Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/09/12 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the September 12, 2011 Special Meeting A special meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Monday, September 12, 2011, 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 Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson, Fred Moyer and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Ransom Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz introduced the members of the Commission and staff and reviewed the procedures followed by the Commission. 2. Approval of the August 10, 2011 meeting minutes. The minutes of the August 10, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner Moyer. Continued/Returning Petitions 3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving storefront alterations including awnings and signage or a new design studio and retail business, Megan Winters, at 675 N. Forest Avenue. Owner: Shawgate Lake Forest, LLC Representatives: Megan Winters and Annette Carroll, owners Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he noted that the Commissioners who were not in attendance at the last meeting reviewed the tape of the previous meeting at which this item was discussed and are prepared to participate in the Commission’s discussion and action on this item. Ms. Winters reviewed the approvals received at the last meeting including approval to paint the trim and approval of a new door, planters and signage. She stated that since the last meeting, she met with a subcommittee of the Commission twice and worked with her architect to develop some workable options. She introduced her architect, Frank Klepitch to discuss the project as now proposed. Mr. Klepitch noted his respect for the work of Howard Van Doren Shaw. He stated that when asked to assist with determining appropriate replacement awnings, he identified Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 2 two key considerations, the form of the awning and the color. He stated that the awnings as now proposed match the other awnings on the building in width, height and form. He noted that John Vinci designed the awning form in the early 1990’s. He discussed the difficulty in matching awning colors noting that if an exact match is not found, it will always appear as an unsuccessful effort. He noted that the existing awnings on the building are tattered and faded. He said that striped awnings were considered but noted that the awnings found had stripes of various widths and had bold colors. He stated that instead of ending up with an unsuccessful match, the decision was made to select a compatible, but distinctly different color. He described the slate gray color preferred by the petitioner for the awnings. He stated that the color is reminiscent of the slate roof. He showed a photograph of the proposed gray awnings and a streetscape view as well. He noted that most people will see the building from the streetscape perspective, and not from a full frontal view. He provided the Commission with samples of the awnings. He stated that with the preferred gray awning, the trim would be painted a charcoal gray. Ms. O’Neill noted that since the last meeting several discussions occurred including discussions with a subcommittee of the Commission. She acknowledged that finding the appropriate direction for this petition has been difficult noting strong and varying opinions from members of the Commission and the need to balance the interests of the petitioner. She noted that two options for the awnings were submitted by the petitioner and are presented in the Commission’s packets. She stated that the petitioner’s preferred option is the slate gray awning. She stated that the staff recommendation supports the green option since the design guidelines for the Central Business District encourage green awnings in general for the district. At the request of Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Klepitsch provided a sample of the “green option” and a paint swatch. He stated that the green becomes more green in the daylight and noted that there are many shades of green seen from the streetscape perspective. He stated that from the petitioner’s perspective, a gray awning is the best way to integrate another color awning on the streetscape without fighting with the rest of the building. Chairman Pairitz stated that this is a difficult petition due to the prominence of the building and the strength of the existing front façade. He acknowledged the interests and desire of the business owner for distinction. He observed that some variety in awning colors exists in Market Square and on the surrounding blocks, but noted that this building is distinct. Commissioner Berg called attention to a photo that was previously provided showing that originally, the building did not have awnings. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Winters confirmed that the planters in front of the windows will be a gun metal gray color. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Winters confirmed that the window trim is proposed to be gray, consistent with the gray awnings, instead of the previously approved white. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. O’Neill noted that the design Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 3 guidelines for the Central Business District identify green as the preferred color for awnings. Commissioner Athenson commented that the guidelines are intended to limit subjectivity but noted that as written, they seem to allow for subjectivity. She suggested that consideration be given to strengthening the guidelines. Ms. O’Neill clarified that the signage guidelines are incorporated into the ordinance by reference, but are “guidelines” intended to allow for deliberation and discussions by the Commission and used to support a decision that is consistent in general with the historic character of the business district. Chairman Pairitz invited public testimony. Hearing none, he commented that there are two ways to look at this petition, one that the awnings is part of the building, the other, that it is transient in nature. He stated that in his opinion, viewing the awning as transient in nature, and not part of the building, is possible. He observed that there are two tenants, not a single tenant in the building so different, but compatible solutions may be workable. Commissioner Swenson noted concern about the trim stating that the trim in Market Square seems to be consistent in color. She stated concern that the gray trim may be jarring. Commissioner Athenson stated a commitment to adhering to the Ordinance and requiring green awnings. She stated that in her opinion, the Caribou Coffee solution, with brown awnings, is less than satisfying. She stated concern about incremental changes to the character of the Central Business District. She stated appreciation for the desire of the business owner for distinction of the business and noted that the difference in the style of the awning and the door will provide distinction. She noted that unlike Market Square, this building has a solid face and following the Ordinance and requiring a green awning is appropriate. Commissioner Berg stated that after much deliberation, he is comfortable with the gray awnings as proposed. He stated that if necessary to get this project approved, he is willing to support green awnings. He noted that although the white trim was previously approved, he can accept the trim painted to match the awning. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Code language provides specifics with respect to signage but the design guidelines provide guidance. She explained that the guidelines were incorporated by reference into the Code several years ago to provide additional guidance to petitioners on the types of signage and awnings that characterize the Central Business District. She explained that the guidelines also provide a framework for the Commission in evaluating how proposed signage, awnings and storefront alternations may or may not be consistent with the character of the business district. She stated that the guidelines allow for some subjectivity in determining whether proposals meet the criteria in the Preservation Ordinance. She clarified that the guidelines encourage green awnings, but the Code does not require green awnings allowing for review of individual petitions and a determination of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 4 appropriateness in each case by the Commission. Chairman Pairitz pointed out that the Commission’s role is to make interpretations and evaluate individual requests and that the Preservation Ordinance supports this process recognizing that these kinds of decisions are not black or white. He acknowledged that the Commission is considering this request very carefully to avoid a decision that will set an unintended precedent. He stated that the bottom line is to make a decision that will result in a solution that works with this important building and this street. Commissioner Swenson noted concern with how this decision may affect a petition that is presented to the Commission in the future. She commented that if the guidelines are not followed in this case, what will that mean for future petitions. Commissioner Moyer acknowledged the difficulty in matching new awnings to the existing awnings and stated that the solution is to change all of the awnings. He commented on the common theme that exists in Market Square acknowledging some variation among the store fronts. In contrast, he pointed out the single mass and strict consistency on the Shaw building. He noted that what is proposed is not consistent with either. He acknowledged that awnings were not part of the original building, but noted that when they were added, they were installed consistent with the character of the building. He noted John Vinci’s work in the earlier restoration of Market Square commenting that he is a noted preservation architect. He stated that he talked with Mr. Vinci about the proposed changes to the storefront of the Shaw building. He stated that Mr. Vinci commented that the awnings on the building should be consistent and a part of a theme on the building. He stated that if the awnings are deteriorated, they should be replaced. He expressed concern, a concern that was shared by Mr. Vinci, that a departure from the consistent theme could be the start of further movement away from the established theme on the building. He reiterated that the Shaw building is a single entity and stated that the elements on the building should be consistent. He acknowledged the petitioner’s interest in creating a distinctive look and commented that as with other businesses in Market Square, the service provided and the products offered will create that distinction without changing the building. Chairman Pairitz stated appreciation for Mr. Vinci’s point of view but noted that the Commission deals with balancing these types of issues all the time. He agreed that there is a line that should not be crossed with respect to preserving the visual character of the buildings, but also stated an understanding of the need to identify a business. Commissioner Preschlack acknowledged the practical need to identify a new business and noted that if the building was occupied by a single tenant, there would not be an issue. He stated that consideration needs to be given to what maintains the unity of the structure but added that some flexibility may be needed to support new businesses. He stated that it is important to preserve the existing character of the Central Business District and not take it for granted. He stated that the Commission’s goal is to resist commercial tendencies so that the character does not get diminished little by little. He stated that although he sees both sides of the discussion, his sense is that the Commission should err on the side of protection. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 5 Commissioner Berg pointed out that what is proposed is not neon and is not bricks and mortar. He stated appreciation for the information from Commissioner Moyer noting that this type of debate illustrates the integrity of the Commission and the sincerity with which the Commissioners serve. He agreed that the rhythm of the striped awning defines the building and the streetscape currently, but noted that the awnings are not part of the building. He stated that the awnings will deteriorate over time and stated that after much deliberation, he can support either the gray or green. Ms. Carroll stated that she would like to see the gray awnings installed across the building but noted that there is a cost to changing the awnings and the other tenant is not interested in making the change at this time. Ms. Winters discussed the trim and noted that almost all of the trim on buildings in the area is gray or charcoal in color and on Southgate, almost a black color. She stated that her intent is to be consistent with other trim in the area. Commissioner Moyer noted that in the packet materials, the decision on trim color is tied to the decision on the awning. He stated that since the last meeting, he visited the site on numerous occasions and noted that the existing awning has been in the retracted position. He stated that with the awning retracted, the importance and visibility of the window trim was emphasized. He commented that the Shaw building is like a ship with a consistent theme and stated his opinion that consistency is very important and that what exists should remain. Chairman Pairitz attempted to summarize the positions of the various Commissioners in an effort to move the Commission forward to a decision noting support from some Commissioners for green awnings, a desire for no change from what exists from others and some flexibility on the part of others. He clarified that to approve a motion, four votes are needed. Commissioner Athenson stated that the challenge is to maintain the appearance of the building as one unit, despite the two tenants. Commissioner Preschlack stated that in an ideal world, he would like to see the building stay the same but stated that some flexibility may be reasonable. He stated however that the Central Business District is not a museum and added that any awning will change over time. He stated that he cannot support the gray color commenting that it is too much of a departure, strong and urban in appearance. He acknowledged however that the Code provides the opportunity for some variation. Commissioner Moyer commented that what is needed is a creative solution for maintaining consistency and assuring replacement of materials within an appropriate timeframe, a mechanism by which all awnings get replaced together. He stated his concern that without such an approach, over time, the overall character will be diminished. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Winter stated that the green as Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 6 proposed is the only shade of green she finds workable. Chairman Pairitz noted that on Southgate, the building to the south, there are two different color green awnings. He pointed out that the darker green on that building is similar to the green color presented as an option by the petitioner. In response to a reminder from Ms. O’Neill regarding the request for approval of the plaque which is part of the petition, the Commission stated support for the plaque as proposed. Commissioner Berg made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the green awnings at 675 N. Forest Avenue as shown in the Optional Awning Proposal presented by the petitioner subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Awning fabric shall be Alpine green, consistent with the option presented by the petitioner. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall provide digital photographic documentation of the full existing building façade and detailed images zoomed to the area of request to the City. 3. Details on how the awning will be mounted shall be submitted with a permit application for the awning to ensure that the hardware is installed into mortar joints and does not impact the integrity of the brick. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was approved by a vote of 4 to 2 with Commissioners Moyer and Athenson voting nay for reasons previously stated. Commissioner Berg noted that the Commission already approved white trim but made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the trim to be green to match the awning, The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and failed 3 to 4 with Commissioners Athenson, Swenson, Moyer and Preschlack voting nay. Commissioner Berg made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve the signage plaques as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved by the Commission. Commissioner Athenson suggested that the Commission consider a standard for awnings in Market Square noting that a standard would make these types of deliberations easier and provide clarity for all parties. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a pool, pool house and landscaping at 335 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: Justin and Erin Foley Representatives: John Krasnodebski, architect and John Mariani, landscaper Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 7 Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition. He provided photos of the house and noted that the footprint of the proposed pool house was staked on the site. He reviewed the drawings of the proposed pool house noting that the design was based on the original house. He discussed the various design elements and details of the proposed structure. He noted that with the proposed structure the property remains under the allowable building square footage and stated that the poll house is consistent with zoning setbacks. He noted that other locations on the site were considered for the pool and pool house and explained that this location was selected to minimize impact on the trees and to allow for views into the backyard from the house. He reviewed each elevation commenting that the rear elevation is not visible, but is detailed at the same level as the other elevations. He reviewed the roof plan and described the pool and pool deck. John Mariani oriented the Commission to the site noting the driveway location and the area of proposed redesign of the driveway to provide a straight line to the house. He noted that the palette of plant materials is more traditional near the home and tapers off to a more natural theme away from the house. He described the terraces proposed for the rear of the home and the plantings planned to screen neighboring properties and pointed out the 20 foot setback areas that will preserved as woodlands around the yard. He identified the existing trees that will be preserved. He discussed the transition between the formal area of the backyard to the natural area. He noted that the area where the pool house and pool are proposed is currently an orchard that is no longer producing fruit. He stated that the landscape plan is comprehensive and will tie the entire site together. Ms. O’Neill stated that the Commission approved alterations and an addition to the home several months ago and that work is underway. She stated that there was an understanding at that time that plans for additional development of the site would be brought back to the Commission. She stated staff support for the proposed pool and pool house and for preservation of the 20 foot wooded buffer around the property in keeping with the woodland character. She stated that the City’s Certified Arborist recommended that the Spruce trees proposed near the property line either be moved back, away from the property line, or replaced with deciduous trees in keeping with the character of the site. She stated that the Arborist supports careful attention to preserving the mature oak trees on the site during grading of the property and construction. She noted that conditions are recommended in the staff report to address these concerns. She stated that the Arborist is supportive of the removal of one large tree to allow reconfiguration of the driveway. She recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions of in the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that inch for inch replacement will be required for the trees removed or, if it is determined by the City Arborist that replacing the inches on site would “over plant” the property in a manner not consistent with good forestry practices, then payment in lieu of replacement will be required. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Mariani pointed out that the footprint of the driveway will be changed very little. He noted that he is very cautious Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 8 about preserving and protecting oak trees and assured the Commission that everything possible will be done to protect the trees during construction. He added that there will also be an after construction tree care plan. Chairman Pairitz invited public input, hearing none; he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson stated support for the project noting that it is well designed and compliments the existing house. She added that the landscape plan is well done. Commissioner Berg stated support for the project. He offered a suggestion that consideration be given to using raised panel doors on the rear elevation of the pool house rather than flush doors as proposed. He acknowledged that the neighbor is some distance away, but added that in the winter months, the raised panels might be visible and would be a nice addition. He added that since the side elevations have no windows to create a rhythm , consideration could be given to adding brick work panels to add detailing. He complimented the use of tri-part massing which is similar to the main house. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the pool, pool house and landscaping as presented, based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Consideration shall be given to the use of a raised panel door on the pool house and further detailing of the blank masonry walls on the north and south elevations subject to staff review and approval. 2. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist shall confirm that the plan achieves the following goals before approving the plan: a. The plan shall identify all existing plantings, those that will remain, and those intended for removal. b. The plan shall identify all new landscaping. c. A minimum woodland buffer of 20 feet shall be maintained along all property lines. d. Healthy trees throughout the site shall be identified for protection and preservation consistent with good forestry practices with the exception of specific trees identified for removal as approved by the Certified Arborist and the Commission. e. The proposed plantings along the south property line shall be modified to replace the Spruce trees with other vegetation consistent with the existing woodland character of the site including the addition of understory trees and plantings which will thrive in shady conditions. f. The plantings must provide inch for inch replacement for the trees removed in a manner consistent with the Historic Preservation Commission approval and in a manner that retains the existing character of the property. 3. Protective fencing shall be installed on the site subject to City approval. 4. A construction materials and staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be submitted for review and be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 9 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a landscape plan and a fence and gate along the streetscape at 333 E. Woodland Road. Owner: Paul Daniel Representative: Daniel Dalziel, landscape architect Chairman Pairitz noted that at the request of the petitioner, this item is postponed. New Petition 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an addition to the existing garage at 2 N. Ahwanhee Road. Owners: Mark and Cathy Houser Representatives: Chris Carlson, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation by the petitioner. Mr. Houser introduced the project stating that he recently purchased the property and plans to repair and resurface the asphalt driveway, add a single car bay to the non-historic garage and, in preparation for the addition of a breezeway between the garage and house in the future, move the existing door to the back side of the garage. He stated that the door relocation will facilitate the construction of a breezeway in the future. He stated that no changes are proposed to the materials or the detailing on the garage and stated that the additional garage bay will be consistent with the existing garage. He presented the proposed elevations of the garage. He reviewed the work proposed for the patio and reviewed photos of the existing vegetation and other existing conditions on the site. He talked about the area proposed for the garage expansion and noted the landscaping that will be preserved in this area. He stated that the new landscaping will be consistent with landscaping that is currently on the site. Ms. O’Neill explained that this is one of four properties accessed off of a private lane. She acknowledged that the petitioner has some future plans for the property, beyond what is presented to the Commission, but clarified that this project stands on its own as an expansion to the existing garage and some patio work. She noted that the garage extension that is proposed has little impact on the site. She noted that correspondence was provided to the Commission from a neighbor in support of the petition. Chairman Pairitz commented that the project appears to be straight forward noting that the area of the work is concealed from view. He offered a suggestion that further consideration be given to the size of the entry to the garage. Hearing no other questions from the Commission, he invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments or a motion from the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 10 Commissioner Preshclack made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the project as presented based on the findings presented in the report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Detailed drawings of the covered entrance shall be submitted for review and approval by staff consistent with the comments from the Commission. a. Consideration shall be given to the massing of the covered entrance to the garage including the size and shape of the posts and roof form to achieve appropriate proportions to the façade of the garage and consistency with architectural elements found on the property. 2. Protective fencing shall be installed on the site subject to City approval. 3. A construction materials and staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be submitted subject to City approval. Given the scope of the project and size of the property, all construction vehicle parking and material staging should occur on the property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Koenig and Strey real estate office at a proposed new location at 280 E. Deerpath. Owner: James Altounian Tenant/Petitioner: Koenig and Strey Representative: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Witmer introduced the petition noting the intent to relocate the sign from the existing Koenig and Strey space on Western Avenue to the proposed new space on Deerpath. He noted that the sign is consistent with Code requirements and is compatible with the building. He commented that in his opinion, the location of the sign on the bricks between the windows is a good fit. He stated that after discussion with staff, the sign will be re-painted to reverse the colors. He explained that the background color will be green, with white letters. He added that there will not be a white border around the sign, just a solid green background. He pointed out that in the recent past, a singl e tenant both this space and the space to the west. He noted that two tenants will now occupy the spaces presenting a need to separate signage. He noted that lettering is proposed on the door and stated agreement with the staff report that the door sign should appear only once, and not be duplicated. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition as originally submitted proposed simply relocating the sign without any change. She noted that after discussion, the petitioner concluded that re-painting the sign and reversal of the colors would be a better solution for this area. She noted that as defined by the Code this type of sign is a band sign and as presented, complies with the Code. She noted the variety of signage on this block and commented that when Coldwell Banker was in this space, the sign was located in a transom window. She stated staff support for the petition as proposed with a green background, white lettering, no border around the sign and just one sign on the entrance door. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 11 In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the existing entrance door will only provide access to Koenig and Strey. He stated that when a tenant is secured for the neighboring space, a new door will be needed. He confirmed that no lighting on the Koenig and Strey sign is proposed and that the background will be all green, without a white border. Commissioner Moyer stated that it appears that there has been a good evolution of ideas since the sign was initially presented. He commented on the symmetry noting that with the green background, the graphic weight is affected. He suggested that consideration be given to shifting the sign to the east about a foot and a half to allow the lettering, rather than the sign, to be centered above the window. He stated that with that shift, the lettering would be the focus of attention. Commissioner Berg observed that reuse of the existing sign is a limiting factor. He noted that if a new sign was planned, it could be shorter and could align with the pilasters. The Commission agreed with a suggestion from staff to require an onsite meeting with staff at the time the sign is being installed to agree on the exact location in the field. Chairman Pairitz invited public comments, hearing none; he invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Berg made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve the wall mounted band sign and vinyl lettering on one window of the entrance door based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The white painted border on the band sign to avoid emphasizing the overall length of the sign. 2. Door signage small be limited to signage on one window panel. 3. At the time of installation, the petitioner shall coordinate with City staff to determine the exact sign location with consideration given to the appropriate relationship of the sign to the windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 8. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition, reconstruction, alterations and the construction of an addition and new garage at 440 E. Illinois Road. Property owner: Architect: Neal Gerdes Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Gerdes introduced the petition and provided some photos of the property in its existing condition. He stated that the house was built around the turn of the Century in a four square styl e. He noted that currently, the front elevation of the house is not cohesive and would benefit from some alterations. He discussed earlier additions to the house and reviewed plans showing Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 12 the various additions noting the areas where the existing house footprint steps back from the property line and steps down in elevation. He noted that the existing cement block foundation was used to identify the original footprint of the house. He provided some history of the property noting that a lot originally existed behind this house and the house to the north, and that in years past, that lot was consolidated into the two front lots. He stated that at this time, interior renovations are proposed to accommodate the life style of the new owners and a rear addition to the home is proposed of about 1,000 square feet bringing the home to a total of 3,375 square feet. He noted that the basement currently houses the garage and reviewed the proposed floor plans noting how existing spaces will be converted to other uses including reuse of the garage space as a family room. He stated that the addition of a chimney is proposed as the only element that will encroach into the setback. He discussed the first floor noting that the first floor will be extended over the existing below grade garage to create various interior spaces. He noted that the footprint of the existing home will not be exceeded. He noted that on the second floor, a master bedroom, bathroom and closet will be created and that three bedrooms will be maintained as exists in the house today. He explained that a 3-car detached garage is proposed with one tandem bay to avoid blocking views from the home, into the back yard. He reviewed elevations of the existing and proposed house and the garage. He pointed out that the garage is only 13’-7” in height. He noted the intent to extend the porch across the front of the house stating that the existing front elevation is not consistent with the Four Square style. He discussed the north elevation noting that the 1989 addition was not in keeping with the original style of the house. He noted that the intent of the proposed addition is to achieve a consistency in style with the original portion of the home. He discussed the rear elevation noting that it too is not consistent with the original style of the house and will be removed and replaced. He discussed the south elevation noting the intent to keep the Four Square style but pointing out that this side of the house is impacted by zoning setback requirements. He noted that in an earlier plan the south elevation was proposed in a single plane but was modified to setback the addition from the original house due to zoning setback requirements. He stated that the intent is to present a project that does not require a zoning variance and as a result, he explained that the walls were configured to conform to the setback requirements. He stated that comments were received from neighbors expressing concerns about the size of the addition, various building elements and impacts on light and air to neighboring homes. He explained that efforts were made to address the issues raised noting that a poorly designed addition will be removed and replaced with an addition that is more consistent with the original home. He stated that concessions were made by the property owners to try to address the concerns and to make the addition as non-imposing as possible. He noted that no variances are needed on the north elevation. Ms. O’Neill stated that the project was initially submitted for consideration by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that in early discussions, staff encouraged the petitioner to first present the project to the Historic Preservation Commission for input on style, massing, integrity of design and the extent of demolition before requesting a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that in recognition of the petitioner’s timeline, and in an effort to provide input to the petitioner, staff moved this project forward despite just recently receiving information. She noted that staff received some additional information this evening clarifying the intent of the petitioner to be consistent with the allowable building square footage and zoning setbacks. She suggested that the Commission provide direction and raise questions to assist the petitioner in moving this project forward. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 13 In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that by pulling the garage away from the north property line, the need for a zoning variance for the garage would be eliminated. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Gerdes explained that the property was originally two lots and that he believes that the intent of the Code was to allow a garage to be located 10 feet from the property line if it is located in the rear 25% of the front lot, not the rear lot. He stated however that his clients are willing to relocate the garage if necessary. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the allowable building scale is based on the two properties combined as a single zoning lot, the condition that exists today. She stated that as a result, the rear 25% of the lot is measured from the back lot line. She stated that with respect to the building scale calculation for the house, clarification is needed on the grades adjacent to the house to verify the square footage. She explained that below grade space exposed more than 3-1/2 feet is calculated into the square footage. She added that currently a large bay window is also calculated into the square footage rather than as a design element due to its size and configuration. She stated that a preliminary building scale calculation is included in the Commission’s packet which shows the project over the allowable square footage. She acknowledged that staff understands that it is the petitioner’s intent to present a project in compliance with the allowed building scale. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. O’Neill noted that at the present time, clarification is needed to determine the extent of demolition planned. She acknowledged that based on initial plan submitted it appeared that about 75% of the home was being demolished however, after discussion with the petitioners and their architect, staff understands that the intent is to demolition only about 35% of the entire existing structure. She stated that the extent of demolition will need to be verified. Chairman Pairitz stated his understanding that the petitioner intends to present a project that is not a demolition and in compliance with the allowable building scale. Commissioner Berg noted the closeness of the home to the south and suggested that to avoid the need to request a zoning variance; the front porch could be expanded to a lesser extent. He stated that he walked around the lot and recognizes that it is not a typical lot and has significant grade change. He recognized that the existing house, on the south side, is over the zoning setback line and asked for clarification on the proposed plan in relation to the existing house and the zoning setback lines. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Gerdes reviewed the existing footprint of the house and discussed the portion of the house that is currently cantilevered on the south side of the house. He stated the intent to keep the addition within the existing footprint and described the area where cantilevering is proposed. He stated that the fireplace could be moved out of the setback area. He stated that there are no issues with the zoning setbacks on the north side of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 14 In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that if any area or element is removed and proposed for reconstruction in the setback area, a zoning variance will need to be requested. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Gerdes stated a willingness to consider options to address the massing and protrusions and ways that the addition might be re- configured. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. John Fitzpatrick, 436 Illinois Road, stated that he had the opportunity to meet the new neighbors prior to the meeting and stated that he welcomes them as neighbors, but has a difference of opinion on what is too much, what fits in and what is appropriate for the neighborhood. He stated that the project as proposed is massive and questioned whether the project will fit in with the historic character of the area. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz invited further comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson referenced a letter received from the neighbor to the south, the Armstrongs, and asked for a response from the petitioner. In response to Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Gerdes responded to the neighbor’s concern noting that changes have been made to mitigate the impacts of the proposed addition by pulling the house back to conform to the setbacks. He noted that pulling the house in affects the interior floor plan. He stated an interest in giving consideration to pulling the chimney in but stated that pulling the eave out of the setback will have significant impacts on the interior. He stated that the house is not getting any taller than the existing house. Commissioner Athenson noted that there is a certain rhythm to the houses along this street. She stated that the house as proposed seems imposing on neighboring properties and suggested carefully considering other homes in the neighborhood. She suggested that consideration be given to looking at the original lot to guide the size of the home and keep it more in scale with the street. Commissioner Berg noted that the property to the north does not appear to be built to the allowable maximum building square footage based on the lot consolidations that occurred. He noted that a future owner of the property to the north could have the opportunity to expand the size of the home. He noted that if a neighbor simply opposes the size of the house the property owner’s rights need to be considered. He noted however that he has concerns about many of the elements proposed but wanted to make the point about the difficulty in limiting square footage just based on size alone. Commissioner Preschlack stated that if the intent of the project is to conform to setbacks and building scale, then a very different project might be presented for the Commission’s consideration. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 15 Chairman Pairitz stated that it is important to establish the critical areas of concern to assist the petitioner in making changes. He stated that he believes that it may be possible, within the proposed vocabulary, to present a project that conforms to the Code requirements. He commented that the original Four Square architecture is long gone with the changes as proposed noting that what was a small house, is now proposed as a large house. He stated he is not concerned with preserving the earlier style, but instead noted that what needs to be looked at is something that works for a larger house. He stated agreement with Commissioner Berg that maybe the porch does not need to cross the full width of the house and noted that in designing the porch, it may be helpful to differentiate the massing as the house goes back. He pointed out that the tandem garage looks nice from the front, from the driveway, put presents a long 40’ wall to the neighbor noting that is a concern and will be noticed by the neighbors. He discussed the site plan noting that there is more relief to the north side of the house than to the south side of the house. He agreed that the neighboring house to the north could someday be a larger house. He noted however that the house to the south, although it too might be able to get somewhat larger, is constrained due to the narrow lot line. He noted that there is a different spatial relationship on the south side and the long flat wall presenting itself to the house to the south concerns him. He observed that on the north elevation, there is a longer view. He stated that on the south elevation, consideration of ways to break up the massing of the plane to create some relief will be important. He stated that not having the entire house be two stories could address that concern. He stated that in his opinion, some real relief is needed, some definition, some rhythm, not one long element. He stated that he is looking for some real change in bulk and massing. He suggested studying this idea at a macro level with block massing. He stated that this is a large lot and could support a large house. He stated that a cohesive and refined solution is needed, one that could allow the impression that the house was built all at one time. Mr. Gerdes stated that he and his client have had several discussions about size and scale. He noted that if the massing of the house is reduced, and the house is expanded to the rear, a new foundation will be required pushing the project beyond the budget. Chairman Pairitz clarified that the solution may not be to expand the footprint, but to look for a cohesive solution that does not look like a large rectangular box. He stated that there is a significant amount of square footage to play with and suggested that with a refined design, the petitioners will likely be more satisfied with the solution. He stated appreciation for the exhibits presented in the packet, but noted that the presentation in two-dimensions is hard to understand. He suggested that a simple massing model will be helpful. He noted that there is a great deal going on with very tall and imposing elevations. He stated that some relief on the elevations is needed to break up the façade. He commented that if the back part of the house is solved appropriately, the two sides will likely come together. He expressed concern that presenting the rear elevation without demonstrating the grade change may be deceiving. He encouraged the petitioners to take comments expressed, understand what is driving them and come back with a refined solution. In response to a suggestion of a subcommittee, he stated that usually a subcommittee is a process for refinement. He suggested that the project go back to the drawing board and that something that “wows” the Commission be presented. He noted that at that point, a subcommittee may be appropriate to refine final elements. Mr. Gerdes noted that he met the client just before the submittal deadline for the July meeting and then was not able to meet the deadline for the August meeting so the petitioner has been Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 16 waiting several months for the chance to get before the Commission. He noted that the petitioners are living in a rental home and that this home in its existing condition is not large enough to accommodate their family. He asked for the opportunity to get back before the Commission quickly. Chairman Pairitz noted the frequency of recent Commission meetings. He cautioned that it is not worthwhile to return to the Commission with a plan that is not fully thought out. He encouraged the petitioner to work with staff noting that staff has a good understanding of the process. He noted that the subcommittee process works well when there is agreement on a direction. He noted that in this case, there is not a single opinion from the Commission at this point. Mr. Locey, property owner, noted that he looked at various towns, but was drawn to Lake Forest. He noted that when he toured this house, there was a set of plans on the table for an expansion almost identical to what is not proposed. He noted that based on the size of the lot and input from contractors he interviewed, he did not expect difficulties with adding to the house. He stated that as the process continued, he was surprised to learn that even though the house was not an historical home, it would require review by the Commission. He noted that he learned about the concerns of the neighbors and made changes to his plans in response. He stated that there is no way for a new homeowner to know of the challenges that will be faced. He stated that he and his architect have done everything possible to prepare for this meeting. He stated that if there is a potential to get additional guidance and clarity from the Commission given the various opinions offered that would be helpful. He stated that he is not sure what the Commission is expecting. He stated disappointment with the concerns of the neighbors noting that removal of a poorly done 1980’s addition and replacing it with a well-designed addition will be a benefit to the neighbors. Commissioner Swenson stated that if further consideration is given to the window size, style and type that could help the perceived massing of the house. She encouraged consideration of the windows from the exterior, in addition to from the interior on every elevation. Chairman Pairitz stated that understanding the building scale calculation is very important. He noted that it is difficult to impose a large house on a neighbor without a strong rational to do so. He noted that variances are sometimes granted on very large lots where there is no impact on neighbors. He stated that understanding that factor is first and foremost. He encouraged the petitioner to look at reductions in square footage that reduce the imposition or the expanse of the house in relation to the neighbors. He stated that if the project gets to the point of providing a good baseline before next meeting, the Commission may be willing to assign a subcommittee to provide further input. He cautioned that a subcommittee can only be two members of the Commission who will do their best to provide guidance but cannot speak for the other members of the Commission. He stated that the petitioner should feel encouraged based on the discussion so far and be open to alternatives. He stated that the Commission has seen lots of examples of petitions that come back significantly improved. In response to a question from Mr. Locey, Chairman Pairitz stated that a solid solution needs to be in place before going forward to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He encouraged working with staff on the timing of the meetings. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 17 Ms. Czerniak offered that the best solution might be to develop a plan that does not require a side yard variance. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to a future meeting. She noted that the Commission encouraged the petitioners to take the direction and input from the Commission on various aspects of the project into account including, but not limited to, the following. ● Provide information to explain the extent of the demolition. ● Revised plans should be in full compliance with the Building Scale Ordinance. ● Consider alternative siting and massing of the proposed addition to break up the large addition as seen from the north and south. ● Consider the height and perception of massing of the elevated deck. ● Consider alternative siting and configuration of the detached garage to minimize impact on neighboring properties. ● Consider an alternative porch design that does not require a zoning variance and is appropriate for the design of the existing house. ● A massing model of the proposed design, including representative of the variation in grade on the property and neighboring structures. ● A tree survey of trees in the vicinity of the proposed construction identifying tree locations, species, size and condition. ● A grading and drainage plan highlighting any proposed grade changes. ● Detailed information on the location, height and materials of any retaining walls. ● Information on the form and detailing of porches from the period of the original construction. ● Evaluation of the structural soundness of the existing foundation and exterior walls and documentation that those existing structures are capable of supporting the proposed construction. If modifications are required, information detailing changes should be provided to allow verification that Building Code requirements can be satisfied. ● Overlay drawings contrasting and comparing the volume and lot coverage of the existing structure with the proposed structure. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional comments from members of the public. 9. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted two upcoming meetings, a joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Board on Forest Park and a community meeting being held by Woodlands Academy to announce the offer of a possible gift of Barat Campus to the Academy. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 - Page 18 The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development