Lake County Gazette

City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission met Oct. 11.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

A special meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held at 6:30 p.m. at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.

Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Maureen Grinnell and Commissioners Lloyd Culbertson, Elizabeth Daliere, Jan Gibson, Geoffrey Hanson and Robin Petit.

Commissioners absent: None (one vacant position)

City staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development, 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures.

Chairman Grinnell reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves.

2. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the addition of a three-car garage and open breezeway to the residence at 404 E. Deerpath. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested.

Property Owners: Jay and Shauna Vohra

Project Representative: Diana Melichar, architect

Nancy Hannick, landscape architect

Chairman Grinnell asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.

Commissioner Petit stated that while visiting the site she talked with the homeowner in general about the petition. She stated that she is able to review the petition objectively.

Commissioner Culbertson stated that he has worked with Melichar Architects in the past but is not currently engaged in business with the firm. He stated that he is able to review the petition objectively.

Commissioner Hansen stated that he also met the homeowners while at the site adding that there was no discussion of the petition in detail. He stated that he is able to review the petition objectively.

Hearing no further statements from the Commission, Chairman Grinnell invited a presentation from the petitioner.

Ms. Melichar stated that her clients purchased the home in 2021. She reviewed the history of the residence and the later subdivision of the property. She presented an historic image of the home noting that in its original form, the home was blocky, massive, solid, and minimally adorned. She noted that there were delicately detailed open porches on the original home. She presented an image of the house as it exists today noting that the porches were removed at some point in the past and the roof form was changed as a result of a fire many years ago. She noted the development that has occurred around the house over the years including two homes to the south which resulted in the subject property becoming a lot in depth. She noted that there is currently no garage on the site. She presented a site plan of the proposed location of a new garage and breezeway. She noted that various alternative designs were considered. She reviewed the proposed elevations of the garage and breezeway. She noted that the garage will be distinguishable from the home. She noted that the architectural details on the proposed garage replicate those on the west wing of the home. She stated that the breezeway will be a shelter from the weather and accommodates a grade change on the property. She stated that the breezeway will be a gateway to the backyard. She noted that the breezeway takes cues from the original open porches. She described the elevations of the garage and breezeway and the proposed exterior materials. She reviewed the overall site and landscape plans noting that a pool is proposed in the only sunny portion of the yard. She noted that a pergola is also proposed. She stated that the perimeter of the property is heavily planted and new ornamental trees and shrubs are proposed to enhance the existing landscaping.

Ms. Czerniak stated that it is reasonable for the property to have a garage adding that the proposed design appears to present a good solution with respect to siting and architecturally. She acknowledged that the site is challenging. She stated that letters were received from two neighboring property owners to the east expressing concerns about the location of the pool and potential light and noise impacts. She stated that the pool is located in full conformance with zoning setbacks. She stated that prior to the issuance of permits, detailed exterior lighting plans will be required and will be reviewed for conformance with the City’s Lighting Guidelines. She stated that all exterior lights must be shielded with fixtures that direct light downward. She added that except for motion activated lights, lights must be set on timers to turn off no later than 11:00 p.m. She stated that the City Code does not regulate placement of speakers on private residential properties and noted that today, many speakers are wireless and easily portable. She stated that the City Code prohibits unreasonable noise that disturbs the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties adding that this Code provision is enforced by the Police Department. She stated staff has made the property owner aware of the neighbor’s concerns. She stated that findings in support of the petition are offered in the staff report along with recommended standard conditions of approval.

Commissioner Daliere asked about the amount of impervious surface, about the topography of the property and asked if the pool is proposed at the lowest point on the property.

In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Melichar stated that on the east side of the property, the amount of impervious surface will be reduced. She stated that much of the rear yard will be pervious surface. She stated that 2,700 square feet of impervious surface will be added to the site. She added that the hardscape on the east side of the site will be pervious.

In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere Ms. Hannick stated that the pool is not at the lowest part of the property adding that the southwest corner of the property is the lowest point. She stated that for reference, the pool is about four feet lower than the driveway.

Commissioner Hanson asked about the window surrounds, garage door surrounds and about the keystone arch.

In response to questions from Commissioner Hansen, Ms. Melichar noted that the surrounds and keystone follow cues from the house.

Commissioner Gibson asked about the material for the garage doors. She stated that there was once a fence and gate between the Lake Forest Library and this property. She asked how the requirement for pool fencing will be satisfied and for clarification on the relationship of the pool to the house from a safety perspective.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Ms. Melichar stated that the garage doors will be painted wood. She stated that there will be a pool cover in addition to a fence and alarms will be installed in the house.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Ms. Hannick confirmed that various locations were considered for the pool. She stated that the petitioners do not want to look out the windows from the home at a pool cover all winter but instead, at a landscaped back yard. She stated that there are several doors on the rear elevation of the house that will provide access to the pool and a relationship between the house and the pool.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Ms. Melichar acknowledged that the brackets proposed on the garage are scaled down from those on the house.

Commissioner Culbertson asked about the dormers on the east side of the garage. He asked whether the pool could be shifted, even slightly, further away from the property line. He asked about the intentions for speakers and lighting.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Melichar stated that the garage is sized to barely accommodate three vehicle bays and noted that drove the location of the staircase to the space above the garage. She stated that the dormers are inspired by the dormers on the original coach house which has since been demolished. She pointed out that the siting of the pool exceeds the required setback from the property line. She noted that the petitioners desire an allee of trees between the house and the pool.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Hannick stated that there is a dense evergreen screen along the east property line. She stated that the pool, in her opinion, will not be seen from neighboring properties. She stated that to date, there have not been any discussions about an outdoor sound system.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that depending on the type of outdoor speakers proposed, a permit may or may not be required. She stated Commission review would not be required unless the sound system involves a significant structure. She confirmed that permits are required for exterior lighting adding that a detailed lighting plan and specifications are required and will be reviewed for conformance with the City’s lighting guidelines. She stated that exterior lighting must be screened from view from off of the site, directed away from neighboring properties, and lights must be on a timer and set to turn off no later than 11:00 pm.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Melichar stated that further consideration could be given to the siting of the pool but noted that the pool is unlikely to move. She noted that locating the pool in certain areas of the site would require construction of retaining walls.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Hannick noted that the Magnolia and Honey Locust trees are protected with the current plan.

Commissioner Petit asked about the garage doors on the east elevation and the fountain in front of the garage. She asked how the requirements for pool fencing will be met.

In response to questions from Commissioner Petit, Ms. Melichar stated that the garage doors on the east elevation are fixed and reviewed the location of the fountain. She reviewed the proposed fence materials.

In response to questions from Commissioner Petit, Ms. Hannick described how the property will be fenced to meet the fencing requirements for pools.

Commissioner Daliere asked about access to a bathroom from the pool.

In response to a question from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Melichar stated that a bathroom is planned at the entrance to the breezeway.

Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grinnell invited public comment.

Rob Lansing, 390 Wisconsin Avenue, stated that he and his wife are building a new home just to the east of the subject property at 440 Walnut Road. He stated that the proposed garage is a wonderful enhancement to the property. He stated that he is concerned about a sound system being installed at the pool and commented that large speaker/entertainment systems can be highly obnoxious to neighbors.

Joan DePree, 999 S. Ringwood Road, stated that she recently purchased the property at 730 Washington Road, directly east of the property and adjacent to the proposed pool. She stated that her concern is not the visibility of the pool but the impacts on her home from noise and lighting associated with the pool. She stated that because of the orientation of her house, the pool will be located at her front door. She acknowledged that noise may be difficult for the City to control but stated that exterior lights should be limited. She stated that exterior lighting for her house was scrutinized by the City. She stated that the existing fence along the property line is a chain link fence. She noted that the pool will impact her property to a greater extent than it will impact any other property. She asked that consideration be given to shifting the poll away from the property line and asked that exterior lighting be limited.

In response to public testimony Ms. Czerniak confirmed that before permits are issued for exterior lighting, the lighting plan and cut sheets will be reviewed for consistency with the lighting guidelines. She stated that regulating sound is difficult. She confirmed that if speakers or a sound system are proposed for installation and electrical work or structural work is necessary, plans will be required, and a permit will need to be issued.

In response to public testimony, Ms. Hannick stated that the comments of the neighbors will be considered as concepts for exterior lighting or a sound system, if one is proposed, are developed. She stated that an exterior lighting plan will be prepared and submitted to the City for review.

Chairman Grinnell invited final comment.

Commissioner Gibson commended the project overall. She asked that the lighting plan be shared with the neighbors and discouraged the installation of a sound system. She asked that consideration be given to shifting the pool further away from the east property line, even slightly. She noted that Second Empire houses are rare in the community.

Commissioner Hanson commented that the petitioners have shown goodwill be locating the pool further from the east property line than required by the Code. He stated he is comfortable with the current siting of the pool.

Commissioner Culbertson agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners particularly the need to review the lighting plan carefully.

Commissioner Daliere complimented the landscape plan and asked that it be fully implemented as presented as the project progresses.

Chairman Grinnell stated an expectation that the petitioners will be respectful of the neighbors. She invited a motion.

Commissioner Petit made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a garage and breezeway addition, associated exterior alterations and the overall site plan. She stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in this staff report and noted that the Commission’s deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. She stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval.

1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. If any modifications are proposed in response to Commission direction or as a result of final design development, plans clearly highlighting the areas of change must be submitted at the time of submission for permit along with the plans originally presented to the Commission to allow for comparison. All changes will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted.

2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed, landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall provide for the required 33 replacement inches on site. If during construction, additional trees on the site are compromised in the opinion of the City’s Certified Arborist, additional replacement inches or payment in lieu of on site planting may be required.

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

4. Details of all exterior lighting and any outdoor speakers, if proposed, shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. All exterior lights shall be set on automatic timers to go off no later than 11 p.m. except for security motion detector lights.

5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials’ staging, and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood, neighboring properties and on existing trees and landscaping during construction.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Petit and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.

3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the residence and removal of the pool at 1302 N. Green Bay Road. A conceptual design for the replacement residence will also be presented and will be returned to the Commission for action at a later date.

Property Owners: Ralph and Mary Gesualdo

Project Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect

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

Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the property owner noting that the owner is also a neighbor of the property. He stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness is requested to allow demolition of the home. He stated that conceptual plans for a replacement residence are presented for initial Commission input. He stated that the replacement residence will be brought back to the Commission at a later date for action. He stated that the petitioners purchased the lot in 2019 and brought forward a plan for significant renovations to the residence. He stated that the plan was not pursued due to neighbor objection. He stated that the property is heavily wooded and presented photos of the residence as it exists today. He pointed out the original Shaw portion of the structure and noted the areas of the various additions. He stated that the house as it exists today, does not retain any historic integrity. He noted that Susan Benjamin, Benjamin Historic Certifications, submitted an update to the report she presented in 2019 indicating support for the demolition now proposed. He stated that the property is in significant disrepair adding that the best alternative is to demolish the house and build a new residence in conformance with the current Code requirements. He presented an overall of the existing and proposed site plans. He stated that the proposed home is sited generally within the footprint of the existing residence, hardscape and swimming pool to preserve as many trees as possible. He stated that natural materials are proposed for the proposed house consistent with the chosen English Country style. He noted that the home is respectfully scaled to the site and will fit well with other homes in the area.

Ms. Czerniak reviewed that a petition for a new home which incorporated the original portion of the structure was scheduled to come before the Commission in 2019 but was never presented because of neighbor opposition presented on the petition before the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that the original Howard Van Doren Shaw portion of the existing structure was proposed to be adaptively reused as part of a new residence however, neighbors objected because of the locating of the original portion of the structure near the north property line, not in conformance with current zoning setback requirements. She stated that the petitioners withdrew the petition after hearing the neighbor’s opposition. She stated that the home and property were in disrepair when the petitioners purchased the property and are even more so today. She stated that City staff encouraged the petitioners to come forward at this time to request approval of demolition of the home due to health and life safety concerns and in response to requests from neighboring residents. She stated that action is not requested on the proposed replacement residence at this time but confirmed that Commission approval of the replacement residence will be requested at a future meeting. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the demolition.

Chairman Grinnell invited questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Hanson stated support for the demolition. He questioned whether the house is more Tudor than English.

In response to questions from Commissioner Hanson, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that a traditional vocabulary is used for the proposed residence while at the same time, allowing for natural in the new home. He noted that the site is very dark due to the heavy tree cover.

Commissioner Petit expressed concern that only conceptual information is presented on the replacement residence. She stated concern about the large expanse of windows.

Commissioner Daliere asked if the pool will be filled in.

In response to a question from Commissioner Daliere, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the pool will be removed, and the area will be filled and graded level.

Commissioner Gibson asked about the timeline for returning to the Commission with details of the replacement residence. She suggested that the replacement residence reflect more of the chosen English style. She asked about the orientation of the house. She asked whether any of the material from the Shaw portion of the residence could be saved and reused.

In response to questions from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he expects to present detailed plans for the replacement house to the Commission in two to three months. He stated that the house will be further detailed consistent with an English style. He stated that the garage doors will be reoriented away from the driveway. He stated that there may not much to salvage from the Shaw structure noting that the tiles are brittle and may not be salvageable.

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

Commissioner Gibson stated support for the demolition and the concept of an English Country style replacement home. She acknowledged that the site is dark and that the owners may desire a design that provides for natural light into the home.

Commissioner Daliere stated support for the demolition. She stated that more detail should be provided on the proposed replacement residence when it is brought back to the Commission for further consideration.

Commissioner Hanson stated support for the demolition. He commended the efforts to locate the replacement residence in compliance with the setbacks. He noted that the windows on the proposed home appear large but acknowledged that petitioner’s interest in providing for natural light in the home.

Commissioner Petit stated concern about approving a demolition without a detailed plan for a replacement residence. She asked that detailed plans for the replacement residence be brought back to the Commission sooner, rather than later. She stated that the existing house no longer has integrity as a Shaw structure.

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

Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing the demolition of the residence at 1302 Green Bay Road. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval.

1. During demolition activity, all trees and vegetation identified for preservation shall be protected from damage. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, healthy trees close to the areas of demolition activity shall be treated with pre and post construction measures to increase the chances of long term survival.

2. The residence shall be removed in its entirety, the site cleared of accessory structures including the deck and pool, and all debris must be removed from the site. If construction of the new residence is not imminent, the site shall be graded level and stabilized with seed and blanket.

3. On an ongoing basis, before, during and after demolition, the property must be maintained. All grass shall be mowed on a regular basis and trees, shrubs and other vegetation shall be regularly maintained to minimize the appearance of an unkempt or overgrown property.

4. Any replacement structures proposed for the property will require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission based on the applicable standards in the Code to assure compatibility with and a positive contribution to, the Historic District.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hanson and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.

4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving demolition of the residence at 225 E. Onwentsia Road and approval of a replacement residence, landscape plan and overall site plan.

Property Owner: Bill Conopeotis

Contract Purchaser: Jacob Cline

Project Representative: Rick Swanson, architect

Chairman Grinnell asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.

Commissioner Gibson stated that she met the property owner when she visited the site, and he showed her around the property. She stated that she is able to review the petition objectively.

Commissioner Hanson stated that he also met the property owner when he visited the property. He stated that he is able to consider the petition objectively.

Gwen Sommers Gant, Benjamin Historic Certifications, described the property and provided some history. She stated that the existing residence is a stripped down version of an original Colonial Revival home. She presented images of the interior of the home. She reviewed the alterations and additions that occurred on the property over time and commented on the impact of the changes on the integrity of the home. She stated that today, the façade of the home is overly lean. She stated that the demolition of the house will not diminish the character of the historic district.

Mr. Swanson reviewed the existing conditions noting the large motor court in front of the house and the garage on the east side of the property. He stated that the property is 2.93 acres and noted that the existing home was designed by Granger and Bollenbacher in 1931. He stated that additions to the home were constructed in 1946, 1954 and 2003 all of which diminished the integrity of the original home. He provided photos of the home as it exists today. He reviewed the site plan for the proposed new residence noting trees that will be removed and Heritage trees planned for preservation. He noted that an allee of trees is planned along the new driveway. He stated that his clients have met with some of the neighboring property owners and are open to enhancing the perimeter landscaping. He reviewed elevations of the proposed residence and noted that the exterior walls of the home will be cut limestone and the roof will be natural slate. He stated that a six-car garage is proposed. He noted that an iron widow’s walk is proposed on the central roof form. He explained that to take advantage of the grade change across the property, a walkout basement is planned. He reviewed images of the proposed exterior materials and presented renderings of the home from various perspectives.

Ms. Czerniak stated that based on the information provided, the staff report included findings in support of the demolition of the existing residence. She noted that the property is large and can support a much larger home than exists today. She stated that the proposed replacement residence is approximately six percent under the allowable square footage. She stated that based on the information provided by the petitioner, as measured from the lowest point of existing grade to the tallest roof peak, the replacement residence is 36’6” tall. A maximum height of 40 feet is permitted on the subject property. She stated that the height of the home, in combination with any grade change, will need to be monitored closely throughout the construction process to confirm compliance with the plans as ultimately approved. She stated that high quality exterior materials are proposed for the replacement residence. She asked for Commission input on the large windows proposed primarily on the front and rear elevations and acknowledged that the size of the property may mitigate light spillover to neighboring homes and the streetscape. She noted that despite the large property, the garages and associated hardscape are proposed along the east side of the property. She noted that the home to the east is a significant home and is oriented with the rear of the house, the private are facing west, toward the proposed replacement residence. She pointed out that the proposed six car garage is oriented to the rear of the home to the east. She noted that a letter from the neighboring property owner is included in the Commission’s packet. She stated that it will be important to understand the landscaping proposed along the east property line given the limited space and the garage and driveway uses proposed along the property line. She noted that there will likely be lighting proposed at the garage doors which could also impact the neighboring property. She stated that the proposed cupola rises above the tallest point of the home and appears large. She stated that the plans do not indicate lighting in the cupola but noted confirmation is needed on that item. She stated that an exterior lighting plan has not yet been submitted but will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s Lighting Guidelines. She suggested that given the size of the property, some consideration could be given to shifting the house slightly to minimize off site impacts.

Chairman Grinnell invited questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Petit stated support for the demolition. She commented that the north elevation of the proposed home is symmetrical, consistent with the selected architectural style. She stated that the cupola is inconsistent with the chosen architectural style and appears inconsistent with the proportions of other elements on the home. She asked about the roofing material for the garages. She questioned whether Standards 4 and 9 are met noting the various styles and shapes of windows and dormers on the rear elevation. She stated that the single dormer above the large stack of windows on the rear elevation appears out of place. She noted the large expanses of glass on the rear elevation. She questioned the pattern of the limestone. She noted that the west elevation appears more consistent with the applicable standards than the rear elevation. She asked about the exposed basement level and about the existing and planned topography of the lot. She asked if consideration was given to the neighbor’s concerns including the cupola and potential views of the garage. She asked if consideration was given to locating the garages on the west side of the property. She asked about the height of the garage and asked if there is access to the widow’s walk.

Mr. Swanson stated that a copper roof is proposed for the garages. He stated that regrading is proposed only on the west side of the property. He stated that the below grade windows will be enclosed by a three foot deep well and will not be visible from off the site. He stated that the garage was initially proposed on the west side of the house and was relocated to preserve the Heritage trees along the west property line. He stated that the cupola is not a significant element and can be eliminated. He confirmed that there is adequate space on the east side of the property to screen the garages. He stated that the top of the mansard roof on the garage is about 22 feet in height as measured from the existing point of lowest grade. He confirmed that there will be access to the widow’s walk for roof top maintenance only.

Commissioner Culbertson stated support for the design of the house overall adding that he shares some of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Petit. He stated that if the cupola remains, it should not be lighted. He suggested removal of the small dormers on the rear elevation. He asked for an explanation of the design rationale for the oval windows on the lower walls and the two large bay of windows.

In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Swanson reiterated that the cupola can be eliminated if desired. He confirmed that if it remains, it will not be lighted. He stated that the small dormer on the highest roof will be eliminated. He agreed that a different shape could be considered in place of the oval windows. He stated that the window forms are in some areas dictated by his clients’ desire for a contemporary interior within a classically designed building. He stated that the large windows on the rear elevation are intended to meet the clients’ desires. He acknowledged that a more traditional bank of windows would be logical but noted that the house is on a three acre lot and the windows will not likely be visible from off of the site. He acknowledged that the large windows work on the rear elevation would not be acceptable on the front elevation.

Commissioner Gibson stated support for contemporary interiors in classically designed homes. She asked whether the casement windows on the first floor on the front façade open, whether the windows will have clear glass and whether the windows will be custom made. She noted that there are various window styles proposed including arched dormers, straight lintels, and oval windows. She noted that the references she looked at show a consistent window style on each floor. She suggested consideration of more consistency among the windows on each floor. She acknowledged that the window in the stairway could vary from the pattern and that windows on the rear elevation may warrant greater flexibility. She suggested removing the “bullseye” window on the rear elevation. She asked about screening for the residents who live on Foster Place, behind the home. He confirmed that the windows on the front are operable and clear glass, but not custom made. He agreed to explore greater consistency for the windows on each floor. He stated that the petitioners have talked to the neighbors to the south and are willing to work together on screening.

Commissioner Daliere asked whether the rendering accurately reflects what would be seen from each perspective. She stated that if the cupola will not be seen, as reflected in the renderings, it does not serve a purpose. She asked about the placement of the garage and whether it extends further to the south than the existing house. She noted that the garage is over the permitted square footage and asked for clarification on how that is factored into the square footage calculation. She stated that single car garage doors should be considered.

In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the cupola will not be seen from the front of the house. He stated that the proposed house is sited on the east portion of the property in an effort to preserve Heritage trees on the west side of the house.

In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Czerniak stated that excess garage square footage must be added to the total square footage of the house. She confirmed that due to the large lot, the proposed house and the garage are in conformance with the allowable square footage.

Chairman Grinnell noted that two different coach light fixtures appear in the proposed plans. She stated that the simpler fixture appears to be more appropriate given the ornamentation on the home. She suggested that consideration be given to eliminating the widow’s walk.

Mr. Swanson stated that the specific coach light fixture has not yet been chosen. He stated that the light fixture images in the renderings are intended to indicate the proportions of the lanterns in relation to the building. He stated that the fixture will be selected later in the process in consultation with staff and with the Commission if desired. He stated a willingness to consider an alternative to the widow’s walk in the form of a parapet wall or something less ornate.

Commissioner Gibson noted the beautiful Elm trees on the site. She asked if the rendering accurately reflects the trees.

In response to a question from Commissioner Gibson, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the Elm trees will be preserved although they are not accurately reflected in the renderings.

Chairman Grinnell invited public comment.

John Staton, 220 E. Foster Place, stated that the proposed replacement home is outstanding and complimented the exterior materials.

Justin Engelland, 237 E. Onwentsia Road, thanked the petitioner for the efforts to preserve the Heritage trees on the site. He stated that he submitted a letter to the Commission expressing concern about the lack of screening proposed along the east property line and the potential visibility of the double-height windows on the rear of the home from the private areas of his home. He asked that consideration be given to requiring large evergreen plantings along the east property line to screen any exterior lights and light spillover from the large windows in the two story living areas.

Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Grinnell invited final comments from the petitioner.

Mr. Swanson thanked the neighbors for their comments. He committed to working with the neighboring property owner, Mr. Engelland to assure adequate landscape screening. He stated that landscape lighting will be subdued adding that the intent is to preserve the natural beauty of the site. He stated that the house is sited with the intent of preserving as many high quality trees as much as possible.

Chairman Grinnell invited comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Gibson complimented the placement and detailing of the gutters. She asked that the petitioner share lighting and landscape plans with the neighbors and invite comments. She recommended the use of graduated slate. She encouraged the petitioner to remove the cupola and to reuse and salvage elements of the existing house if possible. She strongly suggested using consistent window types on each floor and on each elevation of the home.

Commissioner Hanson stated support for the demolition of the existing house. He stated that the rear of the house will not be visible from the street, but noted that as proposed, it presents a significant departure from the chosen style of the house. He raised a concern about conformance with Standard 4, the relationship of solids to voids with respect to the rear elevation. He stated that in his opinion, the Commission should be cautious about replacement residences in the Historic District that are overly adorned and ornate. He noted that the replacement residence appears to be in conflict with Standard 14 due to the embellishment with elements including the widows walk, ornate front door, the transom above the front door, the cupola, round dormers, and the gate on the streetscape. He stated that in the historic district, replacement structures sometimes need to be scaled back to be compatible with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Daliere agreed that the garage will hide the pool and may buffer noise from that area. She voiced concern about the inconsistency in window types and proportions.

Commissioner Culbertson stated general support for the petition. He encouraged the petitioner to remove the cupola and oval dormer on the rear elevation. He emphasized the importance of landscape screening on the east and south sides of the property. He stated that he empathizes with the neighbor to the east given the large wall of windows adding that hopefully there is space for adequate screening. He stated that he has reservations about the windows on the back of the house noting that they are incongruous with the style of the home. He agreed with Commissioner Gibson’s suggestion to refine the window placement and proportions. He stated that he is supportive of the widow’s walk element.

Commissioner Petit stated that in her opinion, a few too many liberties were taken on the petition. She stated that more study and reservation are needed to remain true to the selected style and consistent with the Commission’s Standards. She stated that based on her review, the petition does not yet fully meet Standards 3, 4 and 9 and 14.

Chairman Grinnell stated that the proposed materials are all of the highest quality. She stated that she is concerned about the significant ornamentation. She thanked the architect and petitioner for carefully considering the Commission’s comments and suggestions. She invited a motion.

Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the residence and approving a replacement residence, attached garage, conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan for property located at 225 E. Onwentsia Road. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval.

1. Eliminate the oval dormer on the rear elevation.

2. Remove the cupola.

3. Simplify the widow’s walk.

4. Refine the fenestration to achieve greater consistency on each level of the home.

5. Simplify and soften the overall ornamentation of the home.

6. Enhance the landscape plan to incorporate substantial screening on the east and south sides of the property.

7. Review the proposed landscape and exterior lighting plans with the neighbors and invite feedback.

Prior to a second on the motion, Commissioner Petit suggested that the Commission continue the petition given the number of items needing refinement.

Commissioner Daliere agreed with Commissioner Petit.

Commissioner Culbertson withdrew his motion.

In response to a question from Chairman Grinnell, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Commission can proceed with a motion in support of the demolition alone if desired.

Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing residence at 225 E. Onwentsia Road.

The motion to approve the demolition was seconded by Commissioner Gibson and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.

Commissioner Culbertson stated that he is not supportive of continuing consideration of the replacement residence noting that he believes the concerns raised can be resolved at the staff level.

Commissioner Hanson made a motion to continue consideration of the replacement residence at 225 E. Onwentsia Road to allow the petitioner to conduct further study and refinement of the design based on the Commission’s deliberations and direction including, but not limited to the following:

1. Eliminate the oval dormer on the rear elevation.

2. Remove the cupola.

3. Simplify the widow’s walk.

4. Refine the fenestration to achieve greater consistency on each level of the home.

5. Simplify and soften the overall ornamentation of the home.

6. Enhance the landscape plan to incorporate substantial screening on the east and south sides of the property.

7. Review the proposed landscape and exterior lighting plans with the neighbors and invite feedback.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Petit and approved by a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Culbertson voting nay for the reasons previously stated.

OTHER ITEMS

5. 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. 6. Additional information from staff.

No additional information was presented by staff.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.

https://cms9files.revize.com/cityoflakeforestil/Document_center/Agendas%20and%20Minutes/Historic%20Preservation%20Commission/2022/Minutes/HPC%20Minutes%2010.11.2022%20-%20Approved.pdf