintained at a 7 foot height with routine pruning. Mr. Rugo suggested that yews could be planted and would reach a height of 7 feet. He acknowledged that yews are slow growing and could take some time to reach the desired height. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Rugo explained that the door to the mud room will be 6 to 8 inches above grade, without a large stoop. He noted that the purpose of the door is to take deliveries and consistent with that purpose, it is screened from the street. He confirmed that the clerestory windows will be consistent throughout the house. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Rugo confirmed that the stucco garden wall was part of the request that was previously approved by the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Rugo reviewed the garage doors pointing out the pattern on the doors and explaining that they will not be visible from the street. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged that a change in vocabulary on the inward facing part of the building is reasonable. Chair man Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited further comments from the Commission. Commissioner Moyer commented that the proposed modifications to the previously approved plan are, in his opinion, an enhancement over the previous plan. He noted that the changes add interest to the south elevation and the entry and are a welcome relief from window and wall pattern. He stated support for the revisions as presented. Commissioner Preschlack stated agreement with Commissioner Moyer’s comments. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 3 Commissioner Travers made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for revisions to the plans previously approved by the Commission on October 24, 2012. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and incorporates the Co mmission’s discussion as additional findings in support of the project . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was approved by the Commission in a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for additions to existing accessory structures at 1291 Elm Tree Road. Owner: Jim McNerney Representative: William Sturm, architect 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. Mr. Sturm introduced the petition stating that the goal of the project is to make the fitness areas of the house useable, safe and accessible throughout the year. He reviewed the components of the project noting that the existing pool will be reduced in size and reconfigured as a lap pool and the fitness pavilion will be expanded slightly. He reviewed the site plan noting that all of the necessary documentation o n the slope and trees was provided to staff. He pointed out the portions of the residence that will be affected by the project and noted that the amount of hardscape on the site will be reduced. He comment ed that the reside nce is well kept and is made up of a variety of styles and construction from different eras. He stated that the challenge of the project was to achieve something that is light, has an historic reference and is less building, and more part of the landscape. He reviewed the existing structures on the site noting the colonnade that will be replaced with a seasonal conservatory. He noted that the enclosure will allow the residents to enter the pool from a warm area in the colder seasons. He reviewed the proposed 6-foot expansion of the fitness room noting that the addition will repeat the existing semi-circula r form. He noted that during the hottest months, canvas will be attached to the arches for shade. He discussed the “living wall” no t ing that his firm recently completed a living wall for the Forest Preserves District as a bio -remediation feature to clean the air and save energy. He explained that a “living wall” is planned near the pool. He continued to review the site plan noting t he link between the patio and pool house in relation to existing spaces. He discussed the conservatory and provided examples of conservatories in the Chicago area. He explained that the intent is to achieve a turn of the cent ury greenhouse such as those found on the estates. He noted that it is difficult to see any part of the property from the street and added that the elements of this project will be subservient to other structures on the property. He noted the potential to add solar panels to heat the pools if desired by the owners in the future. He showed images of the connection to the pool as it will appear in with winter and summer months noting the openness that would be created in warm weather. He reviewed each elevation noting the light touch and transparency of each area. He stated that the materials will replicate the existing materials including glass and steel and noted that the roof pitches will be compatible, and not in conflict with, the existing roof elements. He noted that the exist ing landscaping will be maintained and enhanced in a manner similar to what exists today. Ms. Neuman commented that the proposed modifications are hidden from view from off the site and present a creative solution to achieve the owners’ desire to connect areas of the house. She acknowledged that the proposed design does not exactly match the existing elements of the house, but Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 4 noted that it is compatible with the overall house given the number of different roof pitches and elements that currently exist. She stated that there are still some technical issues that need to resolved and not ed that the drawing s are still at a fairly conceptual stage. She noted that in addition to the materials in the Commission’s packets, further information was provided in the presentation by Mr. Sturm. She noted that as the final drawings are prepared, staff will review them to confirm that the plans reflect the stated intentions for the project. She stated that the reduction in impervious surface on the site is a positive of the project. She stated staff support for the project subject to conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Preschlack questioned whether the plans presented are detailed enough plans to allow the Commission to fully understand the project. He questioned whether the Commission should see a more finished product before taking action on this project. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Sturm reviewed the thought process in considering contemporary versus more traditional structures. He reviewed the elevations acknowledging that they do not yet present a full level of detail. He noted the various alternative designs and materials considered. Chairman Pairitz commented that some further research on the conservatory element would be beneficial. He noted the opportunity to select a design best suited for this site. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Sturm stated that this project but will be completed based on the products available but with appropriate materials and detailing. He stated that the intent is that the glass will be transparent and stated that if another approach is preferred, the project would be brought back to the Commission. Commission Moyer stated that he knows the architect’s work and stated that he is an ext remely competent designer. He stated that the project will be appropriately detailed and the end product will not be a typical addition. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Neuman confirmed that portions of the existing house and accessory structures are in the ravine setback. She explained that because of that condition, the presentation of the project was delayed so that a Steep Slope Stability Report could be completed. She stated that the report was reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer, allowing the project to move forward. She stated that to date, no plan for exterior lighting has been proposed. She stated that any exterior lighting would need to be in compliance with the City’s Residential Lighting Guidelines or, the plan would need to be presented to the Commission for review and approval. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he noted that a comment was received from the Preservation Foundation suggesting that more detail should be provided with respect to the proposed materials and the structures. He stated that the area where the work is proposed is very difficult to see from the public street which merits some consideration. He agreed however that the integrity of the overall design is important. He stated that the intent of the project as described is solid and the proposed elements, interesting. He discussed the use of color noting that white could be a strong element in the design. He pointed out that the existing detailing on the house is of various styles and commented that whether a single style is adhered to in this project , or not, may or may not make the project better. He stated confidence that the project is in good hands and that some of the tricky details, such as how the first breeze way between the two structure engages with the roof, will be resolved appropriately. He noted other elements that still need refinement. He stated that the fact that several areas need further study Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 5 suggests that additional information is needed. He noted however, that he would not expect the Commission to stand in the way of a particular solution, but understanding the details is important. Commissioner Ransom agreed that additional details are needed and stated that he supports the overall concepts presented to date. Commissioner Athenson also agreed and added a concern that as presented, some of the elements appear contemporary and not necessarily consistent with the intent as described. She suggested that more alternatives be explored. She stated that the project is going in the right direction. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Sturm stated that the owner prefers a more traditional solution and stated appreciation for the input that the historic references are not clear as currently presented. Commissioner Preschlack stated support for the direction of the project and agreed that more detail is needed to allow the Commission to meet its responsibility. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Strum stated that he explored, but struggled with a flat roof concept. He agreed that further consideration of the amount and style of detail on the greenhouse is needed. He stated however, that the openness of the breezeway is important to the owners. Commissioner Moyer offered suggestions that could be considered to introduce the manufactured structure to the main structure. In response to Commission comments, Mr. Sturm agreed to talk to the manufacturer further. He stated his intent to present an honest representation of the end product. He acknowledged that at this point, he is not confident enough in the design to introduce another color. Commissioner Pairitz noted that sometimes, a draw ing does not fully convey the ideas of the person who drew it and in this case, the drawing may just need to be developed further. He stated that the Commission is interested to see this project develop further. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue the petition to allow the project to be further developed and detailed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and was approved by the Commission by a vote of 6 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the residence at 946 Elm Tree Road. Owners: Duncan and Brooke MacLean Representative: Rob Douglass, architect 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. Mr. Douglass introduced the petition and presented photos of the existing house and surrounding area. He reviewed the areas of the house proposed for modification and reviewed the site plan. He pointed out Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 6 the area where a 5’ by 20’ mudroom is proposed. He noted that the existing mudroom space is small and is not functional. He reviewed a section of the area of the house proposed for modification noting the low header heights which limit views into the backyard. He stated that improving upon that condition is one goal of the project. He reviewed the existing south elevation noting the four casement windows and the header height s which are lower than on the rest of the house. He reviewed the proposed addition and explained that five feet would be added to the house. He reviewed the proposed floor plan and section noting that the header heights will be aligned with the other windows on the first floor of the house. He stated that this change will allow a person standing at the kitchen sink to have a view o ut of the window. He stated that a shed roof was considered, but found to be too massive so a flat roof is proposed to create a porch-like character and a secondary level design element. He reviewed elevations of the porch and discussed the short columns noting that consistent columns will be used throughout to tie the various elements of the house together. He confirmed that the w indows are remaining the same, just being raised. He asked for Commission approval of the project. Ms. Neuman provided some background on the property noting that a previous Commission approved a major renovation of this house several years which included a reconstruction of the wing on the side of the house where additional work is now planned. She noted that the new owner of the house is interested in a mudroom which will become the primary entrance to the house from a functional standpoint. She stated that based on review of the standards, staff recommends approval of the project. She noted t hat no variances are requested. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Neuman explained that in 2006, several previous additions, which were not particularly well done, were removed. She stated that the project created a more symmetrical design and the existing mudroom was approved and constructed as part of that project. Commissioner Ransom observed that the project appears to be an improvement over the existing conditions. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Douglass confirmed that the driveway alignment will be altered slightly near the proposed addition. He stated that a landscape plan and drainage plan are being developed by Cliff Miller. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Neuman noted that there is a paved parking area currently in the area where the expanded mudroom is proposed. She confirmed that the City’s Certified Arborist reviewed the plans and raised no concerns. She confirmed that foundation plantings will be required. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Douglass stated that the mud room roof will have the appearance of a porch roof or small balcony and commented on the railings. He confirmed that adequate railings will be provided and explained that the existing windows will remain in that area noting that they are in the bathrooms. He noted that some further alterations could occur in that area in the future if major renovatio ns are undertaken. He confirmed that the roof will be properly constructed to support snow loads and address safety issues. Chairman Pairitz observed that the railing could be smaller noting that the structure behind it is diminutive. He encouraged some further consideration of that element by the architect. He invited public Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2013 - Page 7 comment, hearing none, he noted that a letter was received from the Preservation Foundation suggesting some further use of fenestration. Hearing no further comment, he invited a motion. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a mudroom addition and other alterations subject to the following conditions of approval. General 1. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Architectural Design and Site Plan 2. Any modifications to the plan, consistent with the direction of the Commission, shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the Commission’s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. Landscaping 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the scheduling of a rough framing inspection. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: • The foundation plantings adequately screen the foundation wall around the addition. • Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. 4. A pre and post construction tree maintenance plan shall be prepared by a Certified Arborist, if determined necessary by the City Arborist. The plan shall list specific steps that will be taken before and after construction to minimize impact to the mature trees in the area of the driveway expansion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer as his last official action and the motion was approved by the Commission by a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Travers voting nay. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development