Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2015/07/22 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the July 22, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Preschlack and Commissioners John Travers, Robert Alfe, Susan Athenson and Carol Gayle. Commissioners absent: Mary Ellen Swenson and Wells Wheeler City staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Preschlack reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Recognition of past Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Kurt Pairitz. Chairman Preschlack recognized the contributions and service Kurt Pairitz provided to the community during his time on the Commission. He noted that much was accomplished during Mr. Pairitz’s tenure on the Commission, thanked him for his service and presented him with a plaque of recognition. 3. Approval of the minutes of the June 24, 2015 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the June 24, 2015 meeting were approved with two corrections as requested by Commissioner Athenson. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of modifications to the Johnson Science Center on Middle Campus at Lake Forest College including the demolition of the “C” building, alterations to existing buildings and a significant addition. Owners Lake Forest College Representatives: Stephen Schutt, Lake Forest College President Michael Reagan, Vice President, Science + Technology Market Sector Lead, Stantec Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Gayle stated that she is employed by Lake Forest College and recused herself from participating in this agenda item. She stepped down from the dais. President Schutt thanked the Commission for providing feedback at the previous meeting noting that he believes the concerns of the Commission have been addressed with the revisions to the masonry and window elements and clearer references other buildings on Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 - Page 2 campus. Mr. Reagan reviewed the petition providing an overview of the campus and the location of the Science Center. He noted that the project will require the demolition of the “C” wing, which is a 1960s modern design. He described the other wings of the Johnson Science Center complex stating that the “A” wing has a variety of window configurations and the “D” wing has a curtain wall and curvature of glazing. He addressed the previous concerns of the Commission acknowledging that the initial design was a bit industrial and noting that the revised design includes more masonry with lintels and coping and less glazing. He showed perspectives of the proposed building from several angles and noted that the flat surface of glazing has been modified to be a rounded element creating a more gracious entry. He stated that the limestone lintels and coping will provide a more residential feel. He stated that the curved element references the curved bay on the ‘D” wing and as a result, the whole complex is more cohesive. He reviewed materials including masonry to match existing, deep mullions to provide shade and shadow, and limestone lintels and coping. Ms. Czerniak stated that the revised design is in direct response to the Commission’s comments and concerns expressed at the June meeting. She noted that an historic assessment report and photos of the “C” wing were submitted as requested by the Commission. She noted that the report was prepared by Art Miller, who has a long time connection with the college and a deep interest in preservation. She stated that the staff report supports the demolition of the structure and recalled that at the previous meeting, the Commission acknowledged that although the “C” wing is a unique structure, demolition is appropriate. She noted that this is a challenging project because the design of the addition must work within the existing complex. She added that the complex is not prominent from the streetscape, but will be an important part of the college campus. She stated that the Commission requested further study to refine the design to appear less industrial and more residential and work with other buildings on the campus. She noted that changes to the masonry and fenestration have been made and detailing has been added. She stated that the curved element softens the façade and calls attention to the entry. She stated that from the staff perspective, the changes respond well to the concerns of the Commission and final design development may lead to further refinements. She noted that staff is recommending approval of the demolition of the “C” wing and the replacement addition with a series of conditions of approval. She added that one condition addresses the boulder on the site, whi ch will be retained. She also stated that double inch for inch replacement for the one significant tree planned for removal will be required. She noted that spillover lighting is not expected to be a concern because of the high quality of glass proposed, but noted that a condition is proposed to allow staff to work with the College to address any lighting issues that may arise. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Reagan reviewed the design elements on other buildings on campus that influenced the design of the new addition. He noted that the windows on the “B” wing were and on the Donnelley Library were used as references. He stated that the lintels and coping are found on the “B” and “D” wings and the curved glass is picked up from the “B” wing. He added that curved glass is also found on the “A” and “D” wings, but used in a different way. He stated that the design is most influenced by Donnelley Library and the current Johnson Science Center complex. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 - Page 3 In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that from the staff perspective, the petitioner has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. She stated that a detailed landscape plan was not required as part of this petition due to the integration of the building with the existing science complex. She stated that staff will work with the petitioner during the permit process to address any gaps in landscaping. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Reagan confirmed that the character of middle campus was carefully considered noting that it is a mix of historic buildings on the public streetscape and more contemporary buildings internal to the campus. He noted that they looked closely at window to wall ratios and the limestone sills and lintels were added because they are prevalent elements on other buildings on campus. He stated that this addition and renovation will be the largest project the college has done and other future projects of this scale are not anticipated. He reiterated that the Johnson Science Center and the library define the corner of the campus and the buildings closer to Sheridan Road have a very different character. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson and Chairman Preschlack, President Schutt stated that the future evolution of the south campus will be a significant consideration, but that there are no projects on the middle and north campuses that are on the college’s radar. He added that this project is a renovation to an existing building at the rear of campus and corresponds most closely to the library. He noted that the character of the campus at the public street is very different from the internal portions of the campus and noted that relationship will not change as a result of the project. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Reagan clarified the materials of the stairwells. He stated that further study resulted in reducing the height of the stairwells and emphasizing more masonry. He noted that the metal serves to break up the masonry and will be in a soft gray matte finish with a similar appearance to lead coated copper. He stated that the height of the penthouse cannot be reduced due to code restrictions and the required mechanical systems and ductwork. He stated that custom air handler units will be used which are lower in height. He noted that chamfered edges were explored, but cannot be used. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Reagan showed an image comparing the height of the penthouse to other buildings on campus noting that the addition will be lower than Young Hall. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Reagan stated that the louvers of the mechanical enclosure will be the same color as the panel material, the coping color will be limestone-like, the spandrels are intended to provide more reflectivity than the panels on the existing “B” wing and the spandrel glass will be dark gray. He clarified that the exhaust stacks on the north elevation are located on the lower penthouse and must extend 8 feet above the roof. In response to a question from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff determined that a structural evaluation would not provide further justification for the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 - Page 4 proposed demolition than the assessment presented which addresses the functionality and weaknesses of the structure. She confirmed that staff waived the requirement for a structural evaluation by an engineer. Chairman Preschlack added that some discretion by staff is appropriate regarding application requirements and stated that he is comfortable that the petition is complete. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Reagan stated that the site closer to Carnegie Hall was initially considered for the addition, but was quickly scrapped because of concerns that the addition would dwarf the historic building. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, President Schutt added that Carnegie Hall is currently used for the English and Modern Languages departments and the relationship between the “B” wing and Carnegie Hall will not change as a result of this project. Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that in the early 1960s, the college wanted a complete break from the historic buildings on campus. He added that the mid-century buildings at the rear of campus are now historic so it is appropriate to reference those buildings in the new design. He stated that the complex is not very visible from the streetscape. He noted that he sees influences of Frank Lloyd Wright in some of the design elements and feels that the design is consistent with the character of that part of the campus. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson stated that the demolition is acceptable because the building has lost its functional use. She thanked the petitioner for listening and addressing the Commission’s comments and stated that the structure will be a wonderful addition to the college campus. Commissioner Alfe stated that the improvements are homogenous and cohesive with the existing complex. Commissioner Travers stated that he is grateful for the investment being made at the college. Chairman Preschlack expressed his support of the project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving 1) the demolition of the “C” wing of the Johnson Science Center and 2) a building addition and related improvements to the Johnson Science Center based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 - Page 5 deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission with enhanced details on architectural elements, materials, windows, the mechanical screen, exterior lights and other aspects of the project as appropriate. Any modifications resulting from further design development that cause a substantial change from the plans and information presented to the Commission must be clearly identified on the plans and accompanied by the plans submitted to the Commission for comparison purposes. Staff is charged with reviewing the final plans, 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. The boulder, which was part of the original landscape plan for the Johnson Science Center, shall be preserved and retained at some location on the Campus. 3. A minimum of 34 tree replacement inches shall be reflected on a landscape plan which will be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. An inspection of off site lighting impacts shall be conducted by City staff after completion and occupancy of the building. If the lighting is determined, at the sole discretion of the City, to cause off site impacts or interfere with the “right to night” concept, the City shall direct that appropriate measures be taken by the College to mitigate off site light impacts. (Possibly through the installation of shades, modification of light intensities, use of an alternate fixture or other options as may be determined to be appropriate.) 5. All appropriate sound measures shall be taken to mitigate sound from the roof top mechanical equipment. 6. If an observatory is planned in the future, plans must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval. 7. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions and provisions of the City of Lake Forest City Code and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. Commissioner Athenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 4 to 0 to approve the petition. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 6. Additional information from staff. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 - Page 6 Ms. Czerniak noted that at the last meeting, several residents raised concerns about the existing oak tree located in front of the old Municipal Services building on Laurel Avenue. She stated that the oak tree has been identified as a heritage tree and the City Council is very interested in protecting the tree. She noted that the Development Parameters for the site specifically require protection and preservation of the tree and the tentative plat of subdivision protects the tree in an outlot which restricts development and protects the open space around the tree in perpetuity. She added that City Council has directed staff to hire an independent tree expert to prepare an assessment of the tree, pre and post construction treatment plans and an ongoing maintenance plan for the tree. She stated that her expectation is that a maintenance plan for the tree will be spelled out very clearly in any final approvals for redevelopment of the site. She noted that the tree has lightning protection and the base of the tree was filled with concrete 50 to 60 years ago. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that landmark status for the trees would not provide any further protection for the tree than is currently being direct by the City Council. She added that information about protection of the tree will be provided to the Building Review Board. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City Council made the decision to sell the entire site. She stated that the City does not maintain “pocket parks” and noted that the City Council believes that proper protection and maintenance of the tree can be assured through restrictions and conditions of final approval. The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner