The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the July 24, 2013 Meeting

Transcription

1 The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the July 24, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Acting Chairman William Ransom and Commissioners Jim Preschlack, John Travers, Robert Alfe and Mary Ellen Swenson Commissioners absent: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, and Commissioner Susan Rafferty Athenson City staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures Acting Chairman Ransom Acting Chairman Ransom 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 March 20, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting of March 20, 2013 were approved as submitted. Variance Requested 3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and alterations to the residence at 365 E. Westleigh Road. A building scale variance is requested. Owner: Surin Kapoor Representative: Charles Bennett Jr., architect Acting Chairman Ransom asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner s representative. Mr. Bennett introduced the petition noting that this matter was previously before the Commission at the May meeting. He noted that this house is part of a compound built for the Clows in the 1930 s. He noted that Stanley Anderson designed the three structures; the main house, the children s house and a house for the domestic help. He stated that because of the two houses, the property is known as Twin Doors. He stated the petitioners intent to restore and preserve all three structures while making them livable for today. He noted that at the May meeting, the alterations proposed to the children s house were approved by the Commission. He stated that the Commission identified three areas for further study on the main house. He noted that in

2 July 24, Page 2 response to comments from the Commission at the last meeting, the petitioners focused on the three elements and revised the plans. He noted that since the last meeting, he consulted with Paul Bergmann, the holder of Stanley Anderson s working drawings and received favorable comments from Mr. Bergmann on the proposed work. He reviewed the revisions made since the last meeting in detail focusing on the proposed enclosure of the porch, the windows in the kitchen and the west facing dormers. He noted that as study of those elements occurred, some other refinements were also determined to be appropriate and consistent with the previous comments of the Commission. He discussed the proposed porch enclosure and reviewed the floor plan and current photographs of the porch as it exists today. He noted that from the street views, the porch is not visible. He reviewed the previous proposal for enclosing the porch noting that the window above the existing garage doors was copied as a means to enclose the porch. He stated that after further study, inspiration for enclosing the porch was drawn from the Stanley Anderson drawings which illustrated a storm sash intended for use to enclose the openings on a seasonal basis. He stated that details of that drawing were incorporated into the design now proposed. He compared the elevation now proposed to the original Stanley Anderson drawings. He noted that all four openings will take on the aspects of the French door sashes. He stated that the proposed changes to the kitchen windows were revisited and as background, reviewed the floor plan and provided photos of the existing conditions. He reviewed the changes proposed for this area at the last meeting and reviewed the window configuration now proposed. He stated that the intent is to bring more light into the kitchen and open up views to back yard. He stated that two additional windows are proposed, between the two existing windows, to achieve the owners goals. He reviewed the west facing dormer noting that it was not original to the house and does not add to the house in its present configuration. He noted that at the last meeting elimination of the picture window was proposed with the other windows remaining. He noted that in response to the Commission s comments, the scale of the picture window is now changed and two double hung windows, with shutters are proposed. He stated that the plan presents an improvement in scale over what was previously presented. He reviewed the other aspects of the project that were refined since the last meeting. He discussed the porch noting that storm sash doors are now proposed instead of framed windows commenting that this helps to tie various elements of the house together. He stated that the doors into the kitchen will be French doors to match those that will be installed on the porch. He pointed out that the doors will be a unifying element. He reviewed the east elevation again pointing out the doors that will wrap the screen porch with be consistent with the other doors. He noted that he spoke with Paul Bergmann, the keeper of Stanley Anderson s plans, and reviewed a letter received from him in general support of the project. He reviewed the landscape plan which was presented at the last meeting noting that the existing gate off of Westleigh Road will be retained and that bollards will be added adjacent to the driveway off of Green Bay Road and will be set back from the parkway. Ms. Neuman noted that this property is not in the Historic District but was designated as a Local Landmark in 2003 as part of the process of subdividing the property. She stated

3 July 24, Page 3 that over the years, several modifications of the original Stanley Anderson design occurred. She noted that this project proposes some further modifications, improvements to some of the earlier modifications and overall modernization of the house to meet the needs of the new owner. She reminded the Commission that at the last meeting the modifications proposed to the east house, a companion to this house, were approved by the Commission. She stated that the Commission asked for further study on various elements of the west house as reviewed by Mr. Bennett. She stated that overall, the additional time and attention given to the detailing since the previous meeting has resulted in a better project. She noted that the architect looked to some of the original Stanley Anderson elements to guide the changes now proposed. She added that a building scale variance is requested as part of this project. Acting Chairman Ransom stated his appreciation to the petitioner for being responsive to the comments of the Commission at the last meeting. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Ransom, Mr. Bennett confirmed that he obtained the original Stanley Anderson plans for the houses on this property from Mr. Bergmann, studied them, and incorporated elements from the plans into the changes desired by the new property owner. He described the changes proposed to the porch noting that the existing wall is thick and the doors will be inset to preserve the appearance of solids and voids. He confirmed that the railings will remain and will be restored. He stated that the porch-like appearance will be retained. He reviewed the existing shed dormer and explained that double hung windows are proposed noting that they will be large enough to meet the light and vent requirements of the Code. He confirmed that the gates at the driveway off of Westleigh Road will remain and will be restored. Hearing no questions from the Commission, Acting Chairman Ransom invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner. On behalf of the property owner, Mr. Bennett thanked the Commission for the earlier comments and stated that as a result of further study and refinement, the project has improved over what was first presented. Acting Chairman Ransom acknowledged that the petitioner was been very responsive to the direction offered by the Commission at the last meeting. He stated support for the proposed solution of using storm doors to enclose the porch. He commented that this project is a good example that the process works noting that an historically appropriate solution was found to meet the new owner s needs. He asked for final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Travers noted that the Commission received a letter from the Preservation Foundation stating support for the project as redesigned. He noted the importance of focusing on the detail of the placement of the doors relative to the porch pillars and stated that based on the materials presented, this issue seems to be

4 July 24, Page 4 addressed appropriately. He stated that he was particularly interested in the proposed relocation for the gate at the driveway and stated that he supports the solution as now proposed which retains the gate. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Acting Chairman Ransom invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations and a building scale overage not to exceed 29.5%. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and noted that the Commission s deliberations and public testimony are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is based on the following conditions of approval. 1. The 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. 2. Any modifications to the plan, consistent with the direction of the Commission, must be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the Commission s direction and discussion prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was approved by a vote of 5 to Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a replacement accessory structure at 10 N. Ahwahnee Road. Owners and Representatives: Dennis and Mary O Brien Acting Chairman Ransom asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. O Brien introduced the project and requested approval to replace the existing garage noting that it is deteriorating and recently, a tree fell on it increasing the urgency of removing the garage. He stated that his family has lived in the house for 10 years and noted that it was constructed in 1927 and is an English Tudor style. He explained that since moving into the house he has worked hard to maintain the historic integrity of the property. He provided photos of the property pointing out that the garage is hidden behind the house and hidden from the public street. He stated that the garage must be replaced and cannot be repaired. He noted that earlier in the month he received a recommendation in support of the project from the Zoning Board of Appeals allowing a new garage to be sited close to the location of the existing garage. He noted that the new garage, like the existing garage, will be visible only

5 July 24, Page 5 from the property to the north and from cars using the driveway to access the parcels to the west. He stated that the existing garage is sided with brown clapboard and explained that the new garage will be constructed of similar materials and will have 8 wood clapboard siding. He stated that the garage door will be wood. He noted that the roof pitch of the new garage differs from the existing garage to allow the roofline of the garage to be lower in deference to the neighbor. He concluded stating his intention is to replace the garage generally to replicate the existing garage except for the roof pitch, overall height and the fact that the new garage will have a foundation and be constructed consistent with current building codes, unlike the existing garage. He asked for Commission approval of the petition. Ms. Neuman clarified that the request before the Commission does not include a request for a variance and explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals previously considered and recommended approval of a variance from zoning setback requirements. She stated that the petition is before the Commission for consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing garage and approval of the design, siting and materials of the new garage. She reiterated that the proposed garage is generally in the same location as the existing garage and that an adjustment to the roof pitch is proposed to lower the overall height of the garage recognizing its proximity to the property line. She stated that the owner desires to have the new garage tucked into the woods similar to the existing garage. She confirmed that the existing garage needs to be replaced. She noted that it is not an historic structure and noted that the standards for demolition are satisfied. She briefly reviewed the proposed garage noting that it is utilitarian in nature and is a simple form. She stated that staff recommends approval of the petition. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. O Brien confirmed that the existing garage is not being duplicated exactly noting that the overall height of the garage is being reduced in recognition that it is located just five feet from the property line and in deference to the neighbor to the north. He acknowledged that the neighbor has not made a request for the height reduction. Commissioner Swenson observed that in her opinion, the change in the roof pitch weakens the design of the structure. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the variance based on the design of the new garage with a lower roof. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. O Brien explained that the current location of the garage is the only workable location for a garage on the property and as a result, a zoning variance is required. He noted that the detached garage must be a minimum distance of 10 feet from the house. He noted that locating a garage on the east side of the house would require the removal of significant trees and would impact the public streetscape.

6 July 24, Page 6 In response to questions from Acting Chairman Ransom, Ms. Neuman briefly reviewed the criteria used by the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a request for a zoning variance. She explained that consistent with those criteria, the Board supported a lower roof pitch and the siting of the garage in a manner that slightly reduced the amount of encroachment into the required setbacks. She stated that the proposed garage will be less non-conforming than the existing condition. She reviewed the alternative locations for the garage that were considered as part of this project. She noted that alternative locations are limited due to a significant grade change on the site, significant trees and the fact that at other locations, the garage would be more visible including from the public streetscape. Commissioner Travers noted that the roof pitch, which is an aspect of the design and under the purview of the Commission, is linked to the location of the garage within the setback area. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Mr. O Brien explained that moving the garage to the south would block views from the windows located on the west elevation of the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. O Brien stated that an attached garage was not considered. He noted that an attached garage would impact the integrity of the house, would not work well given the existing location of the kitchen and breakfast room and is not desired. He stated that he does not anticipate requesting approval for a connection between the house and garage in the future. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Ransom, Mr. O Brien confirmed that the shed will not be reconstructed and that only a new 20 x 24 garage will be constructed. He confirmed that the footprint of the new structure will be smaller and further away from the property line than the existing structure. He confirmed that the siding will be cedar clapboard and that asphalt shingles will be used for the roof. He stated that the roof will be 5 feet lower than the roof of the existing garage. He stated that one light will be located over the garage door and one over the man door and both will be at lower heights than the lights on the existing garage. He stated that a light fixture has not yet been selected. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Ransom, Ms. Neuman stated that the fixture will be reviewed by staff to confirm that the source of the light is shielded from views from off of the site. Acting Chairman Ransom invited public comment. Hearing none, he commented that as noted by Commissioner Swenson, if the pitch of the garage roof matched the house, the two elements may be better tied together. He noted however that when he visited the site, he was overwhelmed by the height and brown-ness of the existing garage. He stated that in his opinion, today, the garage appears out of place and not related to

7 July 24, Page 7 the house. Commissioner Preschlack stated agreement with Acting Chairman Ransom s observations. He stated that he is comfortable that the Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a full review and considered the appropriateness of the location of the garage. He stated that he understands the reasons for reducing the pitch of the garage roof, but could also support an alternative solution. He stated that he can support the project as presented. Commissioner Swenson commented that the proposed garage does not add to the house. She suggested matching the pitch of the roof of the new garage to the existing garage noting that the new garage could be charming and seen as a logical extension of the house. She stated that this approach would be preferable to simply constructing a typical garage. Commissioner Travers suggested that there might be solutions that would not result in an encroachment into the zoning setbacks and might at the same time further the purpose of the preservation ordinance. Acting Chairman Ransom explained that he previously served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and that the Board considers zoning variance requests using specific criteria that differ from those used by the Historic Preservation Commission. He questioned how moving the garage from the location proposed would enhance the historic context of the property. Commissioner Travers responded noting that the reduction in the roof height is directly related to the location of the garage close to the property lines. He stated that for that reason, the siting of the garage is appropriate for Commission consideration. Commissioner Alfe observed that the Zoning Board of Appeals likely considered the reduced height of the roof as justification, at least in part, for supporting a zoning variance. He noted that the zoning variance might not be approved if a taller roof is proposed. Commissioner Preschlack stated support for the petition as presented and made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a replacement garage as presented. He noted that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and that the testimony and the Commission s discussion are incorporated as additional findings. He added that the motion includes the following conditions of approval. 1. 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.

8 July 24, Page 8 2. Any modifications to the plan, consistent with the direction of the Commission, shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the Commission s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alfe and it was approved in a vote of 3 to 2 with Commissioner Travers and Swenson voting nay. Residential Petition No Variances Requested 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a second story addition to the residence at 390 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: Patrick and Joanna Marshall Representative: Thomas (Ted) Echkardt, architect Acting Chairman Ransom asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the project representative. Mr. Echkardt introduced the petition stating that the owners recently purchased this Stanley Anderson house. He stated that the property is almost 2 acres in size and noted that the house is tucked into the corner of the lot. He presented photos of the house. He stated that no changes are proposed to the existing courtyard entrance. He noted that the rear elevation is not original to the home and is not visible from off of the site. He noted that currently, the house could be classified as a two bedroom home explaining that a portion of the house was a servants wing and as a result, has low ceilings and narrow hallways. He stated that the kitchen is in the servants wing and is unadorned. He explained that the new owner needs full size bedrooms and a modern kitchen. He explained that at the start of the project, a substantial addition was planned but as further study was done, it was determined that the house actually has plenty of space. He stated that instead, a plan was developed that preserves the footprint of the house and reassigns existing spaces to new uses with only a modest addition proposed. He stated that the proposed alterations preserve as much of the original house as possible and noted that the second floor addition repeats the geometry and vocabulary of the original house. He noted the changes proposed to the porches which were added to the house in the 1950 s reviewing elevations and pointing out that the changes are more consistent with the original house than what exists today. He reviewed the location and floor plan of the proposed addition. He reviewed the locations of the dormers and noted that in response to staff s comments, the elevations were revised. He noted that all of the staff comments were addressed except for alignment of the dormers noting that alignment is not workable. He pointed out that the elevation on which the dormers are not aligned is not visible from off of the property. He reviewed the other elevations noting that the windows are box framed to match the doors and take cues from the bay window. He presented a rendering of the proposed second floor space and requested approval of the project. Ms. Neuman confirmed that the proposed project does not result in an increase or

9 July 24, Page 9 change to the footprint of the house and instead adds second floor space over an existing flat roof area. She reviewed that modifications are proposed in several areas to existing windows and doors. She noted that the staff report offers comments on the proposed proportions of the windows and the lack of alignment of some of the elements particularly on the south elevation. She stated that consistency with the proportions and details of the original, well-proportioned house is important in order for this project to be as successful as the original house. She asked for Commission discussion and input on those items. She noted that taking into account the comments regarding proportion, alignment and detailing, the staff report presents findings in support of a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to various conditions. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Echkardt reviewed the rear elevation pointing out that the previous additions were not well-proportioned. He noted that the large aluminum windows will be replaced and the openings reconfigured using a stucco finish. He stated that the areas of change will match the colors of the original house. He noted that the proposed changes mimic the rhythm of the windows in the library. He commented on the consistency of various elements on the house. He explained that the interior floor plan is driving the location of the windows and reviewed key elements of the floor plan. He stated that in this case, there is justification for the misalignment. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Echkardt explained the reasoning for the placement of doors and windows in in the family and dining rooms, or lack thereof, explaining that decisions were driven by circulation patterns. Ms. Marshall added that furniture placement was also considered. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Echkardt confirmed that the original Stanley Anderson design was used to inform the work now proposed. He acknowledged that the staff comments led to further refinement of the plan and greater consistency with the original house. He stated that the owners are committed to removing the inappropriate aluminum sliding doors. He stated that the revised plans satisfy the Code criteria. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Echkardt agreed that the panels under the new windows could be stretched to match the height of the window bays and French doors. Acting Chairman Ransom agreed that the change to the panels would be helpful in bringing greater consistency to the elevation. He stated concern about the placement of the windows on the south elevation noting that the house has a formal rhythm until that corner. He questioned whether some modifications could be made to the interior floor plan to improve upon the window placement. Mr. Echkardt stated that the laundry room and kitchen are located in this area and

10 July 24, Page 10 explained that an alternative interior floor plan was not developed to address window placement or to allow the existing windows to remain in place. Mr. Marshall explained that today, the area of the house under discussion has a very utilitarian feel. He explained the reasons for the floor plan as proposed noting the need for an additional powder room in this family space. Mr. Echkardt reviewed the placement of the existing windows and explained why the current placement cannot be maintained. He explained that the kitchen today is narrow and will be expanded by moving a wall. He pointed out the change of the ceiling height which further limits the options in this area. Acting Chairman Ransom stated that he is concerned about approving a project that is not consistent with the rhythm of the existing house without fully exploring alternatives. In response to questions from Commission Preschlack, Mr. Echkardt stated that he obtained the original drawings of the house from Paul Bergmann but stated that he did not discuss the project with Mr. Bergmann. He stated that the windows on the house as they exist today are not completely in line with the original drawings. He noted some areas on the Stanley Anderson plans where windows are missing or not completely aligned. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Acting Chairman Ransom invited public comment, hearing none; he commented that the box paneling is an appropriate detail and noted that with Commissioner Alfe s suggestion to align the boxes with other details, the element will be an appropriate addition to the house. He stated continued concern about the lack of alignment in the areas discussed noting that it does not appear that alternatives were fully considered. He invited final comments from the Commission. Mr. Echkardt noted that many alternatives were studied. Commissioner Preschlack noted that the Commission is directed to focus on the external consistency of a design. He acknowledged that the alternative that best meets the owners interior needs is presented. He stated that the Commission is charged with balancing preservation of historic character and the needs of the family. He acknowledged that the Commission has a difficult role in deciding how much freedom to give to allow a particular rule to be violated to foster an outcome desired by the petitioner. He encouraged the Commission to offer some flexibility and to consider the petition in the spirit in which it is brought forward. He stated that he is reluctant to hold up the position due to three windows that are misaligned and stated that he is willing to compromise and support the petition. Commissioner Swenson noted that the area of misalignment is not a dominate elevation and not visible from the public street. She acknowledged that the project

11 July 24, Page 11 results in some irregularity, but stated that overall; the project is a significant improvement to the house. She stated support for the project. Commissioner Alfe acknowledged that it is difficult to achieve every goal in a project and stated that the south elevation is not what it could be. He stated however that he is willing to accept the elevation as proposed to address the functionality needs of the petitioner. He requested a condition of approval requiring that the sill line be adjusted and panels aligned in all areas where that element is proposed. Commissioner Travers noted that the Commission received a letter from the Preservation Foundation noting concern about the irregularity of the placement of the windows. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Acting Chairman Ransom invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the construction of a second floor addition and various alterations to the existing house. He noted that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and stated that the testimony presented to the Commission and the Commission s discussion are incorporated as additional findings. He noted that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. 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. 2. Modify the plans consistent with the direction of the Commission and as detailed below. Submit the revised plans for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the Commission s direction. The confirmation should occur prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. Modify the plans to align the window sills and the panel under the windows to match the panels under the existing windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and was approved in a 4 to 1 vote with Acting Chairman Ransom voting nay. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 7. Additional information from staff.

12 July 24, Page 12 There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development