Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2015/11/18 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the November 18th, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, November 18th, 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 Pete Schaefer, Wells Wheeler, John Travers, Robert Alfe, and Carol Gayle. Commissioners absent: Susan Athenson 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. Approval of the minutes of the October 28th, 2015 of the Historic Preservation Commission. The minutes of the October 28th, 2015 meeting were approved with a correction as requested by Commissioner Travers. 3. Consideration of the schedule for Commission meetings for 2016. The Commission reviewed the proposed 2016 meeting schedule. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to approve the schedule. The Commission voted 6 to 0 approve the schedule. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence, pillars, entrance walls, entry gate and landscaping on the site of new construction planned at 810 Barberry Lane. Owner: Elizabeth Hoffman Trust 100% Representative: Erik Johnson, architect Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. He reminded the Commission that the house was previously approved and asked the Commission to focus on the items continued from the last meeting: the fencing, walls, landscaping and pillars. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 2 Mr. Johnson introduced the project noting the changes from the previous meetings. He stated that the fence was further refined because the owners felt that the previously proposed fence, without piers, appeared too flimsy. He pointed out the piers reintroduced along the fence and the entry walls noting that the walls were reconfigured to be concave to reduce the prominence on the streetscape. He stated that the walls were reduced in height. He noted that the piers are 5 feet tall and the wrought iron fence is 4’6. He showed images of the streetscape and the proposed overall plan. Sam Danenberger, Mariani Landscaping, stated that adjustments were made to the site plan in response to comments and concerns from neighbors. He noted that deciduous and evergreen screening was increased and layered landscaping was added in front of the curved walls and along the west and north property lines for screening. He stated that he inspected the large, existing evergreens to assure that the new plantings, around the perimeter of the site, will appear natural, be compatible with existing trees and blend in with the site. He stated that the fence will be set back from the front property line and will be landscaped on both sides. He stated that the hedges will respect the architecture of the residence. He stated that 8 existing trees will be saved. Ms. McManus reviewed the background of the petition noting that the Commission voted to approve the design for the new single family residence at a recent meeting. She stated that consideration of the fencing, walls, pillars and landscaping was continued to allow further refinement. She stated that the fencing, walls and pillars were reduced in height and are now more consistent with the streetscape. She stated that in response to concerns from neighbors, additional landscape screening was added. She stated that the City Arborist reviewed the plans and noted that it will be important that the new plantings be carefully considered to avoid impacting the existing mature trees on the site and on neighboring properties. She stated that staff recommends approval of the fence, wall, piers and landscaping as presented. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Johnson stated that the pillars are smaller than those in the previous plans. He stated that the depth of the pillars was reduced from 20’’ to 16’’. He stated that the previous hedges were fortress like and the hedges are now more transparent. He stated that the fence along the front is wrought iron with a vertical spindle. He noted that the curved walls were reduced in height and reconfigured to be concave, rather than convex. He noted that the gate is similar to the previous petition, but shorter. Mr. Danenberger clarified that the perimeter fence along the side and rear property lines is aluminum and the front fence is wrought iron. He stated that the aluminum fence will be painted dark and will be very simple and blanketed with landscaping. He stated that the fence will be set back from the property line and landscaped on either side. He stated that the adequacy of plantings in the northeast corner of the property will be re-examined and noted the existing oaks Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 3 trees and Norway Spruces in that area. He stated that additional plantings will be added to enhance the buffer and soften the views. He noted that evergreens were added to increase the screening year round. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Danenberger stated that the fence along the side and rear property lines is a deer fence and will be taller than the fence along the front property line. He stated that the wrought iron fence along Barberry Lane is more human in scale. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Danenberger stated that the setback of the fence is roughly the same as in the previous proposal, about eight feet from the sidewalk. He noted that an arborvitae hedge is proposed along the sidewalk. He added that there will be turf and planting beds in front of the fence. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Danenberger stated that the additional evergreens are proposed to address the neighbors’ previous concerns about ambient light spillover. He added that there will be evergreens of various sizes. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Danenberger stated that there are variations in the set back of fences along the street in the neighborhood. He noted that the fence location as proposed respects the spatial character of the streetscape and will not be imposing. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Joan Burke, 780 Barberry Lane, stated that she lives to the west side of the property and the back of her home faces the new house. She stated that she met the developer on site and reviewed the plans. She stated that she is comfortable with the plans. She requested that trees be tall enough to provide screening. She added that she intends to add landscaping in her yard. She stated that she is comfortable with the front façade although it would not be her personal choice. Warren Harshbarger, 1150 Lake Road, stated that he lives to the north of the property. He stated that he previously expressed concerns about the adequacy of screening and the potential light impacts. He requested clarification on the plantings proposed along the north property line. In response to public comment, Mr. Danenberger stated that additional evergreens will be planted along the north and west property lines. He added that shrubbery will be planted on either side of the evergreens. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Danenberger stated that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 4 the landscape plans are conceptual in this phase and confirmed that there will be the same density of vegetation coverage on the north and west sides of the property. He noted that the height of the evergreens will be staggered from 10’ to 18’, and offset to minimize sight lines into the property. He stated that evergreens can grow up to a foot a year. Hearing no further public input, Chairman Preschlack stated that in his opinion, the changes made are responsive to the concerns expressed earlier. He added that the ongoing discussions with neighbors are a positive. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Mr. Johnson explained that although the piers were reintroduced to the streetscape, they were reduced in height and diameter in response to previous comments. Chairman Preschlack invited final questions and comments from the Commission. Commissioner Travers stated that he appreciates that the petitioner has addressed the neighbors’ concerns and complimented the landscape plan. He noted that the project as presented appears to be in accordance with the applicable standards. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the modifications respond to the questions and concerns of the Commission and neighbors. He noted that the piers have been reduced in size, but are still visually connected to the house. He stated that the shrubbery will be visible from the street and will provide screening, but not appear as a topiary wall. He acknowledged that since the lot is vacant the character of the streetscape will change. Commissioner Gayle agreed with Commissioner Wheeler. She stated that Mariani’s plans have taken into account the neighbors’ concerns. She stated that the landscape should be natural and provide screening to accommodate the neighbors’ concerns. She reiterated her support of the project. In response to a question from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that after the landscape concept plan is approved, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan, will need to be submitted for final approval by the City Arborist. She offered that at that point in time, the plans can be made available to the neighbors. She suggested that the plantings along the north and west property lines could be planted early in the construction process adding that the City Arborist could offer advice on location and spacing as the plantings occur. She added that the trees will need to be spaced to allow for growth. In response to a question from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. McManus confirmed that a condition requiring off site lighting impacts to be minimized was included in the earlier approval for the residence. She stated that staff will review the lighting Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 5 plans for consistency with the City’s lighting guidelines. Ms. Czerniak added that fixtures should direct light downward, the source of light should be shielded and exterior lights should be on an automatic timer to turn off by 11pm. Commissioner Schaefer thanked the petitioner for responding to the earlier comments and stated that the project is visually compatible with the streetscape. He added that it is important to recognize that the landscaping will change and grow over time and will look different than what is presented. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a fence, pillars, entrance walls, entry gate and landscaping on the site of new construction planned at 810 Barberry Lane 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. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Commission either in response to Commission direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Commission shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Commission’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 2. Upon receipt of the final landscape plan by the City, City staff is directed to contact the neighbors who voiced concern about screening and landscape coverage and make the plan available to them for review and comment. 3. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following: a. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved, as identified by the City’s Certified Arborist, are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. If needed, trees shall be relocated on the site. b. Enhanced screening along the west, north and east property lines. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and that the required replacement inches are planted on site or, if replacement plantings cannot be accomplished on the site consistent with good forestry practices as determined by the City Arborist, payment in lieu of onsite plantings may be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 6 accepted by the City to support parkway plantings in the general vicinity of the project. d. The declining oak tree at the north property line should be evaluated by a Certified Arborist to determine if it should be removed. If the tree is removed, evergreens shall be planted for additional screening. e. The mature oak near the north property line and the mulberry tree near the sidewalk should also be evaluated by a Certified Arborist. f. Demonstrate how the proposed screening along the west property line will not adversely impact the existing sugar maple. g. The mature Norway spruce at the southwest and east ends of the property should be protected and preserved. 4. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted and will be subject to staff review and approval prior to the installation of any exterior lights. Exterior light fixtures shall direct light downward and limit light spillover. Exterior light, except for security lights, shall be turned off no later than 11 p.m. 5. 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 Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the petition. 5. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of an accessory structure, a greenhouse, on the property located at 902 N. Green Bay Road. Owners and Representatives: John and Stephanie Harris Chairman Preschlack asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Harris provided an overview of the property noting that the greenhouse is located at the corner of the lot and is screened by trees. She stated that the greenhouse is a danger due to its state of disrepair. She added that there is a missing staircase with a 3.5’ drop and the lead paint is peeling. She stated that the greenhouse has significant structural issues and does not have the artistic merit it was initially thought to have. She explained that attempts were made to relocate the structure, but were unsuccessful due to the extent of deterioration and significant cost of relocation. She added that the greenhouse is not visible from the public streetscape and therefore, removal will not be detrimental to the historic district. She stated that a rock retaining wall will be repaired where needed and the area will be re-sodded after the structure is removed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 7 Ms. Benjamin, Preservation Consultant, introduced Gwen Summers Yant to present the historic assessment report. Ms. Yant stated that the greenhouse was part of the Donnelley estate. She stated that the estate was originally 4 acres and the main house was accessed by a private drive. She added that the greenhouse is located at the northeast corner of the property and recessed behind the existing coach house. She stated that other greenhouses in Lake Forest were designed by architects. She stated that the estate, referred to as Clinola, was designed by Howard Van Doren Shaw in 1910. She stated that the Donnelleys were avid gardeners with significant gardens; however, a greenhouse was not part of the original estate plan. She stated that the greenhouse was manufactured by the Foley Greenhouse Manufacturer who specialized in commercial greenhouse structures and high end residential properties. She showed images of other Foley green houses in Lake Forest which all had masonry potting sheds. She noted that although they are handsome structures, they are not outstanding architectural examples. She stated that the Donnelley greenhouse was the smallest model available constructed of simple board form concrete, with a single entry with a decorative canopy, trellis supports and a decorative finial. She noted that the structure is in disrepair with peeling paint, rusted gutters, missing steps and serious spalling. She added that there are gaps in the windows, missing windows and the hot frames are significantly deteriorated. She showed images of the interior of the greenhouse noting that the original venting machine is intact. She concluded that demolition is appropriate due to the deteriorated condition of the structure, its location away from public view, its later construction date and the fact that it was constructed of standard parts. Ms. McManus stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of the demolition of the greenhouse and noted that no replacement structure is proposed. She stated that the area will be restored to lawn. She noted that staff finds that the petition meets the demolition criteria and pointed out that the structure was found to not be historically significant to the estate. She added that the structure is significantly deteriorated and restoration would essentially be a replacement of the existing structure with a new greenhouse. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Yant acknowledged that the greenhouse is listed as a contributing structure, but noted it is not an integral part of the country house estate and was constructed as a later addition to the site. In response to questions from Chairman Preschlack, Ms. Yant stated that the Foley greenhouses were built from stock parts . She added that they were customizable to an extent to meet customers’ needs. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Yant stated that the Foley greenhouses were not high end or architect designed like many greenhouses in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 8 Lake Forest. Chairman Preschlack noted that historical significance is determined in part based on the importance and relationship of the structure to the broader estate, a relationship that is not significant in this case. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Benjamin stated that greenhouses were often part of estates, but the Donnelley green house was constructed decades after the original house and was not part of the original estate plan. Ms. Yant stated that other greenhouses in Lake Forest are larger, architect designed, and more sophisticated. She added that Foley produced high end greenhouses and conservatories that were important elements to estates and integral to their landscapes, but that is not the case here. Ms. Czerniak stated that the owner contacted representatives of Elawa Farm to explore donation and relocation of the structure. She stated that based on the advice of various experts, it was determined that the relocation was not workable. She added that after significant efforts by the petitioner to find ways to save or relocate the structure, this petition was brought forward reluctantly. In response to comments from the Commission, Ms. Harris stated that she would have restored the greenhouse herself if it was beautiful and worth preserving. She added that a structural engineer determined that 97 percent of the structure would require placement in order to restore it. She stated that it was constructed 37 years after the home. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Benjamin explained that eligible structures are identified as contributing to flag them for further study when in the future changes or demolition is proposed. She noted that some contributing structures are supported by substantial data; others are identified as a protective measure to assure that careful consideration occurs as has happened in this case. Chairman Preschlack summarized that contributing structures warrant further evaluation, but are not protected in perpetuity. He stated that the Commission’s role is to assure that further evaluation occurs and that proper decisions are made based on the evaluation. In response to a question from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Yant stated that she is unaware if there are available parts for the greenhouse. She added that the greenhouse is a secondary structure and is one of Foley’s most simple examples. In response to a question from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Harris stated that the greenhouse was last used by the Chandlers, the previous owners. She added Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 9 that at one time, the Lake Forest Garden Club used it, more than 10 years ago. Commissioner Wheeler stated that the structure is elegant and made of components that could be reassembled, but it has outlived its useful life. He added that there is limited sun for the greenhouse in its present location. He stated that the report provides thorough historic documentation of the structure. He suggested that measured drawings could be done to further document the structure. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Preschlack invited public comment. Hearing none, he stated that he appreciates the questions raised by Commissioner Travers. He noted that it is the Commission’s role to interpret and apply the criteria to each petition. He noted that based on the criteria, some contributing structures may be worth preserving and others may not be. He acknowledged that this is a difficult petition but noted that the greenhouse was a later addition on the estate property, but not a prominent aspect of the estate. He stated that in his opinion, demolition of the greenhouse would not be a disservice to the town. He stated that there needs to be a balance between preservation and the renewal of properties. He stated that the Commission is not the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation and must take a balanced approach. He added that he is comfortable with the demolition, but appreciates the hard look based on the criteria. Commissioner Schaefer stated that in his opinion, the 5 criteria are met and the Commission’s decision should be based on the criteria, not on other considerations. He added that the structure is interesting, but not architecturally unique. Commissioner Alfe stated that looking at the original estate plan; Shaw would not have designed the greenhouse that was later constructed. Commissioner Gayle stated that the overall estate has a strong pedigree, but the greenhouse is not at the same level as the rest of the estate. She noted that it is not unreasonable to say it is historic but noted that it would require great lengths to restore or reconstruct the structure given the state of deterioration. Commissioner Travers stated that it is difficult to accept the historic information and conclude that the criteria necessary to support demolition are satisfied. He stated that, in his opinion, the proposed demolition does not satisfy the standards because the structure is pertinent to the country house era, was constructed by a renowned manufacturer and has architectural significance. Chairman Preschlack re-stated that demolition would not be detrimental to the public. Commissioner Travers stated that the structure contributes to the character of the district and is identified as a contributing structure to the district. He added that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 10 demolition is contrary to the intent of the preservation chapter in the Code. He stated that the greenhouse is of uncommon design and materials and could not be reproduced easily. He added that previous petitions have reminded him that it is difficult to replicate or incorporate historic elements into new construction. Chairman Preschlack stated that preservation is not static and the Commission has to make judgement calls on whether the standards are met considering the unique facts of each petition. In response to a comment from Commissioner Travers, Chairman Preschlack agreed that information about the interior and cost of restoration is not under the Commission’s purview. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Preschlack invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the greenhouse located at 902 Green Bay Road. He noted that the approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. The Historic Resource Assessment shall be preserved in the City’s archives pertaining to this property and shall be made available to the Historic Society. 2. A restoration landscape plan for the area shall be provided. 3. If applicable, prior to restoration or repair of the adjacent retaining wall, permits shall be obtained. 4. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, tree fencing shall be installed to protect nearby trees and vegetation during demolition. 5. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 6. 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 Wheeler seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 1 to approve the petition with Commissioner Travers voting nay. OTHER ITEMS 3. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 - Page 11 There were no additional public comments. 4. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak reminded the Commission that there is no December meeting. She stated that the regular meeting will be held in January. She added that a Commission work session is tentatively scheduled for January 23rd noting that the date will be confirmed by email. The meeting was adjourned at 8:11p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner