Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/05/25 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the May 25, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Mary Ellen Swenson, Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: Susan Rafferty Athenson and Jim Preschlack Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz provided an overview of the procedures followed by the Commission and introduced the Commissioners and staff. 2. Approval of the March 23, 2011 and April 27, 2011 meeting minutes. The minutes of the March 23, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by former Commissioner McTier. The minutes of the April 27, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Recognition of past Commissioner Virginia McTier. Chairman Pairitz recognized the contributions of past Commissioner Virginia McTier and thanked her for her service. CONTINUED PETITION 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of a pool and pool house and approving a replacement landscape plan at 902 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: John and Stephanie Harris Representative: Roger Chancellor, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Harris stated that she waited four years to find this house explaining that she was looking for a house from this time period with an appropriate site. She thanked the Commission for its support for the work to date allowing the restoration of the house to the original 1911 Shaw design. She acknowledged that achieving the desired restoration requires the removal of the Ike Colburn influence from the property, including the pool house. She acknowledged the concerns expressed about the removal of the pool house during the Commission’s previous discussion of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 2 this project and noted that in response, she attempted to find someone who wanted the structure and offered to move the structure if a location could be found. She stated that she has received no responses to date. She stated a willingness to document the pool house to whatever extent is required prior to removal. Charles Stick, landscape architect, reiterated that the house was purchased with the intent to restore the property, the house and the landscaping. He stated that the work to date is in harmony with the original plans. He stated that the intent is to treat the site as a whole including the restoration of the garden and reviewed the landscape plan noting the faithful restoration of the historic garden layout. He pointed out that the proposed swimming pool will replace a worn tennis court and will be aligned with the axis of the gardens. He discussed the restoration and preservation of garden “rooms” which were part of the original plan. He discussed the existing pool and pool house explaining that they will be replaced with gardens and a small lily pool consistent with the original plan. He stated that for now, the entry drive will remain in its present form, but may be restored to the original driveway layout at some time in the future. He reiterated the intent of creating a completely unified property. Ms. O’Neill stated that this petition is continued from a previous meeting and noted that based on prior approvals, other work on the site is progressing. She stated that at the February meeting, the Commission determined that more information and comprehensive plans of the proposed restoration of the gardens were needed in order to allow full consideration of the request for demolition of the pool and pool house. She noted that since the last meeting, the petitioner reached out to various individuals and the Preservation Foundation in an effort to find a home for the pool house. She stated staff support for the project as now presented based on the findings as presented in the staff report. Chairman Pairitz commended the complete presentation noting that at the February meeting, the Commission struggled due to the significance of the pool house and the fact that full information and a complete plan was not presented. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Stick confirmed that the landscaping shown on the plan, along the south side of the property, is existing landscaping. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Stick commented on the proposed lily pond noting that it will be sited in a similar location and constructed of similar dimensions as the original water feature shown on the historic landscape plans. He noted that the intent is to have a pond with limestone coping planted with water plants. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Stick stated that he would review the coping detail to ensure historic details are appropriately replicated. Commissioner Moyer observed that if the Ike Colburn pool house was presented at this location today for Commission review, it likely would not be approved. He stated that this fact helps to support approval of the demolition. He commended the gracious offer made by the property owner to move the pool house if another site is found. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 3 In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Stick stated the intent to demolish the pool house this fall with the hope of the family occupying the completed home by Christmas, 2011. He stated if a new location is to be found for the pool house, on another property, it will need to be done fairly quickly. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Stick confirmed that discussions have occurred with the neighbor, Ms. Chandler, about the addition of landscape screening along the south portion of the property, particularly near the location of the proposed new pool. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Pauline Mohr, representing the Preservation Foundation, stated that she is not objecting to the demolition of the pool house but noted that today; the pool house might be considered a contributing structure given the age of the structure. She cautioned the Commission that not all preservation worthy structures have to be the most significant works of a particular architect. She added that historic preservation is not just about buildings, but also about stories. She stated that no one has considered the story of the pool house. She stated that the Building Review Board reviewed projects before the adoption of the Preservation Ordinance noting that the pool house may have received approval from the Building Review Board. Clarissa Chandler, neighboring property owner, stated that her grandfather built the house in 1910. She stated that the existing pool is historic and noted that her mother’s playhouse was originally used as a changing room for the pool. She confirmed that the side of the pool where the Ike Colburn pool house is now located was originally a garden. She stated that in her opinion, the Colburn pool houses are not significant to the property and noted that they required repair and reconstruction in the past. She stated objection to the proposed location of the new pool noting that it will impact her home and the adjacent open lands area. She questioned whether the proposed location is consistent with the restoration intent expressed by the property owners. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, noted the importance of Ike Colburn adding that the drawings for his projects have been archived due to his significance. He suggested that the original plans for the pool house may be available and noted that those would be of greater benefit than requiring as-built drawings prior to the demolition. He noted that not all structures are intended to be permanent. He stated that Mr. Stick is an excellent landscape architect and known in the community. He suggested that if the pool itself is determined to be historic, that should be considered along with the neighbors’ concerns. Chairman Pairitz invited deliberation by the Commission. Commissioner Berg noted that the Commission has received considerable input on this petition from various perspectives. He stated that based on the information provided, he can support the removal of the pool house and the lily pool. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the location of the new pool conforms to zoning setback requirements. She added however that it is within the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 4 Commission’s purview to evaluate whether the proposed location of the pool is consistent with the overall historic character of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Stick reviewed the plan for the proposed pool noting that an evergreen hedge will be installed along with a berm to screen the pool from the south. He stated that the pool will have very little paving around it. He pointed out that the pool is near the service portion of the neighbor’s house. He stated that in his opinion, the landscaped pool will be an improvement over the deteriorating tennis court which currently exists at this location. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Ms. Harris stated that she spoke with Ms. Chandler about the pool and understands her concern. She noted that locating the pool in the footprint of the tennis court makes sense for the property as a whole. She stated that placing the garden in the far northwest corner of the property was not considered because at the time she purchased the property, it was stipulated that the northwest corner of the property must remain as a garden. She stated a willingness to adjust the timing of events at the pool in consideration of the neighbors. She offered that the neighbors can have input into the planned landscape screening near the pool. Chairman Pairitz commented that the Commission is not basing its decision solely on whether the pool house is a contributing structure to the historic district or not, but instead, on whether the overall solution presented is appropriate for this historic property. He stated that he is enthusiastic about the project and stated confidence that the pool can be appropriately screened. Commissioner Ransom noted that the location of the pool appears to appropriate and consistent with the historic restoration of the site. He stated his hope that appropriate screening will be installed to provide a buffer for the neighbor to the south. Commissioner Berg stated support for demolition or removal of the existing pool house. He stated concern about locating the new pool in the proposed location. He stated that the weight of the land plan appears inconsistent with the adjacency to open lands. He suggested that more thought be given to the pool location. He stated that elegance in the plan is missing with the proposed location. Chairman Pairitz noted that the corner of the property proposed for the new pool is in recreational use now with the existing tennis court. He stated that in relation to the larger site, the proposed location for the pool appears to be acceptable with the appropriate screening. He stated appreciation for the concern about the potential nuisance impact of the pool. Commissioner Berg noted that based on the site plan, it appears that the pool is associated with the neighbors’ house, rather than this property. He suggested that consideration could be given to whether the pool should be oriented east to west, rather than north to south. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Harris described the location of the access road to the adjacent open lands area. She stated that Ms. Chandler required that the “elbow” piece, the garden at the northwest corner of the property, not be used differently than it is currently used. She noted that the pool footprint will be smaller than the footprint of the tennis court. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 5 Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certification of appropriateness approving the demolition of the pool and pool house and approving the overall landscape plan, including the proposed new pool. He stated that his motion is based on the findings in the staff report and is subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions shall be satisfied. 1. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing pool and pool house in the context of the overall site shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the site. 2. Detailed, measured drawings shall be completed by a registered architect to create an accurate record of the pool house structure and ensure the pool house can be re-constructed in the future. Drawings will be subject to the determination by staff that the drawings adequately document the structure. Alternatively, if the original drawings are available, the petitioner could provide a digital copy of the Ike Colburn plans for the pool house. 3. A final, 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: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was approved by the Commission in a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Berg voting nay. COMMUNITY PROJECT 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving restoration work at the historic Train Station in the Central Business District. Owner: Union Pacific Railroad Representative: Dan Martin, Supt. of Public Works, City of Lake Forest T. Gunny Harboe, Architect Mr. Harboe introduced the petition on behalf of the City. He noted that his firm prepared a Historic Structures Report in 2009 for the Train Station in support of a grant application prepared by the City. He presented historic photos of the station noting the various historic elements that were previously removed or altered over time and explaining which elements will be restored to the original design with the proposed work. He described the proposed work including: reconstruction of the dormers, removal of a porch roof which is not original, restoration of the original hip roof ends to the shelters and removal of the gable element on the west elevation of the warming house which is not original. He reviewed each area of work describing how the restoration will take place and noting replication of the original design elements and materials. He noted that the dormers will be attached to the roof sheathing as originally constructed. He noted that the roof, which is in serious disrepair, will be restored with slate consistent with the original design. He described the masonry, wood and stucco repair work that will be undertaken noting the serious deterioration that has occurred. He reviewed the demolition components of the project explaining how care will be taken to protect and preserve the historic elements of the buildings and the original detailing. Ms. Czerniak stated that this project is long overdue noting that the train station is in dire need of restoration and repair. She explained that the work was delayed due to complications with the extension of the City’s lease on the property and due to the lack of funding. She commended the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 6 Preservation Foundation’s initiative and generosity in funding the Historic Assessment of the train station which set the stage for this project by identifying areas in need of work. She stated that the City was awarded a grant of $800,000 for restoration of the station. She said that the City and Metra will contribute funds to the project as well and welcomed private donations. She discussed the priorities which will be addressed during the first phase of the project pending the availability of funding. She stated that replacing the roof is the first priority, repair and restoration of the exterior woodwork and stucco the second priority, and repair and restoration of the masonry, the third priority. She stated that there is the hope that additional funding options will become available once the initial work starts in order to allow a full restoration of the train station, interior and exterior. She stated staff’s intent to offer the Preservation Foundation the opportunity to review working drawings prior to the issuance of permits. She stated that any work beyond the three priorities identified as part of this petition will require further Commission review and approval. She added that staff will provide updates to the Commission throughout the project. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the drive through canopy, located to the east of the station, and the bike shelter, neither of which are original structures, are not part of this project except that the roof of the bike shelter is planned to be replaced with slate consistent with the work on the station. She stated that there has been discussion about removal of those elements from the site in the longer term; however she clarified that this project is intended to address the critical issues on the train station, the roof, the masonry and the woodwork and stucco, as quickly as possible due to the deteriorating condition of the buildings. She added that the hope is that as the initial grant funds are used for restoration and repair of the critical exterior elements, some additional funds may be obtained through a combination of private donations and additional grants to restore any remaining portions of the exterior of the site and to restore the interior of the station buildings. She commented on the ability of the Commission to nominate significant interiors as Local Landmarks. She stated that signage will be brought back to the Commission noting that some alteration of the signage will be required given the changes to the roof form. She stated that staff will review the potential for impact to the trees and address the issue consistent with the recommendation of the City’s Certified Arborist. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Harboe described the process for arriving at the color selected for the slate for the roof. He noted that the variation was selected to closely follow the original slate based on available information. He reviewed the detail of the construction of the restored hip elements on the roof. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that it is not clear if the available funding will allow completion of all of the priorities, the roof, masonry, stucco and woodwork repair, but that the work will continue until the funds are depleted. Commissioner Berg pointed out that the platforms are not being fully restored to the original condition noting that in the past, some of the bays of the platforms were removed. In response to questions from Commission Berg and Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Martin stated that currently 1.2 million dollars are available from the grant, City of Lake Forest contributions and Metra contributions. He estimated that about half of the money will be needed for the roof Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 7 restoration. He confirmed that the slate roof material will be used for the roof of the bike rack to match the roof of the building. Commissioner Berg noted the importance of considering the chosen slate in relation to the brick. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Harboe confirmed that the station pre-dated Market Square. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Mr. Miller confirmed that the train station was the first side of Market Square. He noted that the station was likely the first phase of gentrification to sweep the Lake Forest Central Business District. He provided background on the architects of the train station, Frost and Granger. He stated that the intent of the restoration project is to assure that the station is restored in a manner that will last for the next two generations. He stated that the project should be completed consistent with the standards of Frost and Granger. He commented on the hard work of previous restoration efforts at the train station. He acknowledged the economy but noted that doing this right is critical. He stated that the restoration of the conversion to a hip roof will help re- establish the character of the original structure. He suggested that the trees near the roof work be trimmed. Diana Melichar, 925 Forest Hill Road, stated that her office is across the street from the train station and stated that her views will be improved with the planned work. She asked how the windows of the dormers will be treated expressing concern that the interior views be appropriate and consistent with the intended quality of the project. In response to public testimony, Mr. Harboe stated that at night, the windows will be black, not lighted. He agreed to give further consideration to the interior views through the dormer windows. Commissioner Moyer commended the project and those involved. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Chairman Pairitz suggested that any potential impact on the tree due to the restoration of the hip roof be left to staff to analyze and determine the appropriate course of action. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the available funds will first be directed to the first priority, replacement and restoration of the roof and the original elements. She explained that as funding allows, the second and third priorities would be pursued. She stated the expectation that the roof work will require about half of the funding that is currently available. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Martin stated that the plan is to begin preparing the bid documents for the wood and stucco restoration for work in the fall. He reiterated that top priority is the roof and that the other priorities will be evaluated pending the availability of money. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 8 Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of appropriateness to approve the first phase of restoration work on the train station including the top three priorities: restoration of the roof and original roof elements, restoration and repair of the exterior wood and stucco, and masonry repairs. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions must be met to the satisfaction of the City. 1. Plans submitted for permit shall be reviewed by City staff, in consultation with the City’s consultant, to confirm that they are consistent with the plans presented to the Commission, consistent with the direction, discussion and any modifications requested by the Commission, and consistent with the Historic Structure Report. 2. Plans shall be made available to the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation for review and comment. 3. For the City’s historic record, digital photos of the train station, in its current condition, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The photos should document fully the current conditions particularly in areas where changes will occur as authorized through the Certification of Appropriateness. Other 4. Status reports shall be provided to the Historic Preservation Commission periodically to keep the Commission and public informed of the progress made on this project. 5. Later phases of the restoration project shall be presented to the Commission for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness consistent with the requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 6. As required with the use of Federal Funds, State approvals through the Section 106 process shall be obtained as appropriate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITIONS - Residential 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a partial demolition and an addition to the house at 570 Crabtree Lane. Owners: Norbert and Loan Riedel Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Berg recused himself due to his firm’s involvement in the petition. Chairman Pairitz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Melichar introduced the petition and provided photos of the existing house. She reviewed the floor plan noting the “pod” configuration of the house. She reviewed the uses of each pod and the circulation patterns in the house. She reviewed the drawbacks of the existing floor plan and discussed the needs of the family noting that they recently purchased the home and will be only the second owners. She discussed the interest in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 9 opening up the rear elevation to provide views of the rear yard and gardens. She reviewed each of the existing elevations of the house. She reviewed the floor plan and elevations again noting the additions proposed and the alterations planned. She noted that the fenestration on the addition will be consistent with the existing house and consistent with the original Colburn design. She noted the lattice detailing on the proposed mudroom addition. She commented that the simplicity of the Colburn design is followed in all of the proposed work. She noted that the streetscape façade remains unchanged. She stated that the proposed changes will improve the livability of the home while only minimally impacting the exterior appearance of the house from off of the site. She stated that a greenhouse on the property will be demolished and that the other two outbuildings will be preserved. She stated that the project will not impact the trees or gardens on the site. Ms. O’Neill noted that this project preserves the modern architectural character of the residence. She noted that many people who contacted staff regarding this house while it was on the market posed questions about the possibility of demolition of the residence due to its contemporary style and unique floor plan. She reviewed the four components of the request as described by Ms. Melichar and stated staff support for the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. In response to a question from Commissioner Moyer, Ms. Melichar confirmed that the petitioners closed on the house on May 1st and are now the owners. She acknowledged that at the time of application, they were contract purchasers. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Melichar discussed the east elevation explaining that the proposed ribbon of windows is located to be above eye level from the interior. She explained that the goal is to avoid views of the flat roof from inside the room. She noted the limited visibility of the high windows from the exterior and stated that the proposed design balances the various interests. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Ms. Melichar confirmed that the colors of the exterior materials on the addition will match those on the existing house. She reviewed the views of the house from various perspectives noting the limited visibility from off of the site. Chairman Pairitz invited public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated that this house is reminiscent of the elemental plan for the Colburn house on Lake Road. He commended the architect and new owner for working within the architectural frame of reference. He stated some uncertainty with respect to the massing that would result from the proposed work, but emphasized that the sense of the four pods should be retained. He stated support for the clerestory windows noting that they are often used as a modern element. He reviewed the history of this property as the original Crabtree Farm and a boys’ academy. He noted that the accessory buildings may date back to that period, or not. He questioned whether there is a reference between the outbuildings and the 1980’s house, and, or, a reference to the house with the proposed additions. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 10 In response to public testimony, Ms. Melichar clarified that the house, which was built in the 1980’s, did not refer to the outbuildings. Virginia McTier, 925 Kirkhill Lane, stated that the outbuilding to the east of the house was a playhouse and noted that after the Adams’ built the house; the playhouse was used by the family. She noted that the property has wonderful gardens. Chairman Pairitz agreed that there is really no relationship between the house and the outbuildings. He noted that the outbuilding to the west is so close to the house that it presents a bit of a challenge in working with the house. He noted that the separateness of the pods is compromised a bit with the proposed solution, but stated that it is necessary to gain the living space desired. He noted that the west elevation is the most challenging. He noted various elements that appear to help to break up the wall masses that will result with the proposed addition. Commissioner Moyer observed that Colburn seemed to not be concerned with the surroundings, such as the accessory buildings, and observed the whimsy of the sliding glass doors on the second floor. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve additions and alterations to the residence as presented 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 including the historic playhouse and coach house. 2. If required by City staff, chain link tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. 3. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a detached garage at 815 Barberry Lane and window and door modifications. Owners: Willard and Jeannette Bunn Contract Purchasers: John and Bridgette Doheny Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Pairitz asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts from the Commission. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition noting that the petitioner is the contract purchaser of the property and that the closing is planned for July. He showed photographs of the existing house noting that several options were reviewed for the location of additional garage bays to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 11 meet the needs of the petitioners. He noted that the options are limited due to zoning setbacks on the property. He showed an image of the streetscape noting the location of the proposed garage. He pointed out the existing plant material which will provide screening of the garage from the street view. He stated that the existing curbcuts and driveway will be used to access the new garage and that a short spur will be constructed from the existing driveway to access the garage. He reiterated that the existing house is heavily screened from the street in the area of the proposed addition. He showed a photograph and pointed out the location of the proposed garage noting that an existing opening will be used to connect the house and the garage with an open breezeway. He stated that the garage doors will be appropriate and consistent with the residence. He summarized that the option of adding a garage bay to the existing garage was met with several zoning obstacles and was therefore not pursued. He noted that the proposed location conforms to all zoning requirements and building scale requirements. He noted that the garage will be setback from the face of the building as well as separated by the breezeway. He stated that the current option is the best of all alternatives that were reviewed and are available. He reviewed the elevations of the proposed addition noting that the garage is only proposed at 18 feet tall and that the breezeway is open, with the yard beyond visible. He stated that the breezeway design presents a good balance between the proposed gable on the garage and the gable over the front door. He stated that an option to turn the gable of the garage was explored, but noted that the proposed roof form provides a better transition to the neighbor to the west and separates the addition from the main house. He stated that the breezeway allows for minimal impact to the original home providing a non-invasive and successful way to add on to the historic home. He stated an interest in preserving the open space to the west rather than using that space for a driveway entrance to the garage. He stated that the City Arborist reviewed the tree that would be lost with the proposed location and noted that the tree was not a specimen tree but that replacement inches will be required if removal occurred. He noted that a landscape plan will be developed to further screen the garage from the neighboring properties and the street. He stated that the addition is setback approximately 85 feet from the street and is separated from the historic home. He commented on other modifications proposed to the existing residence noting the addition of some windows and modification to some existing windows and doors. He stated that some of the window-work now proposed modifies work that was completed in the 1990’s. He stated that additional windows are proposed on the 1990’s addition to the east of the main house. He stated that the proportions and window repetition are consistent with the existing architecture. He noted that this proposal does not require any variances. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petitioners’ preferred option, to add additional bays to the existing non-original garage is not feasible from a zoning perspective. She stated that the required hardships do not exist to support the request for the zoning variance. She stated that based on that obstacle, an alternative plan was developed and is presented for Commission consideration. She noted that the current proposal is intended to be appropriately separated from the historic residence while at the same time, preserving open space and existing landscaping. She noted the significant planting bed that screens the proposed garage from views from the streetscape. She added that the City Arborist supports removal of the tree that is impacted by the proposed garage location noting his comment that the tree showed signs of decline. She confirmed that appropriate replacement tree inches will be required as part of a landscape plan to enhance the existing plantings on the site. She noted the conditions of approval in the staff report and stated that findings in support of the project are also provided in the staff report. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 12 In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed an alternative plan that turns the gable parallel to the street. He noted concerns about the proportions of that concept when viewed in the context of the rest of the house. He commented on the height and proximity to the existing home. He stated that this option requires more pavement. He stated that the proposed design looks more like a pavilion and can be screened from the street. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that the cupola is proposed to add interest to the design. Commissioner Ransom observed that the cupolas create a bookend effect given their locations at the far sides of the overall structure. Chairman Pairitz observed however that the existing cupola is not prominent in the streetscape view from Barberry Lane. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Krasnodebski pointed out that pushing the garage addition away from the residence respects the original main mass. He noted that the design intent is to create the garage as a pavilion-type element. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jerry Henry, 771 Barberry Lane, noted that his home was built at the same time as the subject home. He provided some history of the subdivision of the main estate. He stated that each home was constructed with two car garages noting that it was common to have a two car garage at that time. He noted that he has served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and on the City Council. He expressed concern about the current trend of adding garages and of more garage doors facing the street. He stated that the increased square footage for a garage seems to be treated in a similar manner as expanding a home to add living space. He stated that the needs should not be equally weighted. He stated that there is a reason that the Code permits a certain size garage. He noted that this proposal exceeds the square footage allowed for a garage on this size property and must “borrow” from the square footage allowed for the house. He stated that as proposed, the garage addition will make a distinct impression on the streetscape. He explained that Barberry Lane is the “main street” and that Woodbine Place is the service street for the estates that were in the area at the time. He stated that the driveway surface will be increased by over 50%. He expressed his hope that the owner will live in the house first and then consider alternatives to meet the family needs. He stated that a single car garage, one that would not exceed the square footage limitations for garages, could be built on the Woodbine Place frontage. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, noted that Barberry Lane is part of the Hotchkiss street plan for Lake Forest. He stated that Woodbine Place may be a later addition to the street system. He agreed that Woodbine Place is characteristically the area in which garages were located. He stated that the zoning requirements may not be appropriate due to that fact. He stated that garages belong on Woodbine Place and noted other service buildings located in that area. He stated that the proposed addition will change the Barberry Lane streetscape. He noted that if a garage is built along Barberry Lane, the garage doors should not face the street. He commented on the pitch of the roof form noting the importance of achieving the right pitch. He questioned if a detached garage could be located to meet setback requirements and be accessed from Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 13 Woodbine Place potentially creating a courtyard effect. He stated that the proposed one story addition to the west of the main residence may not be appropriate. He stated that the zoning requirements are causing something to be designed that is counter intuitive. He acknowledged that the architect is responding to the zoning challenges. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Place, acknowledged that there is a zoning issue, but stated that a new garage facing the street will be sad. She recognized that the architect is trying to work within the requirements. Pauline Mohr, 2000 Knollwood Road, commented on the preferred plan to add on to the existing garage on Woodbine Place. She commented on the development of smaller lots and noted that in cases where there is a predominate pattern, zoning variances have been granted in order not to disrupt the streetscape. She stated that a variance would be a better solution in this case in order to not impact the neighbors and the Barberry Lane streetscape. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the zoning limitations on this property. She acknowledged that in some instances, where a predominate pattern is established along a streetscape with setbacks, new homes have been granted variances to align with the existing pattern. She noted however that a variance for a garage addition would be considered differently. She explained that the criteria for zoning variances require that a hardship not created by a current or former property owner be demonstrated. She stated that staff was not able to encourage the petitioner to pursue a variance given that the criteria would be difficult to meet in this case. She commented that staff tries to provide petitioners with a very realistic assessment of the likelihood of success of a variance request. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the variance for the original garage may have been based at least in part on the reasonableness of the need for a two car garage. She stated that variance requests to add a third and fourth garage bay are difficult to justify particularly when there are other options. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak commented that a tandem garage constructed on to the existing garage may be workable from a zoning perspective but may have other impacts on the site. Chairman Pairitz acknowledged the dilemma. He stated that the most logical solution does not meet zoning laws. He stated that the proposed configuration may not meet the standards for preservation in spite of a well-designed “pavilion” piece. He stated that it is counterintuitive to have garage bays at both ends of the house. Commissioner Berg noted that the floor plan of the existing historic home is compromised with the addition of garage bays on the opposite side of the house. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Krasnodebski noted that the existing garage doors are 9 feet wide. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 14 In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Krasnodebski noted that the floor plan, with the garages at either end, flows well for the home owner. He stated that the west portion of the house will serve as an office and will allow for easy access to the office space. He explained that balance is achieved through this addition noting the one story elements that cascade on either side from the main mass. He stated that this is the only viable option that does not require a zoning variance. He stated that the breezeway helps to respect the original home and noted that this addition will have minimal impact to the historic home reiterating that it creates a bookend of one story elements to the main mass. Commissioner Swenson observed that future home owners may not be being considered with this plan. She stated that the garage is proposed on the more formal end of the house and that the resulting floor plan may not be desired by future owners. Mr. Krasnodebski pointed out that with the proposed plan, this addition could easily be removed if desired due to the minimal impact it will have on the historic structure. He stated that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. Mr. Henry reiterated his previous statement that the petitioner is requesting more garage space than what is permitted by Code. Chairman Pairitz observed that there may be some way to locate a garage off of Woodbine Place without requiring a zoning variance and that should be explored. Commissioner Ransom stated that he is not convinced that this is the best solution to this difficult problem. He stated that there is room for a garage in different locations that may be more appropriate and agreed that further study is needed. Commissioner Moyer stated that he does not see a clear cut solution to this problem. He commented on the pitch of the gable noting that it is not the same pitch as the pediment which is visible from the street. He stated that the pitch on the proposed addition is similar to the pitch on a portion of the house that is never perceived from the street. He noted the impact of garage doors on Barberry Lane. He noted sensitivity to the historic use of Woodbine Place as a service road. He noted that he is struggling with placing garages on opposite sides of the house from a floor plan perspective. He stated that from a functionality standpoint, it makes the most sense to place the garage in the same location as the existing garages, but also recognized the difficulty in doing so due to the zoning issue. Commissioner Berg observed that if a garage is placed on Barberry Lane, and the gable turned parallel to the street, the resulting design may be more appropriate. He noted that the garage doors on the Barberry Lane frontage are troublesome. He stated that the asphalt may not increase substantially if the garage doors are turned away from the street. Chairman Pairitiz stated that eliminating the garage doors on Barberry would be a positive step. He stated that continuation of this petition would be appropriate to allow time for further study by the petitioner. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 15 Commissioner Ransom made a motion to continue the petition to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion. He noted that plans showing a study of alternatives should be provided to the Commission and consideration should be given to the Commission’s comments. Commissioner Moyer noted that an independent pavilion could be considered. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. 8. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow an addition and alteration at 30 N. Ahwahnee Road. Owners: Ed and Marie Pasquesi Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Chairman Pairitz asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition and described the various aspects. He noted that the project complies with all of the Code requirements. He described the surrounding area and provided photos of the property and neighboring homes. He provided a brief history of the house. He described the portion of the house proposed for demolition noting the weaknesses as it currently exists. He stated the intention to create a sunroom in the same location as the existing porch to allow year round use. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting the compatibility of the changes with the existing home. He noted that the exterior materials will be high quality and consistent with the original home and that the main mass will remain unchanged. He reviewed the floor plan with the proposed addition noting the strong central access. He noted that the additional second floor space will expand the master bedroom. He stated the intent to preserve the original character of the property. He stated that no neighbors will be impacted by the proposed changes. Ms. O’Neill stated that a partial demolition and replacement addition is proposed. She stated support for the partial demolition noting that the porch area was changed since the original house was built. She noted concern for some of the proposed exterior materials noting that the structural integrity of the house will need to be evaluated to determine whether clay tiles can be supported. She requested Commission input on the roof materials and the use of limestone and timbering detail for the addition. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff stated that at this time, the use of cedar shingles is likely he noted however, that the petitioner has requested consideration of synthetic materials that replicate clay or slate. He confirmed that clay tiles will not be used due to structural issues. He noted that with respect to the proposed use of limestone, there are some other limestone elements on the home and reviewed some photos noting the appropriateness of the material. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 16 In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Steightiff stated that the form of the addition follows the interior program desired by the petitioner. He noted that the addition was scaled back to a single gable from the double gable as originally desired by the petitioner. Commissioner Berg discussed the hierarchy of the elements on the house. He questioned whether the additional gable will confuse the house and compromise the significant front elevation. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Streightiff stated a willingness to re- consider the massing of the proposed addition. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, discussed other Stanley Anderson homes. He questioned whether creating some cottage elements on the addition may be a more successful approach. He suggested that rather than the round bay, consideration of a form more consistent with the Tudor vocabulary might be appropriate. He noted that there are many examples of asymmetrical houses that could be referenced in considering alternative designs. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz returned the matter to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Swenson agreed that the bay element is too modern a form for this style of house. Chairman Pairitz stated support for the construction of a sunroom addition in the proposed location, but commented that the design will need to be more appropriate and compatible with the existing residence and respectful of the existing dominate features of the house. He requested a motion to continue the matter. Commissioner Moyer made a motion to continue the petition to allow the comments of the Commission to be addressed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITION – Sign, Awnings, Lighting 9. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving signage, awnings and lighting at Caribou Coffee, 620 N. Western Avenue. Owner: Deerpath Western LLC Tenant: Caribou Coffee Co. Representative: Jan Fiola, Sr. Real Estate Manager Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Fiola presented the proposal to the Commission. She stated an intent to respect the historic architecture of the community noting that the standard blue awnings used by Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 17 Caribou were changed to brown for this store. She requested approval of text on four sides of the awnings. She stated that a sign is also proposed above the door. She stated that the proposal is below the allowable size permitted by Code. Ms. O’Neill commented on the components of the request including the sign above the door, the awnings and the request for illumination. She called attention to the amount of signage proposed on all sides of the awnings and above the door, and to the size of signage and proposed lighting for the signage. She noted the importance of getting the size of the letters “right” from an appearance standpoint on the awnings and on the board sign. She stated that generally, Lake Forest is dark with low level lighting or no lighting on signage. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Fiola stated that the hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Fiola stated that no additional window signage is proposed. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill stated that the building address and hours could be located on the door consistent with the Ordinance. She stated that the proposed board sign, above the door, is proposed in lieu of window signage. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill noted examples of other illuminated signs in the Central Business District. She stated that some larger stores in the business district have illumination. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Fiola stated that the proposed location is the only one considered for the sign. She stated that the number of light fixtures requested is reduced from the original proposal presented to staff. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Fiola discussed the proposed placement of the lettering on four sides of the awnings. She stated that the text on the side of the awnings will assist pedestrians walking from the north and south. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the lettering size proposed for the wall sign is consistent with the Code. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. O’Neill stated that staff has requested details on how the sign will be attached to the wall and its dimensional qualities. Chairman Pairitz discussed the photo rendering and noted the need for relief between the downspout and the sign above the door. He stated that the sign should be reduced proportionately to fit with the elements of the building. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 18 Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, questioned whether this sign is consistent with other signs in the historic district and stated concern about setting a precedent for other signage in the district. He stated concern with the sign being applied to the stucco above the door and the potential for impacting the integrity of that original material. Ms. O’Neill suggested that the Commission direct the petitioner to install a mockup of the proposed signage to help answer some of the questions raised. Chairman Pairitz discussed the sign noting that he is not concerned about the sign on the stucco itself, but noted the importance of making sure it looks appropriate for the historic district and for this particular building. He stated that there should be a dimension to the sign above the door. He stated that signage on the sides of the awnings is common and not inappropriate to the historic district. Commissioner Berg stated that scaling the sign down will be more compatible with the size and scale of the door frame. Commissioner Moyer stated support for a mockup of the signage on site. He also noted concern about the sign remaining separate from the building and requested more detail on the lettering proposed. He stated that the text on the awnings is appropriate. He stated that the sign over the door is overkill and a reduction in size may help the proposal achieve the subtleness appropriate for the historic district. Chairman Pairitz noted that the existing board signs are flat with projecting letters instead a box sign which is more typical of an internally lighted sign. Ms. Fiola presented a sample of the signage to the Commission. The Commission discussed the sample of the sign as presented by Ms. Fiola and noted that the base of the board appears thick. Commissioner Berg noted that the sign presented to the Commission is not appropriate. He stated that the box element of the proposal is not consistent with other signs in the historic district. Chairman Pairitz noted that the sign should be sensitive to the architecture of the building. He stated that a mockup would be helpful. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to continue the petition with the direction to the petitioner to install a mockup before the next meeting for review by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg and was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 10. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2011 - Page 19 Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, commented that a better understanding is needed of projects that may change a structure from a contributing, to a non-contributing structure in the district. He stated that there are State standards that are used to evaluate projects and asked that staff look into including more information in the staff reports with respect to contributing structures. 11. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development