Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/11/14 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the November 14, 2011 Meeting A special meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Monday, November 14, 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, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: None 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz provided an overview of the meeting procedures followed by introductions of the Commission and staff. 2. Approval of the minutes of the October 26, 2011 meeting. Approval of the minutes was postponed. CONTINUED PETITIONS 3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving construction of a new single family dwelling, restoration of the existing Carriage House and Pump House to allow adaptive reuse in conjunction with the new residence. Relocation and incorporation of the Gardner’s Cottage into the new house is also proposed at 580 Broadsmore Dr. Owner: Dr. Ritacca Representative: Scott Streightiff, 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. Streightiff introduced the petition. He noted that this item was continued from a previous meeting to allow time to further explore re-use of the outbuildings. He stated that a subcommittee of the Commission met on site and discussed various options. He stated that the option now presented came out of discussions with the subcommittee. He reviewed the elements of the current proposal noting that the Gardener’s Cottage is relocated and adaptively reused as part of the new house. He showed the front elevation of the north wing noting that the only change to the Gardener’s Cottage on this elevation will be the addition of a porte couchere to allow adaptive reuse as a garage. He described the other elevations of the garage wing noting that the existing fenestration will be replaced with garage doors and dormers will be added. He showed images of a model highlighting the existing Cottage and showing how it will be engaged with the main mass of the house. He stated that the result of this process is a functional project that satisfies the home owner addresses the concerns and ideas Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 2 expressed by the Commission. He stated that this property is in need of attention and investment. Ms. O’Neill recognized the flexibility and willingness of the architect and property owner in working with the Commission and City staff to find a creative solution for this project. She stated that this project preserves the outbuildings and overall character of the site. She noted that in the plan now presented, the Gardener’s Cottage is preserved and is incorporated into the new residence rather than be demolished. She stated staff support for the project and thanked the petitioner for the hard work put into this project. She reviewed the conditions of approval in the staff report and noted some shifts on the site plan since the last meeting due to the incorporation of the Cottage into the new house. She stated that inch for inch replacement for trees that will be removed will allow for a higher tree canopy to be re-established on the property in the future. She stated that an engineered grading and drainage plan will be required as part of the permit process. She recommended that the subcommittee be involved in review of the final working drawings. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the entire project could be authorized through one set of building permits. She suggested that a condition of approval could require the restoration of the Carriage House and Pump House prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new house. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Commissioner Moyer provided some background on the subcommittee deliberations noting that the group walked the site and reviewed different options using a model. He stated that what is now presented is a good solution. He stated that he was hopeful that the structure could be reused in the existing location, but after further study and explanation by the architect, it became clear that was not workable. He stated that the solution presented is a creative solution. Commission Preschlack stated that this proposal is a good balance between the property owner’s right to use the property and preservation. He stated that he is receptive to adaptive reuse of the Cottage as proposed. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Strieghtiff stated that reusing the Cottage in its existing location would result in four smaller buildings on the site instead of one larger building with subordinate outbuildings due to building scale restrictions. He stated that the approach to the house is important and attaching the Cottage as it sits today to the main house would create an awkward approach. Commissioner Preschlack stated that there living space will be preserved upstairs in the Cottage noting that the adaptive reuse of the Cottage as a garage will involve the first floor. He noted that two of the three historic structures on the property will be preserved and reused in their historic location. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that the Pump and Carriage Houses will remain and be restored as described at the previous meeting. He described the work that will need to be done to the Cottage confirming Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 3 that structural work will be needed. He stated that the main structure of the Cottage will remain, but the finishes will be replaced. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Mr. Friedland, 740 Broadsmoore, stated that this property as it exists today is an eyesore and an embarrassment. He commended the work of the architect and the property owners and thanked them for all the effort. Susan Benjamin, preservation consultant, commended the Commission and the property owner noting that the project presented is a good solution with the preservation of two buildings and adaptive reuse of the third. Commissioner Berg commended the subcommittee noting that the change out to use the Cottage as the north wing is a good solution. He acknowledged that a vehicle presence on the first floor is not a residential use, but stated that it is a reasonable use noting that the Cottage was always a secondary structure to a main estate. He added that this solution moves the Cottage away from the property line address some previous public comments. In response to Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill offered a draft condition of approval to require the restoration of the Carriage House and Pump House as part of the requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy. Hearing general agreement from the petitioner with respect to the proposed condition of approval, Chairman Pairitz invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson commented that as a result of the discussion of the Commission, the project has been improved. She noted that initially in viewing the current option, she was discouraged that the Cottage was not being reused as a separate outbuilding but recognized the hard work that has gone into getting the project to this point. She expressed support for the project calling it a win-win situation. Commissioner Preschlack thanked the property owners for their efforts in working through the process and made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings in the staff report approving the petition subject to the conditions of approval below. 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, in addition to the new residence, all of the out buildings shall be restored consistent with the approved plans and consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Commission. 2. Detailed working drawings for the new residence shall be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Chairman or a subcommittee of the Commission to verify that the design and detailing as represented during the public presentations and in the materials provided is achieved. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 4 3. The City Engineer shall consider grading and drainage plans in the context of the significant grade changes that occurs to the west of this property, toward the creek, and assure that all applicable criteria are satisfied and that any overland flows are directed in appropriate areas, away from homes. 4. Digital photo documentation of the site in its pre-construction condition shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The photos shall be reviewed by staff to confirm that the photos accurately and thoroughly document the site. 5. A tree removal plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plan shall detail the inches, species and condition of all trees planned for removal. In addition, the plan shall detail pre and post construction measures for trees that are intended for preservation. This plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 6. A plan for staging and storage of construction materials and equipment and parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Staff shall review the plan to confirm that that significant trees and as appropriate, open areas of the site, are protected during construction and that the plan minimizes congestion and disruption in the neighborhood. 7. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer, shall be installed to protect trees and vegetation identified for preservation and to prevent storm water runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. Other Conditions 8. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading plan, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall be on file with the City prior to any framing inspections for the new house being scheduled. The Arborist shall confirm that the plan achieves the following goals.  Identifies all vegetation and trees to remain on the site.  Proposes, at a minimum, inch for inch replacement of all trees removed from the property.  Provides for the re-establishment of significant, deciduous trees on the site to regenerate, over time, a high, mature tree canopy on the site.  Identifies all new landscaping proposed; species, quantity and size at time of planting.  Provides for perimeter plantings particularly in areas where new structures will be located as permitted by the zoning setbacks, but near the property lines.  Avoids conflicts with any overland stormwater flow routes. Other conditions Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 5 9. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. 10. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy due to the time of year, a conditional Certificate of Occupancy may be issued if a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of plant materials and labor is posted with the City. All plantings, consistent with the approved landscape plan, shall be completed during the first available planting season after construction as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the partial demolition, replacement addition and alterations at 440 E. Illinois Road. Owner: JR and Laurie Locey Representative: Neal Gerdes, architect Mr. Locey introduced the project. He noted that he has met on several occasions with City staff and a subcommittee in an effort to design a project that is historically sensitive and appropriate for the four square home. He stated that the addition as now proposed is subordinate to the original four square residence. He stated that the re- design resulted in the loss of some interior space however the exterior is now more appealing. He noted that difficulty resulting from the location of the neighboring home to the south very close to the property line. He stated that the areas of new construction were pushed back to comply with all zoning setbacks. He stated that the roof line of the addition has been lowered approximately 2 feet from the main mass. He noted that the neighbor to the north has a broader view of the home due to the increased setback and commented that by converting the garage into living space, the appearance of a three story structure was created. He stated that to mitigate that three story appearance, the building materials were modified and a porch was added. He stated that he has learned from this experience and noted that the project is well within the bulk requirements and that no zoning variances are requested. Mr. Gerdes discussed the project as now designed and showed images of the existing home. He pointed out that the house as it exists today does not have all of the characteristics of a four square home and pointed out the irregular window pattern and asymmetrical front porch. He noted that existing trees provide some screening of the house from the street. He showed images of the porch detail and stated that the bay window will be left intact. He showed the 1985 addition noting that it will be removed to allow for a more compatible addition to be constructed. He pointed out that the house to the south is located very close to the property line noting that the addition will step back to provide more relief between the two homes. He stated that the existing cantilever element on the south side of the house will be removed. He showed images that represent the significant grade change on the property. He stated that the foundation will be left intact and the addition will be built up from there to provide improved living space. He showed a plat of survey and the proposed site plan. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 6 He noted the coffee balcony on the north side added to break up the three story mass. He stated that the only massing change visible from the front will be the addition of a chimney at the rear of the house. He showed the elevations and noted the areas of change. He commented on the proposed window configuration. He noted that the foundation of the garage extends further than the proposed addition. He stated that the balcony resolves the need to provide a roof structure over the lower level. He showed overlay elevations noting that the addition is substantial but, within the allowable square footage. He compared the 1985 addition and detailing with the proposed project. He stated that the addition complies with setback requirements. He discussed the demolition plans noting the interior demolition that will occur in the original four square home. He stated that the 1985 addition will be removed in its entirety and replaced with the proposed plan. He stated that the intent of the plan is to highlight the main house and add a subordinate addition to the rear. He stated that the new garage has been reduced to a two car garage to respond to comments from the neighbor to the north. He presented a landscape plan noting that additional plant material will be added to screen the addition from the north and south. He stated that the patios will be landscaped. He showed images of a massing model. Ms. Czerniak noted that the parcels in this neighborhood are deep, but narrow presenting a challenge since a significant amount of square footage is permitted. She stated that the project as presented is just under the maximum square footage permitted for the lot based on the understanding that less that 50% of the structure will be demolished and as a result, the pre-existing basement area is exempt from the calculation. She stated that staff will need to be vigilant as this project moves forward to assure that setbacks are met and that no new construction occurs in the setback areas. She recommended that the south property line be staked by a licensed surveyor as well as the 15 foot setback line. She stated that the property owner has confirmed that any walls that are being rebuilt will be pushed back to meet the setback requirements. She stated that at the request of the petitioner, a subcommittee of the Board met with him and his architect and in response, the project was simplified from the original petition. She stated that staff recognizes that this project will impact the neighboring properties and noted that the design elements now proposed may help mitigate the mass and increased size of the home. She stated that the landscape plan was just received and staff has not yet had a chance to complete a review. She suggested that it may be appropriate for the landscape plan to be reviewed once the project is further along so that staff can assure that plantings are located in key areas to help screen and buffer the larger house from neighboring properties. She stated that the final landscape plan could be brought back to the Board if desired. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Gerdes stated that the windows on the north elevation will remain, but will be blacked out to allow a more functional floor plan. He stated that shutters are only proposed on the front of the house. He agreed that shutters could be installed on the rear elevation as well. He confirmed that the small window on the north elevation is located above the staircase. In response to questions about the garage design, he stated that they have not yet explored the detailing of the garage. He stated that details could be added so long as the square footage is not increased. He confirmed that a basement is proposed under the garage. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 7 In response to a question from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Gerdes clarified that there is an existing chimney on the south elevation that will remain. He stated that a new chimney is proposed chimney on the east elevation. He stated that the original design showed a new chimney on the south elevation which has been removed. Chairman Pairitz summarized the meetings that occurred with the subcommittee. He stated that the impact of this addition is restricted to the two immediate neighbors since the addition will not be visible from the street. He stated that the subcommittee worked with the petitioner to bring more order to the design. He acknowledged that what is proposed is a large home and in particular, the north wall is large however the limited views help to mitigate concern for the size of the addition. He stated that the home as proposed is an improvement from the existing condition. He stated that the subcommittee looked at the entire structure noting some additional details that they discussed including making the chimney narrower. He stated that shutters on the rear of the house may be appropriate but noted that they would not be visible from the street. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Gerdes noted that the existing driveway grade will not change to avoid negatively impacting drainage. Commissioner Berg noted that the proposed balcony and retaining walls help to soften the three story mass on the north side. Chairman Pairitiz noted that the role of the subcommittee was to identify issues and that the petitioner’s role was to execute design elements to reduce the mass and appropriately detail the addition. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Gerdes commented on the porch. He stated that the porch is pulled in from the sides of the house due to the setback requirements. He stated that the large porch is desired by the client. Mr. Locey stated that initially a full width front porch was proposed. He stated that the Commission suggested that the porch be pulled in out of respect for the neighbors. Commissioner Athenson commented on the height and massing of the addition noting that the addition appears dominant to the main house. In response to a question, Mr. Gerdes stated that several options were explored for the addition noting that the interior space is compromised with a story and a half massing. He stated that the current proposal is already a significant reduction in square footage from the initial design. He stated that the clients did not like the look of a mansard roof. He stated that the use of dormers were too restrictive with respect to the interior space. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. John Fitzpatrick, 463 Illinois, noted that although the front of the house is not changing significantly, the size of the addition is a concern. He stated that he will see the addition from his windows noting that the massing and design of the addition is inappropriate for the historic district. He stated that the addition extends too far back Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 8 and is too massive. He expressed concern that the two and a half car garage with a basement may impact trees. He concluded stating that the addition is too big and too much for this lot. Jim Armstrong, 442 E. Illinois, stated that he has supported additions along the street in the past. He stated that this addition is too big, too massive and too imposing. He questioned if there will be any room for landscape buffering. He questioned the design of the front porch. He asked that the addition be reduced in size noting the possibility of a solution that provides a story and half massing. He stated that the addition is imposing and will impact his light and air. He stated that the existing trees and vegetation are important stating that it would be a shame to lose the vegetation. He stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals previously denied a request to construct a two story addition within the setback area on this lot. Frank Pinn, 509 College, stated that he lives directly behind the house. He stated that he cannot see the current house from his back yard and expressed concern with the increased visibility given the size of this addition. Commissioner Berg commented on the scale and massing of the addition. He stated that there is precedent for using a mansard roof for this type of addition. He stated that it was discussed but the petitioner chose to move forward with a simplified hip roof given their desired living spaces. He stated that at the request of the Chairman, he sat on a subcommittee to help bring order to the design to allow the petitioner to have a strong starting point for discussion at the full Commission. He stated that modification of the roof form could be something the Commission, as a whole, directs the petitioner to explore. Chairman Pairitz noted that a subcommittee was hesitant to meet with the petitioner given the lack of clear direction from the Commission. He stated that their efforts were not meant to represent the full Commission. He stated that the concerns heard from the neighbors appear to be more concern of the size and bulk and not stylistic concerns. He stated that this house meets the building scale requirements. He stated that a smaller house may be more appropriate, but recognized the right of the property owner to have a house of a certain size. He stated that the role of the Commission is to make the massing appropriate for the neighborhood. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Gerdes stated that no trees will be impacted with this request. He stated that no trees will be removed on the south side of the house noting that if anything is damaged during construction, replacement inches will be required. He commented that the basement in the garage will be used for storage noting that the staircase railing will be visible from the exterior. He stated that the railing will be metal and will meet Code requirements. He confirmed that there are opportunities for landscaping. Ms. Czerniak stated that an overall tree removal plan has not been received. She stated that a recommended condition of approval is for a tree protection and preservation plan. She stated that before issuance of a permit, staff would need to understand the impact of the construction on the existing trees noting that some measures may be required to preserve the trees identified for preservation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz commented on the front elevation. He stated that the windows are not regularly spaced and should be. He stated that the outer most windows should be held consistent to the first floor windows. He noted that the porch hides the windows on the first floor. He stated that he is not supportive of the extra gable over the front door. He stated that the porch should read as clean line of the longer porch. Commissioner Athenson noted that the additional gable is typically seen on more formal porch designs where there is a larger, wrap around porch. Commissioner Moyer stated that preserving the existing front porch is more in keeping with the concept of preserving the original house. He stated that the reduction of porch width was a reaction to feeling the house was too close to the neighbor noting that the Commission suggested ways to mitigate those concerns. He stated that keeping the existing porch is a good solution. He stated that the proposed changes represent a better house than what is there today. He stated that there is a chaotic assemblage of parts that exist on the house today. He stated that the work thus far has improved the project. He stated that he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors however he stated that the issue of size is challenging because the neighboring homes also have the right to expand. Chairman Pairitz commented on the existing porch noting that it is too small for the house. He stated that the concept of an asymmetrical front porch is interesting. Commissioner Berg noted that the porch as proposed without the pediment is appropriate and consistent with the streetscape. He commented on the importance of being able to use the front porch. He stated that the windows need to be spaced properly. He stated that the existing porch is poorly designed and may not be original to the four square house. Commissioner Ransom stated that this petition reminded him of his time on the Zoning Board of Appeals noting the solutions presented are consistent with those discussions. He stated that landscaping is very important. He commented on the light and air criteria that dictates decisions of the Zoning Board. He acknowledged that the Historic Preservation Commission uses different criteria and that this project complies with applicable Code requirements. He stated that it will be important to look at landscaping to further soften the views from neighboring properties. He stated that removing the pediment will soften the design of the front porch. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the project complies with Code requirements. He stated that the massing is improved with the plan presented. He suggested that the landscape plan be brought back to the Board. He stated that the owners are within their rights with the plan presented. Commissioner Athenson stated that she is in support of keeping the original vintage front porch. She stated that an acceptable alternative would be to extend the porch across the full front of the house. She stated that the shutters are not appropriate for a four square noting that the detailing must be kept to a minimum. She stated that the views from the north and south are troublesome noting that not enough exploration of alternatives has occurred to try to reduce the roof height. She commented that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 10 original four square could be articulated to reduce the total square footage. She stated continued concern about the negative impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Swenson stated that eliminating the shutters is appropriate noting however that there should be some detail to the window. She stated that the concerns of the neighbors are of concern. She stated that the design has been cleaned up and is acceptable. In response to Board comments, Mr. Gerdes asked that the Commission consider a six over one window pattern. Commissioner Moyer agreed that the structure does not need shutters. In response to a question, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the approval specifically prohibited shutters, future owners would need to bring forward a request to install shutters. Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the project based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Design modifications consistent with the direction of the Commission shall be made to the drawings prior to submittal of a permit application. a. The pediment shall be removed from the front porch. b. The second story windows on the front elevation shall be evenly spaced; the outer most windows shall stay aligned with the first floor window openings and spaced accordingly. c. The installation of shutters is not approved. If shutters are proposed in the future, the matter will be brought before the Historic Preservation Commission for further consideration. 2. Information on the proposed windows shall be submitted with the permit application for review and approval by the subcommittee to verify that the style and type of lite divisions are appropriate for the structure, consistent with the Commission’s direction. 3. Full detailed working drawings and engineering plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the application for building permit. The plans shall accurately detail all proposed demolition activity to allow configuration that: a) The project remains a partial and not a full demolition; and b) That all areas of new construction, wall or roof framing, or foundation work, are setback consistent with the required zoning. The final plans shall be reviewed by a subcommittee of the Commission to verify that the design, detailing and extent of demolition as represented during the public presentations and in the materials provided is achieved. 4. The south property line and the 15’ zoning setback line shall be clearly staked on the site by a licensed surveyor and shall remain staked throughout Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 11 construction to provide a clear guide to all contractors as well as to City inspectors from which to construct and evaluate all new construction. 5. A tree removal plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plan shall detail the inches, species and condition of any trees and any vegetation planned for removal prior to or during construction. 6. A plan for staging and storage of construction materials and equipment and a plan for construction vehicle parking shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Due to the tightness of the neighborhood and congestion in this area, on street parking shall be limited to two vehicles in front of the 440 Illinois Road property. Off-site parking for contractors may be required. 7. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer, shall be installed to protect trees and vegetation identified for preservation and to prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. Other Conditions 8. Prior to any exterior demolition activity on the site, a pre-demolition meeting with City staff shall be held on site with all contractors to assure that there is a clear understanding of the limits of the demolition activity. 9. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading plan, shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval through a Certification of Appropriateness prior to framing inspections being scheduled. Prior to presenting the plan to the Commission, City staff shall confirm that the plan provides for appropriate screening, to the extent possible, of the addition from the neighboring house and yard to the south due to the proximity of the homes on these lots. 10. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. Any deviations from the approved plans may result in re- consideration of the project by the Commission. 11. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy due to the time of year, a conditional Certificate of Occupancy may be issued if a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of plant materials and labor is posted with the City. All plantings, consistent with the approved landscape plan, shall be completed during the first available planting season after construction as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and it was approved with a vote of 6-1 with Commissioner Athenson voting nay for reasons previously stated. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 12 NEW PETITIONS 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving two additions to the residence at 142 S. Stonegate Road. Owner: Bill and Leslie Stevens Representative: Christopher Rosati, 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. Rosati provided some architectural history of the property and structure and discussed the existing massing and composition. He discussed the site constraints due to the ravine. He noted that he has worked with staff to find a solution that will not impact the ravine. He provided background on the intent and purpose of the project. He stated that the existing garage doors are not functional and noted that the garage addition will help to separate the service drive and motor court from the main motor court. He noted that the addition to the master bedroom is minimal but will offer a significant improvement to the interior space. He noted that the addition is very mindful of the mass being located in this area, in close proximity to the ravine edge. He reviewed the floor plan for the existing house and the proposed additions. He reviewed the elevations of the proposed additions and the areas of transition between the existing and new. He discussed the new windows in relation to the existing house. He noted that the open first floor of the porch addition provides openness in that area while still meeting the needs of the property owners. He noted that one dormer is proposed for removal. He stated that the additions as proposed are subservient to the existing structure. Ms. O’Neill noted that both additions are located on the side of the home, away from the ravine. She noted that staff met with the petitioner early in this project and in particular, the City Engineer has been involved in the discussions for many months. She stated that the City Engineer will continue to be involved and will need to approve the construction method for the addition. She stated that the massing and proposed additions are appropriate based on the existing house. She stated staff support for the project and noted the conditions recommended in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Rosati discussed the proposed east elevation. He stated that the expanse of brick is characteristic of the house noting the intent to keep the addition simple and uncluttered. He discussed the proposed window configuration. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Stevens stated that a car cannot fit in the existing garage noting that it is just not practical. She stated that the garage doors and hinges make the openings even smaller. In further response, Mr. Rostati explained that the garage addition separates the vehicle area from the front of the house and more formal auto court. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Rosati stated comfort with being able to match the brick. He added that the removed brick will be preserved and reused if possible. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 13 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Rosati stated that he did not prepare a massing model. He identified the area of the existing driveway and the proposed driveway. Commissioner Berg questioned whether the garage addition should slide away from the main motor court to avoid closing off the front of the house. He suggested that a model would be helpful in understanding how the additions will impact the existing house. He commented that the original architect designed the house with a lot of wall and limited windows. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Rosati confirmed that the garage is driving the need for the addition, not the bathroom on the second floor. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Don Zordani stated that he lives two houses south of the ravine on Bluff’s Edge. He stated that the ravine appears to be stable and expressed support for the project. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz invited final Commission questions and comments. Commissioner Preschlack stated an understanding of the need to have a functional garage but noted concern about how the massing will look on the site. He agreed that a massing model would be helpful. Commissioner Moyer stated that he was struck by the amount of solid wall existing in the living room. He noted that the open porch is a nice contrast to the solid walls. He observed that the two additions are better than a single addition. He stated support for the petition. Commissioner Athenson stated support for the petition and encouraged exploring the use of old brick. She acknowledged that the landscape plan will soften the massing. She questioned whether there should be some added detail to the garage. Commissioner Berg agreed that the open nature of the porch is intriguing. In response to questions from Commission Berg, Mr. Rosati agreed that careful thought about the porch detail and how it terminates at the base will be important. He stated that he does not envision a large concrete base. He stated his intent to keep it simple. He noted that pier foundations will be used. Commissioner Berg stated that due to the masonry mass of the house a masonry element may be an appropriate solution on the open porch. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Rosati explained that consideration was given to a brick base to the columns. Commissioner Berg stated concern about the additions reaching out and changing the character of the depth of the entry. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 14 Chairman Pairitz stated that the additions as proposed are handsome. He agreed with Commissioner Berg that the open porch feels a little light and suggested that the columns or the spacing be further considered. Commissioner Berg reiterated that a model may better reflect the true proportions. Chairman Pairitz agreed that the idea of sliding the garage back could be worth evaluating. He stated that the details are important to a good project. He noted that the project is well thought out and stated that he is hesitant to stall the progress. Commissioner Moyer commented that the additions will likely amplify the existing house. Chairman Pairitz encouraged the petitioner to consider the details discussed by the Commission and discuss possible modifications with staff. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. The following items shall be satisfied prior to submitting an application for a building permit. 1. The petitioner shall demonstrate that further consideration has been given to the following aspects of the project to the satisfaction of City staff. City staff is authorized to approve refinements to the plan related to these two elements if it is determined by staff that the refinements are consistent with the discussion and direction of the Commission. a. Consideration shall be given to moving the garage back to provide some relief to the main entrance of the house. i. A model of the existing house with the proposed additions shall be presented to staff for review to evaluate the impact of the proposed addition on the existing character of the house based on the discussion of the Commission. b. Consideration of the use of brick piers at the corners of the open porch addition. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions shall be satisfied. 2. Given the location of the existing structure within the steep slope setback area, plans prepared and stamped by a licensed Engineer shall be submitted to the City. The City Engineer shall confirm that the plans provide all necessary details of the proposed construction and specifically the piers proposed to support the bedroom addition. The plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. All requirements as determined by the City Engineer and City Arborist to protect the ravine, trees and vegetation on and near the property and, to prevent stormwater runoff into the ravine, into sensitive natural areas or on to neighboring properties shall be met to the satisfaction of the City. Requirements may include, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 15 but shall not be limited to, silt fencing, chain link fencing or construction fencing. All protection measures shall remain in place until written approval authorizing removal is issued by the City. 4. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading 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 proposed. c. Any trees over 8” removed shall be replaced on the site at a ratio of no less than 1” for 1” replacement consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and Landscape Ordinance and subject to the approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. d. Any plantings determined to be necessary to enhance, restore or protect the ravine shall be reflected on the plan. 5. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and any on-site parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted and subject to approval by staff. Other conditions. 6. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. 7. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy due to the time of year, only a conditional Certificate of Occupancy shall be issues and a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor shall be posted with the City. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and it was unanimously approved. 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving new signage and a conceptual landscape plan for the East Lake Forest Train Station. Owner: Union Pacific Railroad Representatives: Dan Martin, Supt. of Public Works, City of Lake Forest T. Gunny Harboe, architect Peter Gordon, City Forester, City of Lake Forest Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 16 Mr. Harboe introduced the project and presented historic images of the train station, photos taken prior to the renovations recently under taken and photos of the work in progress. He reviewed the proposed signage noting the intent to replicate, as close as possible, the original signage at the station. He reviewed the detailing of the proposed sign noting that the dimensions were gauged from the photographs. He stated that a metal sign is proposed for ease of long-term maintenance noting that the material will not be easily perceived once it is painted. He stated that the material of the original sign is unknown. He reviewed the proposed details of how the sign will be attached to the roof. Peter Gordon, City Forester, reviewed a conceptual landscape plan for the west side of the warming house noting that two Honey Locust trees were removed due to the roof modifications that occurred. He stated that a plan was designed at the staff level to frame the building with landscaping noting the intent to complement the Market Square plantings. He stated that the pavement improvements will result in a more symmetrical area around the west station building. He stated that one parking stall on the south side will be removed to allow more significant landscaping to be installed around the building. He stated that specific plant material has not yet been chosen given the conceptual nature of the design. He stated that the idea was well received by the Lake Forest Garden Club on a recent tour of the area. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the conceptual landscape plan is before the Commission for input and direction noting that the Commission does not need to take action on the landscape plan at this meeting. She recognized that the Commission was correct in its earlier comments and the trees were not able to be saved. She asked for Commission action on the signage proposed noting that the intent is to replicate the signage from an appearance standpoint given the historic photographs available. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Gordon explained the proposed curb line changes on the south and north sides of the west structure. In response to Commissioner Ramson, Mr. Gordon stated that the proposed trees will not impact the visibility of the signs. Mr. Harboe clarified that the signage will only be on the east building, consistent with the historic photographs. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Harboe confirmed that the intent is to match the quirkiness of the historic lettering. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Harboe stated the intent to recreate the font as seen in the historic photographs. He stated that the only relief on the sign will be the frame along the outside. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Martin stated that the signs on the platform are required by Metra. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Gordon agreed that the sightlines are strong at the center of the buildings. He stated that there may be future Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2011 - Page 17 opportunities to enhance the axis. He stated that the trees will need to be quality, matching, shade trees. He stated that elms or silver lindens may be considered. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Gordon noted the intent to provide trees that create a canopy above the roof. He noted some challenges with utilities and existing infrastructure in the area. He stated that the trees are conceptually located at this point and that the location will be finalized once a species is determined. Commissioner Berg suggested that the trees be located based on an elevation of the warming house. He expressed concern that there is not enough room between the proposed tree and the warming house noting that it appears crowded. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Gordon confirmed that the Kentucky Coffee trees in front of the warming house are existing noting that they were planted as part of the Western Avenue streetscape improvements. Commissioner Athenson commended the conceptual landscape plan for breaking up the concrete. Chairman Pairitz invited public comments, hearing none, he invited final comments. He added that a species with a large canopy would be appropriate. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving replacement signage at the Eastside Train Station based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional comments from the public 8. Additional information from staff. No additional comments were presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development