City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission met Sept. 22.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
A meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, issued on March 16, 2020 that suspended certain Open Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Historic Preservation Commissioners present remotely: Chairman Bruce Grieve and Commissioners Carol Gayle, Jan Gibson, Steve Lamontagne, Ron Levitsky, and Elizabeth Sperry
Commissioners absent: None (one position vacant)
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 announced that the meeting is being held remotely because he made a determination that an in-person meeting is not prudent or feasible due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. He noted that members of the public are invited to offer testimony on each petition and on non-agenda items by calling the number provided on the agenda and on the screen.
2. Consideration of the minutes of the June 24, 2020 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.
The minutes of the June 24, 2020 were approved as presented.
3. Preliminary consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing single family residence and the design and siting of a replacement residence on the property located at 1020 Meadow Lane. Tree removal, landscape and exterior lighting plans will also be considered. Initial input and direction is requested prior to further design development. Property Owners: Robert and Ann Krebs
Representative: Susan Benjamin, Benjamin Historic Certifications
Doug Reynolds, architect
Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petition.
Ms. Benjamin introduced the project on behalf of the property owners. She explained that the property in this petition is in the Lake Forest Historic District and is identified as a Contributing Structure. She noted that in the original survey prepared to support the creation of the Lake Forest Historic District, the residence that is the subject of this petition because it was not yet 50 years old and it was not identified as having significant historic attributes. She stated that during a more recent survey updated that was conducted of the area, the residence was identified as a Contributing Structure because at that time, it was more than 50 year old. She noted that the residence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that despite the fact that the home was designed by architect Stanley Anderson, the house does not reflect distinctive high-style qualities that are often associated with Anderson homes. She stated that the home was originally built in 1950 for a 67 year old widow, Ms. Pitcher. She explained that the home was designed to allow Ms. Pitcher to downsize from her Gold Coast apartment and relocate near family in Lake Forest. She stated that the home was primarily designed to be functional for Ms. Pitcher and her caretaker. She described the floorplan as having a formal layout, with a third of the house designated as service space. She stated that the home’s second owners, Mr. and Ms. Gordon Lang, added a master bedroom and garage which was also designed by Stanley Anderson. She gave an overview of the interior layout of the house. She noted that apart from the original fireplace, the interior lacks architectural detailing that one would expect in a home designed by Stanley Anderson. She explained that most of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood are of a higher style and reflect more detailing than the home at 1020 Meadow Lane.
Mr. Reynolds explained that the owner’s purchased the property at 1020 Meadow Lane for the purpose of downsizing from their current residence in Lake Forest. He explained that after purchasing the property, the Krebs explored renovation and slight expansion of the existing. He stated that the existing floorplan is comprised of many small rooms and lacks a master bedroom and kitchen that is sufficient for modern day living. He stated that after study of the potential for updating the existing house, the conclusion was that the best course of action was to construct a replacement residence. He explained that the design goals for the replacement residence include locating all living spaces on the first floor, creating an open kitchen and family space, providing a master suite, and providing guest rooms. He stated that like the existing house, the replacement residence has a primary gable roof form that runs north to south, and smaller gable forms that project from the main mass of the house. He added that the replacement residence is about 4 feet taller than the existing house due to the taller ceiling height and a steeper roof pitch. He stated that the rear elevation of the replacement residence is designed to take advantage of views to the rear yard. He explained that the replacement residence is setback slightly further from the street than the existing house in order to create a motor court at the front of the house for guests. He stated that the replacement residence will have an attached two car garage, slightly larger than the existing garage. He stated that the mature evergreen hedge on the east property line, along the Meadow Lane, will be retained. He stated that features such as a covered entry, open porch and dormers are incorporated into the design of the replacement residence. He explained that the proposed exterior materials are in keeping with the palette of the existing house. He stated that the exterior walls will be a combination of white washed brick and wood clapboard siding, the main roof forms are slate, and the bay window on the rear has a standing seam metal roof.
Mr. Krebs stated that he and his family are longtime residents of Lake Forest. He explained that his family was originally attracted to Lake Forest because of the history and beauty of the area. He stated that his family’s current residence on Walden Road, which he and his wife built, received an award from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation. He explained that Lake Forest College will eventually take over their current home on Walden Road to expand and promote their programs. He stated that he and his wife were interested in the Meadow Lane area for some time and when the property at 1020 Meadow Lane became available, they jumped at the opportunity to purchase the property. He explained that they initially asked their architect to explore opportunities to adapt the existing house to meet their needs, however due to the extent of the work that would be required to renovate the existing house, and the compromised end product that would result, they determined that renovation of the existing house was not the best course of action economically, or practically. He stated that the replacement residence is intended to maintain the character, style and scale of the existing house and the relationship to the streetscape and neighboring homes.
Ms. Baehr stated that the petition is before the Commission for initial input on the proposed demolition of the existing home and preliminary comments on the proposed replacement residence. She explained that the owners originally purchased the property with the intent of exploring the potential for renovating the existing home, however after investigation of the existing conditions, and after working through design studies, it became evident that it and was not practical to renovate the existing house. She noted that the petitioner’s statement of intent included in the Commission’s packet further details the limitations and challenges associated with renovating the existing home. She explained that the existing home is identified as a Contributing Structure to the Historic District because of its age, it is over 50 years old. She clarified that any structure in the Historic District that is over 50 years old is identified as a Contributing Structure to assure that it is given proper due diligence when changes are proposed. She stated that based on staff’s review of the materials submitted by the petitioner and staff’s independent research, staff finds that the criteria for demolition are met. She explained that the existing home was designed to be a simple, functional home and is not particularly unique architecturally. She added that the existing house is very modest, and does not have a strong presence on the streetscape. She added that it is not prominent or distinctive as a property within the Historic District. She explained that the proposed replacement residence is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and is designed in a manner that is similar to the overall massing and scale of the existing house. She added that high quality, natural materials are proposed for the replacement residence, consistent with the City’s design guidelines. She added that the proposed materials are compatible with homes in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the petitioner provided a preliminary landscape plan that reflects a number of plantings proposed around the house to soften the appearance of the home and to provide screening along the property lines. She explained that at this time, staff is requesting input from the Commission on the proposed demolition and there is general support for the demolition, initial input on the replacement residence. She stated that if there is support for the demolition, the petitioner will further develop and finalize the plans for the replacement residence for further review by the Commission.
Chairman Grieve invited questions and comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Gibson acknowledged the challenges associated with adapting the existing house to meet the needs of the owners and to achieve the standards of modern day living. She stated that although the house is attractive, it does not reflect the type of detailing one would expect of a Stanley Anderson home.
In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Ms. Baehr explained that the petitioner provided photographs of the existing house and the original Stanley Anderson plans as part of the submittal. She stated that the photographs, plans and Ms. Benjamin’s report will be kept in the City files and will be provided to the History Center.
In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Reynolds confirmed that the replacement residence will have a full basement. He added that the existing house only has a crawl space. He clarified that the chimney on the replacement residence will be tall enough to meet building code requirements. He explained that the design of the replacement residence is intentionally simple, adding that further study will be conducted of the detailing of the dormers and other elements of the home. He stated that the standing seam metal roof on the bay window is meant to highlight the element. He added that use of a slate roof on the bay window and be explored however, he noted that the pitch of the roof limits the type of roof material that can be used. He confirmed that the master bedroom has a French door that leads to the rear patio. He stated that the proposed garage doors are a charcoal gray color. He stated that the demolition of the existing house, if supported, would begin during the middle of next year.
Commissioner Gibson expressed support for the demolition of the existing house.
Commissioner Lamontagne commended the petitioner on the thoroughness of the research on the property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Reynolds stated that construction of the replacement residence will impact two evergreen trees in the side yard. He added that the evergreen trees are not in good condition. He explained that one tree in the rear yard may also be impacted due to its location adjacent to the proposed rear terrace. He stated that the plantings and trees around the perimeter of the property will remain. He explained that if the existing house were to be preserved, much of the house would need to be replaced and upgraded including the existing roof, windows and mechanical and electrical systems. He stated that the windows in the replacement residence are proposed as double hung, aluminum clad wood windows.
Commissioner Lamontagne expressed appreciation for the charming and understated qualities of the proposed replacement residence. He expressed support for the demolition of the existing residence.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Chairman Grieve clarified that the petitioners are requesting direction from the Commission on the demolition request before finalizing plans for the replacement residence.
Commissioner Sperry explained that in her opinion, the existing residence is not worthy of preservation and therefore, she supports the demolition request. She added that she is looking forward to seeing the design of the replacement residence as the plans are further developed.
Commissioner Levitsky acknowledged the letter provided by Paul Bergmann about the history and design of the existing residence. He stated that the property is very serene and quiet. He stated that although he would like to see the existing house preserved, he recognizes that the petitioners worked hard to evaluate the potential for renovating and updating the existing house and found it not to be the best approach.
In response to questions from Commissioner Levitsky, Mr. Reynolds explained that landscape screening will be enhanced as needed along the property lines and around the motor court to avoid car headlights from impacting the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Gayle agreed with comments made by Commissioner Levitsky. She observed that the existing residence reflects many of the same themes as the proposed residence. She stated that although she is disappointed that the existing house cannot be preserved, she understands the challenges and limitations of adapting the existing house to meet the owners’ needs. She expressed support for the overall concept of the replacement residence. She encouraged the petitioner to incorporate more white wash brick on the exterior of the replacement residence and reduce the large areas of clapboard siding.
Chairman Grieve explained that ideally as preservationists, the Commission would like to see the existing house preserved, however the reality of the situation does not allow for the existing house to meet the needs of the owners. He stated that the existing house was designed in a very specific way to meet the needs of the original owner, and as a result, is not easily adaptable to the standards of modern day living. He acknowledged that the petitioners have been respectful of the low profile of the existing house and have incorporated many of the qualities of the existing house in the design of the replacement residence. He acknowledged that by the time the owners made all the modifications that are required to update the home, not much of the existing structure would remain, and, it may look very different from how the home looks today. He stated that it is important that as the design of the replacement residence is further developed, the style of the windows is studied in an effort to achieve greater consistency with the quiet, understated style of the house.
Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final comments and questions from the Commission.
Chairman Grieve summarized the Commission’s comments. He stated that overall the Commission expressed support for the demolition of the existing residence and support for the general concept of the replacement residence.
4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the addition of an attached two car garage, mudroom and dormer to the single family home on the property located at 410 Washington Road. Various exterior alterations are also proposed.
Property Owners: Brian and Deana Butler Representative: Adam Lyons, architect
Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petition.
Ms. Butler stated that her family purchased the home at 410 Washington Road earlier this year. She stated that although many modifications have been made to the home over the years, her family was attracted to the property because of its underlying Georgian design. She provided an overview of the existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. She explained that the home at 410 Washington Road was originally built by the Alling family in the early 1920’s and closely resembled the other Craftsman style homes in the subdivision. She noted that in the 1930’s the home suffered a fire and was later rebuilt in the Georgian architectural style with a brick exterior. She stated that over time, Craftsman style features like the front porch and shutters were added to the home. She explained that the alterations now proposed are intended to bring the appearance of the home back to its original Georgian style. She stated that many of the alterations that are proposed came directly from Georgian precedents. She explained that the proposed alterations include: constructing a new front porch that reflects more Georgian details, replacing the existing double casement windows with double hung windows, and replacing the existing shutters with traditional paneled shutters. She gave an overview of each of the elevations as proposed. She stated that the garage is in the basement of the existing house and is very small and not functional for a modern vehicle. She stated that the proposed garage is located to the west of the house and is 24 feet by 24 feet. She added that the existing mudroom will be expanded and will provide a link between the house and the new garage. She stated that the window and door openings around the house will be modified to create a more symmetrical appearance. She stated that a shed dormer is proposed on the rear of the house. She provided images of Georgian style homes with shed dormers. She stated that the existing stone patio on the south side of the house will be relocated to the west side of the house. She stated that a French door will be installed in the kitchen to access the patio. She stated that trellises with climbing plants may be added on the rear of the garage to break up the brick wall.
Ms. Baehr reviewed that the property is located in the Alling Subdivision, which is made up of seven lots. She explained that the Commission heard a petition last year for this property that was filed by a contract purchaser who did not end up buying the property. She stated that this petition was filed by the new owners of the property. She explained that the scope of work involves a new two car garage, expansion of the existing mudroom, a shed dormer and exterior alterations to the existing home. She stated that the existing garage does not provide enough space needed for a modern size vehicle. She stated that the proposed two car garage will create a functional garage space. She explained that the proposed garage is a single story mass, set mostly behind the existing house and is not very visible from the front of the house. She stated that the existing mudroom on the west side of the house will be slightly expanded by about 50 square feet and connect the house to the new garage. She stated that the proposed shed dormer is on the rear of the house and is proposed to allow buildout of two bedrooms in the existing attic space. She explained that the petitioner explored a design with two individual dormers to match the existing dormers on the front of the house, however in order to meet building code requirements for egress, the dormers were large and appeared out of proportion with the other elements of the home. She stated that the proposed exterior alterations include a new front entry porch, replacement of the existing casement windows with double hung windows, replacement of the existing shutters with new paneled shutters, and staining the exterior brick with a light gray color. She noted that overall, the proposed alterations will help to create a more balanced and cohesive appearance to the house. She stated that the staff report includes a few recommendations adding that as currently proposed, there are some large areas of solid brick wall on the south elevation. She recommended that consideration be given to additional openings to break up those areas and help maintain a regular pattern of solids to voids around all elevations of the house. She added that placement of the two double hung windows in the proposed shed dormer appears to be somewhat inconsistent with the pattern of openings on the rest of the house. She suggested consideration of locating the windows closer together or considering a grouping of windows to break up the mass of the dormer. She stated that the construction of the new garage will impact a maple tree near the southwest corner of the proposed garage. She stated that the tree will need to be replaced inch for inch with new trees on the site. She noted that staff recommends that the replacement tree inches be planted on the east side of the property to help soften the appearance of the residence from the homes closest to the property.
Chairman Grieve invited questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Lamontagne commended the petitioner on the research completed on the history of the property and Georgian style architecture.
In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Lyons explained that the existing garage is below grade and will be converted into a garden room. He stated that a new window will be installed in the location of the existing garage door. He stated that the driveway in front of the existing garage will be removed along with a portion of the retaining walls on either side of the driveway. He explained that completely removing the retaining walls and filling in the area of the garage door and driveway was considered but the petitioners ultimately decided to preserve the below exposure and create usable space as a garden room. He explained that in considering alterations to the exterior, the east elevation is considered the “front” façade.
Commissioner Lamontagne commented that in the Georgian style, the front door is a very prominent feature. He stated that in his opinion, the design would benefit from creating more prominence for the front door on the east elevation.
In response to comments from Commissioner Lamontagne, Mr. Lyons explained that due to the existing conditions, the projecting mass and the placement of openings, it would be a challenge to create a proper front entry on the east elevation without significant alterations to the exterior and interior of the house. He stated that the new porch helps to create a sense of entry and works with the existing conditions of the house.
In response to questions from Commissioner Lamontagne, Ms. Butler stated that some of the existing windows will be relocated but most of the windows will be replaced with new aluminum clad wood windows. She added that the windows will be white on the exterior. She confirmed that the existing windows on the house are original. She noted that the new shutters will be wood with a single raised panel.
In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Butler explained the intended use of the garden room. She confirmed that there is a stair that provides access to the space directly from outside on the north side of the house. She stated that after the fire in the 1930’s, the home was rebuilt by the Brown family.
Commissioner Gayle commended the petitioner on the efforts to preserve and enhance the existing home.
In response to questions from Commissioner Levitsky, Ms. Butler stated that the Craftsman style features currently on the home were added in the 1950’s. She explained that the intent and purpose of the proposed alterations is to restore the home to its original Georgian design.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Butler stated that the proposed color palette is consistent with the colors of traditional Georgian style homes and the surrounding homes in the subdivision. She explained that the exterior brick will be stained light gray, the windows will be white, and the shutters will be dark blue. She added that the garage will have white carriage style doors.
Commissioner Gibson suggested using a hanging light fixture to highlight the front entry element.
In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Ms. Butler explained that the area of the existing garage door will be partially filled with concrete and a moisture barrier will be installed. She added that the existing chimney and other areas of the exterior brick will be repaired. She stated that Jeld-Wen is the manufacturer for the new and replacement windows.
Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited public testimony.
Jim Carris, 430 Washington Road, explained that he and his family have been residents of Lake Forest for 15 years, and have waited a number of years for the home at 410 Washington Road to be rehabilitated. He stated that he and his family fully support and are very excited for the Butler’s plans for the property.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve invited final comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Sperry expressed support for the petition.
Commissioner Gibson commended the petitioner on the project. She expressed concern about the impact to the maple tree adjacent to the garage.
Commissioner Gayle commended the petitioner for restoring the home to its original Georgian style.
Commissioner Lamontagne expressed support for the project.
Commissioner Levitsky suggested that the petitioner consider documenting the restoration project.
Chairman Grieve summarized the Commission’s comments. He encouraged the petitioner to continue to work with staff to address the recommendations offered. He stated that the existing house has a number of design quirks, and the proposed alterations help to correct those quirks.
Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion.
Commissioner Lamontagne made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a two car garage, expansion of the existing mudroom, the addition of a dormer on the rear elevation and exterior alterations to the residence at 410 Washington Road subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. Consideration should be given to modifying the fenestration on the south elevation of the house and garage and on the shed dormer in an effort to achieve a more regular rhythm of solids to voids that matches the other elevations of the house.
2. All shutters shall be sized to fit the windows.
3. 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, 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 during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.
5. A final landscape plan, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist, shall be submitted prior to the rough framing inspection. The plan must reflect a minimum of 16 replacement inches for the Maple tree proposed for removal. If it is determined prior to or during construction that additional trees on the property are negatively impacted by the construction of the garage or the regrading proposed for the property, additional replacement inches may be required. Trees shall be planted on the east side of the house to fulfill the required replacement inches and soften the appearance of the home as viewed from the surrounding properties to the east.
6. Details of all 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 if not by the fixture itself, then by frosted or stippled glass. All exterior lights must be set on timers 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. The petitioner is directed to coordinate with the homeowners who share the private driveway around access and responsibility for maintenance, repairs or resurfacing during and after construction.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gibson and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
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 meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
https://www.cityoflakeforest.com/assets/1/27/Historic_Preservation_Commission_Minutes_07.22.2020.pdf
Alerts Sign-up