Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2015/10/28 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the October 28, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 28, 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, Susan Athenson, Robert Alfe, Carol Gayle and Pete Schaefer. Commissioners absent: 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 to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the September 23, 2015 of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the September 23, 2015 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner Athenson and Commissioner Travers. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving revisions to a previously approved greenhouse proposed at Elawa Farm located at 1401 Middlefork Drive. Owner: The City of Lake Forest Tenant/Petitioner: Elawa Farm Foundation Representative: Austin DePree, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Athenson stated that she spoke with Joanne Miller about the history of Elawa Farm, but did not discuss details of the project. Hearing no other declarations of conflict or Ex Parte contacts, Chairman Preschlack invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree stated that a previous proposal for a new greenhouse at Elawa Farm was before the Commission in August. He noted that since that approval, revisions were made to further reduce the scale of the greenhouse. He explained that as a result, the project is back before the Commission for further review. He noted that the historic Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 2 awning is now over the door as a follow up to a suggestion from the Commission. He reviewed the revised plans noting that changes were made as the shop drawings were finalized. He noted changes to the roof slope, lite configurations, a slight increase in the footprint, the incorporation of the historic awning and the elimination of the perimeter fencing. He showed contextual photos of the overall site and historic photos noting that there were 2 greenhouses on the site during the history of the farm. He noted that the plan as revised is intend to emulate the older of the two green houses. He commented on the changes made to the roof slope and pitch acknowledging that the previous proposal focused on matching the roof pitch to the pitch of the roof of the existing potting shed. He showed comparison elevations and perspectives of the previous and current proposals noting that the lower profile roof diminishes the scale of the green house. He stated that the footprint slightly increased by a matter of inches. Ms. McManus stated that through finalizing the design, further refinements were made to the greenhouse. She noted that the greenhouse as now proposed is more consistent with the earliest greenhouse and that the historic awning is now incorporated into the design. She noted that in response to previous comments of the Commission, a condition of approval was added limiting the use to the temporary storage area to 6 months. She stated that staff has become aware that some landscaping was removed from the site in preparation for construction and recommended that a replacement landscape plan be required demonstrating that an adequate buffer between the animal cages and the greenhouse be provided. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree stated the earliest greenhouse at the farm had a lower pitch roof noting that the revised plans are more consistent with that structure. He stated that a completely custom greenhouse is not possible due to budget constraints, but that the intention is to match the proportions, scale and wood door of the earliest greenhouse. He added that reclaimed brick and limestone to match the existing structures will be used. He added that the diminished scale of the greenhouse is more proportionate to the more significant farm buildings and allows the potting shed to be more visible. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. DePree stated that the 2 earlier greenhouses were in different locations, one generally in the footprint of the greenhouse now proposed and the other, extending south from the potting shed toward the cottage. He stated that the curved eave detail is common to 1920s structures and the gabled greenhouse is a later adaptation possibly from the 1940s or 50s. He added that the curved shape seems the most appropriate for the site. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree stated that the greenhouse will be constructed from a standard kit that will be customized. He stated however that there are some limitations. He stated that a local contractor will be used to construct the structure. He stated that the roof pitch was driven by design not solely budget. He added that the pitch is more appropriate and sensitive to the site. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 3 In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. DePree stated that the initial greenhouse design included a head house and a much larger green house. He stated that once a contractor was engaged, it became clear that some design changes were necessary. In response to questions from Commissioner Schaefer, Mr. DePree stated that integrating the awning and wood door will increase the cost of the project he reiterated that economics played a role in the design, but was not the sole determining factor. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. DePree stated that spire finials could be considered for the roof line. He confirmed that the aluminum will be painted white. In response to a question from Commissioner Schaefer, Mr. DePree stated that originally, the finials likely functioned as lightning rods. Commissioner Gayle stated that the lower greenhouse is less obtrusive and a good solution. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. DePree clarified that the only change to the door from the previous proposal is that a wood door is now proposed. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Jim Obsitnik, resident and member of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated concern about the roof pitch now proposed. He stated that the roof pitch should not be adjusted in order to pay for restoring the awning and a wood door. Commissioner Preschlack stated that cost is not a consideration of the Commission noting that the Commission’s focus is on the design intent and inspiration. Mr. Obsitnik stated that the greenhouse location is different than the historic location and stated that the previously proposed steeper pitch was more appropriate for the greenhouse at the proposed location noting that it complimented the potting shed. He stated that there could be a way to maintain the steep roof pitch and keep the awning and door. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Preschlack invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner’s representative. In response to public testimony, Mr. DePree reiterated that economics did not drive the design. He added that the location of the greenhouse as proposed is the location of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 4 one of the earlier greenhouses. He noted that extending the greenhouse to the south, the location of the other earlier greenhouse, is not practical given the current uses of the farm. He stated that the design currently proposed is consistent with historic greenhouses and appropriate for the site. Chairman Preschlack invited final questions and comments from the Commission. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the standards considered by the Commission offer latitude when reviewing designs and require interpretation as applied to each petition. She added that it in the past, the Commission has determined that it is important to differentiate a new structure from historic structures on the site. She noted that from the staff’s perspective, reducing the roof pitch allows the farm buildings to be more prominent. She confirmed that in the late 1990s, when the City acquired the property, there was a greenhouse extending from the south side of the Potting Shed. Commissioner Athenson stated that she sees the greenhouse as an addition to the potting shed and as such, the roof pitch is an important consideration. She stated that in her opinion, the current design seems to be more dominant and does not blend in with the other farm buildings as well as the previous proposal. She added that the criteria the Commission must consider notes that roof pitches should be compatible. She stated that the new design looks more contemporary than the previous proposal. She complimented the integration of the historic awning, but noted that in her opinion, overall, the new greenhouse does not meet the criteria. She stated that she is not concerned with the increase in footprint, but is concerned with the roof pitch and muntins as they appear more contemporary. She concluded stating support of the previous design. Commissioner Travers stated that the greenhouse is a simple utilitarian structure and stated that in his opinion, the revised design refers more directly to the historic green house. Chairman Preschlack stated that he is supportive of project, but is sensitive to Commissioner Athenson’s concerns. He added that roof pitches can be compatible and not necessarily match. Commissioner Schaefer complimented both designs and stated that in his opinion, the revised design looks more historic and fits better on the site than the previous design. Commissioner Alfe stated that the greenhouse as now proposed, is less imposing and the lower roof is more appropriate for site. He stated that there are considerations in addition to the roof pitch and noted that the overall scale is important. Commissioner Gayle stated that she supports the smaller scale green house and does not read the new greenhouse as modern in style. She noted that there is some virtue in alluding to the historic greenhouse even though the location may be different. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 5 Commissioner Travers and Chairman Preschlack agreed that adding finials to the ridge could detract from the simplicity of the structure. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving revisions to a previously approved greenhouse proposed at Elawa Farm based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Commission’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff, in consultation with the Commission Chairman as appropriate, is directed to review the plans and materials submitted for permit, and to view on site mock-ups, if determined to the necessary, to confirm that the details of the work and the materials are consistent with the representations made to the Commission and the Commission’s deliberations. a. The plans should clearly detail how the greenhouse structure will be attached to the potting shed and staff shall verify that the integrity of the potting shed is not harmed by the proposed attachment. 2. The vegetation which provides a buffer around the animal cages shall be preserved or, if existing vegetation is impacted, a landscape plan, identifying vegetation to be removed or relocated and new plantings proposed, shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, to assure that there is an adequate buffer between the greenhouse and the animal cages. 3. Detailed plans shall be submitted describing how the temporary storage area proposed to the west of the new greenhouse will be enclosed and screened from view. A description of the materials proposed for storage in the area shall be provided. The temporary storage area shall be removed no later than 6-months after the date of approval or, plans for a permanent storage area or structure shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval. 4. Staff is directed to conduct ongoing inspections as the work progresses to assure conformance with the Commission’s approval. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 1 to approve the petition with Commissioner Athenson voting nay for the reasons she previously stated. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Maureen Grinnell, 537 King Muir and a member of the Preservation Foundation, announced a preservation conference being held by the community of Geneva on Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 6 November 14th . She stated that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation is looking at design guidelines from other communities and found the guidelines for the City of Milwaukee to be very helpful. She stated that the Foundation would like to pursue revising and reformatting the City’s design guidelines. Ms. Czerniak stated that staff recently met with the Foundation and discussed updating the design guidelines. She stated that it is staff understands that the Foundation is discussion this potential project internally. She stated that staff offered to work cooperatively with the Foundation on the update. Commissioner Athenson stated that it would be very helpful if the Foundation tackled the design guidelines. 5. Additional information. Commissioner Travers informed the Commission that he recently became aware that Highland Park has been working on an architectural survey of neighborhoods in the community. He stated surveying properties is a common practice in neighboring suburbs. He suggested that a similar initiative should be considered in Lake Forest noting the valuable information that would be provided. He added that the information should be made available to the public. He offered the information from Highland Park to the other members of the Commission. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that surveys were completed for each of the City’s three historic districts. She stated that with the assistance of the Preservation Foundation, the survey for the east Lake Forest District was updated just a few years ago. She noted that a survey was also completed by the Foundation for the West Park neighborhood several years ago when that neighborhood was nominated as a National Register District. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, she stated that staff will include the survey sheets for specific properties in the Commission’s packets going forward. She added that a summary and some examples of the resources available on Lake Forest properties and neighborhoods can be provided to the Commission. She suggested that the Commission may want to schedule a tour of recent projects in the historic districts and a work session noting that it has been quite a while since the Commission has done either. She stated that staff is working with the City’s mapping consultant to explore ways to provide interactive maps on the City’s website to make historic information more readily accessible. Chairman Preschlack stated that the City has been at the forefront of preservation and noted that tasks will need to be prioritized. Commissioner Travers and Athenson agreed that the survey reports should be provided to the Commission as background and as an objective resource. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 28, 2015 - Page 7 There were no additional staff comments. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner