HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/09/28 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Historic Preservation Commission
Proceedings of the September 28, 2011
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held
on Wednesday, September 28, 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 Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson,
Susan Rafferty Athenson and Guy Berg.
Commissioners absent: None
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development.
1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Pairitz
Chairman Pairitz provided an overview of the Historic Preservation Commission
and introduced members of the Commission and staff.
2. Approval of the minutes of the September 12, 2011 meeting.
Approval of the minutes was postponed.
CONTINUED PETITIONS
3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a new single family
dwelling and alterations to the existing out-buildings at 580 Broadsmoore
Drive. Demolition of the Gardener’s Cottage is also requested.
Owner: Dr. Ritacca
Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect
Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interests or Ex Parte
contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition noting that this matter is back before the
Commission after several months of study. He reviewed the existing site and the
surrounding neighborhood. He outlined the project as now proposed. He
reviewed the proposed restoration plans for the Carriage House and the Pump
House and described the proposed uses for those structures in the current plan.
He stated that alternatives for reuse of the Gardener’s Cottage were
considered and he reviewed each of those options noting the pros and cons of
each. He noted that there are limitations to how the Gardener’s Cottage, if
restored, can be used based on zoning limitations. He noted that the original
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 2
motivation for preservation of the Gardener’s Cottage was the connection to
the Thorn Estate across the street. He noted that a large garden wall and
extensive landscaping was installed at the Thorn Estate effectively removing that
visual connection. He stated that the solution presented restores the Carriage
House and Pump House and adaptively reuses them. He stated that any
elements of the structures that require replacement will be replicated in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. He noted that the
windows will be restored or replaced with new windows that match the original.
He reviewed elevations of the Carriage House and Pump House noting that a
later addition will be removed from the Carriage House to restore it to its original
condition. He discussed the proposed new residence and discussed the
precedent for the design, materials and understated elegance. He noted that
the proposed residence meets all Code requirements. He noted that the scale
of the proposed house is smaller than the massing of the estate house and other
houses in the neighborhood. He described the proposed exterior materials for
the house and driveways. He provided a precedent image of a David Adler
house noting the details that are similar to those proposed. He reviewed the
various elevations of the proposed house and provided an aerial view of the
massing. He reviewed the landscape plan. He stated that the siting has been
carefully examined to work around significant trees and to preserve open
space.
Ms. Czerniak noted proposals for development of this property have been
before the Commission in the past. She provided some history of the site noting
that during the subdivision process, the concept of preserving some of the
structures on the site was discussed and two structures were nominated for
designation by the then property owner. She stated that at the time of
consideration of the designation of two of the out buildings, no overall
development plan was presented because the property was being subdivided
in preparation for putting it up for sale. She reviewed the changes that
occurred to the main estate house across the street since the designation
occurred. She noted that in an effort to provide a thorough review, the City
hired a preservation consultant to examine the current proposal in the context
of historic preservation and offer a recommendation. She noted that the
Consultant’s report is included in the Commissioner’s packet. She stated that
the report supports the current proposal to demolish the Gardener’s Cottage
and restore the Pump House and Carriage House. She stated that the proposed
site plan preserves the front lawn which is reminiscent of the original estate. She
stated that earlier plans proposed moving the Gardener’s Cottage to the front
yard impacting the open space. She stated that this lot is large enough to
accommodate the proposed home and the two outbuildings proposed for
preservation. She recommended that the City Arborist work with the petitioner
to make sure the pool siting is done in a manner that preserves the trees that are
in the best health and require replacement of trees that are removed. She
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 3
noted that a neighbor on Stable Lane contacted staff with concerns about
drainage that could result from the proposed development of the lot the given
the natural flow of water toward Stable Lane. She stated that drainage and
grading plans will be required and reviewed by City engineering staff prior to
the issuance of any permits for development of the property. She added that
the neighbor expressed concern about the amount of development proposed
near the north property line. She stated that a letter was received from the
neighbor and is included in the Commission’s packets.
The Commission reviewed the model presented by the petitioner noting how
helpful models are in cases such as these.
In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak explained
that the Code allows for requests for demolition of structures to be presented to
the Commission for consideration. She noted that the Commission is charged
with evaluating each request based on the demolition criteria in the Code. She
stated that this is a unique property and noted the differing opinions on the Plan
Commission in 2006 on whether any of the structures should be recommended
for preservation as part of the subdivision process.
In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed
that the City commissioned the Consultant’s Report but that consistent with the
Code requirements, the petitioner must cover the cost of any independent
studies.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that
the consultant’s report reviews the importance of each of the outbuildings. She
reiterated that significant changes occurred on the Estate property street
disrupting the connection of the outbuildings and the estate house. She noted
that the current proposal presents a viable solution for the property. She stated
that preservation of the Gardener’s Cottage represents several challenges from
a land use and zoning perspective. She stated that the current proposal
preserves the open front lawn and restores two of the outbuildings. She
confirmed that a variance from the Zoning Code could be requested to allow
increased density on this single family lot to allow the Gardener’s Cottage to be
rented. However she noted that requests to increase the density on properties
have not been approved in the past.
In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that
there are criteria in the Code and a process for evaluating any request for
demolition that comes before the Commission.
In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that
these structures were not owned by the owner of the estate at the time of
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 4
subdivision. She noted that the owner of the property at the time proposed
subdivision of the property only and did not present an overall development
plan for a new single family home on the lot. She commented on the
discussions of the Plan Commission noting that there was interest on the part of
some of the Commissioners in seeing some of the structures preserved. She
stated that the Carriage House was not brought forward for designation
because the existence of the addition was determined to compromise the
historic integrity of the structure. She noted that with this proposal, removal of
the addition and restoration of the Carriage House is proposed. She explained
that the nomination of the two outbuildings for designation was offered by the
then property owner as a way to gain support for the subdivision and the
Commission supported the nomination as submitted.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak confirmed
that the Plan Commission was split on whether or not steps should be taken to
preserve the outbuildings. She added that the Plan Commission, although not
unanimously, encouraged the petitioner to explore preservation and
designation of the structures. She stated only two buildings were nominated to
allow some flexibility for future development.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak noted that
the changes to the main estate were approved by the appropriate City Board
or Commission when proposed. She confirmed that the property in this request
was large enough to be subdivided by Code.
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Streightiff confirmed
the existing location of the Gardener’s Cottage and reviewed the alternative
site plans considered. He stated that a cost comparison between the plans was
not completed.
Chairman Pairitz suggested that for the Commission’s purposes, the cost
implications of the various plans can be taken out of the equation. He noted
the cost does not respond to any of the Commission’s criteria.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Streightiff confirmed
that the alternatives studied included relocating the Gardener’s Cottage on the
site in conformance with the zoning setbacks. He reiterated the challenge with
finding a reasonable use for the Cottage if is it preserved.
Commissioner Berg questioned whether the Gardener’s Cottage could be used
as the garage element for the house which would require just shifting it slightly.
He described the changes that would need to occur to the inside of the
Cottage if it were to be used as a garage. He acknowledged that using that
approach, not much of the cottage is being reused.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 5
In response to Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the interior of
the structures is not designated. She stated that although reconfiguration of the
interior is not necessarily a concern for the Commission, if significant changes
require complete rebuilding of the structure, the Commission would need to
consider whether that is appropriate.
Commissioner Berg noted that if the building is moved or converted to a
garage, the Commission should consider to what extent the integrity of the
structure is compromised.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Streightiff confirmed
that the proposed parking court is in the location of the existing Gardener’s
Cottage and that the new garages will be accessed from the rear. He noted
that keeping all of the outbuildings on the site results in significant mass on the
site.
Chairman Pairitz invited public comment.
Steve Porter, 521 Stable Lane, stated that at the time he purchased his home, he
was told that this property could not be developed. He stated that he receives
stormwater runoff now and will be flooded if the project moves forward. He
added that the pool will increase the likelihood of flooding. He expressed
concern for his privacy noting the proximity of the pool to his property. He
stated that the new house is too close to his property and suggested shifting it
toward Broadsmoore Drive. He pointed out that the house relates more to
Broadsmoore Drive than to the Stable Lane neighborhood.
Chairman Pairitz reviewed the discussion of the Commission six months ago
when a larger house and a more formal site plan was presented to the
Commission. He stated that at that time, the Commission directed that the
entire project be under bulk with no overages granted based on the
outbuildings. He commended the current proposal as a responsive solution to
previous comments. He reviewed the history noting that a previous property
owner offered two of the out buildings for designation and the Commission
could not say no due to the association with a significant architect and the
estate property. He stated that the consultant’s report is interesting and
observed that there seems to be a general interest in preserving something on
the site regardless of which buildings, in an effort to preserve the character of
the outbuildings in the area. He stated his preference for preserving the
Cottage, but noted there may be a greater impact on the neighbors by
preserving the Cottage in its existing location close to the north property line.
He stated that he is encouraged by the current proposal noting that the
detailing of the proposed house appears to be appropriate and in scale with
the property.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 6
In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak stated that a final
landscape plan could be a condition of approval noting that often it is best to
develop a final landscape plan at the time the site and new buildings are
beginning to take shape. She commented on the drainage and engineering
questions noting that they are not under the purview of the Commission, but are
valid concerns given the grade changes in the area. She stated that prior to
the issuance of any permits, City engineering staff would review final grading
and drainage plans to assure that the natural flow of water to the west is
properly handled and directed to not impact homes to the west.
In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff stated that the
structure on Stable Lane and the proposed new house are over 300 feet apart.
In response to Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that Mr. Porter could
request copies of the drainage and grading plan once they are submitted to
the City and prior to the issuance of any permit and review them, or have an
independent engineer review them, and provide comments to the City if
desired.
Commissioner Preschlack stated that the structures were designated in 2006 for
a reason. He stated that the Cottage appears to be the nicest structure on the
site and that he is struggl ing with approving demolition of the Gardener’s
Cottage.
Commissioner Berg noted that he was on the Commission at the time the
designation was discussed and confirmed that no overall plan was presented
and that the designation was a hope that some of the structures on the site
would be preserved. He acknowledged that maybe the Commission did not
get it right at that time. He stated that it is hard to predict future development
and stated that the Commission at that time understood that they could not
expect that all the structures would be preserved. He stated that the possibility
of requesting increased density to allow the Cottage to be used as a second
living unit on the property may be a real concern for the neighbors. He stated
that preservation and restoration of two of the outbuildings is a good outcome.
He stated support for the petition. He observed that there is a piece of the
proposed house that is reminiscent of the Gardener’s Cottage.
Commissioner Swenson agreed that the residence is well done but stated
concern about what will happen in the future if the Commission approves the
demolition of the Cottage.
Chairman Pairitz noted that each petition is evaluated on an individual basis.
He stated that in his opinion, the demolition criteria are met with this request
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 7
noting that the project preserves two outbuildings. He stated that attaching a
large house to the Gardener’s Cottage will change the character of the
Cottage.
Commissioner Preschlack noted that one of the alternative plans does a good
job of incorporating the Gardener’s Cottage into a new plan.
Chairman Pairitz agreed that the alternative plan might work, but noted that the
massing on the site will change significantly and the character of the
Gardener’s Cottage will be lost.
Commissioner Moyer stated that he takes the historic designation of the
Gardener’s Cottage very seriously. He complimented the architect on the
creativity on the design and site plan. He noted that at the last meeting the
architect was encouraged to research a way to keep the Gardener’s Cottage.
He stated that he is not convinced that the historic quality of the structure has
been lost because of the disconnected visual connection to the main estate.
He stated that the charm of Lake Forest is driving around and seeking out
properties that have bits and pieces of old estates or structures. He stated that
he cannot compromise to say that one building is equal to another. He stated
that a solution can be found that preserves the Gardener’s Cottage. He stated
that he is not negative to the petition, but there is another step to be taken to
preserve the Gardener’s Cottage. He commented on the suggested use of the
Gardener’s Cottage as a pool house noting the merit in exploring that option.
Commissioner Ransom stated that he has a great deal of respect for what
previous Commissions have done especially when there is not an accurate
record of why one structure was designated, and not another. He noted that
there is a character worthy of preservation on this property. He stated that the
Gardener’s Cottage was probably the most important outbuilding on the
estate. He sta ted that on the other hand, when deliberating a petition that
comes before the Commission, he understands the need to review the criteria.
He stated that based on the fact that other buildings are intended to be
restored and preserved, in his view, this petition meets the criteria for demolition.
He stated that preservation of two structures is a positive and changing the
character of the Gardener’s Cottage may be unavoidable if it were to be
preserved. He noted that this is a tough petition but expressed his support for
the demolition and redevelopment of the lot as proposed in the preferred plan.
Commissioner Athenson noted that her family has been in Lake Forest a long
time. She stated that there are several stories that she can tell her children just
by driving around. She noted that by letting the little buildings be demolished,
the physical history of Lake Forest is slowly being lost. She stated that in her
opinion, this petition does not meet the criteria because of its association with a
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 8
significant architect and the uniqueness of the property. She stated that there
are alternatives that would preserve the Gardener’s Cottage. She stated that
zoning variances could be requested to allow a second residence on the
property. She stated that the Commission is not doing a good job of preserving
the historic character of Lake Forest if demolition of the Gardener’s Cottage is
approved. She stated that the burden is on the petitioner to find the
appropriate alternative. She stated that she cannot support the project as
presented.
In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak observed that there
have been many changes to the original estate property that may have been
detrimental to the preservation of the character beginning with the original
subdivision which separated the outbuildings from the main residence by a
public street. She noted that the initial subdivision may have looked differently if
there was an Historic Preservation Commission at that time. She stated that
previous potential buyers of this property expressed an interest in demolishing all
of the structures and commented that with this petition something is gained in
exchange for something being lost.
Chairman Pairitz noted that the challenge is to find a location for the
Gardener’s Cottage that is appropriate. He stated that incorporating the
Cottage it into the main house is not preserving the character of the Gardener’s
Cottage. He stated that locating the Cottage on the front lawn does not
appear to be the best solution. He stated that locating it in the northwest corner
of the site requires another historic structure to be demolished.
Commissioner Moyer stated that it is not the burden of the Commission to design
a workable alternative.
Chairman Pairitz stated that the Commission needs to offer clear direction to the
petitioner.
Commissioner Athenson questioned whether the open space on the front lawn
is worthy of preservation. She stated that the way Broadsmoore Drive curves
may allow for placement of the Gardener’s Cottage in a manner that is not be
detrimental to the open space. She asked for alternatives from the petitioner
that restore and preserve the Gardener’s Cottage.
Commissioner Preschlack stated that he may be open to an alternative that
preserves only the exterior shell of the building for instance maybe adaptive
reuse of the Gardener’s Cottage as a garage. He stated that the Carriage
House has been compromised with the later addition and stated his preference
for preserving the Gardener’s Cottage over the Carriage House.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 9
Chairman Pairitz stated that this matter was continued at the last meeting. He
stated that the Commission needs to be clear on what can be approved on this
property.
Commissioner Moyer acknowledged that the Carriage House is a nice structure.
He suggested looking to preserve the Gardener’s Cottage in the existing
location. He stated that relocating the Cottage is not cost effective and
suggested that the Cottage could be uses as a home office.
Commissioner Swenson stated that it is the responsibility of the buyer of a lot
such as this to develop a plan that preserves the structures as they exist on the
lot.
Commissioner Athenson stated that leaving the structures where they are is the
appropriate direction.
Commissioner Preschlack acknowledged that it could be cost prohibitive to the
landowner to preserve all three structures.
Dr. Ritacca, property owner, stated that when he originally bought the property,
he was told he could move the Gardener’s Cottage to the location of the
Carriage House. He stated that they explored possibilities of relocating the
Gardener’s Cottage to various locations on the lot. He stated that relocating
the Cottage would require the structure to be rebuilt. He pointed out that Susan
Benjamin noted that the only reason the Gardener’s Cottage was determined
more important than the Carriage House in 2006 was because it appeared to
be in a better condition and due to the later addition to the Carriage House.
He stated that more information has been gathered since that time and noted
that his plan includes removal of the later addition to the Carriage House and
true restoration of the structure.
In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Dr. Ritacca stated that moving
the Gardener’s Cottage to the location of the Carriage House would be an
acceptable solution. He commented that the size of the Gardener’s Cottage
may be more detrimental to the drainage at the northwest corner and the
structure may be more visible from neighboring properties than the existing
Carriage House. He stated that the alternative of relocating the Cottage
essentially demolishes and rebuilds the Cottage.
Chairman Pairitz stated that he likes the juxtaposition of the two accessory
structures with the larger home as proposed. He stated that the overall plan
might not be as successful with preservation of the Gardener’s Cottage in its
present location or at a re-located position. He stated that it is the Commission’s
job to make qualitative decisions on individual petitions. He stated that the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 10
Gardener’s Cottage was offered for designation and the City accepted the
nomination. He stated that he is supportive of the project as proposed.
Commissioner Ransom stated that the Commission has been given the
responsibility for deciding whether buildings should stay and whether changes
should occur. He stated that he is comfortable making decisions that balance
preservation with the needs of the property owner. He acknowledged that the
decisions are difficult, but have to be made.
Commissioner Preschlack stated that the criteria in the ordinance guide the
decisions of the Commission and noted that criterion #3 may not be met with
this request.
Chairman Pairitz noted that there are only five standards that can be
considered when evaluating a demolition request. He stated that the
Commission must look at the criteria and decide what the impact is on the
character of Lake Forest.
Ms. Czerniak noted the importance of looking at the whole project as it relates
to the character of Lake Forest. She offered that preservation of the front lawn
was determined to be important at the time of subdivision. She stated that the
Commission should evaluate whether on balance, preserving and restoring two
outbuildings in a manner that makes them a functional part of the property is
beneficial to the character of Lake Forest or whether on balance, preservation
of the Cottage is of greater value.
Commissioner Swenson pointed out that the architect of the outbuildings is a
noted architect in Lake Forest.
Chairman Pairitz noted that just because the structure is designed by a
significant architect does not mean it must be preserved. He stated that there
must be a holistic solution to the property. He stated that there has not been
any good ideas presented that preserve the Gardener’s Cottage as part of a
good overall design. He stated that the Gardener’s Cottage is not designed to
be associated with a larger house on this lot.
Mr. Streightiff offered an alternative that moves the Cottage and uses the first
floor as a garage with an in-law suite. He stated that this alternative essentially
demolishes the Cottage, rebuilds it, and demolishes the Carriage House.
Commissioner Ransom noted that in the alternatives presented, the Pump House
is the only structure that remains unchanged and that attaching the Cottage to
a larger residence results in the loss of the historic connection.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 11
Commissioner Preschlack stated that the site plan should start with preservation
of the historic structures. He stated that relocating the Gardener’s Cottage may
be detrimental to the overall site plan but the attempt needs to be made.
Mr. Streightiff clarified that not just the Cottage, but all three buildings were
designed by Edwin Hill Clark.
Commissioner Berg stated that in his opinion, the present proposal is the right
solution. He stated that he has seen proposals for this property several times
over the past three years. He commented on the changes to the main estate
over time and stated that the Commission needs to determine if it is willing to
support the demolition of the Gardener’s Cottage.
Chairman Pairitz re-iterated that the project needs to be viewed holistically and
that the demolition must be reviewed in the context of the overall project. He
asked the Commission for final comments and direction to the petitioner.
Commissioner Ransom stated support for the demolition based on the current
proposal.
Commissioners Athenson and Swenson stated opposition to the demolition of a
landmarked structure.
Commissioner Moyer stated that he is not supportive of the demolition because
he is convinced that there is a solution that preserves the Gardener’s Cottage.
Commissioner Berg stated that in this case, all of the structures could have been
landmarked. He commended the design presented and urged the Commission
to be reasonable. He made a motion to continue the petition to allow time for
further study of alternatives.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and was unanimously
approved by the Commission.
4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a landscape plan,
fence and gate along the streetscape at 333 E. Woodland Road.
Owner: Paul Daniel
Representative: Daniel Dalziel, landscape architect
This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner.
NEW PETITIONS
5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the reconstruction of
the original East Service Drive at 395 N. Green Bay Road.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 12
Owners: Neil and Jane Cummins
Representatives: Michael Breseman, architect
Nick Patera, planner
Mr. Breseman introduced the petition and the project team. He stated that he
has been involved with this property since 2003. He provided a history of the
property and noted the architects and landscape architects historically
involved in the project. He described recent work on the property and work
done by the present property owners including construction of a coach house.
He stated that restoration of the east access drive and landscaping is now
proposed.
Mr. Patera noted that he has been involved in compiling the history of the
property, but also in updating the property. He described the proposed re-
establishment of the service drive as part of the landscape plan. He noted that
the proposed service drive will not be a primary entrance to the property. He
stated that the gate to the service entrance will be locked. He reviewed the
2003 approved landscape plan noting the area of the service drive. He noted
the restoration of the original curvilinear driveway at the front of the property
consistent with historic plans. He discussed landscaping throughout the
property. He showed an early plan of the property which reflected the service
drive. He noted that piece by piece, the original landscape plan for the site is
being restored. He described the plantings proposed in conjunction with the
proposed re-establishment of the service drive. He stated that the existing
evergreens would be preserved. He stated that the drive material would be
asphalt.
Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the service drive was originally part of the property
and that as part of the earlier subdivision, the right for access from Western
Avenue was preserved. She stated that a construction drive was constructed in
this area to facilitate construction of the coach house. She noted that the
proposed service drive will be in the same location as the existing construction
drive, but will be narrower. She stated staff support for the project as proposed.
Chairman Pairitz commended the petitioner on the work completed on the
property to date.
Commissioner Swenson commended the project and thanked the owners for
their work in restoring the property. She noted that it makes sense to access the
property from Western Avenue with service vehicles.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom and Chairman Pairitz, Mr.
Patera confirmed that the gate will be locked. He noted that the gate exists
today and will be a stockade fence with a pad-lock. He confirmed that there
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 13
are living quarters in the coach house and confirmed that the primary driveway
from Green Bay will be used as the entrance for all structures on the site.
Mr. Breseman stated that it is not the intent to use the coach house as a single
family structure. He noted that the coach house is for family guests. He
confirmed that all visitors will use the front primary drive entrance.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Patera stated that no
lighting is proposed on the driveway. He stated that the service driveway will be
used several times a week during the summer primarily by landscapers and
service workers. He noted that the front drive is narrow and cannot
accommodate two vehicles.
In response to a question from Commission Ransom, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
public notice was mailed to the neighbors and that no correspondence was
received in advance of the meeting.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Patera stated that the
Norway spruce will not be negatively impacted by the change to the drive
material noting the heartiness of the trees.
Chairman Pairitz invited public comment.
Chip Stride, 301 E. Vine Avenue, stated that there has been no driveway in the
proposed location for the service drive for 25 years. He noted that at the time
the service drive existed, other homes were not located in that area. He noted
concern about the driveway near the living spaces of his home. He stated that
the driveway will cause additional noise and distraction to the neighboring
property owners. He questioned the historical integrity of the proposed design
which proposes a straight asphalt service drive in this location. He stated that
the intent was to abandon the service drive once construction of the coach
house was complete and replace it with landscaping. He stated that re-
establishment of the driveway is inappropriate. He stated that the original intent
of the subdivision was to preserve only that portion of the driveway that serves
the structures that were subdivided off of the property and are now separate
properties and to remove the service drive located to the Green Bay Road
property. He asked that the request be denied.
Commissioner Ransom stated that as proposed, the driveway will be put in and
will allow unfettered access. He stated that when the driveway was there
historically, there were orchards and farm buildings in the area, not single-family
dwellings. He stated concern with the proposal.
Commissioner Swenson clarified that the access will be used on a limited basis.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 14
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Breseman stated that the
driveway is proposed 16 feet away from the north property line. He stated that
the location will preserve the evergreens along the property line. He stated that
he does not know the distance between the driveway and the neighboring
home.
Mr. Stride stated that the Norway Spruce do not screen his view of the property
noting that he sees the gravel driveway and the landscape maintenance
trucks. He stated that there is no reason that the vehicles cannot access the
property from Green Bay Road. He stated that this petition will negatively
impact his property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Patera stated that the
front driveway is not designed for service vehicles but can accommodate them
if necessary.
In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Patera described the existing
landscaping noting the areas where landscaping will be added where no
currently exists. He stated that the proposed trees are flowering ornamental
trees. He stated that keeping the driveway fairly tight to the fence allows the
views from various points to be of the yard, and not the driveway. He stated
that consideration was given to moving the drive away from the property line
but noted that moving it further away from the property line increases its visibility
from the neighboring properties.
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Patera stated that
this is a seven-acre property and a secondary access is appropriate a property
of this size and to allow the separation of guests and service uses. He added
that the service drive may also be beneficial for emergency vehicles.
In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Stride stated that the
Commission needs to be informed and look at how close the driveway will be to
his property.
Mr. Breseman noted that the landscaping is proposed as part of the driveway
project and will be planted along with the driveway construction. He
welcomed comments on the proposed landscaping.
Mr. Patera noted the efforts made not to cut off light and views from the
neighbors. He stated the intention to be considerate to neighbors. He showed
images of the area of proposed work and described the proposed landscape
plan.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 15
In response to Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Stride stated that the biggest issues
are the noise of the landscaping vehicles and the sightlines from his property.
He stated that the construction has been completed for some time but noted
that when landscapers are on the site, they are there all day given the size of
the property. He stated that he could not speak to the amount of traffic that
might occur on the driveway but he questioned how it will be monitored if in
fact the use is to be restricted.
Commissioner Athenson complimented the property and encouraged the
neighbors to meet to discuss the concerns.
In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
role of the Historic Preservation Commission is to decide if the driveway is in the
right location and configuration and whether the landscape plan is appropriate
for the property. She noted that prior to the issuance of any permits; staff will
review the matter with the City Attorney to confirm that the legal right to this
access from Western Avenue exists.
Mr. Stride questioned the legal right to access from Western Avenue.
Ms. Cummins, property owner, thanked the Stride family for their patience during
the recent construction. She stated that the landscaping and seeding is now
underway after completion of the coach house. She stated the driveway will
have limited use and will not be used as a main gate to the property. She
stated that the front drive is not wide enough to allow landscapers to pass
noting the damage that is occurring to the grass along the driveway. She
stated that the reclaimed bricks on the front driveway are being damaged due
to the landscaping trucks. She stated that there is no automatic entry system
proposed at the rear gate but instead a manual lock. She stated that from a
safety standpoint, the new driveway will provide better access to the property in
the event of an emergency noting that an ambulance could not get through
the porte-cochere. She confirmed that the area will be landscaped. She
stated that she is trying to be sensitive to the historic integrity of the property
noting that her family rescued this house.
Chairman Pairitz stated support for the driveway access as proposed.
Commissioner Ransom recognized that the homeowners have done a
tremendous job with the property. He stated however that they are not always
going to be the owners of the property noting that this decision will impact
future owners of this property and neighboring properties.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 16
Chairman Pairitz clarified that the Commission is not being asked whether or not
there legally can be a driveway in this location, but whether the design and
associated landscaping is appropriate.
Commissioner Berg stated that this is an interesting property and has had its
issues over the years but noted that today, it is in pristine condition. He also
encouraged the neighbors to talk. He stated that he understands that there is a
legal right to access the property but noted that there may be value in further
discussion. He recalled that when the coach house was proposed the intent
was to remove the service drive after construction was completed.
Mr. Breseman noted that they have worked with staff and tried to reach out to
the neighbors. He stated that they have sat down with several of the neighbors
but noted that Mr. Stride was not available. He noted that there was support for
eliminating the gravel on the driveway to keep the dust down.
Mr. Stride stated that the current driveway was permitted as a temporary
driveway. He noted that he has several personal issues that have kept him
away from the meetings. He stated that the petitioner designed the front
driveway so it is difficult for them now to claim that it is a hardship.
Commissioner Moyer stated support for the petition. He stated that the noise
from the lawnmowers and blowers are not a function of the driveway, but of the
size of the lot. He stated that concern about future subdivision of the property is
not before the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Preschlack asked for clarification on whether there is a legal right
to the proposed access. He stated that there may not be agreement reached
between the neighbors. He stated that if there is legal access then the
Commission should consider the siting and design and act on that matter.
Ms. Czerniak offered that the Commission could include a condition of approval
requiring review of the legal issues related to the driveway by the City Attorney
prior to issuing any permits.
Commissioner Athenson stated that she is uncomfortable with approving the
petition with unresolved issues or contingent on a legal determination.
Mr. Stride stated that he is happy to meet with the petitioner. He stated that it
seems unfair to represent that the neighbors are supportive when they have only
spoken to the neighbors to the east.
Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue the petitioner to allow time
for a legal opinion and for discussions with neighbors.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 17
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg and was approved by a vote
of 4-3 with Commissioners Moyer, Preschlack and Swenson voting nay.
6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a building scale
variance for a screen porch addition to the existing pool houses at 713 N.
Sheridan Road.
Owners: Jack and Allison Connery
Representative: Peter Witmer, architect
Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte
contacts.
Commissioner Swenson recused herself from participating in hearing the petition
noting that she is acquainted with the petitioners. She left the Council
Chambers.
Mr. Witmer introduced the petition and described the existing site. He noted
that the property is accessed at the corner of Deerpath and Sheridan but has
not street frontage. He reviewed the configuration of other properties in the
area. He showed an air photo and site views of the existing property and
commented that this property was part of a larger estate. He stated that the
request is to screen-in the area between the two existing pool houses. He stated
that there is an existing grade change that necessitates a building scale
variance given the exposed foundation wall to the north. He added that the
extended foundation which creates a solid wall also creates a situation where
the screen porch cannot be considered a design element based on the
language in the Ordinance requiring a percent of openness for a screen porch.
He commented on the height of the eave of the existing structures noting that
the 7 foot eave is very low and explained that maintaining that line would
impede sightlines from the structure out to the pool. He commented on the axis
created with the pool and center gable and discussed the proposed materials
and architectural features. He stated that the existing stairs will be rebuilt and
noted the chimney to the rear of the structure.
Ms. Czerniak stated that the proposed requires a building scale variance due to
the unique features of the existing structures. She stated that the proposed
project is intended to increase the functionality of an historic property. She
observed that the elevations may read more solid than they will appear in
actuality since much of the area will be screening. She noted that the roof
creates a strong mass that connects the two pool houses and asked for
Commission comments on that component.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Witmer stated that
rather than an open area, the screening is important. He noted that there is no
part of the residence that is screened and this element will enhance the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 18
opportunities for use of the pool. He pointed out that the existing house is very
modest.
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Witmer stated that
the roof form of the historic house and the pool houses are not related to the
main house, but rather to the barn. He confirmed that a flat roof was
considered, but appeared too modern.
Commissioner Moyer stated that he visited the site and stated that the addition
fits in nicely and will discretely connect the pool houses.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Witmer confirmed
that the pool houses are historic and probably date back to the 1930’s. He
stated that this is an upgrade to the existing situation. He pointed out the
significant of the pool.
Commissioner Preschlack noted that the lot is interesting with the setback and
neighboring property to the front.
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Witmer stated that
the owners did not meet with the neighbors to discuss the project nor have they
heard anything from the neighbors.
Chairman Pairitz invited public comment.
Wes Clark, 644 Deerpath, stated that he owns the larger home that was
historically associated with the pool. He stated that he has a master bedroom
that is close to the pool noting that he has concerns about lighting and activity
in the evening. He stated support for the design and asked for consideration to
mitigate his concerns.
In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Witmer stated that from a
lighting standpoint, the intent is to reduce the lighting from what currently exists
today. He confirmed that no additional lighting is proposed. He stated that he
will consider the location of windows in Mr. Clark’s home and determine
whether additional landscape screening should be added.
Chairman Pairitz encouraged consideration of the neighbors. He discussed the
proposed addition noting the minimal overhang consistent with the existing
building but encouraged the architect to consider increasing the overhang for
improved functionality of the screen porch. He stated that he is comfortable
with the building scale ordinance.
Commissioner Berg noted that the steps are steep and clumsy and commented
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 19
that there are scissor stairs on the other side of the building. He stated that
reconfiguring the stairs could allow for a landing and better use of that space.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Witmer stated that the Code
necessitates railings and commented that railings may help with the scale of the
stairs. He stated that the stairs function as a place to sit and watch the children
play in the driveway and as a place to put plants to soften the staircase. He
stated that the stairs are an existing condition and no changes are proposed.
Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
to approve the petition as submitted based on the findings in the staff report
and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit the following conditions shall be met to
the satisfaction of City staff.
1. Protective fencing shall be installed in accordance with direction from the
City’s Certified Arborist and City Engineer to protect trees, historic
structures, neighboring properties and to prevent silt runoff from
construction on to neighboring properties.
2. A construction materials and equipment staging plan and a construction
vehicles parking plan shall be submitted subject to staff review and
approval.
3. Given the tight conditions of the site, off-site parking may be required.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously
approved by the Commission.
7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the
existing residence and construction of a new single family dwelling at 287 W.
Laurel Avenue.
Owner: Jason Beans
Representative: Austin DePree, 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. DePree introduced the petition and presented a model . He reviewed the
surrounding area noting significant historic homes as well as newer homes. He
noted the adjacency of open lands and the private drive. He noted that the
existing house is a work of Ralph Huszagh and reviewed some of his other work
of the firm noting several apartment buildings in Chicago as well as the Aragon
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 20
Ballroom. He stated that this house was built in a time when structures had a
general lifespan of 40 to 50 years and homes were not built with the same level
of detailing as the older housing stock from the 20’s and 30’s. He discussed the
existing house noting that it was constructed in 1955 and stated that it is devoid
of the classical detailing found elsewhere in the historic district. He noted a mix
of exterior materials on the existing house. He stated that there were several
additions on the property including a detached garage. He stated that his firm
is a renovation and restoration firm noting his respect for the older homes in Lake
Forest. He showed some projects completed by his firm. He stated that in this
case, a new house is appropriate and will be constructed in the spirit of
restoration. He noted some references used in developing a design for the
proposed replacement house including works by Bobby McAlpine. He stated
that the Arts and Crafts spirit is what is desired. He reviewed the site plan noting
the pond on the property and reviewed an overlay of the new house with the
existing house. He noted that the proposed residence is fairly consistent in
layout with the existing house. He stated that the clay tennis court will be
retained. He noted that the massing of the house will be more centered on the
lot. He stated that the parking area will be screened and that the existing trees
and vegetation will be maintained to provide privacy from the private road.
He stated there will be glimpses of the house as you drive along the private
road. He showed an aerial rendering of the proposed structure showing the
massing as it relates to the other structures in the neighborhood. He stated that
this project complies with the technical requirements of the Building Scale
Ordinance noting the intent to keep the look of a story and a half home. He
stated that the layout is symmetrical noting that the site layout is driven by the
pond in the rear yard. He discussed the living spaces proposed in the new
house on the first and second floors. He stated that the structures are all
connected but from a massing perspective, the architecture helps to break up
the mass. He reviewed the elevations noting the mix of materials with stucco
and stone with a slate roof. He stated that the home will be part of the
landscape and contextual to the site.
Ms. Czerniak stated that staff has been in discussions with the petitioner for a
while and reviewed the lengthy timeline for the project. She explained that the
property owner requested early input from the Commission to get a sense that
they are on the right track. She stated staff support for the project as now
envisioned noting that the addition information in support of the demolition
presented at the meeting should be documented as part of the request. She
stated that the Certificate of Appropriateness would be requested at a later
date, but direction from the Commission is requested at this time.
The Commission reviewed the model presented by the petitioner.
Commissioner Moyer stated that he strongly supports the direction of the project
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 21
and commended the architect for the drawings presented.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree commented
on the proposed demolition. He stated that the existing house was completed
well after the architectural firm’s prime noting the interior of the house has little
detail. He stated that this house is not one of the significant works completed by
the firm. He questioned how much involvement the firm had in the execution of
this house. He confirmed that alteration of the house was considered, but noted
that the cost were prohibitive and the end result was not a good solution.
Mr. Beans stated that the existing house has an illogical floor plan and noted
that the original garage was attached to the main house at a later date
resulting in a piecemeal residence with many material changes. He stated that
although renovation was considered, it was determined to not be workable. He
stated that the house as it exists is out of context with other homes in the area.
He stated the effort to create something impressive, without being ostentatious.
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed
that this house is within the Green Bay Road Historic District but is not identified
as a contributing structure. She stated that perhaps it was not old enough at
the time the district was surveyed to be considered “contributing”.
In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree stated that a
landscape plan has not yet been developed. He stated that the Willow tree will
be removed. He stated the intent to preserve the heritage trees on the site, and
the intent to replace any heritage trees determined to be at the end of life with
new plantings.
In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. DePree stated that the
stone for the house has not yet been selected but noted that it will be subtle
and earthy so as not to contrast with the stucco. He stated that samples will be
provided at a future meeting. He stated that there is much engineering that
needs to occur to get the details worked out. He stated that direction on the
massing and siting is appreciated at this stage of the process. He stated that all
materials will be authentic and of a high quality.
In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. DePree stated the
intent to ensure that the garage doors are not seen from the street and the
intent to route the driveway so that there is not a direct view to the garage
doors. He stated the intent to allow only small views into the property. He noted
that other massing options were considered such as turning the garage but it
was determined that the best opportunity to screen the garage mass is
provided with the current configuration.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 22
In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. DePree stated that
reusing the existing pool did not make sense. He stated that it is quaint, but not
worth designing a building around. He stated that the proposed site plan
moves the pool away from the neighbor to the north and allows the pool to be
buffered with a structure. He confirmed that the tennis court will be preserved.
In response to question from Commissioner Berg, Mr. DePree stated that the
house is designed to have10 foot ceilings on the first floor and 9 foot on the
second floor. He noted that the scale is diminished by bringing the roof down.
He stated that the front door is currently proposed at 8 feet tall.
Commissioner Berg stated observed that the model more accurately conveys
the scale and explains the design as opposed to the drawings. He stated that
he was initially worried about the scale of front before seeing the model. He
added that the model also clarifies the impact of setting back the garage.
Mr. Depree agreed on the challenges of drawing a façade with three
dimensional depth but confirmed that efforts were made to break down the
massing.
Commissioner Berg noted the stylistic choice resented to the street noting that it
is dramatic to bring down the overhang on the front elevation. He stated that
this is a different approach than commonly taken on other structures in Lake
Forest.
Mr. Depree noted that Crab Tree Farm was looked at as an architectural
language to pay homage to , but not mimic. He stated one of the goals is to
recall some nostalgia noting the intent to have a new home that connects with
older precedents.
Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final
comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Athenson asked for more information to support the demolition
request. She stated that identifying the architect of the existing house as a
significant architect does not support the request for demolition. She
commented on the replacement structure noting the appeal of a single simple
roof. She stated that the entryway appears very heavy in terms of the
proportion of the windows and posts as they relate to the stone element. She
asked for consideration of some reduction in the mass of the entry area.
Commissioner Preschlack stated support for the direction of the project. He
stated that in his opinion, the architect was able to articulate how the project
meets the demolition criteria. He stated that demolition of the structure will not
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 23
be detrimental to the character of the community. He asked for a better
understanding of the landscape plan.
Chairman Pairitz noted that it is refreshing to see hand drawings that are so
nicely done. He agreed that the three dimensional model helps noting that
there are some nuances that appear inconsistent and need to be worked out.
He stated that his first impression of the entry element is that it is large and could
benefit from further thought. He encouraged the petitioner to continue to study
the larger elements.
Mr. DePree stated that the 2-dimensional drawings are not a true perspective of
how this structure will be perceived once constructed. He stated that they will
come back once project is developed further.
Commissioner Moyer commented on the entry noting that the quality of the
materials does not come through in the model as it does on the drawings.
Mr. DePree summarized the areas identified by the Commission for refinement
and consideration including the looking at the materials and design of the front
entrance area and rear vertical element, development of a landscape plan,
proportion of the windows and posts on the front elevation.
Chairman Pairitz noted that the petitioner should study the elements identified
and come back with more information to help the Commission evaluate the
request. He stated that the petitioner should prepare a more concrete packet
with respect to the demolition so that it can be part of the record when this
project next comes before the Commission.
Commissioner Ransom noted that he is not concerned with the size and
proportion of the windows on the front façade. He stated that the façade has
a rural country farm feel and noted that further explanation of the design intent
would be helpful.
Chairman Pairitz commented on the importance of the neighborhood context
and noted that it is important to understand why the proposed house is better
that the existing house.
Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to continue the petition to allow the
petitioner time to refine the proposed design and return to the Commission for
final action.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and it was unanimously
approved by the Commission.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 28, 2011 - Page 24
OTHER ITEMS
8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on
non-agenda items.
There were no additional comments from the public.
9. Additional information from staff.
There were no additional comments from Staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development