Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/02/24 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the February 24, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, February 24, 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 Development 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 January 27, 2016 of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the January 27, 2016 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioners Athenson and Travers. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a sign for the Lake Forest Book Store which is relocating to 662 N. Western Avenue. Owner: James Altounian Tenant: Lake Forest Bookstore, Eleanor Thorn Representative: Glenn Holmes, Fast Signs Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Holmes introduced the owner of the bookstore and introduced the petition. He stated that the proposed sign is 2 ½’ x 8’ and includes 2 open book graphics. He noted that the graphics occupy less than 4 percent of the total sign area. He showed an image of the proposed sign on the storefront. He stated that a temporary mockup of the sign was installed on the storefront for the Commission’s benefit. He explained that the proposed sign is planned to be constructed of “Extira” a synthetic material. He provided a material sample to the Commission. He noted that the letters on the sign will be v-cut into the sign, carved out of the sign board. He explained that the proposed sign material is resistant to rot, moisture and termites and will not split or crack like true wood. He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 2 material is flame resistant and environmentally friendly and created from a composite of recycled and reused wood. He added that the material is treated with resin as a binding agent and contains zinc borate, which provides resistance to termites. Ms. McManus explained that the signage is before the Commission because it contains graphics and a synthetic material is proposed for the sign board. She noted that these aspects of the request do not fully conform to the City’s design guidelines. She stated that staff recommends approval of the petition with a condition that true wood be used for the sign to comply with the signage guidelines. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Holmes explained that the sign will be attached to the building by an invisible mount screwed into the façade. He acknowledged that the mockup sign projects further from the face of the wall than the actual sign because it was adhered to the building with double sided tape. He added that the new sign will be flush with the building. He confirmed that the sign will not sit in the recess of the panels of the transom. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Holmes explained that reducing the sign to fit into the panels was considered, but the letters on the reduced sign were too small. He also noted that they considered placing the sign on the limestone panels above the transom, but again, the sign would be too small. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Holmes stated that they originally considered placing individual letters across 4 sections of the panels in the transom; however, the letters could not be spaced evenly due to the location and width of the panels. He explained that the owners want to use the book graphics and established date on the sign. Chairman Preschlack acknowledged that the storefront presents a challenge for signage. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Ms. McManus explained that staff’s recommendation for using a natural material is based on the City’s design guidelines which specifically note that composite or synthetic materials should be avoided. She added that using true wood for the sign is consistent with the Code requirement for high quality, natural materials. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. McManus stated that she could not recall any synthetic signs in Market Square and that signs in the Central Business District are generally constructed of wood or metal. In response to comments and questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Holmes agreed that the proposed graphics are not needed to identify the business, but Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 3 reiterated that the owner would like to use the book graphic. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Holmes confirmed that the new sign will be mounted as flush as possible with façade. He explained that the mockup sign is not mounted to a flat surface. He stated that the new sign will be mounted on the frame of the transom. Commissioner Wheeler noted that there is a significant amount of blank space on the sign and suggested reducing the vertical dimension of the sign to fit within the transom. He also suggested relocating the sign to the limestone above the transom be explored. He noted that the sign on the existing bookstore is very simple with smaller text. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Eleanor Thorn, owner of the Lake Forest Book Store, explained that the proposed sign and logo were designed based on the original bookstore sign. She stated that the open book logo and established date were on the original sign. She added that she has the original sign and plans on displaying it in the bookstore. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Preschlack invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the sign should be immediately recognizable, but also sensitive to the architecture of the building. He stated support for the proposed graphic and lettering, but stated concern about the proposed location of the sign. Commissioner Travers stated that he did not realize that the sign was being placed over the frieze until hearing the presentation. He suggested that consideration be given to locating the sign on the limestone band. Commissioner Alfe noted that the sign appears awkward in the proposed location. He acknowledged that the storefront presents a challenge for signage. He stated that he is supportive of the logo and suggested that the r equirement for natural materials be reconsidered because in some cases, a synthetic material may be more appropriate. In response to a question from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City’s signage guidelines were updated 6 to 8 years ago and are part of the City Code. She summarized that consistent with the Code, the Commission in the past has required high quality, natural materials. She acknowledged that various synthetic materials are available but noted that they are of varying quality, do not have a proven track record, appear artificial and do not patina over time. She added that synthetic materials are inconsistent with the character of Market Square. In response to suggestions about relocating the sign to the l imestone Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 4 band above the transom, she explained that the signage guidelines limit the height of a sign above the sidewalk to assure proper scale with the pedestrians on the sidewalk. In response to a question from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Holmes confirmed that the letters and logos would be cut into the sign face, a process that cannot be done with natural wood. He added that sandblasting is the only option for wood and noted that using wood would change the design of the sign. Commissioner Gayle stated that she is not supportive of attaching the sign to the limestone and suggested exploring ways to extend the sign across the transom. Commissioner Athenson expressed concern that the use of the graphic sets a bad precedent for future signage requests in Market Square. She added that the new Orangetheory Fitness sign is the only sign she could find in the Central Business District with a graphic, noting that in her opinion, that sign is not successful . She acknowledged that sign is not in the Historic District. She added that wood will age better and agreed that determining the appropriate location of the sign for this space is challenging. Commissioner Schaefer stated that he is supportive of the sign and the graphics that are proposed. He suggested that the Commission consider whether there are compelling reasons in particular situations to support the use of a composite material . Chairman Preschlack expressed concern regarding the proposed placement of the sign and the lack of sensitivity to the architecture of the building. He suggested that continuing consideration of the petition may be appropriate and suggested that the petitioner explore ways to integrate the sign into the transom or relocate the sign. Commissioner Athenson noted that the placement of the sign may necessitate a change in the design of the sign. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to allow the petitioner to consider the Commission’s comments. Commissioner Athenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the motions and continue the petition. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a one-story addition to an existing residence located at 460 N. Washington Road. A building scale variance is also requested. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 5 Owners: Stephen and Laura Douglass Representative: Stephen Douglass, architect and owner Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Douglass introduced himself stating that he and his wife have lived in the house for 24 years and noting that he previously served on the Commission. He explained that since purchasing the house, they have done considerable work on the home prioritizing restoration and preservation, rather than livability. He asked for consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a small one story addition. He noted that the existing kitchen measures 10 feet by 12 feet and the addition will increase the kitchen by 6 feet. He stated that the house was built in 1930 as part of a cluster of homes was known as “Bronzeville”. He stated that the residences in “Bronzeville” were originally constructed as summer rentals on a single 5 acre property. He added that the property was subdivided in 1988 and noted that his family is the first owner occupants of the home. He explained that the site is a lot in depth and located roughly in the center of the block. He noted that the home is a Contributing Structure in the East Lake Forest Historic District. He showed images of neighboring homes. He stated that he purchased the home in 1992 at which point he completed structural repairs required due to years of neglect. He added that a significant restoration of the exterior of the home was completed and storm window were removed and replaced with custom wood screens. He stated that the asphalt roof shingles were replaced with cedar shingles. He noted that the original cedar roof was stained green. He showed images of the site and reviewed a site plan. He explained that the proposed addition encroaches no further to the north or east than the existing mudroom. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations and showed the areas where walls will be removed. He stated that the addition will not be very visible form the front elevation. He reviewed a landscape plan noting that the existing landscaping on the site is mature and that the existing stone walls are at the same location as the walls the proposed addition. He added that the existing foundation walls have prevented tree roots from growing into that area so no tree roots will be impacted by the addition. He stated that he has hired an independent Certified Arborist to oversee the protection of the trees on the site. He added that the petition does not meet the building scale requirements and a variance is requested. He pointed out that although Standard 6 of the Preservation Chapter is not technically met, the land to the south of the residence can never be built on due to the large setbacks that were established on the subdivision plat to retain the existing vistas. He stated that the preserved open area serves to mitigate any appearance of increased mass as a result of the proposed addition. Ms. Manus reviewed the components of the request: demolition of an existing, non- original addition; a small , replacement addition located generally in the area of demolition; and a building scale variance. She stated that the existing residence is 12 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 6 square feet over the allowable square footage and the addition will add 92 square feet. She stated that the requested variance of 104 square feet is relatively small and appears to meet the criteria. She added that staff is recommending approval of the addition as presented as well as the building scale variance. She stated that staff received 3 letters of support from neighbors and the letters were provided to the Commission. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Douglass stated that he does not know when the addition that is proposed for demolition was constructed, but stated that it is clear that it was a later addition because it does not appear on the original drawings and is constructed of different wood and at a different grade than the rest of the house. He explained that the roof pitch of the proposed addition was chosen to mirror the west side of the house. He added that because the addition is setback from the front façade, the conflicting roof forms will not be evident. Commissioner Athenson thanked the petitioner for the thorough presentation and the stewardship of the historic house. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Douglass confirmed that he has consulted with arborist Bruce Horigan about the trees on the site and stated that Mr. Horigan will be involved throughout the project to assure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the trees. He confirmed that the current analysis is that the trees will not be impacted. Chairman Preschlack noted that 3 letters of support were received from neighbors. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Hearing none, he thanked the petitioner for the well done presentation and noted that the building scale ordinance is written to provide the opportunity for variances in situations like this, to allow a residence to be modified to make it more livable as long as the history and character of the home is respected. Commissioner Travers stated that the neighbors and the Preservation Foundation are in support of petition. He explained that in cases like this, where a building scale variance of modest size meets the requirements of the city ordinance and allows the owners to better utilize a historic residence, the Commission has regularly exercised its discretion to recommend the variance to City Council . Commissioner Wheeler stated that the current petition and previous work completed are great examples of how a house should be cared for and enhanced. He added that the square footage overage is not a concern and commented that the roof pitch on the addition is appropriate. He stated that the existing roof pitch is awkward. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 7 In response to a question from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Douglass confirmed that the garden will be extended around the addition and reviewed how the addition will meet the ground. Commissioner Gayle complimented the petitioner noting that it is clear that the house has been lovingly maintained. Commissioner Schaefer expressed support for the project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition and construction of a one-story, replacement addition. He added that a recommendation in support of a building scale variance of up to 104 square feet is included in the motion. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the testimony presented and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If, during the final design development process, modifications are proposed, plans clearly detail ing the areas of change must be submitted 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. 2. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Protection Plan, to protect trees during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing detached garage, a replacement attached garage and an addition to an existing residence located at 1220 N. Elm Tree Road. Owners: John and Kathryn Collins Representative: Jeff Harting, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Harting introduced himself and informed the Commission that the historic consultant, Susan Benjamin, is ill and could not attend the meeting. He reviewed the site plan noting that the existing detached garage is non-conforming with Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 8 respect to the setbacks and was constructed with a telephone tile foundation making modifications and additions challenging. He showed historic images of the house pointing out the simplicity and limited details. He stated that the proposed addition will not necessitate the removal of any existing windows on the original house. He stated that the structure of the existing garage is undersized to provide adequate support for the clay tile roof. He stated that the back of the residence is the most significant elevation from a historical perspective as pointed out in the historic consultant’s report. He noted however, that the rear balustrade is not original to the residence. He showed images of the interior of the garage. He pointed out that a zoning variance is needed for the proposed addition. He stated that the proposed attached garage is designed to be side loading so that it will not interfere with the front façade of the house. He pointed out that the existing garage is quite close to the property line, is non- conforming to zoning regulations, and is located almost entirely within the front setback. He showed alternatives that were considered for the garage and added that the owners do not want the garage doors facing the front of the lot. He explained that keeping the existing garage was explored along with a smaller addition. He stated that as proposed, the garage is entered from the south side and he indicated the area of the proposed addition for which a zoning variance would be required. He showed colored renderings and noted the proposed change at the front entrance noting the overhang at front door. He stated that the intent of the addition is to step down from the main house and located the garage doors on the south elevation. He presented the landscape plan noting that the owners desire a modified driveway with a single curb cut and a motor court in front of the house. Ms. McManus stated that due to the irregular shape of the lot and ravine area, the property is challenging. She noted that areas of concern are outlined in the staff report and include the prominence of the proposed addition and whether alternatives that adaptively reuse the existing garage have been fully explored. She noted that a zoning variance would be required for both the addition and motor court as proposed. She explained that a number of significant trees are proposed for removal in order to accommodate the addition and driveway. She stated that staff requested that alternative studies be submitted exploring other locations and configurations for the addition. She stated concerns regarding the non-conforming motor court and the garage court which is close to the neighboring property. She stated that a letter was received from a neighbor stating concerns about the location of the proposed addition. She stated that staff recommends that the petition be continued to allow time for further study and requested the Commission’s direction on the petition, particularly with respect to the proposed demolition of the existing garage, the siting of the addition, the motor court and placement of the garage court near the south property line. Chairman Preschlack summarized the key points raised in the staff report including: the placement of the addition, driveway apron and motor court; the potential impact on the neighboring property, removal of significant trees, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 9 demolition of a contributing structure, and the amount of impervious surface area. He added however, that the Commission is charged with working with these types of properties to try to find a way to meet the owners’ needs while complying with the standards in the Code. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Harting stated that his firm spent months considering options for the project and initially considered reusing the existing garage. He stated however that adding on to the existing garage would result in a smaller garage than desired by the property owners and could give the appearance of a fragmented and meandering addition. He noted that alternatives were submitted showing a scenario that conforms to the zoning setbacks. He explained that locating the garage doors on the front of the addition was also considered, but the owners prefer that the garage doors not face the street. He stated that the intention is to make the front entry more prominent to allow it to stand out from the addition by adding an overhang and balustrade above the door. He noted that the existing layout of the home lacks amenities and provides no family space in the home. He added that the basement cannot be used because it has low ceilings and noted that an addition adding on to the rear of the house was not a good solution. Chairman Preschlack stated that it is challenging to review the addition in 2 dimensions and suggested preparing a model for the next meeting. He agreed that making the house more livable is important and acknowledged the challenges of the irregular lot and the setbacks. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Harting confirmed that both additional living space and a larger garage are desired. He stated that the goal is to make the home more functional while respecting the architecture and character of the home. He reiterated that studies of other alternatives was completed and stated that the owners do not want a detached garage. He agreed that the lot and setbacks are very limiting. Commissioner Athenson agreed that the lot is challenging and commented that less may be better in this case. She noted that there are several factors working against the project and she requested that alternatives for the addition and expanded garage be considered and shared with the Commission. She suggested considering a one story addition that reuses the existing garage and simplifying the front entry. She explained that in many cases, working with an existing structure allows the Commission to offer more latitude when considering a petition. She added that the garage court appears very intrusive to the neighbor and suggested that a front load garage is worth considering in this situation. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Sam Danenberger, landscape consultant, clarified that there is no change to the existing curb cut, and noted that the second curb cut will be eliminated. He added that cars will turn around on the side of the house, in the garage court. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 10 Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Pauline Mohr, 927 Barkley Circle, stated that she is representing the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation and read a letter on behalf of the Foundation expressing concerns about the petition. The letter acknowledged that the existing garage is not adequate and requested that the addition be reduced in scale, to a one story structure, and be designed to incorporate the existing garage. The letter asked that the 3 significant oak trees in front of the residence be preserved and that the front entry be simplified so it does not detract from the architecture of the home. The letter suggested consideration of adding a south garden wall to provide a buffer for the neighbor and suggested that consideration might be given to consulting other architects with experience in unique projects like this one. Ms. Mohr recommended exploring the property tax freeze but noted that as presented, the petition does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards. In response to public comment, Mr. Harting stated that he has experience with unique and historic properties and expressed concern about the Foundations comments. He stated that he is familiar with the tax freeze program. Chairman Preschlack stated that the Foundation has good intentions and often provides feedback on petitions that are before the Commission. He summarized the Commission’s comments noting that it would be helpful to see other options and alternatives at a future meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Schaefer, Chairman Preschlack confirmed that the demolition criteria must be applied as part of the Commission’s consideration of the request to demolish the existing garage. Mr. Harting explained that the garage is constructed of 2x4s and has a telephone tile foundation. He stated that it was likely constructed at the same time as the house. He added that the house may have had a cedar roof originally. He stated that the garage is difficult to modify or add on to given the type of construction. Commissioner Schaefer noted that the owners’ desire to hide the garage doors is adding to the complexity of the project but acknowledged that it seems unlikely that the existing garage can be retained. He suggested that consideration be given to relocating the garage doors to the north elevation. Chairman Preschlack reiterated his previous comments regarding the need to see alternatives and a model to allow the Commission to fully understand and apply the applicable standards to the petition . In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. McManus explained that zoning regulations prohibit parking within the front yard setback. She stated that the proposed motor court is located almost entirely within the setback. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 11 Chairman Preschlack stated concern about the size and massing of the addition and added that it is difficult to grasp the size of the addition based on the materials provided. Commissioner Travers stated that the staff recommendations are appropriate and he urged the petitioner to closely consider them. He added that further study should be conducted to explore opportunities to use the existing garage. He stated that the structure is contributing and adds to the character of the Historic District. He added that the Commission is obligated, because the garage is contributing, to assure that reasonable efforts are made to preserve the garage consistent with the applicable criteria. He noted that if special circumstances, such as the functional obsolescence, cannot be resolved, then demolition may be appropriate in order to preserve the value of the house. He concluded adding that alternatives that preserve the significant oak trees on the site should be explored. Chairman Preschlack acknowledged that the garage is a contributing structure but stated that demolition may be possible if the applicable criteria are satisfied and if there are significant issues with the structure. In response to Commissioner Athenson’s comment, Mr. Harting stated that he met with staff early in the process and heard concerns about tree removal and demolition of the garage. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he is not supportive of saving a structure that impedes the use of another historic building. He added that although the garage is contributing, demolishing it may offer acceptable alternatives for an addition. He pointed out that the driveway as proposed is very tight and state that the large trees are the most noticeable part of the site. He added that preservation of the white oak, in particular, should be a priority. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to allow the petitioner to explore options for achieving the property owners’ goals. She encouraged careful consideration of the comments, suggestions and areas of concern voiced by the Commission. She encouraged the petitioner to work with staff as alternatives are developed and studied. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the motion. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 24, 2016 - Page 12 In response to a request from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will look into the wall sign formerly used by Jolly Good Fellows. She added that the owners of Market Square recently contacted staff to confirm that they are continuing to work on an overall signage plan for presentation to the Commission in the near future. Commissioner Athenson requested that staff look into temporary posters in storefronts in Market Square. 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner