Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/03/23 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the March 23, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz (arrived at 6:38), Commissioners Virginia McTier, Mary Ellen Swenson, Bill Ransom and Jim Preschlack Commissioners absent: Fred Moyer and Guy Berg. Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Acting Chairman Ransom Acting Chairman Ransom introduced the meeting on behalf of Chairman Pairitz and presented an overview of the meeting procedures and introduced the Commissioners and staff. 2. Approval of the January 26, 2011 and February 23, 2011 meeting minutes. The minutes of the January 26, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner McTier. The minutes of the February 23, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner McTier. CONSENT AGENDA 3. A request for modifications to an approved plan including modified window openings and replacement windows for the residence at 1435 N. Lake Road. Owners: Willard and Cissy Bunn Representative: Steve Rugo, architect Acting Chairman Ransom asked for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he asked for any requests to remove items from the Consent Agenda from members of the Commission or members of the public. Hearing none, he invited a motion on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Swenson made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Preschlack seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 2 CONTINUED PETITION 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness acknowledging a demolition and approving modifications to a previously approved plan and a building scale variance for a residence at 1 Stonegate Road. Owners: Cezary and Eva Jakubowski Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Acting Chairman Ransom asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Melichar introduced the petition noting that it was previously before the Commission. She reviewed the history of the project noting that her firm was not involved in the previous petition or in the construction that has occurred on the site to date. She stated that the residence as now proposed is more consistent with the formal Georgian Revival architectural style than the previous plan. She explained that the construction work completed to date increased the square footage of the house and modified specific elements noting that these issues require correction. She reviewed images of the historic home and discussed various elements noting how they relate to the overall site and architectural style. She pointed out that the historic residence was balanced with a regular window pattern and traditional detailing. She reviewed the proposed corrections. She reviewed the current floor plan noting specifically the “bumpouts” on the east elevation of the house and on the garage commenting that they are not consistent with the Georgian architectural style. She pointed out the lack of symmetry as a result of the “bumpouts”. She reviewed the floor plans as now proposed noting the areas of change. She provided images of the house in its present condition. She discussed the proposed re-design of the front portico and noted the reinstatement of the classical detailing. She discussed the garage and the connecting element between the house and garage noting that as constructed, it violates Georgian proportions and design principles. She discussed the design elements proposed to create proper massing on the main house including the use of a gambrel roof form and scaled down dormers. She reviewed the south and west elevations noting the limitations of the current configuration. She reviewed the east elevation as previously proposed and discussed the current proposal explaining that the “bumpouts” are pulled back to a lesser extent and a two-story space is proposed to better balance the proportions of the home. She reviewed each proposed elevation noting how each is consistent in detailing with the Georgian style. She concluded noting that the proposed design will reinstate a consistent Georgian style home that will again become an asset to the community. Ms. O’Neill stated that the petition is before the Commission with a recommendation to recognize the demolition that occurred due to exceeding the scope of previously approved work, approve a building scale variance and approve the now proposed replacement structure. She added that as a result of some structural changes that were done to stabilize what remains of the structure, the height of the house increased. The height increase resulted in an increase in the square footage and as a result, an increase in the building scale variance previously granted is requested. She noted that the petitioners and their representatives met with staff many times in an effort to bring forward a project that reflects the discussion that occurred at the last Commission meeting. She stated that the current proposal expresses an overall reduction in the appearance of mass but acknowledged that the structure is still over the previously approved building scale variance. She reviewed some of the conditions of approval included in the staff report noting in particular the recommendation to appoint a subcommittee of the Commission to review the permit set of drawings prior to the issuance Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 3 of a building permit and a requirement for additional inspections by City staff throughout the construction process to assure full compliance with the approved plans. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the intention of the condition is to allow a Commission subcommittee to confirm that the plans submitted for permit are consistent with the Commission approvals. She noted that the complexity of this project support this condition. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Melichar discussed the square footage and the size of the garage. She stated that the three-car garage was previously approved by the Commission noting that the current proposal works within that structure and proposes to create a more appropriate mass for the wing. She noted that the footprint was reduced in some areas to help articulate the mass of this element. Chairman Pairitz noted that it is his understanding that the additional building scale overage is the result of the increase in height that occurred in an effort to stabilize the residence. He stated that the size of the garage is not necessarily out of character with garages on other large lots. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the current proposal reduces the square footage of the garage from the existing as-built condition. She confirmed that the additional square footage is attributed to the attic space resulting from the increase in height. She discussed the method used to stabilize the floors and walls reiterating that this work increased the height of the house beyond that shown on the plans creating additional attic space which must be counted in the building scale calculation. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill discussed the changes proposed to the garage noting that they will significantly reduce the square footage. She stated that the garage footprint as currently constructed, conforms to the previously approved plans, but the height exceeds the previous approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission. She stated that the current proposal lowers the ridge on the garage eliminating the second floor space from the building scale calculation. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Melichar illustrated the square footage that is removed from the garage with the current proposal. Chairman Pairitz noted that he spoke with the neighboring property owner to the south and was able to observe the house from the perspective of that neighbor. He noted that the greatest concerns from that perspective are the garage and chimneys which currently extend outside the footprint of the house. He pointed out that current proposal pulls the chimneys into the footprint of the house which is an improvement. He noted that the location of the house on the Lake, with an expansive vista as a backdrop, helps to balance the increased square footage in this case. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Melichar discussed the proposed elimination of the railings from the terrace on the west elevation. She explained that the railings were not original to the structure and that the grading in that area is less than the 30- inch limit which would necessitate railings. She stated that eliminating the railings provides for a better connection to the land and the Lake. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 4 In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Melichar stated that a landscape plan has not been developed yet pending restoration of the bluff. She stated that a landscape plan will be developed upon the completion of the civil engineering of the site. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill recommended that a detailed landscape plan using the approved grading plan for the bluff restoration be brought back to the Commission for approval at a later date. Commissioner Preschlack noted that landscaping will be important in screening views of the garage from the north. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz and Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak explained that the recommendation for Commission review of the landscape plan at a later date provides some flexibility in the usual timing because the restoration of the bluff has yet to get underway and will likely dictate some aspects of the landscape plan. In response to a question from Chairman Ransom, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Bluff Restoration Plan has been approved by the City Engineer, independent of the Commission’s review process. She explained that due to the extensive bluff restoration required on this property, work on the bluff should get underway before work resumes on the house. She acknowledged the interest among the neighbors in seeing work resume at the site soon given the long lapse in activity toward completion of this project. Commissioner Ransom questioned whether approval of the project should be delayed until a landscape plan is presented to the Commission. He added that he also understands the need to move the project forward. He commended the work completed to date on the revised plans and recognized the petitioners’ responsiveness to the Commissioner’s previous comments. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Melichar discussed the reasoning behind the proposed change to the portico noting the changes that occurred to the house over time and the appropriateness of re-establishing an elegant entrance that fits with the current floor plan. Commissioner Swenson requested that further consideration be given to the lites and detailing around the entrance door. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Melichar reviewed the proposed exterior materials noting the use of brick and wood shingles. She stated that the windows will be true divided lites, with wood frames and copper gutters. She confirmed that in the detailing, cues will be taken from the original house including the design of the cornice. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Melichar acknowledged that much work remains to be done to prepare a complete set of revised plans for this property. She confirmed that she has talked with the property owners about the need to bring a complete team together. She acknowledged that the complete team is not yet in place. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that a pre- construction meeting and monthly activity reports are recommended for this project given the history of the project to date and the complexity. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 5 Chairman Pairitz noted that if a subcommittee of the Commission is created, it will have a limited role in reviewing the construction drawings before permitting after a staff review has been completed. He stated that ongoing monitoring of the site will be the responsibility of staff. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Melichar stated that she hoped to have construction underway by the summer. Chairman Pairitz asked for public comment. Alice Moulton-Ely, 420 E. Woodland Road, speaking on behalf of the Preservation Foundation, commended the changes made to the project since the last meeting. She asked for clarification on the proposed building scale overage and questioned whether shutters could be considered. In response to public comment, Ms. Melichar discussed the design rationale for the current plans confirming that shutters are not part of the current plan. Chairman Pairitz suggested that in the interest of moving forward on this plan, the possibility of shutters and other similar details could be given a second look at the time that the final landscape plan is reviewed by the Commission. In response to public comment, Ms. O’Neill reviewed the building scale calculation noting that the original house was 51 percent over the square footage permitted on the lot. She explained that the current proposal increases the overage by 11% bringing the house to 62% over the permitted square footage. She explained that the lot size calculation includes 100% of the table land and only 50% of the land area on the bluff. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner McTier commended the changes made to the project. She stated that historically, the house had shutters and requested that the addition of shutters be considered. Chairman Pairitz also commended the changes and corrections reflected in the revised plans. He suggested that if the Commission finds it appropriate to approve the revised plans as presented, a condition should require that the landscape plan, hardscape plan, final design of the terraces and railings, and the question of whether shutters should be part of the design should return to the Commission for review and approval at a future date. Commissioner Ransom stated support for approval of the revised plan with a condition as suggested by the Chairman. Commissioner McTier made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness acknowledging the demolition that has occurred, approving the revised plans as presented and approving a building scale variance all subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the following condition must be satisfied. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 6 1. A pre-application meeting shall be held with the subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Commission, as appointed by the Chairman, to review the final working drawings, to confirm that the final details are consistent with the information presented to the Commission in public session on March 23, 2011 and consistent with the Commission’s discussion and intent. At the discretion of the subcommittee, this petition may be re-scheduled for Commission consideration if the final working drawings are not found to be consistent with the Commission’s approval. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the following condition must be satisfied. 2. Any information on detailing including, but not limited to, the design and material of any required railings, the terrace design and a decision on whether or not shutters should be used, shall be presented to the subcommittee for consideration and if appropriate, the subcommittee shall refer the matter to the full Commission for further review. 3. Restoration and re-stabilization work on the bluff shall be underway and making continuous progress in a manner consistent with the approvals granted by the City Engineer. 4. A structural report, stamped by a licensed structural engineer, shall be completed and submitted subject to review and approval by City staff. The purpose of this report is to verify that the work completed to date on the structure is structurally sound and adequate and compatible with the replacement structure now proposed. If determined by staff to be necessary, an independent third party structural engineer shall be engaged to review and comment on the report. The property owners will bear the cost of the third party review if it is determined, at the sole discretion of the City, to be necessary. 5. Protective fencing and silt fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City, shall be installed. All protective fencing shall remain in place and in a secure and upright position continuously until City authorization is granted approving its removal. Fencing shall be required to protect vegetation, trees, neighboring properties the bluff and any other elements determined by staff to require protection from construction impacts, materials storage and vehicle parking. 6. A construction materials and staging plan and a construction vehicles parking plan shall be submitted subject to staff review and approval. 7. Payment of all fees, fines and taxes due must be paid in full. Fees shall include fees for additional pro-active inspections at the site and demolition related fees. Ongoing conditions 8. Access to the other homes on the private driveway shall be maintained and permitted on an ongoing basis. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 7 9. On an ongoing basis, interim restoration of the landscaping along the private driveway and in the parkway, at the entrance to the private driveway at the end of Illinois Road, shall be completed by the petitioners. 10. The plans as presented do not indicate any modification to the existing foundation. If any modification, either removal or addition of foundation, is determined to be necessary and consistent with the Commission approvals, all work shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. In no case shall any construction work related to the house or garage encroach any further into the steep slope setback than the current footprint. 11. A schedule of anticipated construction activity shall be provided to the Community Development Department on or before the 1st of each month. The purpose of this schedule is to allow review by the City Engineer to identify any possible conflicts with the bluff restoration project and for the purpose of assuring that continuous progress is made on this project given the lengthy period during which this site has been in an unfinished state. In the event any conflicts between the bluff restoration project and work on the residence are identified by the City Engineer, in all cases, priority shall be given to expediting the completion of the bluff restoration project. 12. A detailed, final landscape and hardscape plan for the site shall be prepared on the grading as approved by the City Engineer. The plan shall encompass the entire site, including the restored bluff and shall reflect all trees and vegetation to be preserved and new plantings proposed. The plan shall be presented to the Commission for review and in sufficient time to allow planting of the landscaping in full prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy unless due to the season, planting cannot occur. 13. If exterior lighting, beyond that permitted in the City’s lighting guidelines is proposed, or if walls, pillars or other landscape elements are proposed, they must be presented as part of or in conjunction with the landscape and hardscape plan for Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 14. If due to the time of year, full planting of the landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan cannot occur based on a determination of the City’s Certified Arborist, a bond in the amount of 110% of all materials and labor shall be posted with the City to assure planting during the next earliest planting season. 15. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the private driveway shall be repaired and restored. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITIONS 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of two additions and a building scale variance for the residence at 319 Woodland Road. Owners: Chris and Mary Bauder Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 8 Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner’s representative. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition. He described a past renovation to the home and explained that the current proposal adds a second floor master bathroom and a first floor mudroom. He reviewed photographs of the property and surrounding area. He noted the locations of the proposed additions noting that they will improve the livability of the home. He explained that the mudroom addition is in an area which is currently a recessed entryway to the house and will require a four-foot bump-out from the existing wall. He noted that the mudroom addition will continue the existing roof lines. He reviewed the floor plans and elevations showing the impact of the proposed additions. He stated that the materials will match the existing materials and commented that the rhythm and massing established elsewhere on the home will be consistent on the additions. He stated that the proposed materials include: copper gutters, cedar shingles, and divided lite windows. He noted that a 3.9% building scale overage is requested. He concluded stating that the proposed additions are kept to the minimum size possible by using low eave lines. He added that the additions are on the side and rear of the home and will not significantly impact the streetscape. Ms. O’Neill noted that the mudroom addition requires a zoning variance and that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hear that request at an upcoming meeting. She stated that the proposed footprint increase is modest and the additions are not visible from the street. She noted that the petitioners worked to minimize the overage. She asked that the Commission provide direction to the petitioner regarding the proportion of the dormers for the second- story, family room addition. She noted that findings in support of the building scale variance are included in the staff report provided to the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill commented that as proposed, the dormers are slightly incongruent with the proportion and spacing of other roof forms. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Krasnodebski discussed the reasoning behind the decision to put two dormers on the bathroom addition, stating that the dormers make sense based on the plan layout. He pointed out that the proposed dormers are similar to dormers elsewhere on the house. Chairman Pairitz stated that the composition reads as a single mass from the back and makes sense looking at the entire width of the house. Commissioner Swenson concurred with the Chairman’s comments. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the new shingles will match the existing shingles. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that the proposed plan preserves the trees to the back of the house, noting that some pruning may occur to make room for the second story addition. He stated that the trees are hardy and are considered an invasive species to this area. He stated that if the trees were jeopardized, replacement trees will be planted. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 9 In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Krasnodebski explained the reasoning behind the step back of the second floor element. He discussed how the step back supports the symmetry of the dormers adding that there is a precedent for the proposed roof condition. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he was not able to confirm the original architect for the house. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he complimented the plan noting the marginal increase in mass and invited final comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner McTier made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the additions based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall provide digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site to the City. 2. Prior to the scheduling of a framing inspection, the landscape plan shall be finalized and submitted for review and subject to approval by staff. In the event that the landscaping cannot be planted prior to the issuance of a Occupancy Permit due to the time of year, a financial guarantee shall be posted in the amount of 110% of the cost of the plant materials and labor to ensure planting at the first available season. a. Provide inch for inch replacement if the Elm Tree is compromised during construction. b. The plan shall provide for adequate screening between structures. 3. If determined to be necessary by City staff, chain link tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. A construction materials’ staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner and reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. No vehicles shall park on Woodland Road during construction of the additions and alterations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of a wall and driveway gates along the front of the property at 890 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: Shelley Blaemire and Tim Schneider Representative: Jerry Epping, landscaper Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner’s representative. Mr. Schneider, home owner, introduced the petition noting the Commission’s previous approval of a project at the home that is now nearing completion. Mr. Epping reviewed the proposed landscape plan noting the location of the proposed wall and pillars. He noted that efforts were made to keep the fence out of the root zone of the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 10 existing oaks. He also noted that property across the street which has a wall and gates. He discussed the material proposed for the wall noting the effort to create compatibility with the house. He reviewed photos of the property and surrounding area. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Epping confirmed that existing fences are located along the north and south property lines. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Epping discussed the proposed use of lannonstone noting the intent to be compatible with the existing landscaping. He discussed the configuration of the wall. Commissioner Preschlack noted that the wall and fence appeared to be large in comparison to the size of the house. Mr. Epping pointed out that the house will be visible over the proposed wall. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Epping discussed the size of the wall and gate in relation to the scale of the house. Chairman Pairitz noted that although the scale of the wall and fence may be consistent with the wall across the street, the house on the property under consideration is much smaller than the house across the street. He noted that the height of the wall is less concerning than the taller entrance gate. Mr. Schneider stated that the wall and gates were sized so that they would not overpower the house. He pointed out that the wall and fence across the street are taller than the proposed wall and fence on his property. Chairman Pairitz suggested that an elevation of the house with an overlay of the elevation of the proposed wall would be helpful in understanding the relationship between the two. He stated that the proposed pillars appear too massive. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Epping reviewed the proposed dimensions of the various elements of the wall, piers and gate. In response to a request from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Epping confirmed that the color of the wood on the gate will match the color of the wood on the house. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Epping explained the rationale for the wall height noting the need for privacy from Sheridan Road. In response to a request from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Epping reviewed the height of the landscaping proposed along the wall and explained that boxwood would be used at various locations. Commissioner Ransom stated support for the wall with landscape screening, but expressed concern about the entrance gates. Mr. Epping suggested that the radius where the wall meets the pillars could be lessened or removed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 11 Ms. O’Neill stated that staff shares the concerns voiced by the Commission and has shared those concerns with the petitioner. She noted that as a result of discussions to date, the wall presented to the Commission is lower in height than originally proposed. She recommended that further consideration be given to the wall and entrance pillars in the context of the scale of the house. She recommended that 50 percent year-round landscape screening of the wall be required to softened views of the wall from the streetscape. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Epping confirmed that the proposed gate requires pillars of the proposed height to support its weight. Commissioner Preschlack agreed that if the house is reflected in the graphic, it would better explain how the massing and height of the wall and gate relates to the house. Commissioner Swenson requested that alternative materials be considered for the wall or fence to create a better relationship between the wall and piers, and the house. She stated that alternative materials could help to lessen the heaviness of the wall. Mr. Epping stated that the house is set back a significant distance from the fence and gate. He noted that the fence and gate are intended to tie the site together by matching the stone driveway. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Epping suggested that the wall across the street was constructed prior to the setback requirements. Chairman Pairitz noted that the scale of the wall should take cues from both sides of the street. He stated general support for the proposed 4’ wall. He noted that the appropriate material for the wall requires further consideration. He stated that the piers as proposed appear to be out of scale with the surrounding elements. He added that the proposed gates are parallel to the road, rather than to the house. Mr. Schneider confirmed that the wall across the street is straight with Sheridan Road as are the pillars. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Schneider stated a desire for a solid wall rather than an open fence. He stated that brick was considered, but that lannonstone was selected because of a desire for a more natural material. He reiterated the intent to tie the wall to the driveway. He agreed to the condition as recommended by staff for 50 percent landscape coverage of the wall. He stated a need for privacy noting that the house will still be visible from Sheridan Road. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Schneider stated that a light color gate is being considered. Commissioner Preschlack stated that it is difficult to understand the fence and gates in relation to the house based on the materials provided. He stated that based on what is submitted, it is difficult to support the project. Mr. Schneider noted that looking across the street all that is seen is a wall. He stated that the wall as proposed in front of his house will be set back further from the street than the wall across the street and will be screened with landscaping. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 12 Commissioner Preschlack commented that the wall as proposed might be consistent with the standards but he noted that based on the information provided; the relationship between the wall and the house is not clear. He stated that it is important to understand what is proposed in relation to the house. Commissioner McTier commented that the gates appear to be too heavy for the house and site. Chairman Pairitz stated that he understands the proximity of the house to Sheridan Road. He stated that additional information, such as an overlay, will convey the overall composition of the fence, landscaping, and gate more fully to the Commission to allow a decision to be made. He noted that he is most concerned about the gate based on the information available. He noted that this is a highly visible and prominent part of the community. He noted that the proposed fence and gate will be highly visible elements on the streetscape. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the Commission to continue the matter to allow for more complete information to be submitted. Commissioner Ransom agreed with the comments of the Chairman and suggested that the petitioner take the comments of the Commission into account and consider revisions to the project. He stated that he is unable to approve the petition based on the materials presented. Commissioner Swenson encouraged the petitioner to consider an alternate material, possibly one that relates more to the house than to the surface of the driveway. Commissioner McTier commented that the gates appear too heavy. Chairman Pairitz stated his hope that the comments of the Commission are taken in a positive light given that the wall and gate will be key elements of the property and highly visible on the streetscape. Ms. O’Neill suggested that it might be helpful to have the location of the proposed wall or fence and the gates staked on the site prior to this matter coming back before the Commission. Mr. Schneider noted his intent to carefully follow the process and his intent to do what is best for the neighborhood. He agreed to consider the Commission’s comments and to consider revisions to the project. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner time to consider the comments of the Commission and present additional information to more fully convey the relationship of the proposed wall and gates, to the house and streetscape. He stated that considerations should include alternative materials for the wall, a less massive gate design and reduction in the scale of the wall. Commissioner McTier seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of an addition and alterations to the residence at 335 N. Green Bay Road. Owner: Justin and Erin Foley Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 13 Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner’s representative. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition, providing a brief history of the home. He noted that the addition that was constructed in 1989 is in poor proportion to the existing Georgian style home, He stated that the intent of this project is to improve upon the existing conditions. He presented photos of the residence and of surrounding properties. He noted that the property is heavily screened by trees and vegetation from surrounding properties and the street. He reviewed a site plan and rendered elevation noting all of the areas where change is proposed. He stated that the proposed changes will de-emphasize the length of the house and enhance the details. He reviewed the details of each element including the porches, new windows, the breakfast room and the front entry porch. He noted that detailing will be consistent throughout the proposed additions and the existing home. He reviewed the floor plan noting that the length will be broken up by the proposed changes to improve the composition. He reviewed a larger detail of the front door and noted that the front door is not original to the home. He noted that at some point, the previously open loggia was enclosed. He noted that currently, the interior of the entrance is dark and there is no visual connection to the front porch from inside the house. He noted that in the proposed plan, the detailing of the front door is stepped up from the other doors on the home. He noted that the stoop will get wider and that consideration is being given to re-creating the original stoop, from wall to wall, to provide an opportunity for benches and urns. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed information on the original door. Ms. O’Neill noted that the original house was built at the turn of the earlier century, with a later addition. She noted that the only footprint changes proposed are the porches on the front and back of the home. She noted that the other proposed changes enhance the detailing on the house. She recommended consideration of removal of the railing detail over the breakfast room to increase the distance between the front entrance and the porch detailing to better emphasize both those details. She recommended that due to the significant wooded character of the property, any additional site improvements, which would require removal of trees or vegetation, including the addition of landscaping, a pool, or other accessory elements, require further Commission review. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he believes that the bell structure of the garage is original. He stated that the intent of the proposal is to keep the original bell structure. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that the pattern and spacing of the muntins cannot be achieved with true divided lites and therefore, simulated divided lites are proposed. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Krasnodebski explained the rationale for the railing on the breakfast room. He stated that it is an important element in the overall composition. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 14 In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill noted that in the past, this type of element has appeared awkward without a flat roof to support it. Commissioner Ransom stated support for the element as proposed. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the detailing of the front door is stepped up to differentiate the front entrance from other entrances. Chairman Pairitz stated appreciation for the staff comments on the railing, agreeing that it is a difficult detail to pull off on a sloped roof. Mr. Krasnodebski noted that the railing will be pulled forward from the sloped roof, creating a small area of flat roof. He acknowledged that this detail, as presented, may not be clear. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Alice Moutlon-Ely, 420 E. Woodland Road, speaking on behalf of the Preservation Foundation, asked whether the replacement windows, in the historic part of the house, will be single glazed and requested information on the material that will be used for the columns. She asked for clarification of the west elevation with respect to any proposed changes to the windows on the second floor. She agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the railings noting that the railing appears heavy. In response to public testimony, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that the only original windows that will be replaced are in the kitchen in an effort to enlarge the area and make it fit better for the home and the family. He reviewed the specific details of the windows proposed, stating that the replacement windows in the kitchen will be double glazed. He confirmed that the columns are polycast. He stated that wood columns area maintenance problem. He stated that he has used this product in the past and it has proven to be of good quality, appearance and longevity. He stated that no changes are currently proposed on the west elevation. Chairman Pairitz noted that the Commission tries to balance historic integrity with consideration to materials and products which are available today. He stated continued concern about the railing and encouraged further consideration of that element. He complimented the petition. Commissioner Swenson noted continued uncertainty about the use of a French door at the front entrance. Commissioner Ransom noted that practically, there are two front doors on the house noting that the interior door is original. He observed that the door as proposed is intended to allow light into a very dark and tight space. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Krasnodebski indicated that the color of the door is decided stating that the door may be white to match the trim, or a stained, dark wood. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 - Page 15 The Commission discussed the staff recommendation to remove the railing above the breakfast room. Chairman Pairitz suggested that Commission approval could be granted subject to a condition requiring more study of the railing and authorizing final approval of that element by staff with the option of returning the matter to the Commission if it cannot be resolved. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to approve the petition subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Consideration shall be given to removing the railing detail above the breakfast room or the detail of the railing shall be clarified and refined subject to staff review and approval. If an acceptable solution cannot be achieved to the satisfaction of staff, the matter shall be returned to the Commission for review and approval. 2. Any plan for future pools, patios, landscaping or other site modifications shall be brought back to the Commission. 3. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing house and site, including the significant trees, shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the site. 4. If required by City staff, chain link tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. 5. A construction materials’ staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner and reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Given the size of the property, all parking and staging should occur on the property. Commissioner Preschlack seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 9. Additional information from staff. For the Commission’s information, staff distributed a memo recently prepared by the City Attorney for the City Council as an update and reminder on the State Open Meetings’ Act. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development