Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/01/27 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the January 27, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Preschlack and Commissioners Pete Schaefer, Wells Wheeler, John Travers, Susan Athenson, Robert Alfe, and Carol Gayle. Commissioners absent: none City staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Devel opment 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Preschlack reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the November 18, 2015 of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the November 18, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of an extension to the previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness approving modification to a detached garage and driveway, construction of a new pool and pool equipment shed and a building scale variance. Owners: John and Bridgette Doheny Representative: Thomas Rajkovich, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited comments from staff noting that this item is not a new petition, but instead, a request for extension of a prior approval. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. McManus stated that the owners requested an extension to allow more time to finalize the construction plans and confirmed that no changes are proposed to the project as previously approved by the Commission. She stated staff support for a one year extension as requested. She confirmed that a new Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued to reflect the extension. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that only the Certificate of Approval would need to be modified noting that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 2 ordinance approving the building scale variance remains valid. She stated that extension requests are not often received but noted that when they are, the fact that the property owners are working diligently toward completing the plans, as is the case in this petition, is an important consideration. Chairman Preschlack noted that it was a very well thought out petition and stated support for the extension. Hearing no further comments from the Commission and no requests from the public to speak, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to extend the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness for one year. Commissioner Athenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the extension. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a replacement awning, awning signage and window signage for a new business at 248 Market Square. Owners: L3 Capital, LLC (Principals: Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair and Greg Schott) Tenant: Evereve Representative: Keith Hlad, Integrity Sign Company Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Hlad stated that he is representing Evereve, a new business in Market Square. He noted that the intention is to recover the existing awnings with a new Sunbrella fabric with the business name and logo on the valance. He stated that the requested window sign contains the business name and logo in the corporate colors. He provided a material sample of the awning cover noting that it will be green and white striped. Ms. McManus reviewed the 3 components of the request which include the re-covering of the existing awning, lettering and a graphic on the awning valance and window signs with graphics. She noted that the design guidelines permit text on an awning valance, but not graphics. She noted that staff recommends that the graphic be eliminated from the awning. She added that the proposed window signs appear to be consistent with the regulations noting that they size of the overall signage is well below the permitted size. She stated that staff recommends approval of the signage with the graphic eliminated from the awning. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. McManus confirmed that the current signage guidelines permit only text on awning valances. She clarified Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 3 that the guidelines for awning signage have been in place for a number of years and were not newly proposed as part of the Market Square signage discussion presented to the Commission in 2015. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Code was changed about eight years ago to allow limited graphics on signs. She noted that prior to that time, signs of all types were limited to text. She stated that she does not recall any approvals in the past that permitted a graphic on an awning. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. McManus confirmed that the total size of the signage proposed is well below the maximum signage allowed for a storefront of that size. She stated that she could not recall the exact percentage. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. McManus stated that only signage requests that do not fully comply with the signage guidelines and other Code requirements come before the Commission for review and approval. She noted that in this case, the signage contains a graphic and the use of graphics requires approval from the Commission. She added that other signage requests, such as Dunkin Donuts, fully complied with all the Code requirements, so it was approved administratively. She noted that in any situation where a variance is requested, approval by the Commission is required. Commissioner Athenson suggested that the Commission review all new signage in Market Square due to its historical significance. In response to Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Hlad stated that the awning is intended both to provide shade for items in the windows and to advertise the business. He stated that Evereve requested the incorporation of the graphic in the signage to reinforce their corporate identity. Commissioner Athenson stated that awnings are often used for signage but most awnings in Market Square are not being used for light shading purposes and are in a rolled up position. She questioned whether some of the awnings in Market Square should be removed noting that in her opinion and previously mentioned by L3’s architect, they detract from the architecture of the buildings. She also noted that awnings were not part of Howard Van Doren Shaw’s original design. She suggested that the Commission discuss this issue in the future along with the larger discussion about signage in Market Square. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the owners of Market Square are continuing to work on an overall signage plan to present to the Commission for review and approval. She noted that current regulations permit awnings. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 4 Chairman Preschlack stated that there is a balance between being sensitive to the needs of a business and strictly following the City Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. McManus clarified that staff is supportive of the proposed coral color for the window sign. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is supportive of the petition with the removal of the graphic from the awning valance. Commissioner Gayle and Commissioner Alfe agreed with Chairman Preschlack. Commissioner Wheeler stated that although the logo is discreet, approving the graphic on the awning valance would set a precedent. Commissioner Travers stated that the recommendation presented by staff is reasonably flexible. Commissioner Athenson noted that the request complies with the guidelines. Commissioner Schaefer stated his support of the request. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the re-covering of the existing awning, lettering on the awning valance and the window signage as proposed by the petitioner. He noted that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following condition. 1. The graphic shall be eliminated from the awning sign. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and alterations to an existing residence located at 20 E. Onwentsia Road. Owner: Katrina Kl ine Representative: David Raino-Ogden, architect Chairman Preschlack invited a presentation from the petitioner. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 5 Mr. Raino-Ogden introduced himself and the owner and provided a model to the Commission. He reviewed the location of property noting that it is at the edge of the Green Bay Road Historic District. He showed an initial sketch noting that they originally considered a side gable roof on the addition, but the owner preferred the front gable. He stated that the addition is set back from the original house. He noted that bringing the eave of the addition down would be costly. He noted that the exterior material will be a simple cottage stone and showed images of the stone. He stated that phase 2 of the project will include landscaping and a pergola on the rear elevation. Ms. McManus stated that the Commission saw a previous petition for this property in 2014 but the project did not proceed at that time. She noted that this project is under the direction of a different architect. She noted that the staff report calls out a couple areas of concern including the skylights on the back of the residence and the potential for off site light impacts and the secondary door on the front façade which creates the appearance of two front entrances. She noted that to address the skylight concern, a condition of approval is recommended requiring interior light fixtures that direct light downward, below the skylights to reduce the potential for light spillover. She requested input from the Commission on the issues identified. She noted that one letter was received from the neighbor expressing concern about headlights and drainage in the area. She stated that conditions are recommended to address these concerns. She added that a letter was received from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation expressing some concerns about the design and roof lines of the addition. She concluded stating that staff is recommending support of the addition with direction from the Commission regarding the secondary door. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. McManus clarified that the proposed secondary door, on the front elevation, appears to compete with the main entry. She stated that staff recommends relocation of the door to the east elevation of the new entry area. She explained that the designation of the house as a contributing structure was based both on the age and architectural integrity of the structure. She stated that its contributing status w as determined during the research that was completed to establish the Green Bay Road Historic District. She stated staff support for the addition noting that it does not appear to diminish the status of the original structure as contributing to the district. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Raino-Ogden stated that the location of the proposed door is based on the interior floor plan. He explained that the home was built by the owner’s grandfather and added to over time. He added that the home is a simple building with some level of detail at the front entry. He noted that the motivation for the design was to keep the addition simple and follow the existing details. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the proposed house is well under the allowable square footage noting that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 6 lot is quite large. She clarified that the preservation Chapter of the City Code is not intended to prevent development but to ensure that modifications are designed in keeping with the applicable standards. She reiterated that based on the lot size, a much larger structure could be constructed. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Raino-Ogden clarified areas of discrepancy between the drawings in the packet and those presented at the meeting. He explained that a round window was found in the garage and incorporated in the addition. Commissioner Alfe commented that in his opinion, the window is jarring. In response to further questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Raino-Ogden explained that the stone was selected for the fireplace to follow the English Cottage feel. He stated that the living room is designed with a cathedral ceiling and the skylights provide light into the kitchen. He stated that the headlights from the driveway will be screened from the neighboring home by a row of existing Spruce trees on the neighbor’s property. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Raino-Ogden confirmed that the driveway will be extended east from its current location and noted that he would expect that cars will typically park facing north or east. He confirmed that there are no immediate plans for additional landscaping along the east property line. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Raino-Ogden confirmed that his initial plans included a side gable roof on the addition, but the client preferred the front gable. He noted that the roof of the addition cannot be lowered because the original house already has a clipped wall condition. He stated that it could be difficult and costly to relocate the door. Chairman Preschlack noted that the original house is set forward from the addition, helping to mitigate the addition. He stated that he understands the questions about the roof form but added that the front facing gable conveys the feel of an old farmhouse. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Raino-Ogden stated that the windows in the existing house are not proposed for replacement. He noted that the windows in the addition will match those on the original house. He confirmed that the windows vary throughout the original house. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Raino-Ogden confirmed that the intention is to match the existing windows in character and detail. Commissioner Travers stated that a tremendous amount of progress has been made since the Commission saw a previous proposal for an addition to the house Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 7 in 2014. He noted that the Commission has expressed various concerns and asked if the petitioner’s time line would allow the petitioner to provide more information and do further study in response to the questions raised and return to the Commission. Mr. Raino-Ogden stated that the petitioner is open to making changes based on the Commissioner’s suggestions. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Raino-Ogden explained that the door on the south façade is needed to access the pool, which is located in the front yard, from the house. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the addition is set back from the original house and stated general support for the project. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that drainage and grading plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a permit. She noted that in many areas there are old drain tiles and stated that the City Engineer will request a drain tile study if necessary to fully understand the drainage in the area. Commissioner Gayle noted the variability among the windows and pointed out discrepancies between the drawings and the presentation. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Raino-Ogden stated that the Palladian window that appears in the plans was removed in response to the Preservation Foundation’s comments. He added that the client prefers to keep the window. He added that farmhouses historically were added onto resulting in slight variations in various elements of the house over time. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Raino-Ogden clarified that the 2nd story windows, over the center wing, are not drawn correctly on the plans. Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak summarized that the Commission seems to be generally supportive of the proposed addition but clarification of elements on various elevations and of the details was requested. She noted that since elevations were presented that differ from the materials in the packet, a continuance to allow for further clarification would not be inappropriate. She acknowledged that full construction plans are not expected but noted that it would not be unusual to request that the architect develop the plans further to allow the Commission to ensure that the original structure has prominence over the addition. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 8 Chairman Preschlack noted that the staff report supports the roof forms and states that standard 8 is met. He noted that there seems to be some concerns from the Commission that this standard was not fully met. He added that in his opinion, it would be difficult to avoid complex forms and still achieve the desired addition. Commissioner Athenson stated that in her opinion, with some refinement standard 8 could be met. She suggested that the roof forms on the front elevation be simplified and noted that removing the Palladian window allows the original structure to be more dominant. She emphasized the importance of keeping the design and materials consistent with the original house and chimney. Mr. Raino-Ogden stated that the petitioner is open to moving the door to the side elevation. He stated that he is unsure of how to simplify the front elevation. Commissioner Athenson stated that the center of the front elevation appears complicated which draws the eye to that area. She requested that the petitioner take a look at the area and consider refining it. Chairman Preschlack acknowledged that this is not a simple project and reminded the Commission to consider the design criteria and determine if the project meets the standards. Commissioner Travers agreed that this is a complex project and acknowledged the progress that has been made. He added that the concept is much closer to a compatible addition than what was previously proposed. He reviewed the areas of concern and the additional information that is needed including information on the condition of existing house, the compatibility of the exterior materials with the original architectural style, refinement of the side porch, the skylights, the overall design and scale of the new chimney, and the appropriateness of the secondary entrance on front of the house. He added that the Preservation Foundation expressed concerns in general regarding the massing and hierarchy of the original house in relation to the proposed addition . He stated that based on the concerns, he supports continuing the petition to allow further refinement. Mr. Raino-Ogden presented a sketch of the front elevation with the secondary entry relocated to the side elevation. Chairman Preschlack informed the Commission that the Commission’s action must be on the plans included in the packets for action, not on the revised sketch just developed by the architect and presented. He offered that the Commission can continue consideration of the petition to allow revisions and refinement or, approve the initial design presented in the packet with conditions of approval. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the original house is visually intact and the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 9 addition is setback. He noted that it is inevitable that the house will evolve and grow over time. He noted that the addition borrows detailing from the original house as much as possible. He added that in his opinion, the addition is fairly successful and stated no major objections. He stated that the roof pitches are fairly consistent overall acknowledging that the shed roof is a new element. He stated that the use of stone on the north end of house is a concern noting that the chimney on the south elevation is brick. He added that the rear elevation is a departure from the overall character of the original house, but acknowledged that the rear elevation is less of a concern since it is not visible. He stated that ideally, the rear elevation would be more consistent with the original house. Commissioner Alfe concurred with Commission Wheeler’s comments. He agreed that the rear chimney is an area of concern. He stated that the revised sketch presented by the petitioner which shows the door shifted to the side, addresses the concern raised by staff about the side entry. He added that the shed roof seems to be the only roof form option for the element proposed. He stated that assuring matching the materials is important. He concluded that he is not concerned with light spillover because the skylights are on the rear elevation. Commissioner Gayle stated that the sketch presented by the architect effectively solves some of the concerns regarding the secondary entry, but noted that the sketch did not accurately reflect what is now proposed so it is difficult to envision the final product. She acknowledged that this is a work in progress and added that it is important that the owner’s preferences be recognized. She expressed support for removing the Palladian window and for staff’s comments regarding matching the materials to the original house. Commissioner Schaefer stated that he is supportive of the petition because it meets the standards. He thanked the owners for saving the house. He added that additive design is difficult and acknowledged that the front elevation is busy, but concluded that he can support the petition. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is inclined to support the petition and that he is unsure that a continuance would resolve the remaining areas of concern. Ms. Czerniak stated offered that the Commission could add conditions that speak to specific refinement and the revised plans could be delegated to staff or a subcommittee of the Commission for final review. Commissioner Athenson questioned the effectiveness of a subcommittee if the Commission has already acted. She noted that in a previous situation, the subcommittee was only able to offer suggestions and did not have the authority to require revisions due to previous approval of the peti tion by the Commission. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is not inclined to appoint a subcommittee and suggested that a condition could be added to address relocating the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 10 secondary door. Ms. Czerniak offered that continuation might be appropriate to allow the requested changes to come back before the Commission for final review. Chairman Preschlack asked for a motion to approve the plans as presented in the Commission’s packet. Commissioner Athenson stated that in the past, when design changes are requested, revised plans come back to the Commission for review. She added that the Commission should not be reluctant to continue the item to assure that concerns are addressed and plans are clarified. Chairman Preschlack requested final thoughts from the Commission on whether a continuation of the petition is warranted. Commissioner Schaefer stated that he is supportive of the petition as presented, but also stated support for eliminating the Palladian window and relocating the secondary door. He added that a continuation does not seem appropriate. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue consideration of the petition. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Preschlack invited another motion. Commissioner Alfe commented on the recommended conditions of approval in the staff report. He noted that the Commission seems to be in agreement with the modification of the secondary entrance, but found the skylights to be acceptable. Commissioner Gayle clarified that the condition regarding the skylights requires light fixtures to minimize light spillover in response to the neighbor’s concerns, but does not require removing the skylights altogether. She noted that the modifications to the secondary entrance is addressed in the conditions and agreed with Commissioner Schaefer that it is not necessary to continue the petition. She stated that the goal of the Commission is to retain the character of the house while recognizing that changes will occur. She concluded that the petition meets the standards and stated support for the recommendation in the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. McManus clarified that the recommended condition in the staff report pertains to the secondary entry and porch proposed on the front elevation, not the existing side porch. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 11 Chairman Preschlack clarified that the condition of approval includes the relocation of the secondary door. He stated that he is comfortable with the stone on the chimney as proposed and suggested that condition 1d be modified to remove the requirement for consistent materials for the chimney. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. McManus clarified that condition 1b as recommended in the staff report refers to the secondary door proposed on the front elevation. Chairman Preschlack suggested revisions to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. The Commission discussed the conditions recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Schaefer restated his support for the petition as proposed or subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. He added that there are no complex changes needed and that there is a precedent for approving petitions subject to conditions. Chairman Preschlack invited another motion from the Commission. Commissioner Schaefer made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions pointing out changes to item 1 from the language proposed in the staff report. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modification noted below. If any further modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, plans clearly detailing the areas of change must be submitted at the time of submission for permit, along with the plans originally presented to the Commission, and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. The chimney shall be consistent in design and scale with the existing chimney. b. The secondary entrance shall be relocated to the side elevation. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees that are identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. In Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 12 response to neighbor’s concerns, the City Engineer will review the final plans to ensure that no impacts will occur to existing drainage systems. 4. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be shielded from view. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. 6. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gayle and she suggested that the relocation of the side entry be subject to final review and approval by staff. Chairman Preschlack questioned whether the motion should approve the petition as presented in the Commission’s packet or require changes to the secondary door on the front elevation. Commissioner Alfe asked for clarification on the proposed conditions and requested that a condition requiring the removal of the Palladian window be included. Commissioner Schaefer offered a modification to the motion to approve the petition and clarified the conditions of approval as follows. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modification noted below. If any further modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, plans clearly detailing the areas of change must be submitted at the time of submission for permit, along with the plans originally presented to the Commission, and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. The exterior materials shall be consistent with the existing residence and consistent with those specified on the materials sheet provided to the Commission. b. Consideration shall be given to modification of the proposed secondary entry on the front elevation to move the door, generally consistent with the sketch presented to the Commission, subject to review and approval by staff. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 13 c. The skylights and interior lights near the skylights should be designed and located to minimize any light spillover to the outside. d. The new chimney shall be consistent in design and scale with the existing chimney. e. The Palladian window shall be eliminated from the front façade of the addition. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees that are identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. In response to neighbor’s concerns, the City Engineer will review the final plans to ensure that no impacts will occur to existing drainage systems. 4. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be shielded from view. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. 6. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Commissioner Gayle seconded the modified motion. The Commission voted 5 to 2 to approve the petition with Commissioner Athenson and Commissioner Travers voting nay both indicated their preference that the petition be continued to allow refinement of the elevations and clarification on the items discussed by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non agenda items. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Travers suggested that staff continue to survey materials to the Commission for review. He also asked that the surveys be made available to the public on the City’s website. Chairman Preschlack thanked staff for providing supplemental reading material in the Commission’s packets. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 27, 2016 - Page 14 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. McManus staff is working to reschedule a tour for the Commission and will be contacting the Commissioners with possible dates. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner