Quantcast

Lake County Gazette

Thursday, March 28, 2024

City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission met October 23

Shutterstock 314838419

City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission met Oct. 23.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.

Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Bruce Grieve and Commissioners Carol Gayle, Jan Gibson, Steve Lamontagne, Bill Redfield, Elizabeth Sperry and Wells Wheeler.

Commissioners absent: None

City staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development, Jennifer Baehr, Assistant Planner

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. Consideration of the minutes of the September 25, 2019 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.

The minutes of the September 25, 2019 were approved as presented.

3. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing construction of a detached garage and additions and exterior alterations to the residence at 410 Washington Road.

Property Owner: Alling C. Brown Trust

(Bank of America & Thoms E. Quinlan Successor, Co-Trustees) Contract Purchaser & Representative: Michael Hrusovsky

Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petition.

Mr. Hrusovsky gave an overview of the history of the property and subdivision. He stated that the home at 410 Washington Road was built in the 1930’s. He noted that the style of the home was influenced by Georgian architecture as well as Arts and Crafts style architecture. He explained that the scope of work proposed includes; an expansion of the existing mudroom on the west side of the residence, new French doors on the basement level and on the west elevation, two new dormers on the west elevation, relocation of windows, and replacing the existing aluminum windows on the sunroom with screens. He added that a two car detached garage is also proposed. He explained that the location of the garage was slightly shifted to the west since the previous submittal in an effort to try to preserve the maple tree located adjacent to the existing driveway. He explained that during the previous meeting, the Commission raised some concerns about the massing and style of the garage. He stated that the design of the garage was revised to more closely relate to the style of the home by incorporating a brick exterior, a hipped roof form and corbel detailing below the fascia. He stated that two different designs for the garage are presented for Commission input. He explained that “Alternate A” presents a taller roof form and a shed dormer on the rear to provide storage space above the garage, while “Alternate B” has a lower roof form without a dormer. He stated that the garage windows will have true or simulated divided lites. He noted that the roof material on the larger garage mass is asphalt shingle and the smaller garage mass, a metal standing seam roof. He stated that timber lintels are introduced on the garage to incorporate details found on the front porch of the house. He noted that a timber pergola may be added between the garage and the house.

Ms. Baehr stated that the petition was first presented to the Commission in June, and at that time the Commission offered general support for the proposed alterations to the existing residence. She added that at that meeting the Commission discussed the style of the proposed garage and its height and scale in relation to the existing residence. She noted that overall, the Commission indicated that the design of the garage was inconsistent with style of the house and visually, the height and mass of the garage overpowered the house. She explained that the proposed revised designs for the garage appear to address some of the previous concerns raised by the Commission and staff. She stated that of the designs presented, “Alternate B” is the most compatible with the existing residence. She noted that the design for “Alternate A” presents a tall roof form that appears out of scale with the residence. She added that staff recommends “Alternate B”. She explained that the garage roof is comprised of two different roof forms, with different pitches, which presents an awkward appearance. She stated that a portion of the garage is proposed to have a standing seam metal roof and appears inconsistent with the style of the garage. She stated that the use of shutters on the man door on the south elevation of the garage appears extraneous adding that the shutters are not proportionate to the size of the opening. She suggested that the shutters are eliminated to simplify the appearance of the garage.

In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that he is comfortable moving forward with the “Alternate B” design for the garage.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the larger garage mass has a 12:12 roof pitch to match the roof pitch on the residence. He stated that the smaller garage mass has a more shallow pitch. He noted that water moves throughout the site well.

In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the materials for the new dormers have not yet been selected. He stated that the existing dormers are covered in asphalt shingle. He explained that the new dormers may match the materials of the existing dormers or a more appropriate material, such as cedar shake, could be used for all of the dormers. He stated that he is open to reworking the roof forms on the garage.

Commissioner Wheeler suggested a low-slope hipped roof for the smaller garage mass. He added that the garage detailing should be simple.

Commissioner Gayle commended the petitioner on preserving the maple tree adjacent to the driveway. She observed that the pitch of the roof on the expanded mudroom is more shallow than any of the other roofs found on the house.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the railing on the front balcony is iron.

In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that many of the existing elements of the home are original. He explained that because there is the potential to participate in the Illinois Property Tax Assessment Freeze, alterations to the house are limited and are in keeping with the original design.

Commissioner Lamontagne stated that the timber lintels on the garage do not appear to follow the style of the existing home. He suggested incorporating elements from the home such as the brick arches above the openings on the garage.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that he is open to eliminating the shutters on the doors on the garage and the existing house.

Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Gibson stated that the “Alternate B” garage design is more appropriate for the style of the house. She added that the metal standing seam roof on the garage is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She suggested modification of the French door on the basement level.

Commissioner Sperry agreed with other Commissioners that the architectural detailing on the garage should be simple. She expressed concern about the floor to ceiling windows of the French door located on the basement level. She suggested the door contain some solid surface to withstand any snow or moisture in that area.

Commissioner Wheeler stated that the revisions made since the previous submittal are an improvement. He agreed with other Commissioners that that the metal roof on the smaller mass of the garage is inappropriate. He suggested a hip style roof for the garage.

Commissioner Gayle commended the petitioner for reworking the design of the garage. She expressed concern about the slope of the driveway toward the French door on the basement level and the potential for water issues.

In response to questions from Commissioner Redfield, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that the roof on the smaller mass of the garage could be asphalt shingle, rather than metal.

In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that if acceptable to the Commission, simulated divided lite windows, rather than true divided lite windows, will be used for the garage. He added that he will be preserving and relocating existing windows where possible.

Chairman Grieve commended the petitioner on the revisions made. He added that because the garage is subservient to the main house, it could be simplified further. He stated that the Commission offered some direction for refinement that can be considered as the project progresses.

Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion.

Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a detached garage and additions and exterior alterations to the residence at 410 Washington Road. He noted that the approval is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and is subject to the following conditions.

1. The “Alternate B” garage design shall be used.

2. The plans submitted for permit must reflect the materials and detailing of the dormer additions.

3. The height and details of the fascia on the mudroom shall be modified to match the other single story elements on the house.

4. The roof pitch of the mudroom shall be modified in order to be more consistent with the existing residence.

5. The pitch of the garage roofs shall align with one another.

6. All shutters shall be sized to fit the windows.

7. The shutters on the garage pedestrian door shall be eliminated.

8. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the changes detailed above. If any additional modifications are made to the plans, in response to Commission direction 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. The plans 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.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees and vegetation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.

10.A final landscape plan shall be submitted prior to the rough framing inspection and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. If the City Arborist determines that the maple tree is negatively impacted by construction activity, trees shall be reflected on the landscape plan to provide for the required replacement inches as determined by the City.

11.Details of exterior lighting shall be reflected on the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets of all light fixtures should be provided and all fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be shielded from view from off the property. All exterior lights must be set on timers to turn off no later than 11 p.m. except for lights with motion detector sensors.

12.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, neighboring properties and existing trees during construction. Documentation of an agreement with affected property owners around use of and repairs to the private, shared driveway shall be filed with the City.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gibson and approved by a vote of 7 to 0.

4. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing construction of a detached two-car garage and additions and exterior alterations to the residence at 420 Washington Road.

Property Owner: Alling C. Brown Trust

(Bank of America & Thoms E. Quinlan Successor, Co-Trustees)

Contract Purchaser & Representative: Michael Hrusovsky

Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.

Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the house at 420 Washington Road is visually similar to the houses at 430 and 460 Washington Road. He stated that the style of the house is relatively traditional with some Arts and Crafts influences. He noted that a shallow ravine is located on the south side of the property. He added that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting a variance to allow construction of the detached garage. He explained that the existing house is nonconforming with respect to setbacks because it is not centrally located on the lot. He stated that the location of the garage as proposed at the earlier meeting would require removal of a large Linden tree in the southwest corner of the site. He explained that since the previous submittal, the location of the garage was shifted north and east to preserve the tree. He stated that based on the Commission’s discussion at the previous meeting, the design of the garage was simplified and the scale reduced in order to be subordinate to the residence. He added that the proposed materials and detailing of the garage match the existing residence. He explained that the garage is comprised of a larger mass with a gable roof, and a smaller mass with a low-pitch hip roof. He stated that an additional gable roof form on the rear elevation of the garage is proposed to provide storage space above the garage. He stated that a one-story mudroom addition is proposed on the west side of the residence. He added that a shed dormer and expansion of the projecting two-story mass on the rear elevation is also proposed. He noted that other various alterations to the house such as relocating windows and a French door to replace the existing garage door on the east elevation are proposed. He stated that he is exploring the possibility of buildings a pergola in the ravine.

Ms. Baehr explained that at the previous meeting, the main concerns raised by the Commission were focused on the architectural style and scale of the proposed garage. She stated that the design of the garage was revised to be more consistent with the architectural style of the house and the height of the garage has been lowered to be subordinate to the existing residence. She noted that the current design of the garage is a combination of gable and hip roofs. She added that the hip roof seems inconsistent with the existing roof forms found on the residence and the shallow pitch appears awkward as it relates to the gable roof on the main mass of the garage. She stated that a standing seam metal roof is proposed for the smaller mass of the garage. She added that an asphalt shingle roof would be more appropriate for the entire garage roof.

In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that a roof element at the front door could be incorporated to provide some protection from the elements. He stated that the smaller mass of the garage features a French door to allow storage on the first floor.

Commissioner Lamontagne suggested using another carriage door for the smaller mass for functionality.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that he is open to making refinements to the design of the garage. He stated that a gable roof on the smaller mass of the garage could be explored in place of the low-pitch hip roof.

Commissioner Gayle stated that the metal standing seam roof on the smaller mass of the garage should be eliminated and asphalt shingle used.

Commissioner Wheeler stated that the gable roof form on the south side of the garage appears awkward. He stated that consideration of an alternative solution to provide storage above the garage should be explored. He stated that the hip roof on the garage should be modified. He agreed that the metal standing seam roof be eliminated.

In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that the relocated window on the east elevation could be centered to align with the door below.

Commissioner Sperry expressed concern that the garage visually competes with the existing residence. She suggested that the carriage style garage doors be simplified and agreed with other Commissioners that the hip style roof on the smaller mass of the garage needs refinement.

Commissioner Gibson stated that the gable and hip roofs on the garage together appear awkward. She commended the petitioner on relocating the garage in order to preserve the Linden tree.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the proposed shed dormer on the rear elevation will have a very low pitch and a rubber membrane roofing material will be used.

Chairman Grieve stated that the large expanse of windows on the rear elevation appears overbearing. He suggested that the window pattern be revised to incorporate more solid areas.

Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Gibson stated that the garage design needs some refinement.

Commissioner Sperry agreed that the expanse of windows on the rear elevation should be reduced. She suggested simplifying the detailing of the garage and considering a flat roof on the smaller mass of the garage.

In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Czerniak offered that based on the direction from the Commission, staff is willing to review the requested refinements at the staff level, in consultation with the Chairman.

Commissioner Gayle stated that the design of the existing residence should serve as the guide for the design of the garage.

Commissioner Lamontagne stated that he is uncertain whether a flat roof, on the smaller mass of the garage, is the right solution. He requested that revised plans for the garage be brought back to the Commission for review. He stated that the door on the smaller mass of the garage should be simplified and match the style of the doors on the existing residence.

Chairman Grieve stated that the proposed alterations and additions to the existing residence are in keeping with the character of the home. He stated that the design of the garage appears busy with many different elements proposed. He suggested that since some alternative roof forms were suggested by the Commission for further study, further Commission review may be warranted.

Ms. Czerniak noted that since this petition has been before the Commission several times, the Commission could direct that staff to circulate the revised plans to the Commission electronically.

Commissioner Sperry stated that she is comfortable with staff review of the refinements with the Chairman.

Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion.

Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving construction of a detached garage subject to refinements as requested by the Commission and approval of additions and exterior alterations to the residence at 420 Washington Road. He noted that the approval is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and is subject to the following conditions.

1. The roof form and pitch of the smaller mass of the garage shall be refined to be more consistent with design of the garage and existing residence.

2. An asphalt shingle roof shall be used on the smaller mass of the garage to match the garage gable roof and the roof of the existing residence if the pitch of the roof allows.

3. Detailed and accurate plans shall be submitted for permit. The plans must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with the modifications outlined above. If any further modifications are proposed either in response to Commission direction 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.

4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees and vegetation on and around the site during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.

5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted prior to the rough framing inspection. The plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. If the Linden tree is determined to be negatively impacted by the construction, the landscape plan shall be modified to reflect trees that will be planted on the site to replace the tree inches lost.

6. Details of all exterior lighting shall be reflected on the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets of all light fixtures must be provided and all fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be shielded from view from off the property. Lights shall be set on a timer to turn off no later than 11 p.m. except for lights with motion detector sensors.

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 in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood, neighboring properties and existing trees during construction. Documentation of an agreement with affected property owners around use of and repairs to the private, shared driveway shall be provided to the City.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gibson and approved by a vote of 7 to 0.

5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new single family residence with an attached garage on a vacant lot at 1274 N. Sheridan Road. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested.

Property Owner: Bill & Lucy Bickford Representative: Nate Lielasus

Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Part contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.

Mr. Lielasus introduced the project on behalf of the property owners. He explained that the property was subdivided from 1280 Sheridan Road in the 1980’s. He stated that from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the property there is approximately four feet in grade change. He explained that the proposed residence is located generally in the center of the lot. He stated that the property owners of 1280 Sheridan Road are building the residence at 1274 Sheridan Road for their parents. He added that the intent is to create a family compound with the two properties. He explained that the style of the proposed residence is strongly influenced by the existing residence at 1280 Sheridan Road. He stated that eleven trees are proposed for removal as part of the project. He added that some of the trees that will be removed are dead or in poor condition. He noted that the curb cut is located on the private road at the north edge of the property. He noted that the curb cut is proposed on the private drive as opposed to Sheridan Road for safety reasons. He added that the plat of subdivision states that the screening and fence along Sheridan Road must be maintained and introducing a curb cut would interrupt the screening along the road. He added that there is no fence along Sheridan Road currently, however a fence is planned. He acknowledged that City staff expressed concern about the amount of fill proposed in the south portion of the site. He stated that the fill is proposed to create a level building pad for house and garage bringing the area up to meet the higher portion of the site. He added that the amount of fill on the southern part of the property is approximately 18 inches. He stated that because of the lot configuration, the residence is split into two wings. He explained that the main house is on the west side of the lot and the garage is on the east side of the lot. He added that the wings are connected by a one-story element. He stated that a motor court is proposed on the east side of the house. He noted that the garage is oriented toward Sheridan Road. He added that if the garage is oriented toward the private road, it would be more visible to those living on the private road and if the garage is oriented toward the rear of the lot, much more hardscape would be required. He explained that the landscaping along Sheridan Road will be enhanced to include evergreens, and canopy as well as under story plantings to effectively screen the property from the road. He stated that the exterior of the larger mass of the residence is brick to match the residence at 1280 Sheridan Road. He added that horizontal wood siding is proposed on the smaller masses on the north and south ends of the residence and on the garage as well. He explained that the architectural detailing including flared eaves and dormers on the proposed residence match the detailing found on the residence at 1280 Sheridan Road. He stated that the height of the eave on the garage is 11 feet above proposed grade, three feet lower than the eave height of the house. He explained that the residence is designed for first floor living. He added that the house has a full finished basement below the main mass of the residence. He noted that there is an unfinished attic space above the first floor.

Ms. Baehr stated that the style and architectural detailing of the proposed residence appears appropriate and compatible with the surrounding homes. She noted that thigh quality exterior materials are proposed, consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. She reviewed the site plan noting that the proposed residence and garage face east, toward Sheridan Road. She stated that the side elevation of the home faces the private road. She noted that as currently proposed, the orientation of the house is inconsistent with the orientation of the other homes on the private road. She added that the garage itself appears large in comparison to the residence and because it is located in front of the residence, it appears overbearing and visually more significant than the residence. She stated that staff received two letters from neighbors that raise some concerns about the petition adding that the letters were provided to the Commission.

In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak stated that the plat of subdivision that created the lot in 1984 specifically notes that access to the lot can be from the private road, she added however that there is no prohibition of access from Sheridan Road. She added that the plat includes a covenant that requires that the landscaped character of the Sheridan Road streetscape be preserved. She noted that the over the years, the fence that was located along Sheridan Road at the time of the subdivision deteriorated and no longer exists.

Commissioner Wheeler commented that a driveway off of Sheridan Road could be dangerous. He noted however that a letter received from a neighbor expresses concern about the additional driveway proposed off of the private road. He added that he is conflicted on the appropriate location for the curb cut.

In response to Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Lielasus stated that about half of the trees that are proposed for removal are in poor condition. He noted that the proposed driveway runs between two healthy Oak trees. He added that the driveway runs closer to the smaller of the two Oak trees and acknowledged that the tree may not survive due to the proximity to the driveway. He explained that orienting the garage to the north will impact views to the house, from the private road. He added that the property owners plan to maintain a heavily wooded buffer along Sheridan Road. He stated that the garage wing also includes an office and powder room. He explained that the garage height was driven by the height of the garage doors and the desire to use the same roof pitch as the house. He stated that it may be possible to raise the height of the house in order to make the house appear more dominant as it relates to the garage mass. He stated that the maximum amount of grade change at any point on the property is proposed at 18 inches.

Commissioner Sperry stated that she is very concerned about an additional curb cut on the private road. She explained that the vegetation along the road is very dense and limits visibility for those coming on to Sheridan Road from the private road. She added that the private road is extremely narrow, only wide enough for one vehicle. She stated that there are already several curb cuts along the private road and an additional curb cut will add more traffic to the private road. She questioned how construction vehicles and materials will be brought onto the site. She expressed concern about the siting of the residence in relation to the other homes that face the private road. She stated that the mass of the garage diminishes the appearance of the residence.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Lielasus stated that the proposed landscaping along Sheridan Road includes a mix of deciduous and conifer trees of various canopy heights. He added that a seven foot solid fence is proposed along Sheridan Road. He stated that the height of the house is approximately 26 feet and the height of the garage is approximately 23 feet. He noted that the home across the street, and the home directly south have garages facing Sheridan Road. He explained that Bill and Lucy Bickford are the owners of the 1274 and 1280 Sheridan Road properties. He stated that eventually, the Mr. Bickford’s parents will own and occupy 1274 Sheridan Road. He stated that a small portion of the driveway for 1280 Sheridan Road is located on the northwest corner of the 1274 Sheridan Road property. He noted that prior to the sale of the property, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, an access easement recorded to document the driveway.

Ms. Czerniak confirmed that an access easement will need to be in place before a building permit is issued for the new house. She explained that because of the existing driveway encroachment currently, the lot is considered a single zoning lot. She added that the driveway that encroaches onto the 1274 Sheridan Road property can either be removed or recognized through a recorded access easement. She stated that the land area in the access easement cannot be counted toward the allowable square footage for the house.

Commissioner Gayle stated that the garage wing dominates the appearance of the residence.

In response to comments from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Lielasus stated that the height of the garage and house can be modified. He stated that the façade materials are intentionally different on the house and garage to identify the primary and secondary masses. He explained that the width of the driveway is 11 feet and 9 inches wide. He added that the driveway area in front of the garage is kept to a minimum while providing enough area to turn around. He stated that pavers could be incorporated into the motor court area in an effort to reduce the amount of impervious surface.

Commissioner Gayle stated that it is disappointing that the asphalt motor court is the visual focal point of the property.

In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Lielasus stated that because the existing slope is continuous across the site, shifting the house north would require the height of the foundation to be taller.

Commissioner Lamontagne suggested consideration of reducing the width of the garage. He suggested that the massing of the garage could mimic the massing on the house with a portion of the garage mass recessed back from the larger portion of the garage facade.

Mr. Lielasus stated that the intent is to keep the garage mass simple with one roof line. He stated that the curb cut is approximately 50 feet west of the corner of Sheridan Road and the private road.

Commissioner Lamontagne suggested that sightlines near the intersection of the private road and Sheridan Road could be improved by removing some of the vegetation

In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Lielasus stated that Sheridan Road is slightly lower than the elevation at the garage footprint.

In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Lielasus stated that the garage is wider than the main house. He added that the garage is 25 feet wide and the main house is 23 feet wide.

Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Lamontagne commended the petitioner on the style of the house. He stated that it is a challenge to design a 3,500 square foot house on the site given the lot configuration. He suggested that some further articulation of the garage mass could be used to soften its appearance.

Commissioner Redfield expressed support for the design of the home.

Commissioner Gayle stated that the style of the house fits nicely with the surrounding homes. She expressed concern about the scale of the garage. She added that because the garage is so large, it takes away from the attractiveness of the main residence. She suggested that the size and configuration of the motor court be reconsidered.

Commissioner Wheeler stated that the proportions of the house and garage and how they relate to each other, should be studied further. He suggested that the location of the driveway be studied further as well given the safety concerns raised by the neighbor and Commissioner Sperry. He added that the amount of impervious surface should be reduced.

Commissioner Sperry suggested that design elements be incorporated into the garage to create more of a sense of human scale. She noted that there may be an opportunity for a curb cut on Sheridan Road that may be safer than an additional curb cut on the private road. She stated that some reconfiguration of the driveway could preserve some of the trees currently proposed for removal.

Commissioner Gibson stated that the scale of the garage is concerning. She stated that the difference in height between the house and garage is not sufficient to allow the garage to appear subservient to the house. She stated that the garage should take on a different form in order to be more proportionate as a secondary mass to the main house. She observed that the view from the private road is of the sides of the house and garage. She suggested that some refinement of the windows be considered to further articulate the side elevation of the garage and add interest given its prominence at the entry to the home.

In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak stated that opening up sightlines at the corner of Sheridan Road and the private road will require involvement from multiple property owners in the area.

Chairman Grieve summarized the Commission’s comments. He stated that the garage mass compromises the appearance of the home. He suggested that the garage should be complementary to the home. He stated that the view from Sheridan Road will be dominated by the garage. He recognized the challenges with the lot configuration making the siting of the residence and garage difficult. He suggested that because the garage is so dominant, consideration could be given to making it appear more connected to the house.

Commissioner Lamontagne suggested that an elevation drawing that depicts the view from Sheridan Road, toward the residence, including the conceptual landscaping, should be provided.

Commissioner Gibson suggested consideration of using the same exterior material on the garage and the residence to unify the appearance.

Commissioner Sperry suggested that positioning the garage closer to the house be explored.

Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion.

Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to continue consideration of the replacement residence with a request that consideration be given to the following items:

1. Further study of the siting and orientation of the residence and garage.

2. Further study of the overall site plan as it relates to the amount of impervious surface, grading, tree removal/preservation (short term and long term).

3. Further study of the driveway configuration and the curb cut on the private road.

4. Further study of the height and mass of the garage in an effort to minimize its appearance and avoid overpowering the residence.

5. Further study of exterior materials and detailing of the garage in an effort to relate more closely to the residence.

OTHER ITEMS

8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items.

No testimony on non-agenda items was presented to the Commission.

9. Additional information from staff.

The 2020 meeting dates for the Historic Preservation Commission were approved as presented.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

https://www.cityoflakeforest.com/assets/1/27/Historic_Preservation_Commission_Minutes_10.23.2019.pdf

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.
Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.
Donate