Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/05/25 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the May 25, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, May 25, 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 Grieve and Commissioners Elizabeth Sperry, Bob Alfe, Wells Wheeler and Carol Gayle. (one position vacant) Commissioners absent: Susan Athenson 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 Grieve 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 April 27, 2016 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the April 27, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing residence located at 676 Lake Road and approval of a replacement residence, attached garage, pool, pool shed, the overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owners: Robert and Winifred Crawford Representatives: Jill Danly, project manager Natalie Clemens, architect Craig Bergmann, landscape architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Crawford stated that the plans were refined to respond to suggestions made by the Commission at the previous meeting. He stated that he has l ived in Lake Forest for nearly 20 years and noted that they initially considered a renovation of the existing home, but a full demolition made more sense given the magnitude of work that would be needed to achieve a single level first floor and other aspects of a home that they desire. He introduced the project team. Ms. Danly noted that they have been working on the project for 8 months and are Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 2 committed to design a home that is compatible with Lake Forest. Ms. Clemens reviewed the changes made to the plans since the last meeting and showed side by side comparisons of the previous and current proposals. She reviewed the floor plans and the revisions made to the entry way in response to the Commission’s direction. She noted that the shape of the dormer was adjusted and noted that gable dormers are now proposed in place of arched dormers. She noted that the covered entry is softened with a balcony and provides coverage from the weather. She added that the previously proposed Palladian window was retained, but the pediment was squared off. She explained that the plan for the pool shed was further developed and showed elevations for the proposed shed. She noted that is it influenced by other similar structures in Lake Forest. She stated that the materials and textures proposed for the shed are borrowed from the house and that fencing is proposed to screen equipment. Mr. Bergmann stated that at the last meeting, the landscape plan was not yet complete. He reviewed the completed landscape plan. He provided images of the street intersection showing existing views to the property. He provided renderings of the proposed landscaping and explained how it will impact the views to the home. He reviewed the enhanced landscaping planned around the service area, the motor court. He explained that they are proposing to remove the existing shrubs and provide a retaining wall to stabilize the driveway. He stated that a lattice fence is incorporated on the pool pavilion and that the siting of the shed is slightly different than previously proposed. He noted that there is more turf area than in the previous plan and the parking bay was reduced. He stated that the front façade of the house was reconfigured to have a large continuous stoop. He stated that the recessed areas on the rear of the house will have espaliers and yews and boxwoods are proposed along the front of the house. He pointed out that the north façade of the pool shed will be detailed with espaliers and lattice screens with vining plants and that the pool deck material is proposed as bluestone or limestone, depending on the owners’ preference. Ms. McManus explained that the petition was continued from the April meeting and noted that at that meeting, there was general consensus among the Commissioners that the demolition criteria are met. She stated that the Commission requested a more developed landscape plan and details on the pool shed. She noted that concerns were expressed regarding the front entry and proportions of the front façade. She requested Commission input regarding the front entry noting the staff recommendation to further simplify the entry. She also noted concerns regarding the potential visibility of light from the skylight from Spring Lane. She stated that Hardieboard is proposed for the pool shed, but given the high quality of materials found in the neighborhood and on the proposed replacement house, recommended that wood siding be considered. She added that the Preservation Foundation Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 3 submitted a letter offering comments and raising some concerns. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Gayle stated that she appreciates the response to the Commission’s comments and the reduction of impermeable surface area. She expressed support of the landscaping and the changes to the entry. She concluded that the revised design is an improvement over the plans initially presented to the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Clemens stated that the Hardieboard proposed for use is a high enough grade of siding for the pool shed, a secondary structure. She stated that the color will never fade or peel . She added that the material comes in a variety of textures. She confirmed that the pitch of the hip roof is different than the pediment and dormers, but stated that it will not be noticeable from a distance. She stated that the dormer roofs were adjusted to make the overall roof elements more consistent, but noted that in order to maintain one roofline, the roof pitches on the gables differ. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Clemens explained that the dormers were adjusted to be more Classical in nature. She noted that there are fewer arches found in the revised design so the dormers are now gabled, with arched windows. She added that the dormer pitch matches the pediment pitch. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Clemens confirmed that blind arches are proposed on the rear elevation and that a herringbone brick pattern was added to the recesses. She confirmed that the mullions were changed from the earlier plan. She stated that lead coated aluminum downspouts and gutters are proposed for aesthetic reasons and to maintain an off white color. She stated that the intention is to have the gutters look like an extension of the eave. She noted that the gutters were changed to half round gutters and downspouts and stated that the client does not want copper gutters. She added that the aluminum will be factory finished and will not need to be painted. She explained that the glass roof on the sunroom was influenced by classic conservatories. Chairman Grieve invited public comment; hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Sperry acknowledged the amount of effort and thought put into the project and expressed support of the petition. Commissioner Alfe noted that the changes made are responsive to the Commission’s previous comments. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the landscaping design is strong and that the house will be compatible with the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 4 Commissioner Gayle suggested some adjustments be made to simplify the front entry as suggested by staff and the Preservation Foundation. Commissioner Grieve summarized that there appears to be a general consensus among the Commissioner for support of the demolition and noted that the design of the replacement house has come a long way since the initial plans were presented. He noted that l andscaping is critical due to the prominence of the site. He recommended that as the design develops, consideration be given to softening the façade and focusing more on the detailing and proportions. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing residence and a new single family residence, site plan and preliminary landscape plan for property located at 676 Lake Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the modifications as detailed below. If any additional modifications are proposed in response to the Commission’s deliberations or as a result of final design development, plans detailing and highlighting the areas of change along with a copy of the plans on which the Commission’s decision was based 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. a. The front entry shall be further simplified. b. High quality, natural materials shall be used on both the residence and pool shed. c. The material and treatment of the gutters and downspouts shall be clearly noted and shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Commission. d. Interior light fixtures near the skylights shall direct light downward to prevent light spillover. 2. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 3. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the extent possible with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices. 4. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 5 a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and that the required replacement inches are provided on site or, if replacement plantings cannot be accomplished on the site consistent with good forestry practices as determined by the City Arborist, payment in lieu of onsite plantings may be accepted by the City to support parkway plantings in the general vicinity of the project. 5. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 7. 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. Access to Forest Park must be maintained as all times. 8. 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. Demolition 9. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, the overall property and the streetscape must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 10. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 6 maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code, 11. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 12. 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 Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the petition. 4. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations and additions to the side and rear of the existing residence located at 1290 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: Donald Zordani, Jr. Representative: Jon Clair, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Clair reviewed the plat of survey and provided images of the site. He noted that the house is designed in the French eclectic style and that later additions are proposed for removal. He stated that there are no changes proposed to the west elevation and a garage addition is proposed on the east elevation. He noted the dormers and arched opening on the existing front elevation. He provided colored renderings of the proposed additions and explained that the rear fireplace will become a focal point on the rear elevation. He stated that the additions will provide a 3 car side loaded garage as well as a mudroom, family room, breakfast room and 2 additional bedrooms. He stated that there is a combination of copper and cedar roofing on the additions. He explained that the petition will infill the arched opening that extends through the house from the front to the back, with French doors and sidelights. He stated that the owner has agreed to recess the enclosure as recommended by staff. He explained that the original intention was to retain as much of the existing front elevation as possible, but noted that at the last meeting, the Commission suggested bricking in the garage door opening rather than retaining a faux garage door. Rob Schwarz, Mariani Landscaping, reviewed a more detailed landscape plan than the plan presented at the last meeting. He noted that the plan shows the double inch for inch replacement trees to account for the trees proposed for removal . He stated that there are 256 inches of new trees proposed on the site and he provided an Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 7 updated site plan with the newly proposed patio. He reviewed the proposed hardscape areas which will result in an additional 1,062 square feet of impervious surface on the site. He reviewed the revised driveway configuration and noted that he met with the City Arborist on numerous occasions in an effort to explore opportunities for saving trees on the site. He reviewed the trees proposed for removal and explained that it is the petitioner’s intention to plant sufficient vegetation to provide dense screening for the neighbors to the east. He reviewed the trees on the site that are proposed for removal and pointed out those in poor condition. He stated that the proposed screening along the east side of the property consist of12 foot spruce trees and 10 foot arborvitaes. He noted that the existing oak trees do not provide privacy at a lower level, so privacy will be enhanced with the proposed plantings. Ms. McManus noted that the petition was continued from the April meeting and that staff became aware of an additional component of the petition that was not called out at the previous meeting. She explained that the existing arched void between the garage and house is proposed to be infilled to provide additional living space. She stated that the arched void is a defining feature of the front façade, and noted that the character of the home will change if the void is infilled. She stated that staff recommends that if the Commission supports the infill of the arched void, the infill be set back a sufficient distance from the front façade to give a sense of void. She stated that the proposed loss of the trees on the east side of the property is significant and is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the tree preservation ordinance. She stated that double inch for inch replacement will be required if the removals are supported by the Commission. She noted that the replacement plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist and will noted that some of the replacement tree inches may need to be addressed through a payment in lieu of onsite plantings. She noted that some trees may need to be planted off site. She noted that staff received several letters from neighbors and the Preservation Foundation stating objections to the plan as proposed. She clarified that no basketball court is proposed as was described in several of the letters from neighbors. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Clair confirmed that the owner is amenable to recessing the arched area on the front façade. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Schwarz confirmed that buckthorn was removed from the east property line prior to the presentation to the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Clair suggested that the infill of the arched area on the front façade could be recessed approximately 2 feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Czerniak explained that the plans presented to the Commission previously did not accurately reflect the existing conditions of the house and did not reflect the intention to infill the arched void. She stated that the elevations showed the arched opening as already infilled when in fact; the area is open and provides views to the backyard. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 8 In response to questions from Commission Wheeler, Mr. Clair stated that in response to the Commission, the front garage door is now reflected on the plan as infilled and a window and a planter box are now proposed. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Clair explained that locating a garage behind the house was considered however, it was determined that a detached garage would require the removal of more trees than currently proposed since more driveway area would be required. He stated that an attached garage is preferred by the developer. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak stated that the open archway is a very significant feature of the residence. She recommended that if the void is to be infilled, the enclosure will need to be recessed a distance great enough to evoke the original void and provide depth and shadowing. She questioned whether a two foot recess accomplishes that g oal. She clarified that the condition of approval referred to recessing the infill only from the front elevation, not the rear elevation. She stated that the void is important to the character of the house and noted that it the Commission agrees to allowing the infill, the recessing could be part of that compromise. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Clair stated that the breakfast room roof is octagonal and almost stands alone on the rear elevation. He stated that although the roof line is different than the rest of the house, it is functional and allows the existing windows on the rear elevation to be retained. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Grieve invited public comment. George Covington, attorney representing the owner of 1320 N. Sheridan Road, stated that the parking area and garage are unnecessary noting that many historic homes have a one car garage. He noted that in his opinion, there is plenty of room for a detached garage in the rear yard noting a garage in that location could also screen house from the school to the north. He stated that his clients are also concerned with the garage lighting, potential headlight spillover and the significant loss of trees, including heritage trees. He noted that some of the proposed replacement inches include non-native tree species. He provided photos of the property. Mr. Schwarz interrupted Mr. Covington noting that the trees in the photos provided by Mr. Covington will remain. Mr. Covington continued stating that many of the trees that remain on the site may die within three to five years from the impact of construction of the driveway. He stated that their chance of survival is slim. He provided images of the existing garage noting that it is not as small as the petitioner described. He suggested siting the garage on the north portion of the lot. He reiterated that significant vegetative screening was already removed from the area where the driveway is proposed, prior Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 9 to Commission consideration. He asked that the Commission request alternatives for a detached garage with a narrow driveway along the east side of the lot for review before taking any action. A resident stated that he lives across the private lane from the house in the petition. He noted that the proposed plan makes sense. He stated that the house was constructed in the 1920’s and was for sale for a very long time. He added that the home has curb appeal, but does not have the amenities for today’s living standards. He stated that in his opinion, a one car garage is unacceptable. He stated that adding garages to the side elevation is the most appropriate solution and will appreciate the value of the home. He stated that when he purchased his own property, it was considered a wooded lot, but at least 5 oak trees have come down naturally. He stated that the landscape screening will be improved with the project and stated that the neighbors to the east of the house do not contribute to landscaping on the private lane and are not known to the other neighbors. Shahab Fatheazam, 1320 N. Sheridan Road, stated that he moved to Lake Forest 21 years ago from New York and contrary to the comments of the previous speaker, he knows numerous neighbors on the lane. He stated that the historic nature of the area is what drew him to the neighborhood and noted that his home only has a one car garage. He explained that he considered building a 2 car garage, but decided against it because it would destroy the historic integrity of his home and necessitate tree removal. He noted that he is sensitive to the property owner’s desire to improve the property and make it more livable, but stated that he has significant concerns because the proposed garage faces his property, not the private lane. He also noted that the amount of asphalt is a concern and questioned the impacts of the grading on the remaining trees and on drainage. Laura Gordan, 1286 N. Sheridan Road, stated that her home shares the west property line and is closer than any of the other surrounding homes to 1290 N. Sheridan Road. She stated that she has no objections to petition. She explained that over the 9 years she has lived in her home, 3 large trees have come down on her property. Tom Gleason, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, read a letter from the Foundation encouraging the neighbors to work together to replace the landscape screening that will be lost adding that replacement vegetation should extend to 15 feet height to screen the garage doors and cars from the property to the east. He noted that the Foundation supports consideration of a detached garage which would greatly protect the integrity of home. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve asked for final comments from the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Czerniak noted that a grading plan was not submitted as part of the application but it appears that some re-grading of the site will be required to accommodate the proposed side load garage, driveway Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 10 and garage apron. She added that curbing could be required to direct stormwater away from the neighboring property if necessary. Commissioner Wheeler expressed frustration that there does not appear to be any consensus between neighbors on this project and noted that it is difficult to digest the points of view from the correspondence and testimony. He noted that the proposed loss of oak trees is significant but stated that he also understands that houses are meant to evolve to be more livable. Chairman Grieve invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Zordani stated that the plans were modified to respond to the direction from the Commission and he stated that he will abide by all of the conditions recommended in the staff report. He added that he is open to recessing the infill of the archway on the front elevation and will provide double inch for inch replacement for the trees that are removed. He stated that he has addressed every possible concern and added that there is no reasonable way to construct a detached garage without removing more trees than currently proposed. Chairman Grieve invited comments from the Commission. Commissioner Gayle acknowledged that this petition is difficult and commented that the neighbor concerns have not been addressed since the last meeting. Chairman Grieve noted that the Commission must look at the standards to evaluate the petition. He reviewed the major areas of concern he heard from the Commission including the tree removals and the possible interest in considering an alternative plan that shows a detached garage. He added that issues regarding grading of the site can be addressed as a condition of approval. Commissioner Wheeler noted that the existing residence has a variety of roof forms and as a result, a hip roof is not out of character for the house. He expressed concerns regarding the octagonal roof, but acknowledged that it may be more functional for the proposed use of the space. He stated that the proposed additions will not impact the streetscape a great deal and stated that the issue of screening can likely be solved with appropriate landscaping. He stated that the demolition criteria are met for the partial demolition but noted that Standard 13 is not satisfied due to the significant loss of trees. Commissioner Alfe stated that it does not seem possible to add a detached garage and driveway without removing the same number of trees as proposed with the current plan. He added that double inch for inch replacement of the trees that will be lost will help restore the vegetation that is lost and replace the screening. Commissioner Sperry stated that the property suffers from functional obsolescence, and based on the comments about the impacts of a detached garage, it appears Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 11 that there is not a viable alternative to the plan proposed. She asked that the petitioner be sensitive to the neighbor to the east regarding sight lines and the provision of dense screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Clair confirmed that the roof material on the garage is copper because of the shallow roof pitch. He stated that zinc coated aluminum is also an option. Chairman Grieve agreed to allow an additional public comment. Shahab Fatheazam, 1320 N. Sheridan Road stated that he does not want any contention with his neighbors and noted that he found out about the petition by accident and was never contacted by the petitioner. Chairman Grieve stated that if the proposed addition was not a garage, it would not be a concern, but because a garage is proposed, it should be designed sensitively minimizing impacts to the neighbor. He stated that the existing arched opening on the front elevation is an important feature of the home but agreed that recessing the infill is an appropriate compromise. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, the Commission concurred that the garage generally meets the design standards. Chairman Grieve noted that the main concerns appear to revolve around the trees. He clarified that the requirement for replacement inches for lost trees should also apply to any trees that are lost over time as a result of the construction project. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak offered that additional conditions that would require any re-grading of the site to be kept to the minimum necessary to appropriate address the drainage. She also noted that a condition could be added requiring a pervious driveway surface and construction in a manner that increases the chances of survivability of the tree. She noted that the replacement inches must be of approved species that will, over time, reestablish the canopy that will be lost. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the tree preservation regulations apply throughout the City. She stated that extra protection is provided for trees over 18 inches in diameter or heritage trees. She acknowledged that at the previous meeting, the Commission encouraged the petitioner to communicate with the neighbors who raised concerns, but that does not appear to have occurred. She offered that the Commission could condition the approval upon staff sharing the landscape plan and tree replacement plan with the neighbor to the east to provide an opportunity for input prior to the final staff review. She stated that the proposed light fixtures on the garage are inconsistent with the lighting guidelines noting that the source of light should be fully shielded and fixtures should be selected to direct light downward to avoid shining on to the neighboring property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 12 Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving alterations and additions to the side and rear of the residence and removal of trees, 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the revisions detailed below. These changes, and any further modifications that are made in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, must be clearly detailed and highlighted on the plans at the time of submission for permit. The submittal must also include 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 arched opening on the front elevation shall be retained and the infill of the opening shall be recessed. 1. 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. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 2. The final grading plan shall be made available to the adjacent neighbors for review prior issuance of a permit. 4. Prior to removal of the non-original additions and prior to any alterations to the original structure or any detail on the original structure, comprehensive photo documentation of the existing residence must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. A plan for monitoring and documenting construction activity in the vicinity of tree number 18 throughout the construction process must be submitted by a Certified Arborist. A final report on the tree, documenting any and all construction impacts and including an opinion on the five-year survivability of the tree shall be included. If safety concerns are raised, the property owner shall be issued a tree removal permit. Double inch for inch replacement in the form of plantings or payment in lieu of onsite plantings shall be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 13 required if the report concludes that the long term vitality of the tree is compromised. 6. A landscape plan detailing how double inch for inch replacement will be achieved through the planting of trees on the site. The plan will be subject to the review and approval by the City Arborist and said review shall include a determination that the proposed locations, species and size at time of planting offer the best chance of replacing a significant tree canopy on the site and in the general area. Trees should be selected that will help to, over time, replace the significant tree canopy that will be lost. Trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless due to the time of year, planting cannot occur in which case a bond shall be posted with the City in the amount of 110% of the cost of the trees and plant materials and labor. a. The final landscape plan shall be made available to the adjacent neighbors for review prior issuance of a permit. b. Consideration shall be given to using a pervious material for the driveway and the driveway shall be designed in a manner that minimizes the impacts to the existing Oak tree identified for preservation. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a payment for any tree inches that cannot be accommodated on the site shall be submitted to the City to fully satisfy the double inch for inch replacement requirement. 8. 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 both on the site and on neighboring properties. The private road must remain passable at all times and no parking is permitted on Sheridan Road. If necessary, workers should be shuttled to the site. 9. 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 Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve the petition with Commissioner Gayle abstaining from the vote. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a partial demolition, replacement addition and alterations to the existing residence located at 245 Vine Avenue. A building scale variance is also requested. Owner: Darren and Susan Weninger Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Ms. Melichar reviewed the changes proposed to the house and provided a chronology of the modifications made to the house in the past. She noted that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 14 original stair and dining area are the only intact spaces. She provided images of the exterior of the home and explained that the home consists of simple buil ding masses that are clad in stucco with a variety of windows sizes and shapes. She noted that the property has a large side yard. She stated that the earlier addition to the rear of the house is problematic and is not consistent in design or sympathetic to the original structure. She reviewed the design deficiencies including the gable end and reverse hip roof. She pointed out that the roof eave line is higher than the rest of home and noted that the aluminum doors are inconsistent with the house. She stated that the footprint of the addition is too narrow to support functional living space and noted that a patchwork of building materials were used. She stated that the goal of the petition is to correct the bizarre roof line and remove the teetering effect resulting from the existing alignment of the first floor. She explained that to correct the design would require a new foundation, new framing, and new first floor exterior walls due to existing conditions. She explained that the 2nd floor would require reinforcement, new walls, and the removal of the roof. She stated that as proposed, the first floor will be rebuilt to match the outline of the 2nd floor footprint, which adds nominal square footage to the home. She stated that the east elevation is the least visible elevation and noted that the side entry will be modified with a decorative pediment. She reviewed the site plan and explained that a portion of the driveway will be removed and replaced with lawn. She stated that the owners are consulting with Susan Benjamin and the project will abide by preservation guidelines in order to take advantage of the tax freeze. Ms. McManus noted that the presentation was very comprehensive and that the petition consists of a request for approval of the demolition of an existing wing, construction of a new wing and a building scale variance. She noted that the existing wing was constructed in 1968 and stated that the demolition criteria appear to be met. She explained that the existing house is over the allowable square footage already and the proposed addition will add 61 square feet. She stated that the building scale variance standards are met. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Melichar explained that the roof pitch was selected in order to keep the allowable square footage down, but agreed that the pitch could be raised. She stated that the foundation wall is concrete and that consideration is being given toing molding the concrete to add character. She confirmed that the foundations will be a uniform color. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Melichar stated that the new roof pitch will have the same flared roof line as the existing house and the eave line will be brought down to match the house. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Melichar stated that the homeowners prefer the aged appearance of the stucco and efforts will be made to match the new stucco to the existing. She acknowledged that some work may need to be done to achieve an acceptable match. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 15 Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public comment. Tom Gleason, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, expressed support for the project on behalf of the Foundation. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Gayle stated that it is commendable that the owners desire to preserve the character of the home and that the additional square footage is very small. Commissioners Wheeler, Alfe and Sperry expressed support for the project. Chairman Grieve agreed with the Commissioners’ comments and noted that it is important that the evolution of the home was considered. He commented that the addition is consistent and will match the elements and materials of the residence. He suggested that consideration be given to removing the fencing along Vine Avenue and adding vegetation to open up the lot. He invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a partial demolition, replacement addition and alterations to the existing residence 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. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If any 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. 2. Prior to removal of the non-original addition, comprehensive photo documentation of the existing residence must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 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. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 16 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. No on street parking is permitted due to the narrowness of the street and proximity to the intersection. 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 motion and the Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the petition. 6. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for additions and alterations to the existing residence at 540 Pine Lane. Owner: Albert Zoller Representative: Vicki Lidstrom, designer Ms. Lidstrom introduced the petition and reviewed the site plan noting that there is a ravine that runs along the property. She stated that a 3 car garage, an addition to the original house, is visible from the street and reviewed images of neighboring properties and the streetscape. She stated that the petition proposes to add a fireplace to the rear elevation as well as a new front entry and side entry. She stated that a gable roof is proposed on the rear elevation. She stated that the home was originally designed by Boyd Hill, a prominent architect. She stated that they propose to add a door and shed roof on the side elevation where the office is located, to provide direct access. She explained that the roof form proposed of the side entrance was dictated by the low ceiling height. She stated that the existing hipped dormers on the front elevation, added in 1998, will be removed and explained that the owner desires an identifiable front entry. She explained that the front entrance will be shifted to the center of the façade and a gable is proposed over the entry. She stated that a pergola is also proposed at the front door. She noted that the windows on the rear elevation were replaced in 1998. She reviewed the original Boyd Hill drawings. She clarified that on the plans provided to the Commission, the entry gable was drawn incorrectly. She also clarified that the feature drawn in front of the front entry is a fountain. Ms. McManus stated that the request consists of front, rear and side façade modifications. She stated that although a building scale workbook was not submitted, the property appears to be well under the allowable square footage. She noted that the home was designed by prominent architect Boyd Hill, but has undergone several alterations over time. She explained that the proposed modifications introduce inconsistent stylistic elements to the existing house and the intention of the petition is in part to change the style of the home. She requested the Commission’s feedback on whether the proposed changes to the home’s character are acceptable or if Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 17 additional information on the integrity and significance of the home is needed. She asked that the Commission consider if the design elements proposed consistently appl y a consistent style to all elevations, true to the chosen style. She stated that the staff report offers options depending on the direction provided by the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Lidstrom clarified that the entry has steel supports and a wood pergola. She stated that the new windows are aluminum clad in a charcoal color and will match the existing mullions. She stated that trapezoidal windows are desired by the client on the east elevation and agreed that the rakeboard on the chimney could be modified. She stated that the shed roof over the side entry was designed to be as simple as possible noting that a hip roof would create a dormer effect and add complexity. Karl Straussburger, builder associated with the project, explained that the eave on the side elevation is 6’8 and any type of coverage over the door will need to be higher than the roof line. He noted that there are other shallow membrane roofs on the house but noted that it is a challenge to cover the entry without breaking the existing eave line. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Lidstrom stated that no samples of the proposed materials are available, but explained that the Eden stone consists of creams and charcoal. She confirmed that Boyd Hill did not incorporate the “Aspen” style into his designs. She stated that this home is not one of Hill’s best designs and adding vertical elements achieves the “Aspen” feel desired by the client. She explained that the Eden stone is not visually heavy and will add softness to the home. Commissioner Gayle agreed with Commissioner Sperry’s concerns and noted that the existing home has great simplicity and the proposed Aspen elements are inconsistent with the style. She suggested that creating openness and a more identifiable entry can be done in a way that retains the simple character of the front elevation. She stated that the design is more complicated with the addition of the stone on the columns. She stated that her main area of concern is the front façade. In response to comments by Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Lidstrom stated that consideration can be given to removing the stone from the columns. She noted that the existing columns currently have a brick base. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the stone and gables are jarring and suggested using the simple vocabulary found on the existing home. He stated that the proposed design does not appear to be fully developed yet. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Lidstrom explained that the entry gable is open. Chairman Grieve summarized the Commission’s comments noting that the design should be simplified. He stated that the existing structure has clean simple lines and is Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 18 modular. He explained that adding angles to a modular home is jarring, but also acknowledged that it is the owner’s desire to change the character of the home. Mr. Zoller stated that he wants to update the design of the home and not strictly adhere to the Hill design. He noted that he likes the idea of simplicity and that he is open to reconsidering the use of stone. Ms. Czerniak noted that it appears that the center entry may be generally acceptable to the Commission and suggested that clear, accurate and detailed plans will be helpful to the Commission. She stated that the City’s design guidelines speak to adhering to 2 exterior materials which could help to simplify the design. Chairman Grieve invited public comment. Tom Gleason, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the Foundation supports staff’s comments. He noted that the home is identified as a Contributing Structure to the District and pointed out that a tax freeze may be an option the owner may want to explore. He stated that as proposed, the roof pitches do not match and disrupt the harmony of the site. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission. He reviewed the options offered in the staff report and noted that a continuation does not necessarily mean that the design needs to change significantly, but that more information, simplification and refinement is needed. Commissioner Sperry suggested that, in order to better understand the materials, a continuation is appropriate. She asked that the petitioner simplify the design and reconsider the roof pitches. Commissioner Alfe asked that the petitioner review the staff report closely and address the comments and concerns raised. Commissioner Wheeler supported reconsideration of the roof pitches and noted that the house is strong example of the simplicity of mid-century design. He stated that he is supportive of moving the entry to the center and asked that brick be considered in place of stone. Commissioner Gayle stated that staff raised a number of questions regarding the design and she noted specifically that S tandard 17 is not met. She acknowledged that homes should evolve, but suggested that the changes be more aligned with the existing style. Chairman Grieve stated that he is supportive of moving the entry and the removal of the dormers. He asked for clearer details and refinement of the proposed materials and entry details, and reconsideration of the roof pitches. He requested to see samples of the Eden stone. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 25, 2016 - Page 19 Commissioner Gayle requested simplification of the design and asked that brick be considered in place of stone. In response to a question from Ms. Lidstrom, Chairman Grieve explained that the most expeditious route is to bring the petition back to the Commission with plans that respond to the comments. He added that well detailed plans will also help to speed the review process. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioners to refine and simplify the design and provide further detail to address the areas of concern identified by the Commission. Commissioner Sperry seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 - 0 to continue the petition. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 8. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner