Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/04/27 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the April 27, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Virginia McTier, Mary Ellen Swenson, Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: Jim Preschlack Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Assistant Planner, MeLena Hessel, Planning Intern and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz opened the meeting, reviewed the procedures followed by the Commission and introduced the members of the Commission and staff. 2. Approval of the March 23, 2011 meeting minutes. The approval of the minutes from the March meeting was postponed. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION – Previously Considered Petition 3. Information will be presented to the Commission regarding an alternative concept for a property previously considered by the Commission. Commission comment is requested. The Commission will not take any formal action on this item. The property is located at 580 Broadsmoore Drive. A new single family residence is planned in conjunction with preservation of existing outbuildings. Owners: Dr. and Ms. Ritacca Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition noting that given some changes being considered for this project, staff suggested that the project be brought before the Commission at a conceptual stage to get some initial input. He reviewed the objectives of the project as now conceived: to restore two of the existing historic structures in their existing locations, to demolish the Gardner’s Cottage and to construct a new single family home. He noted that the project is designed to minimize impact to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 2 mature landscaping on the site. He stated that the new residence will be designed to meet the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. He provided some background stating that there are three existing structures on the property which were originally historic outbuildings to the James Thorne Estate. He identified the structures on the site plan noting that the design of the structures is of a high quality. He noted that all of the structures require significant structural repair. He stated that the existing location of the Gardener’s Cottage creates some challenges for siting a new main house for the property. He noted that several alternative site plans were studied to determine the best approach for locating a new residence on the property within the context of some of the existing outbuildings. He noted that the Gardener’s Cottage, at its present location, could be overpowered by a new home. He noted that consideration was given to moving the Gardener’s Cottage to the location of the Carriage House, on the western portion of the property, but noted that it was determined that mature trees would be impacted with such a move. He stated that relocating the Cottage to the front of the house, the east portion of the lot, was explored but found to further compromise the relationship of the Cottage to the historic estate raising questions about the worthiness of that scenario. He stated that adaptive reuse of the Gardener’s Cottage for a guest house or studio was considered but not found to be a practical option. He noted that preservation of the other two historic outbuildings, the Carriage House and Pump House, in lieu of preservation of the Gardener’s Cottage, could result in a plan that preserves the original use and integrity of those structures while at the same time, providing appropriate space to meet the needs of a new residence on this lot. He noted the willingness of the owner to invest in an historical restoration of these two structures and to create a site plan that incorporates them. He stated that the existing driveway and curb cut will be reused. He provided a conceptual overview of the design of the proposed single family home. He stated that Beaux Arts planning and design principles will be used to develop the new plan and that limestone, stucco and wood detailing are proposed for the new residence. He stated that the design of the gardens and landscape is very important to this project noting that these elements tie the property to the original estate. He stated that the project will comply with the building scale and zoning requirements for the lot. He requested input on the revised concept for the property. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that the project is before the Commission at the urging of staff given the long history of the property and the past discussion of the property with the neighbors. She stated that the original subdivision which separated this parcel from the estate as a result of the construction of Broadsmoore Drive occurred in the late 1980’s. She stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 3 that this property, in its configuration today, was created through a re- subdivision approved by the City in 2006. She stated as part of the resubdivision, the owner at that time proposed demolition of all of the outbuildings. She explained that in reviewing the resubdivision request, the Plan Commission sought input from the Historic Preservation Commission and ultimately, two of the outbuildings were designated for preservation. She noted that the Plan Commission was divided on this issue with some members noting that the historic integrity of the original estate was lost with the original subdivision and construction of Broadsmoore Drive. She noted however that a majority of the Commissioners voted in support of preserving two of the outbuilding, the Gardener’s Cottage and the Pump House. She noted key considerations in developing the lot as it exists today with a new home including compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, preservation of mature trees, incorporation of the outbuildings and achieving a plan that is functional. She stated that several years ago, the current owner of the lot, Dr. Ritacca, working with a different architect, explored a plan that preserved the two designated structures. She noted that the project was never presented to the Commission for final action, but noted that there was at least one public meeting on the project as then proposed. She explained that it has now been several years since the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed that earlier plan for development of this parcel and since that time, Dr. Ritacca has developed an alternative concept and is seeking input from the Commission before proceeding further with design development. She noted that the revised concept requires that the Gardener’s Cottage, a designated structure, be demolished. She acknowledged that a complete application submittal is needed including information on exterior materials, grading, detailed plans on the house and other standard information before any Commission action can be taken. She stated however that the primary intent of this informational presentation is to allow the Commission and members of the public to provide input and direction on this concept. She stated that staff received several calls from neighboring property owners stating concerns that the plans have changed from previous public discussion on the matter and stating concerns about tree preservation and drainage. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that standard notice was provided to the neighbors even though not Commission action is requested. She stated that the Special Use Permit approved in conjunction with the subdivision did not require preservation of the outbuildings. She stated that in response to the Plan Commission’s discussion, the then owner of the property commissioned an historic assessment of the outbuildings and the Plan Commission included a Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 4 condition of approval on the subdivision requiring that a request for designation, consistent with the findings of the study, be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration. She stated that the designation of the outbuildings as local landmarks triggers the requirement for this matter to come before the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Ransom noted that the Plan Commission did not give clear direction on the preservation of the structures, but referred the matter to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Building Scale Ordinance applies to all structures on the property. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of the Local Landmark status for two of the outbuildings. Commissioner McTier noted a discrepancy in the names used for the structures in some of the materials. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Streightiff noted that the names used for the outbuildings have changed over time. He clarified the names of the structures as referred to in the current proposal. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Carriage House is not designated as a Local Landmark but that the other two outbuildings on this parcel are designated as Local Landmarks. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff commented on the proposed architecture envisioned for the main house. He stated that the architectural style will be influenced by the original estate main house as well as the outbuildings. He stated that as envisioned now, the new residence on this property will be smaller than the home previously proposed for this property several years ago. Chairman Pairitz summarized the re-subdivision process noting that during that process, the petitioner at that time requested relief from the building scale ordinance in exchange for preserving the outbuildings. He stated that the Plan Commission did not approve that request and did not grant any relief from compliance with the Building Scale Ordinance as part of the subdivision. He noted that if appropriate, the Historic Preservation Commission can grant a variance if warranted and if all of the applicable Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 5 criteria are met he noted however, for new development, variances are rarely, if ever, granted. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff commented on the previous proposal to relocate the Gardener’s Cottage to the east side of the parcel and on the other alternatives considered for the Cottage. He stated that the lot is heavily wooded and the relocation of the Cottage to some portions of the lot would require the removal of several significant trees. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak stated that throughout the Plan Commission’s discussions, there was interest in retaining the wooded character of the lot and re-establishing the wooded character given the loss of trees over time. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Historic Preservation Commission is being asked to give a general sense of whether the Commission is interested in seeing a plan developed in the manner described by the petitioner. She noted that the Commission might want to provide input on how to balance preservation of the outbuildings with compatibly with the neighborhood, whether the Commission is willing to entertain a plan that proposes demolition of the Gardener’s Cottage and on other aspects of the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff noted that in the Historic Resources Report, prepared by Susan Benjamin, the importance of retaining a visual connection between the outbuildings and the main estate was noted. He stated that Broadsmoore Drive disconnects the outbuildings from the main residence and several trees were planted on the main estate reducing the connection of the outbuildings to the main estate. He stated that Dr. Ritacca’s current proposal preserves the Carriage House and Pump House in their existing locations with uses similar to their historic use. He stated that relocating the Carriage House to the east could help create more of a visual connection to the main estate however he noted that creating a workable site plan around that concept would be difficult. Ms. Czerniak discussed the permitted uses of the outbuildings and explained that they must be used as accessory structures to the main house and cannot be rented as separate living units in this zoning district. She stated that creating a function site plan and identifying reasonable uses for each outbuilding that is to be retained is important. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 6 In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Streightiff stated that the report from Ms. Benjamin may include some interior images of the structures. Commissioner McTier agreed that the owner of the original estate across the street has installed extensive plant material along the street and as a result, some of the connection between the main residence and the outbuildings has already been lost. Commissioner Berg noted that he was on the Commission when the outbuildings were nominated as Local Landmarks. He stated that the drive behind nomination appeared to be a desire to get the subdivision approved rather than a sincere interest in preservation. He stated that in his opinion, the connection between the outbuildings and the main estate is already severed with the street. He acknowledged that there are several challenges in developing this lot which will take some balancing of various interests and creativity. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Dick Block, 510 Broadsmoore Drive, noted that he is not present to oppose the project, but noted that he is confused about the process stating that he thought this matter was resolved. He stated that he believes the previous owner’s key interest in subdividing the property was to market the properties in a profitable way. He described the existing neighborhood and stated that the neighbors were unanimously opposed to any subdivision of the property. He stated that the final agreement was a two lot subdivision with the restrictions requiring that the Cottage and Pump House be preserved. He added that he understood that the architecture of any new residence would be sympathetic to the existing outbuildings and the estate house, and that the square footage of the Cottage would be subtracted from the allowable square footage for the new residence. He noted that the owner of the main estate recently completed an extensive restoration project. He reiterated that the neighbors did not support subdivision of this property. He stated that the demolition of the Cottage is not consistent with the prior approvals acknowledging that he did not review the final legal documents. He expressed an interest in seeing the concept plans for the project as now proposed and questioned if the Cottage could be moved. Mr. Pairitz confirmed that the designation of the two outbuildings places restrictions on those buildings which must be considered. He confirmed that the Commission will review the design, square footage, compatibility and other elements of a new residence proposed for this site to assure Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 7 consistency with the Preservation Ordinance. He noted that the Building Scale Ordinance will be enforced as it is with any other property. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the initial subdivision application proposed the demolition of all outbuildings and the creation of three lots. She stated that the Plan Commission did not support a three lot subdivision for this parcel, but a two-lot subdivision was approved. Chairman Pairitz noted an interest in understanding the original intent of the subdivision. He commented to the petitioner that it is difficult for the Commission to provide specific input without seeing a specific request. He questioned whether there might be a workable way to preserve all three of the outbuildings noting comments from the preservation consultant that all three are of interest. He commented on the Historic Resources Report noting that it stressed the importance of retaining a visual connection between the main estate and outbuildings. He stated that a solution that preserves the two structures that were originally landmarked would be an easier task. He noted that request for approval of the demolition of a structure that is locally landmarked must meet high standards. He commented on the architectural concept for the new residence noting the importance of being sympathetic to the outbuildings. Commissioner Berg stated that this site is unique and challenging. He stated an interest in seeing the elevations that correspond with the conceptual footprint noting that the two are designed together. He cautioned that direction to continue to explore the concept should not be misinterpreted as a guarantee of approval. He stated that a plan needs to be developed before the Commission can fully evaluate the plan. He stated that the scale of the structure across the street is overwhelming and noted the size of the lot on which it sits. He commented on the scale of other homes in the neighborhood noting that any proposed residence should be scaled appropriately for the lot. Commissioner Swenson stated that she is uncomfortable with supporting demolition of a landmarked structure. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that occasionally there are properties within the historic district that are approved for demolition. She stated that this is unusual because it is a recent designation which occurred as part of a subdivision and perhaps, as a way to move the subdivision forward. She stated that the record for the subdivision is interesting noting that there appeared to be more concern on the part of the Plan Commission about the number of lots, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 8 than preservation. She confirmed that the lot is buildable. She stated that because this is a difficult property, early input is being sought. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Ms. Czerniak stated that there is an opportunity to understand how the outbuildings will be improved and used as part of this petition. She stated that if buildings serve a function on a property, they are more likely to be maintained and preserved for the long term. She stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to place requirements for restoration and maintenance of any of the outbuildings that remain as part of any approved development on the lot. Commissioner Moyer noted that he is not entirely comfortable with the request to demolish the Cottage. He stated that he understands the difficulty and the challenges of the property and acknowledged that a compelling argument could be made to support the proposed approach, but he noted that a strong and complete argument has not yet been made. He stated that there may be other options including moving the structure to the east. He stated that the awkwardness of a relationship with the new house is arbitrary because the new house has not been designed. Mr. Block, neighbor to the east, noted that the subdivision was separate from the development plans for the new lot. He stated that he expressed concern about relocating the Cottage to the east when this item was previously before the Commission due to the proximity to his pool and concerns about drainage. He stated that this is a difficult lot and that is why the neighbors were concerned about the subdivision from the beginning. He expressed concern about the intensity of development on the property noting that the size of the Cottage is already relatively substantial. He stated that the neighbors would like to see the park like grounds and trees preserved and see a residence that is architecturally compatible. He stated that he is not necessarily against the project as proposed, but has questions. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged that this property is challenging. He questioned if there is a way to incorporate the Cottage into the design of the new house noting that it might not be ideal from a preservation standpoint, but might achieve a good balance. Commissioner Moyer noted that the Cottage could be connected to the new house and used as part of the livable space. He stated that there could be an interesting solution. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz noted that the Cottage is within the zoning setback area. He commented that if the new house is built closer to the street, the mass of the residence will be more visible. He clarified that based on the single family zoning on the property, the Cottage cannot be used as a separate living unit but could be incorporated into the new house. Commissioner Berg noted that the idea of having multiple structures on the lot is a challenge. He stated that adding onto an existing structure may result in the loss of identity of the historic structure raising questions about whether the historic integrity is being preserved. Mr. Streightiff noted that the first design concept reviewed used the Cottage as a wing of the main estate. He stated that what resulted was essentially a demolition of the Cottage. Commissioner Berg noted that there is a sense of borrowing space by preserving the Cottage in the current location given the location of the structure within the setback area. Chairman Pairitz stated that the onus is on the petitioner to show the Commission that the presented plan is the appropriate solution for the property. He stated that the Commission is willing to consider alternatives but noted concern with prematurely going down a different path than was previously approved with respect to the outbuildings noting that a compelling argument will need to be presented. Mr. Streightiff stated that he understands that there is a substantial amount of work that still needs to occur before coming back to the Commission. He asked the Commission for clear direction on whether or not there is a chance to demolish the Cottage. Chairman Pairitz stated that moving forward in that direction may be appropriate but stated that it depends on the final solution presented to the Commission. He stated that there may be challenges down the road noting that no approvals are being granted or guaranteed at this point. Commissioner Swenson stated that the Gardener’s Cottage should be saved. She stated that the Historic Resources Report indicates that very little has changed on the Cottage and that original drawings exist. Commissioner Ransom acknowledged that the siting of the Cottage makes it difficult to develop the rest of the lot. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 10 Commissioner McTier noted that the Cottage can no longer be seen from the main estate given the landscaping along the street on the main estate. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Streightiff noted that to his knowledge, there are no plans on file of the original Carriage House. He pointed out that the architectural detailing on the Carriage House relates more directly to the main estate than the detailing on the Cottage. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff clarified that the nomination for Local Landmark status included only the Cottage and Pump House, not the Carriage House. Commissioner Berg stated that the Cottage has a fetching ambiance. He stated that replicating the architecture and detailing of the outbuildings on the new residence may be more appropriate than looking to the original estate house for references. He stated that a design that emulates the Cottage could be successful. He questioned the appropriateness of mimicking the detailing of the main estate house. Chairman Pairitz agreed that the new house needs to respond to the outbuildings. He stated that the main estate is not necessarily sympathetic to the outbuildings. Commissioner Moyer noted that the Cottage is too large to be a minor accessory structure for a new house. He noted however that the Cottage could retain its identity and be reused and connected to the new house. Chairman Pairitz welcomed comments from the property owner. Dr. Ritacca explained that he met with Susan Benjamin, a Historic Preservation Consultant, when he first bought the property. He noted that he learned that all three structures are significant, but that the Carriage House was determined to have less historic integrity due to the modifications to the structure over time. He pointed out that the Carriage House is not a less important structure than the other two. He stated that moving the Cottage would be difficult given the condition of the structure and location of mature trees. He stated that if moved, much of the Cottage would likely need to be re-built. He explained that in preserving the Carriage House and Pump House instead of the Gardener's Cottage, they would remain in their original locations and be restored to their original form. He stated that he has considered many options and noted Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 11 that it is difficult coming up with a solution that addresses all of the concerns. He thanked the Commission for the comments and direction. Chairman Pairitz commented that the scale of the new house will be important. He stated that an oversized house on this lot would not be appropriate. NEW PETITION 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of an addition and alterations to the residence at 100 Pembroke Drive. Owners: Steve and Jane Thompson Representative: Gary Beyerl, architect Jennifer Hense, representative from Burns and Beyerl, presented the petition. She provided some history of the property noting that the coach house was subdivided off from the property and is currently used as a single family home on a separate lot. She noted that a later garage and breezeway addition were constructed. She stated that the proposal replaces the existing breezeway and allows a connection to a new terrace and covered porch. She stated that the details will match those found on the front entry porch. She commented on the technique that will be used to mimic the details found on the existing house. She stated that the columns and wood door surrounds will be more consistent with the existing house than what currently exists. She stated that a successful brick match was found during the first phase of the project which was approved by the Commission in 2002 and noted that the same brick will be used in this phase. She stated that there are no new openings proposed with this phase of the project. She commented on the iron rail noting that there are iron rail details found on the original house. She noted some other changes that are requested to gain access to the basement. Ms. Hessel, Planning Intern, provided staff comments. She stated that the area of the project faces the lot to the east and replaces the breezeway found on the east façade. She stated that the Commission approved a plan in 2002 that included a side porch and breezeway. She stated that the current proposal is a modified plan. She noted that the elements proposed are categorized as design elements and commented that this project complies with the Building Scale and Environment Ordinance. She discussed the definition of a design element. She stated that demolition of the breezeway is requested noting that it is not part of the original structure and not considered to be historically significant. She stated that the standards in the Ordinance are met and the proposed modifications Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 12 are visually compatible with the existing structure. She noted that staff recommends approval with conditions as noted in the report. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Hense stated that the photograph provided in the packets is outdated noting that the windows represented in the drawings are accurate and were completed in 2002. She stated that the design was simplified from the 2002 proposal. She stated that the elevation as it exists today is blank and the door is lost on the elevation. She stated that the pediment helps break up the blank wall. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Hense stated that the front entrance and the side porch are not visible together. Commissioner Berg stated that this is a big house and that the design on the west side of the house was well executed he noted however that the drawings do not necessarily read well. He stated that the details as proposed will help scale the porch better to the house. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Hense described the three entrances to the home. She pointed out the door that was increased in size in the previous project anticipating the later addition of a gable porch. Chairman Pairitz commented on the drawing technique and the relative scale of 2 dimensional drawings. He acknowledged the complexity of how the various elements interact and connect. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms. Hense stated that there is a mansard roof on the garage and the proportions are very low when compared to the rest of the house. She stated that the breezeway is kept low intentionally. She confirmed that the brick wall encloses the grill. Ms. Hense reviewed the floor plan noting that the proposed pediment is recessed behind the front projection. She showed an image of the east side of the house and commented on the existing landscape. In response to a question from Commissioner McTier, Mr. Thompson noted that the neighbors were notified of the project. He pointed out that the immediate neighboring home sits behind his house. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he stated his inclination to approve the project and offered some comments on the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 13 details of the project including the detailing of how the column meets the wall. He questioned if the column could be expressed all the way to the base of the brick. He suggested that the symmetry of the trellis could be treated differently. He stated that in general, he is supportive of the project. He commented on the use of acrylic material on the breezeway noting that an alternative material may be more appropriate given the high quality of other materials chosen for this project. Commissioner Ransom commented on the project. He stated that the drawing appears busy but acknowledged that as reflected in three- dimensions the project appears consistent with the Ordinance. Commissioner Moyer concurred with the comments of Commissioner Ransom. Commissioner McTier commended the petitioner on the project. Commissioner Berg stated that the house is large enough to support an improvement in this area noting that this is the everyday entrance. He raised questions about the geometry of the wrought iron gate. Commissioner McTier made a motion to approve the project subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing house and site, including the breezeway that will be replaced, shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the site. 2. A detailed landscape plan for the area immediately adjacent to the proposed porch addition and breezeway shall be submitted for review by the City’s Certified Arborist. a. The plan shall identify all existing plantings: those that will remain and those intended for removal. b. A note shall be placed on the landscape plan stating that approval of the plan is for plantings only, any lighting, garden structures, pool, fences or other accessory structures will require separate approval and permits. 3. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted and subject to approval by staff. All construction activity must remain on the property. 4. Protection fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2011 - Page 14 construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional comments from the public. 6. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak thanked Commissioner McTier noting that she will be invited back at a later meeting for a formal recognition. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Megan C. O’Neill Assistant Planner