Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2012/10/24 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the October 24, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 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 Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson and John Travers. Commissioners absent: None City staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner, Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz reviewed the role of the Historic Preservation Commission and the procedures followed by the Commission. He asked the Commissioners and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes. Approval of the minutes was postponed. RETURNING PETITIONS 3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of the existing residence and construction of a replacement residence at 595 Circle Lane. Restoration of historic elements on the site and relocation/modification of the existing Lily Pool are also proposed. Owners: Terry and Lori Rozdolsky Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect This item was postponed at the request of the petitioners. NEW RESIDENTIAL PETITIONS 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of the existing residence and construction of a replacement residence and the associated landscaping and site plan on property located at 930 Lake Road. Owners: Miles and Lorna Marsh Representative: Steven Rugo, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petition. Brian Gaily, Rugo Raff Architects, one of the petitioners’ representatives, reviewed Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 2 photos of the existing house at 930 Lake Road noting that it was constructed in 1975 with later additions, including a garage addition. He stated that the house is on a significant and prominent property, but the house itself is not notable or significant. He reviewed the precedents used as references for the proposed replacement house and provided photos of various David Adler homes and other homes in the area. He noted in particular the use of pediments, plaster and formal landscaping. He commented on the symmetry and balance of the homes referenced as well. Mr. Rugo , architect, presented the proposed replacement house. He reviewed the orientation of the house and the approaches to the house from Lake Road and from Westminster for service purposes. He pointed out how landscap ing is used to create the sense of a series of outdoor spaces surrounding the home. He pointed out the similarities between this site plan and the layout of the Marsh’s existing home on Deerpath. He noted that little of the house on Deerpath is visible from the streetscape. He described the basic form of the house as an H-plan with the public rooms separated from private spaces and informal living areas opening to gardens. He reviewed the detailing proposed in different areas of the house and reviewed the exterior materials including a zinc roof, the use of stucco and various hardscape treatments for the horizontal surfaces. He noted that the series of outdoor roo ms in the rear yard create private areas for sculptures and noted the proposed garden pavilion. He provided samples of exterior materials and a massing model for the Commission’s review. He concluded stating that the proposed plan meets all applicable Co de requirements noting that the plan is compact and appropriate for the site and neighborhood. He pointed out that the existing house encroaches into the zoning setbacks but the new house will conform to all current setback requirements. Mr. Radovanovic, planning intern, provided an overview of the request noting the two components, a request for approval of the demolition of the existing residence and a request for approval of a replacement house, site plan and associated landscaping. He stated that both approvals can be incorporated into a single Certificate of Appropriateness. He reviewed the proposed demolition noting that the existing house is substantial, but is not identified as a contributing structure to the historic district and is not of architectural significance. He stated that the proposed demolition appears to satisfy the applicable Code criteria. He noted that the staff report reviews key elements of the proposed replacement residence and provides findings in support of the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. He stated that preservation of the quality, mat ure trees on the site and an appropriately designed landscape plan are critical to the success of this project and allowing the replacement house to fit into the streetscape and the neighborhood. He acknowledged that this project requires the removal of some trees and stated that any removals will require the planting of replacement tree inches either on site or a fee in lieu of plantings on site to allow for parkway plantings in the neighborhood. He noted that the landscape plan should clearly detail the tree inches removed and those being replaced. He stated that if minor grading is proposed around trees identified for preservation, care should be taken to avoid negative impacts to the mature trees. He stated that the City’s Certified Arborist will work closely with the petitioner on both the protection and preservation of mature trees and to assure that appropriate replantings are reflected on the final landscape plan. He summarized the staff report stating that the proposed replacement house meets the applicable criteria. He stated that public notice of this petition was provided consistent with the Code requirements. He stated that one letter was received and was provided to the Commission. He explained that the letter was a Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 3 statement from Lake Forest Preservation Foundat ion in support of the project. He recommended approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition and the replacement residence, site plan and conceptual landscape plans subject to the conditions of approval as detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Rugo reviewed the trees proposed for r emoval. He confirmed that the plan is to plant high quality replacement trees in a more formal pattern. He noted that the trees proposed for removal are not in the best of health. He confirmed that the iron fence along Westminster will remain and a hedge will be planted behind it in a manner that does not interfere with the trees which are being preserved. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Radovanovic confirmed that the fourth tree identified for removal was dead and has already been removed for safety reasons. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the landscape plan in the Commission’s packet is a preliminary plan. She clarified that a final landscape plan will be developed based on input from the Commission and will need to provide a calculation of replacement trees inches. She added that the final landscape plan will be detailed on the approved grading plan to assure that no conflicts exist between proposed grading and planting. She confirmed that the City’s Certified Arborist will be responsible for reviewing the plan and assuring that it is consistent with any conditions of the Commission’s approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Rugo stated that the distance between the two garages will be 22’ to 25’, a typical distance to allow for required movements to enter and exit the garages. He stated that the intent is that there will not be space in this area to park a vehicle. He confirmed that there will be sufficient room for a vehicle to turn around if it is not accessing the garages noting that the wall will be setback an adequate distance . He stated that service vehicles will be able to maneuver and many encroach slightly on to the pervious surfaces in the area to make a turn. In response to a request from Chairman Pairitz , Mr. Rugo reviewed the hardscape treatments proposed on the site noting the use of crushed stone and brick borders for both driveways. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. Rugo confirmed that there is not currently a driveway into the property from Westminster . He explained that the proposed plan has two driveways, a formal entrance for guests from Lake Road and a service entrance from Westminster . In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Rugo discussed the driveways further and pointed out that the two driveway configuration minimizes the paved areas on the site. Chairman Pairitz invited public comments, hearing no requests to speak; he stated that although it is a bit s hocking to tear down a solid house, the project is a well done. He stated appreciation for the fact that the site plan allows for some views into the property from the corner and for the treatment of both of the driveways in a similar fashion. He stated that the final landscape plan should be reviewed to assure that those elements are retained. He noted that the replacement Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 4 house is simple and elegant and noted that there is precedent for this approach in this neighborhood and in the community. In response to a questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Rugo confirmed that the top of the transom window and the top of the other windows will be aligned. He acknowledged that the detail is reflected incorrectly on the model. In response to questions from Chairman Pairit z, Mr. Rugo stated that the final color palette has not been selected but stated that the colors will be in the cooler, neutral gray/taupe range. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Rugo stated that the trim will likely be white and will add warmth. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Rugo stated his hesitation to describe the gray as either bluish or greenish but instead, more toward the taupe or khaki sides of the gray spectrum with a lighter window trim. Chairman Pairitz commented that a neutral palette makes sense. He added that the limestone Wainscot is a nice detail noting that it continues beyond the front façade and that the limestone is an element that can be inserted at other places such as in conjunction with sculptures in the garden, as a recurring theme. Commissioner Athenson stated that although the Commission did not spend much time discussing the demo lition request, the criteria appear to be met and the replacement project is a clear improvement over the existing house and fits better into the surrounding neighborhoo d. She thanked the petitioner for the studies completed in developing the plan for the replacement project. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence noting that findings in support of the approval are detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the replacement residence, site plan and conceptual landscape plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. 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. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and shall be subject to approval by staff. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 5 The landscape plan shall address the following issues: i. The landscape plan shall preserve some views into the site from the corner streetscape. ii. The front and service driveways shall be treated with the same hardscape motif, the same border treatment. iii. The landscape plan shall be shown on the approved grading plan to verify that changes to the grade and drainage patterns do not negatively impact the mature trees on the property and that the proposed landscaping does not negatively impact drainage on the lot. iv. A tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a Certified Arborist to outline the steps that will be taken to protect and care for the mature trees in proximity to the new construction. The plan shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. v. The landscape plan shall identify all vegetation, both mature trees and undergrowth areas that will be removed or maintained. vi. Inch for inch replacement for all trees removed is required, consistent with the Ordinance requirements. Replacement inches should contribute to the streetscape character of the lot. vii. A note shall be placed on the landscape plan stating that approval of the plan is for plantings only, any driveway piers, gates, fences, lighting, garden structures, pool, or other accessory structures will require separate reviews and permits. 3. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place, properly installed, until removal is authorized by the City. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction materials staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans and that necessary tree protection is provide throughout the construction process. 6. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the scheduling of a final inspection due to the time of year, a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor shall be posted with the City. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition and an addition to the residence at 121 N. Sheridan Road. A building scale variance is also requested. Owners: Peter and Jennifer Dunne Representative: Austin DePree, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 6 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree introduced the project stating that his clients have been restoring this home over the past several years since purchasing it noting that to date; the work has included mostly interior renovations to address the neglect the home has suffered in the past. He stated that the renovation now proposed is on the rear elevation. He explained that the existing breezeway that connects the house and three-car garage is proposed for removal and replacement with a new connection element. He stated that the date of construction of the existing breezeway is believed to be 25 to 30 years ago and pointed out that the breezeway element is inferior to the rest of the house in design and construction, and is prone to flooding. He stated that the main house was constructed before the turn of the previous century and was renovated in 1902 – 1903 by James Gamble Rodgers. He stated that in addition to creating a more functional connection to the garage, the replacement breezeway will add appropriate architectural qualities to the back of the house. He provided a slide showing the front of the house in the early years and point ed out the original entry drive to the home which was located to the north, over a sliver of land that accessed the back of the house by way of a bridge over the ravine. He reviewed the area of the proposed renovation. He provided another historic photo of the property found during the research that was completed noting the Colonial Revival style and the distinctive porch facing Sheridan Road. He stated that the distinctive features of the existing house and the details were used as references in developing the drawings for the breezeway which duplicates some of the detailing found on the original house. He discussed the existing rear façade noting the weaknesses of this area and particularly noting that the drainage flows toward the house. He noted distinctive features on the façade that will be preserved specifically the long narrow window. He reviewed the surrounding homes noting that the area of the intended work is well screened from neighboring homes and street views. He reviewed the floor plan noting the front (west) facing façade, the rear portico, and existing breezeway which is proposed for removal. He pointed out the existing garage which is at a 45 degree angle to the home. He stated that the intent is to configure the new breezeway to continue the alignment of the original house to mitigate the angle of the garage. He stated that replacing the garage was considered, but was determined to be beyond the scope of the project. He reviewed the details of the propo sed breezeway noting the rear entry door into a back hall with stairs leading to the main level. He pointed out the new mudroom that will be incorporated into the breezeway, near the garage. He noted that currently, the rear entry to the house has no closets and no vest ibule. He stated that the addition provides that space. He reviewed the exterior of the proposed replacement addition. He noted that the connection replicates the roof angles on the main body of the house and intro duces columns and a small porch on the rear facade. He emphasized that the existing historic façade will remain completely unchanged. He noted the intent to step down the breezeway to meet the garage, stepping the roof line down. He stated that the architectural detailing will match the existing house. He provided a three dimensional graphic of first the existing and then the proposed breezeway. Ms. Neuman reviewed the three components of this petition: a partial demolition, the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 7 design of the proposed replacement addition and a request for a building scale variance. She noted that findings in support of the partial demolition are included in the staff report citing the relatively recent date of construction and lack of compatibility with the original structure. S he noted that findings in support of the proposed replacement addition are also included in the staff report noting that the addition appears to meet the standards in the Code and noting the enhanced architectural detailing and integration with the historic residence that the addition will provide. She discussed the request for a building scale variance noting that this existing historic house is over the allowable square footage given its construction long before the Code provisions were established. She stated that this type of overage is not uncommon in the historic district. She stated that the proposed addition provides for an updated floor plan and added that the addition is not over scaled and is tucked behind the house, away from views from the st reet. She stated that the actual increase in square footage, beyond what exists today, is small. She recommended approval of all components of the petition based on the findings in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. DePree reviewed the elevations of the proposed addition discussing the placement of the windows and the amount of wall space above the windows. He confirmed that the height of the entry is consistent with the proportions of the existing house and the placement of the windows. He noted that more typical window configurations were explored but stated that the 8 foot by 12 foot windows were determined to be most appropriate for this house. He added that it is very difficult to artfully bridge the space between low garage and the house and reiterated that replacing the garage was beyond the scope of the project. He stated that the project as presented provides the cleanest resolution to this tricky situation. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. DePree reviewed the elevations and pointed out the areas where the slope of the roof elements on the addition match the roof slopes o n the house. He stated that a hip roof was considered, but creates a strange interconnection. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. DePree confirmed that the attic space in the addition is unfinished space. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree reviewed elements of the exterior of the proposed addition. He pointed out a slight roof overhang, but clarified that a second porch is not proposed. Commissioner Athenson commented that the replacement breezeway really highlights the garage and suggested that consideration be given to enhancing the garage doors. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. DePree confirmed that the floor of the replacement addition will be raised 18” above grade and the ground will be pitched away from the house to address the flooding issue. Chairman Pairit z invited public testimony. Hearing no requests to speak, he commented that a good solution is presented to a tricky problem. He stated that the plan presented Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 8 connects the house with the garage in a manner that is in keeping with the overall rear elevation of the house. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of the existing breezeway, construction of a replacement breezeway and granting a building scale variance based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Approval of the project is granted subject to compliance with all the terms, conditions, restrictions and provisions of the City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Particular attention should be given to the following requirements, requirements specific to this petition are shown in italics. 1. The final plans, when presented for permit, shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Commission and consistent with any direction from t he Commission for further refinement or modification. To assurance compliance with this condition, the plans shall be reviewed by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify conformance. 2. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place, properly installed, until removal is authorized by the City. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction materials staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be submitted by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. No parking is permitted on Sheridan or Illinois Roads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition, alterations and additions at 39 S. Sheridan Road. Owners: Todd Buffington, 39 S. Sheridan Road, LLC Representative: Steven Besch, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commissioner for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Besch introduced the petition stating that approval of a partial demolition and additions and alterations to the existing residence is requested. He reviewed the plat of survey noting that the parcel is 1.2 acres in size. He reviewed the siting of the existing residence on the lot noting that due to the present zoning setback requirements, the site is tight and does not allow for much opportunity for expanding the footprint of the house. He stated that the existing home is a one- story, non-descript ranch style home, with a front facing garage. He reviewed the streetscape and surrounding properties pointing out the location of the driveway along the south property Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 9 line that provides access to two lots behind the 39 S. Sheridan Road property. He stated that the house is not highly visible from the Sheridan Road streetscape due to the significant vegetation in the front yard. He reviewed the proposed additions to the home noting small additions proposed as extensions to the fir st floor and the area where a second floor addition is proposed over the main body of the existing house. He reviewed the portions of the existing house to be retained noting that over 50% of the house will remain intact and r eviewed the demolition plan. He noted that the front entrance will be modified. He stated that there is an existing small basement which will not be expanded. He reviewed the significant renovations that are proposed for the interior of the house. He reviewed the details of each proposed addition to the house. He described the modifications proposed to the existing roof element. He stated that the inspiration for the alterations and additions come from a number of Colonial style homes and some David Adler homes in the area. He reviewed the elevations of the house as proposed noting the double hung windows, properly scaled and operational shutters, dormers, modified roof forms and the additions of gables. He stated that the alterations include retaining a brick base and adding horizontal siding and a shingle style roof. He stated that the windows will be white with black trim. H e provided an overlay of the existing and proposed elevations. He noted that Colonial porches were studied and appropriate elements are incorporated into the design. He reviewed renderings and stated that considerable study was completed to reach this point in the design process. He explained that a zoning variance is required to allow the proposed roof modification on the southernmost portion of the house since that element already encroaches into the required setback. He noted that the zoning variance was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals and that the Board recommended approval pending approval by the Commission. He stated that the house is under the allowable square footage and height. He requested approval of the petition. Ms. Neuma n stated that this petition is presented as a partial demolition based on the stated intent of the petitioner to reuse the structure and convert the existing ranch to a two story Colonial house. She stated that based on information presented by petitioner, less than 50% of the existing structure will be demolished and the remaining structure is structurally sound and able to support a second floor. She noted that given the intent to create a Colonial structure from the existing ranch house, working within the limitations of the existing house present s some challenges. She stated that the petitioner has worked to refine the architectural details of the plan in an effort to achieve a consistent design working within the limitations of the existing house. She asked for Commission direction on the proposed detailing and massing of the proposed alterations and additions. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals, as part of its recommendation, required that the wooded character of the lot be maintained and that landscape screening between the house and the driveway to the south be retained and enhanced as necessary. She stated that the Commission received a letter from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation stating general support for the project and noting that the project could benefit from further refinement of the design details. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the petitioner submitted documentation stating that the existing house is structurally sou nd. She stated that the City’s Lead Plans Examiner reviewed the materials submitted and accepted the information submitted to date in support of retaining the existing structure and achieving the desired project through additions and alterations. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 10 In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Besch explained that there is only a small basement under the existing house and he stated that the owner has no need or desire to expand the basement. He confirmed that only crawl spaces will be created under the additions. He confirmed that access will be provided through the crawl spaces. He clarified the limits of the second floor. He confirmed that the first floor ceiling height is 8 feet and the new second floor ceiling heights will be 9 feet. He confirmed that the smaller chimney is wood and the others are brick. Commissioner Athenson commented that the overall appearance of the elevations is top heavy noting that the addition of dormers above the second floor will add to that appearance. She cautioned that there are many examples of second floor additions that do not achieve the desired or intended design. She stated that normally, a taller first floor height and reduced second floor height creates a stronger and more proportionally correct design. Commissioner Moyer agreed with the comments of Commissioner Athenson concerning overall scale and concern about the height of the first floor in relation to the proposed second floor. He noted that if the scaled figure in the drawings is accurate, the garage doors appear short if the grades are maintained and the eaves are intended to align. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Buffington confirmed that the garage steps down from the house and that the garage doors are 7 feet in height. He also confirmed that the intention is to continue t he use of brick pavers. Chairman Pairitz invited public comments. Hearing none, he agreed with the comments of other Commissioners about there being some awkwardness to the scale with the proposed design. He suggested that a section through the house, showing the proposed second floor and existing first floor be prepared to illustrate what is proposed and to allow further study. He suggested that dropping the roof line to the top of the window be studied. He discussed the overhang above the front door discussing the proposed alignment in relation to the floor line. He observed that given the depth of the property and orientation of the house, the perception may be that the dormers read as being set back further than it appears in the elevation. He observed that the dormer furthest back on the house appears to be just a suggestion of a dormer. He questioned whether it should be punctuated a bit more. He suggested that bringing the mass of the entry corner out could eliminate the one story/two story awkwardness or, could add further visual confusion. He suggested that the concept be explored. He stated that overall, the project is a solid response given the limitations of retaining the existing house. He stated support for retaining the brick on the first floor and treating the second floor the same all the way around the house. He stated support for the use of shutters at the front of the house, but commented that on the other elevations, shutters could be used at the larger windows, but not at the smaller windows to allow the vocabulary to continue, in an appropriate way, around the house. Commissioner Ransom agreed that the project is well done but agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. He observed that the arch detailing of the overhang on the second floor draws interest to the main body of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 11 Chairman Pairitz suggested that the sill heights of the windows be dropped to address the concerns raised about proportions. Commissioner Swenson commented that the house needs the shutters as a decorative element and suggested that they be added to all elevations. She stated support for carefully considering the character and distinction of the end product as the plans are refined and finalized. Commissioner Athenson asked that more study and refinement be done to assure that the various elements of the house are in proper proportion t o each other. She emphasized that the end product should not be such that it appears that a second floor was added to a ranch home. She asked the elevations be studie d without dormers to determine whether elimination of the dormers improves the proportio ns and overall design. Commissioner Ransom observed that from the renderings presented, it is hard to understand how the relationships of the various elements will really play out. Mr. Buffington cited examples of precedents for dormers. Chairman Pairitz stated support for two different styles of dormers but stated that as currently presented, the differences are barely distinguishable. Commissioner Preschlack observed that the form of the house may appear boxy if the dormers are removed. He stated that absent demolishing the existing house and starting over, some compromise with respect to a good design may be all that is possible. Commissioner Moyer stated support for the dormers and the project. Chairman Pairit z discussed the roof element and suggested consideration of an 8/12 roof pitch. Hearing no further comments, he invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition of the existing single family residence and approval of various additions and alterations. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and discussion of the Commission and is subject to the 1. Approval of the project is granted subject to compliance with all the terms, conditions, restrictions and provisions of the City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Particular attention should be given to the following requirements, requirements specific to this petition are shown in italics. 2. The final plans, when presented for permit, shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Commission and consistent with the direction below from the Commission for further refinement or modification. To assurance compliance with this condition, the plans shall be reviewed by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify conformance. a. The detailing of the dormers shall be studied and refined consistent with the Commission’s discussion and direction. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 12 b. Consideration shall be given to the use of shutters on all elevations consistent with the Commission’s discussion and direction. c. Consideration shall be given to lowering the sill height of the second floor windows to improve the proportions of solids to voids and first floor height to second floor height. d. Consideration shall be given to modifications to the roof pitch. 3. Full detailed working drawings shall be submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the application for building permit. The plans shall accurately detail in plan and elevation, and quantify, all proposed demolition activity to allow confirmation that the project remains a partial, and not a full demolition. The final plans shall be reviewed by staff to verify that the extent of demolition as represented during the public presentations and in the materials provided to the Commission is achieved and that in total, the amount of demolition of existing materials does not exceed 50%. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall provide digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site to the City for historic files. 5. Prior to the scheduling of the rough framing inspection, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and shall be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist . The landscape plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following: a. The landscape plan shall identify all vegetation, both mature trees and undergrowth areas that will be removed or maintained. b. The landscape plan should provide adequate plant materials to preserve the existing wooded character of the streetscape and screen the proposed structure from the street , adjacent driveway and neighboring properties. c. A minimum of inch for inch replacement for all trees removed is required. d. A note shall be placed on the landscape plan stating that approval of the plan is for plantings only, any driveway piers, gates, fences, lighting, garden structures, pool, or other accessory structures will require separate approval and permits. 6. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place, properly installed, until removal is authorized by the City. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction materials staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. No parking is permitted on Sheridan Road. 8. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans and that the approved protective fencing is pro perly maintained throughout the construction process. 9. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the scheduling of a final inspection due to the time of year, a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor, shall be posted with the Cit y. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved by the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 - Page 13 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a garage addition and modification of the driveway approach at 901 Rosemary Road. Demolition of portions of a garden wall is also proposed. Owner: Eugene E. Martin, Jr. Trust Representative: Eugene Martin, developer This item was postponed to allow time for the submittal of additional materials. NEW COMMERCIAL PETITION 8. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a change to the storefront at 280 E. Deerpath. Owner: Altounian Properties Representative: Peter Witmer, architect This item was postponed to allow time for the submittal of additional materials. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There was not public testimony on non-agenda items. 10. Additional information from staff. Ms. Neuman presented the 2013 Meeting Schedule and Submittal Deadlines and requested Commission review and approval. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to approve the 2013 Meeting Schedule and Submittal Deadlines. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Athenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development