Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/06/22 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the June 22, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 6:45 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest Municipal Services Facility, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Bill Ransom, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Jim Preschlack and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Fred Moyer and Mary Ellen Swenson 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 introduced the members of the Commission and staff and reviewed the procedures followed by the Commission. He noted that due to a power outage at City Hall, the meeting is being held at the City’s Municipal Services Facility. 2. Approval of the May 25, 2011 meeting minutes. The minutes of the May 25, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. CONTINUED PETITIONS 3. 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: Emily Heuring, Caribou Coffee Ms. Heuring reviewed the signage as presented to the Commission at the last meeting. She discussed the changes made to the proposal in response to the comments from the Board. She stated that a mockup of the signage was installed at the site to provide an understanding of the signage as now proposed. She noted that the wall sign and proposed lights were shifted lower on the wall to avoid impacting the architectural elements of the building façade. She noted that the signage fits directly above the door. She stated that the lettering on the 8” valance of the awning was originally proposed at 5” but in the current proposal, only the first letter “C” is 5“ in height and the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 2 remaining letters, 4”. She provided a sample of the proposed letter sizes. She discussed how the signage will be fastened to the building noting that a thin stainless steel screw will be used to minimize the impact to the building. She stated that the sign will be light weight. She provided photos of other buildings in the business district and noted the signage used. She noted that outdoor tables are proposed as part of this request. She stated that she believes that the store will fit in well with the community. Ms. O’Neill reiterated that this petition is continued from the previous meeting and noted that at that meeting, a concern was expressed about the thickness of the sign. She discussed the mock up that was provided at the site noting that it illustrated that the sign, as now proposed, responds to the Commission’s earlier comments. She discussed the request for an illuminated sign and pointed out that the area is well lit by the nearby street lights. She stated that as a result, staff recommends that lighting for the sign itself not be approved. She noted the taper of the building façade and commented that in response to the taper, some refinements to the sign may be necessary at the time of installation. She noted that at this time, it is not clear whether there is sufficient space on the sidewalk for tables. She stated that a minimum of 5 feet of unobstructed sidewalk is required to allow for safe pedestrian traffic. She recommended that a condition be added requiring a dimensioned plan to verify whether there is space for tables. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Heuring stated that lighting is important to the corporate image of the store. She explained that the store will have early morning and late evening hours. She acknowledged that if the lighting is objectionable to the Board, it can be eliminated. Commissioner Berg stated that the building is historically significant and that the proposed lighting may impact the building’s character. He stated confidence that residents and College students will find the store. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Heuring stated that the brown awnings are proposed for compatibility with the building and because brown is one of the corporate colors. She stated that planter boxes between the tables could be considered to soften the area if there is sufficient space. She confirmed that the outdoor furniture will be metal. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Place, agreed that green awnings might be more compatible with the community than the brown. She expressed concern about the proposed lighting noting that no other signage on the building is lite. She questioned whether the sign over the door is necessary in addition to the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 3 signage proposed on the awning. She expressed concern about the outdoor seating encroaching on to the sidewalk raising safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz returned the petition to the Commission for final comments and discussion. Commissioner Athenson stated support for the wall sign over the door as proposed, 4” lettering on the awnings and the replacement of the existing planting beds with some form of planter boxes along the front façade. She stated that she cannot support the lighting proposed for the sign noting that it would be inconsistent with the building and character of the area. Commissioner Berg stated that the scale of the sign is appropriate and noted that in his opinion, it adds to the character of the building. He expressed concern about adding planters between the outdoor tables noting that it may add clutter to the front façade and may be contrary to the commerce aspect of the building. He stated support for replacement of the plywood above the windows with black glass. He stated that he cannot support the lights proposed above the sign noting that the lights could impact the residential tenants upstairs as well as the character of the streetscape. He noted that there is street lighting in the immediate area and that there is a sufficient level of lighting to illuminate the sign. He suggested that lighting could be added to the entry area, behind the wooden beam. Chairman Pairitz agreed that there will be sufficient illumination in the area and agreed that a concealed light, behind the beam at the entrance, may be interesting. Commissioner Ransom stated agreement with many of the comments of the other Commissioners. He stated that the planters may or may not be appropriate and suggested that issue be resolved at the staff level. He agreed that the proposed gooseneck lighting above the sign is not needed. Commissioner Preschlack stated support for a green awning and for the elimination of the lighting. He noted the importance of consistency with the character and subtleness of the community. He stated confidence that people will find the store. He recommended minimalist details. He suggested that a condition be added regarding outdoor furniture to assure that it is appropriate in character and quality. Chairman Pairitz stated support for the brown awnings noting that they are appropriate given the coloring of the building. He stated that in his opinion, there is room for some variation in the community. He noted the importance of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 4 understanding how the existing planter areas will be infilled. He raised questions about the methods used to affix the sign. He pointed out that the profile of the sign should conform to the building. He invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to grant a Certification of Appropriateness based on the findings in the staff report and approving the signage and disapproving the lighting request subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Detailed drawings of how the sign will be attached to the building shall be submitted for staff review, in consultation with the Chairman. The review shall confirm that attachment of the sign shall not interfere with the architectural features of the bay window above the front door. The profile of the sign should follow the profile of the building. 2. The lettering on the valances of the awnings shall be no more than 4” in height. 3. A dimensioned site plan for the outdoor seating shall be submitted and staff shall verify whether there is sufficient space between the building and the streetscape elements to provide for a minimum of 5’ of unobstructed sidewalk. 4. Outdoor tables and seating should be of high quality and constructed of metal. 5. Consideration shall be given to adding lighting behind the beam, in the entrance alcove. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving alterations to existing window and door openings at 815 Barberry Lane. (Consideration of the garage element of this petition is postponed to allow further study.) Owners: Willard and Jeannette Bunn Contract Purchasers: John and Bridgette Doheny Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commissioners for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Athenson stated that she has worked with Mr. Krasnodebski in the past but that her previous experience will not impact her ability to review this petition impartially. Mr. Krasnodebski explained that this petition was presented at the last meeting with a larger scope. He stated that based on the Commission’s comments at the last meeting, the garage element of the original petition is being re-worked and is not part of the present request. He confirmed that it is the intention of the peitioners to return to the Commission with the garage as a separate project in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 5 the near future. He explained that to allow work on the existing house to get underway as soon as the petitioners close on the house, this proposal involves only proposed modifications to existing doors and windows to go along with interior renovations. He reviewed the proposed window changes on the front façade noting that the new windows will be consistent with original window details and with the proportions on the home. He reviewed the changes proposed to the east elevation, facing Woodbine Place, and also to the west elevation of the garage wing. He stated that salvaged brick will be used to allow the modifications to be seamless. He reaffirmed that all of the details will be consistent with those on the existing house. In response to questions from Ms. Czerniak, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed the modifications to the east elevation in greater detail acknowledging the tightness of the wall in the area where the changes are proposed. He stated that to ease the tightness, the shutters of the replacement window were removed after the materials were prepared for the Commission’s packet and the new door down sized to allow it to fit appropriately into the east elevation. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the windows on the front elevation will be the same size as the existing windows on that same elevation. He noted that on the east elevation, the new window is sized to fit into the opening of the existing door which will be removed. Commissioner Ransom stated support for the removal of the shutters on the east elevation but questioned whether the window should be further downsized. He noted that the elevation appears crowded. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that if the window is further reduced the size, the elevation may appear off balance. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed the relationship of the new door and the existing door to the floor plan. He stated that a casement window would not be appropriate. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he returned the discussion to the Commission. Chairman Pairitz stated that the corner of the house is not easily visible and that in this case, the plan appears different from the “real life” views of the house. He stated agreement with the staff recommendation in support of the project. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 6 Commissioner Berg stated support for the project noting that the work proposed on the front elevation will greatly benefit the house. He noted that the east elevation is less prominent than the front elevation and is more function driven. Based on that, he stated support for the modifications proposed to the east elevation as well. Commissioner Athenson stated support for the project as presented with the elimination of the shutters as presented by the petitioner’s architect. She commended the use of true divided lites. Commissioner Berg made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the findings in the staff report approving the window and door modifications as presented including the recent change to eliminate the shutters and downsize the doors slightly on the east elevation. He stated that the approval is subject to the following condition. 1. Plans submitted for permit shall be reviewed by City staff to confirm that the detailing is consistent with the plans presented to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITIONS 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving partial demolition of the existing family room and garage, and approving replacement additions at 950 Maplewood Road. Owners: Stewart and Marianne Swift Representative: Brian Goehle, architect Mr. Goehle introduced the petition and presented a massing model. He stated that the plan is configured to meet the zoning setbacks and noted that the foundations for the piers will be hand dug to minimize impact on the nearby trees. He stated that the existing garage doors will be reused. He noted that originally, the ridge of the garage was planned to be increased in height, but noted that instead, just enough height will be added to the garage roof to hide the element being added to the rear of the garage. He discussed the staff comments with respect to the rear windows. He reviewed the elements of the home that would be demolished with the proposed work. He stated that the intent is to preserve the overall character of the residence. Ms. O’Neill discussed the changes proposed to the rear elevation noting that the changes will impact a later addition to the house, not the original structure. She stated staff support for the partial demolition in this area and noted that the proposed massing will be very similar to the existing massing. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 7 work proposed at the rear of the house will be more compatible with the original elements of the home than the existing condition. She discussed the garage noting that there is no information that indicates that the garage is not original to the home. She acknowledged the intent of the petitioner to balance the historic integrity of the house while at the same time, making the garage more functional. She described the limitations of the existing garage due to its size. She noted that the City’s Certified Arborist visited the site and encouraged use of construction methods that will provide protection to the existing vegetation. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that in past decisions, the Commission has recognized the importance of preserving historic integrity not only of main structures, but also of accessory structures, including garages. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Swift stated that two cars currently fit in the garage, but noted that once they are in the garage, the doors cannot be opened. He noted that the garage is very tight for a two car garage and pointed out that space is needed for bicycles and other equipment used by his four children. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Goehle discussed the proposed changes in the height of the garage. He stated that efforts were made in the design to delineate the elements of the existing structure from what will be added. Commissioner Ransom expressed concern that the front façade is being changed radically with the proposed plan. Chairman Pairitz summarized the comments of the Commission to date observing that the concerns appear to pertain to the front of the house. He commented that the changes proposed to the rear elevation are an improvement over the existing conditions. He noted that his concerns are less about the garage being historic, and more about the front of the house being appropriately designed. He acknowledged that part of the garage will be screened by existing trees. He noted that two parts of the proposed form fight with the overall character of the house, the brow, and the “squareness” of the form at the end. Commissioner Athenson stated concern about the garage becoming the focal point of the house due to its complexity. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Goehle stated that various alternatives were considered to gain space in the garage. He noted Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 8 that the dormers and the ridgeline are carefully preserved with the proposed design. Commissioner Berg stated that there may be ways to make appropriate accommodations to get the owner what is needed while still achieving a strong design. He suggested that a change in the massing may be helpful. He suggested consideration of locating the two garage doors on different planes. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Ed Hamming, 966 E. Maplewood, stated support for the project noting that he is aware of the difficulties presented by the existing garage. He noted that previous owners of the house have suggested demolition of the structure due to the difficulty of the floor plan. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz invited final comments and discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Preschlack commented that the massing model presented appears to better reflect the proposed massing than the plans. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Goehle reviewed the massing model and discussed the proposed massing of the garage in relation to the rest of the house. He described the existing columns at the front entrance to the house and explained that the additional columns as proposed will be secondary and understated. Commissioner Ransom noted concern about lowering the roof form resulting in a radical departure from the rest of the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Goehle provided an illustration of an alternative roof form that was originally considered. Chairman Pairitz stated that in his opinion, the changes beyond the ridgeline are not a concern, but rather, the changes to the front portion of the roof. Mr. Swift commented that the narrow width of the garage is the major limitation and greatest concern from a functional perspective. Commissioner Berg clarified that it is not the Commission’s role to re-design the project, but rather, to suggest ideas that could be explored by the architect. He offered some further options for consideration. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 9 At the request of a member of the audience, Chairman Pairitz accepted additional public testimony. Stephen Douglass, Washington Road resident and member of the Preservation Foundation, observed that the extension of the roof may make the garage more compatible with the house. He suggested that consideration be given to extending the dormers to better align the various elements. Chairman Pairitz reiterated support for the work proposed to the rear of the house. With respect to the garage, he suggested respecting the hierarchy of the architectural elements. He stated that he could accept the lack of symmetry with a consistency of style and a design that improves the overall appearance of the house. He commented that the swooping roof element may not be the right approach in this case. He suggested that consideration be given to continuing the current slope of the roof line. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the matter to be continued to allow further study of the design options that could be used to increase the size of the garage. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the roof line proposed for the garage is a concern as presented. He suggested that as the garage is re-considered, attention be paid to respecting the hierarchy of the main entrance door, providing consistent detailing and creating a secondary entrance with appropriate simplicity. He asked whether the petitioner and his architect have sufficient direction and a clear understanding of the Commission’s concerns. Chairman Pairitz commented that the recess of the service door may be part of the struggle, noting the inconsistency of that element with the style of the house. He encouraged the petitioner and architect to think holistically in reconsidering the best design for the garage expansion. He observed that the house reads flat in its existing form. He suggested that bringing the garage forward could be a positive outcome. He noted that it will be important to find an appropriate place for the seam as the new bricks connect to the older bricks. He suggested consideration of an inside seam for this transition. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to continue the petition to allow further study of the garage element based on the comments and discussion of the Commission and input from the public. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Athenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of an addition at 970 Deerpath. Owners: Peter and Elizabeth Hamilton Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 10 Representative: Terry Tackbary, Contack Construction This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner. 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a replacement structure at 881 Rosemary Road. Owner: Michael Tracy Representative: David Poulton, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Poulton introduced the petition and commented that this is the second house he has designed for Mr. Tracy noting that the first was 20 years ago. He reviewed an air photo of the property and noted its relationship to surrounding properties. He discussed the configuration of the property noting that it is a lot- in-depth with only a narrow frontage on Rosemary Road. He pointed out the location of the ravine along the south and east edges of the property. He discussed the front entrance pillars noting that as part of this proposal, no changes are proposed to the pillars. He stated that further research is being conducted on the pillars to determine whether they have historic significance. He stated that a plan for replacement pillars may be brought back to the Commission for consideration at some time in the future. He reviewed photos of the existing house noting that it is a brick and frame residence. He stated that the existing residence is “tired” and shows evidence of stress over one window and deterioration of the wood elements. He presented photos of the open area of the lot. He noted the arbor vitae along the west side of the driveway which provides a significant buffer between this house and the original house to the west. He showed a photo of the garden wall near the ravine which remains on this property from the original historic estate. He stated that it is believed that the wall was once part of a tennis court associated with the main house. He noted that as the site is currently configured, this historic element seems forgotten. He pointed out that in the design of the replacement house; the wall is an integral part of the redesign of the site. He showed a photo illustrating the grade change on the site and stated that the proposed plan is designed to work with the existing grades. He reviewed the site plan noting the location of the steep slope set back within which no habitable structures can be constructed. He also noted the zoning setbacks and the buildable area that results after consideration of all of the applicable setbacks. He noted that in early discussions, consideration was given to remodeling the existing house and retaining the original foundation. He noted that geotechnical engineers and steep slope specialists were hired in an effort to examine the opportunities to work with the existing structure. He stated that working with the existing structure Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 11 required some work to be done within the steep slope setback and stated that the City Engineer could not support that approach. He noted the difficulty of working within the building pad while also presenting an appropriate front of a replacement structure to the driveway approach. He noted that the idea of using the historic wall became a focus of the design. He noted that the proposed plan uses the wall to create a terrace and then constructs a house to relate to the terrace. He noted in order to work within the allowed buildable area, a detached garage is proposed. He reviewed the proposed site plan for the replacement house in detail. He provided a perspective drawing showing how the building massing relates to the ravine. He reviewed each elevation of the house and provided samples of the proposed exterior materials and reviewed the various architectural elements and the detailing. He presented elevations of the proposed detached garage. He reviewed the landscape plan noting that vegetation is added in areas that are currently thin. He stated that the landscaping will screen the new construction on every side to a large extent limiting any views of the house from off of the site. Ms. O’Neill stated that the Commission does not often hear requests for complete demolition of residences, but noted that in this case, in the opinion of staff, the criteria for demolition are satisfied. She stated that the replacement structure is a creative solution on a very challenging lot, one with many limitations. She stated that the City’s Certified Arborist is involved in the project and has worked with Mr. Poulton to identify trees on the site that should be preserved and to develop a plan to protect them during construction. She reviewed the recommended conditions of approval noting that in particular, a recommendation that a detailed plan for demolition of the existing structure be provided. She noted that due to the ravine, the demolition plan will need to be reviewed by the City Engineer to assure that the ravine is protected throughout the demolition and the construction process. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Poulton confirmed that great care will be taken to minimize any impact on the ravine during the demolition activity. He stated that the experts hired by the property owner will work closely with the City Engineer to evaluate whether the foundation for the existing house should remain in the place, or be removed. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Poulton discussed the existing driveway acknowledging that it is within the steep slope setback, but noting that it does not fall under the same restrictions as a structure. Chairman Pairitz stated confidence in the City Engineer to oversee the technical aspects of demolition and construction occurring adjacent to the ravine. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 12 In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Poulton stated that he has not researched the fountain, but believes that the fountain is original to the estate. He noted that an engineered site plan will be prepared for submission with the building permit application. He noted that his client is knowledgeable about slope stability issues having lived on a bluff for 20 years. He noted that Mr. Tracy has completed restoration work to protect his bluff. He stated that the intention is to use the same careful approach with the ravine. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Poulton stated that in his opinion, the existing house is not consistent with and does not contribute to the neighborhood. He discussed the selected architectural style of the replacement home and its relationship to the surrounding historic homes. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the building scale calculations for the replacement house take into account the required reductions for the portion of the lot within the ravine and driveway. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Poulton offered further comments on the style of the house noting that the design process was a long evolution. He noted some English influence at the start, but acknowledged that as the project progressed, the influence was taken more from French overtones. He pointed out some similarities to the nearby Stanley Anderson residence. Commissioner Berg observed that even in winter, the site has limited visibility from nearby properties. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Jack McGinley, 855 Rosemary Road, stated that he has lived in his house, the house in front of this property, for 18 years. He noted in that time, he has carefully renovated the house preserving the historic integrity of his property. He noted that over time, he landscaped the property to provide more privacy and to enhance views from his terrace. He acknowledged that Mr. Tracy has been very open with him about the proposed project and stated appreciation for his efforts to communicate. He stated support for demolition of the existing structure but noted two concerns. First, he noted that the replacement house is significantly larger and taller than existing house. He noted that he is conscious about the impacts redevelopment of the site, with a larger house, may have on his house and privacy. Second, he noted that currently the landscaping screens the existing house. He noted that the arbor vitae that provide the screening are old and in some cases wired up. He stated that when they are replaced, the new plantings will not be as large as the existing plantings, and may result in views of the new house from his property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 13 Mr. Tracy, 41 Stonegate Road, spoke on behalf of his son and daughter-in-law stating that he purchased the property and will be building the home for them. He stated that he has lived in Lake Forest for 19 years. He stated that he has tried to reach out to the neighbors and tried to be open and transparent about the project. He explained that his charge to David Poulton was to design a house to meet his family’s needs, not one that would compete with the surrounding significant properties. He noted Mr. Poulton’s experience and his ability to design unique homes, appropriate for each particular setting. He noted a willingness to plant additional landscaping and noted that some new plantings have already been completed to take over as existing trees die. He discussed the height and massing of the house and stated an interest in respecting the neighbor’s privacy. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Pairitz commended the plan and the ways in which the challenges on the site are addressed. Commissioner Ransom agreed that the project meets the challenges well and he commended the creative integration of the historic garden wall into the project. He noted that with respect to the height of the replacement residence and the need for new or replacement landscaping, he stated a confidence that the petitioner will work with the neighbors to address their concerns. Commissioner Athenson stated support for the demolition noting that the criteria for demolitions are satisfied. She commended the architect for designing the replacement house in the context of the site. She noted the simplicity of the plan and commended the proposed landscaping and the willingness to work with the neighbors. She made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the findings in the staff report, approving the demolition of the existing residence and approving the replacement residence, the overall site plan and the landscaping subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be satisfied. 1. Further review and as appropriate, refinement of the roofline shall be considered. 2. Given the location of the existing structure within the steep slope setback, a demolition plan, outlining the proposed demolition process, the steps in the process, the area impacted by demolition activity and the type of equipment necessary to demolish the existing house shall be submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall verify that the process and equipment proposed and make every Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 14 effort to minimize impact to the ravine. Further, the City Engineer shall require that all appropriate protection measures are taken to preserve the stability of the ravine area. 3. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the site. 4. A pre- and post-construction Tree Preservation and Protection Plan shall be provided by a Certified Arborist outlining the steps that will be taken before, during and after construction to protect and care for the two large Maple trees in proximity to the new foundation for the replacement structure. 5. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading plan, shall be submitted for review by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist shall confirm that the plan achieves the following goals before approving the plan: a. The plan shall identify all existing plantings, those that will remain, and those intended for removal. b. The plan shall identify all new landscaping proposed. c. Any trees over 8” removed shall be replaced on the site at a ratio of no less than 1” for 1” replacement consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and Landscape Ordinance and subject to the approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. d. If preservation of the two large Maple trees in proximity to the proposed foundation is not feasible, double inch for inch replacement shall be provided for the loss of these trees. 6. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and any on site parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted and subject to approval by staff. 7. Protective 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 and over the top of the ravine during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. 8. All applicable fees or fines shall be paid in full including the Demolition Tax. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 22, 2011 - Page 15 Other conditions. 9. If replacement entrance pillars are proposed, an application shall be submitted requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Final approval of the replacement piers must be received prior to removal of the existing wooden piers. 10. An engineered grading and drainage plan is required as part of the permit process. If significant grade changes are proposed that were not clearly represented at the hearing on June 22, 2011, resulting in changes that impact trees, neighboring properties or overall character of the site, this item will be brought back to the Commission for further review. 11. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. 12. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy due to the time of year, only a conditional Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued and a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor shall be posted with the City. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There was no additional testimony from members of the public. 9. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development