Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014/07/10 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the July 10, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, July 10, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Pairitz and Commissioners Wells Wheeler, John Travers, Robert Alfe, Susan Athenson, Mary Ellen Swenson and Jim Preschlack Commissioners absent: None City staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Pairitz reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of minutes. Consideration of the minutes was postponed. 3. Consideration of an extension to the previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition and replacement structure at 595 Circle Lane. This item was withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the 2nd phase of restoration, repair and if necessary, replacement of windows in Market Square and associated buildings on Western Avenue. This item was postponed until the July 23, 2014 meeting. 5. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving an entry gate, reconfigured drive approach and a garden pavilion at 901 Rosemary Road. Property Owners: Brian and Michelle Flynn Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Sara Furlan, landscape architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Furlan introduced the project. She noted that Ms. Melichar is available as Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 2 well. She reviewed that the project was introduced to the Commission in April and is now back before the Commission with further information on four items, as requested by the Commission. She stated that she will address the location of the new driveway approach on the east side of the property, the location of the garden pavilion, the garden wall and the perimeter fencing along Rosemary Road. She reviewed a site plan of the existing conditions and the site plan presented in April. She stated that after consulting with the City’s Certified Arborist, a revised plan, locating the driveway 44 feet from the east property line, is proposed. She noted that in the April plan, the driveway was located 24 feet from the east property line. She noted that the location provides a substantial area for plantings between the two properties and showed a rendering of a planting concept. She reviewed the alternate locations that were considered for the pavilion. She stated that the more easterly location would be visible from the streetscape and would be a considerable distance from the house. She noted that locating the pavilion at a more westerly location would place it closer and make it more visible to the neighbor to the south. She added that the westerly location would require the pool to be shifted to a location just outside the kitchen window where it would be visible as a covered pool all winter. She noted how the pavilion is centrally located in the yard providing sufficient area for landscaping. She noted that both the pool and pavilion exceed the zoning setback requirements and will be well screened from the neighboring property and the neighboring home. She discussed the original garden wall and showed photos of the wall in the current, collapsed condition. She stated that the homeowners are interested in removing the remaining portions of the wall. She stated that after removal of the wall, the entire yard will be tied together with a comprehensive land plan. She noted how the original garden wall bi-sects the property noting that historically, the kitchen garden was located behind the wall, prior to subdivision of the property. She stated that the gate from the original garden wall was preserved and will be used somewhere on the property, in the garden design. She reviewed the existing perimeter stockade fence noting that it has been on the property 1930’s. She stated that the owners would like to maintain the privacy of the property by replacing the existing fence with a new stockade fence. She noted however that the new fence will be moved further into the property, away from the streetscape. She stated that currently, the fence is very close to the sidewalk in some areas. She stated that the new fence will be located 10’ to 45’ back from the sidewalk to allow space for significant landscaping which will obscure the fence. She presented images of the streetscape and of the landscaping planned along the west property line, near the driveway. She stated that the intent is to enhance the landscaping around the perimeter of the property. Ms. Czerniak noted that until very recently, this house was unoccupied for many years and the property and house were in serious disrepair. She stated that the City was contacted by several potential buyers who asked about the possibility of demolishing the house. She stated that the purchase of this property by someone interested in restoration and enhancement is a great success. She Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 3 acknowledged all of the recent work completed on the property. She reviewed the key issues that were identified by the Commission at the last meeting. She noted that the Commission expressed concern about the proximity of the new curb cut to the property line and in response, the curb cut was shifted west and is now proposed at a location over 40 feet from the east property line. She stated that the location as now proposed is supported by City’s Certified Arborist. She noted that the Commission discussed the garden wall and expressed an interest in seeing it preserved. She noted that early in this project, efforts were made to restore the garden wall. She noted however that the wall is crumbling and the telephone tile which provides the structure for the wall is brittle and cannot be restored. She added that rebuilding wall, in the original location, does not align with the current property lines or use of the property. She noted that the Commission discussed the proposed replacement of the stockade fence along Rosemary Road. She stated that the character of the Rosemary Road streetscape is not one of open views, but instead, heavy landscaping fairly tight along the streetscape. She noted that the replacement stockade fence will be set back a considerably greater distance than the existing fence. She noted that in response to direction from the Commission, the petitioner studied alternative locations for the garden pavilion and presented pros and cons of each. She stated that the petitioner’s preferred location sites the pavilion out of view from off the property. She stated staff support for the location as proposed. She noted that the Commission received correspondence from the Preservation Foundation in support of the project. She noted that a second piece of correspondence was received raising questions about the scale of the pavilion. She stated that findings in support of the petition are detailed in the staff report along with recommendations for conditions of approval. She noted one condition in particular which requires adequate landscaping along the driveway at the western edge of the property noting that the driveway also serves as the only driveway entrance to the house to the rear of this property. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Furlan stated that impervious surface calculations were provided to the Commission in the April packet. She noted that the amount of additional impervious surface is not significant given the size of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Travers, Ms. Czerniak noted that the area in which the new curb cut and driveway are proposed was a separate buildable lot until the recent consolidation of the two parcels by the new owners which eliminated the second parcel. She noted that this area was previously the location of the tennis court for the main house. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Furlan stated that a chip and seal surface is proposed for the new driveway except for the garage court which will be asphalt. Chairman Pairitz clarified that a chip and seal driveway is an impervious surface, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 4 not a pervious product. In response to a question from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Furlan confirmed that the driveway will be plowed with a rubber blade. Ms. Melichar offered that a chip and seal driveway has the appearance of gravel. Chairman Pairitz commented that this is a secluded lot, not visible to the public, so the surface material for the driveway is not critical given the significant green space on the property however; he stated that the Commission needs to be clear on what is being requested. He asked that the landscape plan before the Commission be clearly identified as “conceptual” noting that the conditions recommended in the staff report will require some revisions as the plan is finalized. Commissioner Athenson noted that the property is beautiful but expressed concern about the appropriateness of a rustic fence given the formal house. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Melichar clarified that her firm is only involved with the pavilion and the entry gates, not with the restoration of the house. She explained that the stockade fence will be buried in landscaping and that the Rosemary Road streetscape will be consistent with other properties along the road. She noted that the house directly across the street has a similar condition along the streetscape. She stated that the privacy offered by a stockade fence is important. She stated that an open, ornate fence is more expensive and given the large site, the owners would rather put money into landscaping than a fence that will be hidden from view anyway. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Furlan reviewed the type of plantings proposed along the streetscape noting that even in winter; views of the fence will be limited. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Craig Bergman, landscape architect, spoke on behalf of the new owners of 899 Rosemary Road, the property behind 901 Rosemary Road, noting that he has worked on the 899 property for many years for the previous owners. He noted that previous comments from the Linvilles, the previous owners, related to understanding what was proposed to allow them to protect their ability to sell their property. He explained that the Ms. Furlan and others in the Mariani group met with him and talked through the proposed pool and pavilion and the landscape concepts. He stated that the new owners of 901 Rosemary Road, the Flynns, have embraced the property and communicated with the new owners of 899 Rosemary Road. He stated that the project as now proposed is very sensitive to the unique relationship between the two properties. He noted that views of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 5 the ravine will remain open. He agreed that the location of the pavilion as proposed seems to be the best location in relation to the 899 property because the existing coach house will block views from house. He stated that it may be possible to get a glimpse of the pavilion from the driveway but noted that even in that area, plantings are planned and evergreens will be added. He complimented the project. Commissioner Athenson stated continued concern about the rustic stockade fence proposed along the streetscape. Commissioner Travers agreed with Commissioner Athenson’s concerns noting that his concern is spurred by the Preservation Foundation’s recent presentation on fencing. He stated that by putting up a stockade fence along the streetscape, the community loses an opportunity to enhance the beauty of Lake Forest with views of large manor houses. He noted support for preservation and reuse of the garden gate noting that it could add a magical element to the property. Commissioner Athenson noted that the loss of the garden wall is a concern but stated support for reusing the garden gate on the property. She stated appreciation for the further study that was done of possible locations for the garden pavilion. She reiterated her concern that a rustic stockade fence is not appropriate for the formal house and grounds. Chairman Pairitz stated that he is quite pleased with the progress of the petition. He thanked the petitioners for looking at the issues the Commission identified in April. He commended the shift of the curb cut for the new driveway and the location of the stockade fence back from the streetscape. He stated that the landscaping proposed will be a vast improvement to this stretch of Rosemary Road. He acknowledged that some property owners want privacy. He stated that he is pleased that the new owners are investing is the historic property and working with the neighbors noting that those things make the Commission’s job easier. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the conceptual overall landscape plan including a new curb cut and driveway, a gate, walls, entrance pillars (and the associated height variance), a replacement stockade fence and enhanced landscaping. He noted that the motion also includes approval of a new structure, the garden pavilion, in the rear yard and demolition of the remnants of the original garden wall. He stated that the approval is based on the findings in the staff report which document that the project is consistent with the standards in the Code. He added that the petitioner’s presentation, the public testimony and the Commission’s deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the motion includes the following recommendations of approval. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 6 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. a. If any modifications are proposed as the plans are finalized, details of the areas of change must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. 2. Tree Removal Plan and Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition elsewhere on the site. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and that the required replacement is provided on site or through a payment in lieu of on site plantings. 3. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection for the pavilion, a final landscape plan must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Assure that the streetscape is landscaped in a manner consistent with the overall Rosemary Road streetscape and that the stockade fence is adequately screened from the streetscape view. b. Review of landscaping proposed along the east edge of the west driveway recognizing that although this area is the service drive for the main house, it is the primary entrance to the former carriage house which is now a single family home. c. Assure that the garden pavilion is adequately screened from the former carriage house to the southwest. If there are gaps in the existing trees allowing views into the site, the plantings in this area should be enhanced. d. Inch for inch replacement for the trees removed from the site is provided on the plan. 4. 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 during construction and in particular, to limit impacts on the former carriage house property to the south. All construction parking and staging should occur on the property, no parking is permitted on Rosemary Road. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the pavilion, the perimeters of the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 7 amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler and was approved by a vote of 6 to 1 with Commissioner Athenson voting nay for reasons previously stated. 6. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving repair and minor modifications of an existing wall and minor reconfiguration of the driveway at 690 N. Green Bay Road. Property owners: Mark and Charlotte Ahren Representative: Craig Bergmann, landscape architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Bergmann introduced the petition explaining that the original streetscape wall on the property failed over the winter. He noted that when the wall failed, at the petitioner’s request, he contacted City staff to discuss the process for replacement. He stated that the wall was constructed along with the house in 1939, in generally an Art Deco style. He stated that the property is very interesting with gardens and outbuildings. He noted that the house is sited close to Green Bay Road and commented that at the time of construction, there was considerably less traffic on the road. He noted that the wall was constructed leaving a very large gap for vehicles to enter the site from Green Bay Road he noted that vehicles and the turning mechanisms are different today and no longer require such a large opening. He described minor changes planned to the north and south ends of the wall to modify the openings to, at one end better shield the house from the road and on the other, to open up views of the house from the street. He showed photos of the crumbling wall and described how it was constructed noting that the bluestone copping at the top of the wall was not flashed properly and allowed water to infiltrate the wall causing freezing and crumbling. He stated that the brick is not salvageable, because it is crumbling. He stated that the foundation is in pretty good shape except where water has collected. He noted that the most serious deterioration is in the wall running east/west which connects with the house. He noted that this wall is planned for removal and replacement with a wrought iron fence to allow some views into the yard from the house. He noted that historically, multi-trunked hawthorn trees were located between the wall and Green Bay Road. He stated the intention to preserve the remaining hawthorn trees and when they are lost, to work with the City to do some replacement plantings in the parkway. He noted that with the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 8 proposed modifications to the ends of the front wall, there will be more green scape between the house and the streetscape. He stated that a true circle will be created in the motor court noting that the area has changed configuration over time, without a plan. He noted that at the north end, the extent of the wall will be reduced and the amount of pavement reduced as well to minimize the area of asphalt in front of the garage. He noted that the views from the street will be improved with the addition of landscaping. He noted that the added benefit is that the house will have more privacy from Green Bay Road at the south end where the house is closest to the road. He reviewed the proposed plant materials for the various areas. He showed conceptual renderings of the streetscape after the proposed work is completed. Ms. Czerniak noted that Mr. Bergmann contacted staff early on as the wall was crumbling and rather than just replace the wall, the petitioners considered opportunities for enhancement since the wall needed to be reconstructed. She stated that findings in support of the project are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitiz, Mr. Bergmann acknowledged that a lengthy portion of the existing wall will remain, extending to the south. He stated that flashing will be added to the remaining wall to preserve it as long as possible. He stated that the ivy is compromising the cap and will be removed. He confirmed that the bluestone copping from the portions of the wall that will be removed will be reused on the new wall. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Bergmann stated that the brick from the existing wall cannot be reused because it is crumbling. He stated that Fernando is working to find a matching brick. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Bergmann confirmed that it is a cavity wall. He noted that the wall was not built consistent with the original drawings. He added that overtime; it appears that the base of the wall was buried with dirt likely because the elevation of Green Bay Road was raised. He confirmed that a solid wall will be built to replace the portions of the existing wall as described in the petition. He stated that the dimensions of the wall will remain the same, but it will be built to last. He confirmed that the wall will be constructed of brick to match the house noting that the brick is not common brick. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing no requests to speak from the public, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Athenson thanked the property owners for honoring the original design of the wall. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 9 Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving removal and reconstruction of the wall with the modifications to the wall and driveway as presented. He added that removal of the east wall and replacement with a wrought iron fence is part of the approvals. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the project is consistent with the applicable standards. He stated that the presentation and the Commission’s deliberations are incorporated as additional findings. He noted that the motion includes the following conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. b. Details of the wrought iron fence shall be submitted to staff for confirmation that the fence is consistent with the original iron gate on the property. c. If any modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, for verification that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. 7. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving modifications to an existing bay window at 1411 Lake Road. Property owners: Yuh and Marcus Shabacker Representative: Mike Malloy, project manager Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Malloy introduced the petition. He explained that the first floor bay is proposed for extension up to the second and third floors. He noted that the property is a lot in depth and does not have frontage on Lake Road. He stated that the bay to be extended is on the east side of the house, facing the Lake. He noted a similar existing bay on the south side of the house which is used as a precedent for the proposed bay. He stated that the two bays together will make the large attic available for living space. He added that the new bay will offer views of the Lake. He reviewed the elevations. He noted that after reading the staff report, consideration was given to the comments. He stated that in response, some of the windows in the bay were modified to make them vertical in nature, rather than horizontal, for greater consistency with the other windows. He noted that at the second floor, the bay steps back to create a step out balcony. He stated that the proposed modifications and the extension of the bay will improve the overall house. He provided before and after drawings of the house noting the elements that are proposed for change. He stated that in response to the staff comment about the solid walls on either side of the French Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 10 doors, they worked hard to try to fit flanking windows into that area. He stated however that there is simply not enough room to add windows in that location. He pointed out that instead, windows were added on the walls on either side of the bay element. He reviewed the floor plan noting how the extension of the bay works well in plan. Ms. Czerniak provided some background on the property noting that it was created through a subdivision of an estate property in the 1950’s. She noted that at that time, the factors that might be considered today in considering subdivision of a property were not necessarily considered as new lots were configured. She stated that this property is a “lot in depth”, a property that does not have the minimum street frontage required by the Code. She stated that as a result, the property has very limited visibility from the public street. She stated that the house was constructed in the 1980’s, prior to the establishment of the Historic Preservation Commission and before the review standards used today were in place. She stated that although this property is in the City’s Historic District, it is not identified as a Contributing Structure to the District. She acknowledged that the addition of the vertical bay element as proposed would not likely be approved as an addition to other residences in the Historic District. She noted however that in this case, a similar vertical element already exists on the south side of the house. She noted that the proposed bay extension will be on the east side of the house and will not be visible from many points off of the site. She stated that the project complies with the allowable square footage. She noted that the project presents some inconsistencies in window forms and detailing and acknowledged that based on Mr. Malloy’s presentation, some modifications have been made to the plans since the Commission’s packets were prepared to achieve greater consistency. She asked for Commission input on whether the plans as modified present enough consistency and appropriate details. She stated that the staff report provided findings in support of the project and offers recommendations for conditions of approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the attic was factored into the total square footage of the house consistent with the calculation method established in the Code. She stated that she is unsure whether the Building Scale Ordinance was in effect at the time this house was constructed noting that both the house and the Ordinance were approved in the 1980’s. She reiterated that the house, with the proposed addition, complies with the current Code requirements relating to square footage. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Malloy reviewed and clarified the side elevations. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Malloy confirmed that the spacing of the windows on the east elevation is consistent. He reviewed some of the details and noted some inconsistencies in various window elements. He reiterated that the windows suggested by staff on either side of the French Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 11 doors do not fit in the limited space. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Malloy stated that they considered staff’s comment about moving the third floor windows down from the eave but noted that the relationship of the windows to the eaves as presented seems to be consistent with existing windows on the house. He noted that that detail of the existing 3rd floor windows appears to meet the fascia. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Mallory confirmed that there would be a knee wall, a glass panel for safety and a decorative railing on the balcony. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Malloy reviewed the width of the frieze boards at the second and third floors. He reviewed the ridge of the roof in relation to the ridge of the proposed bay. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Malloy confirmed that there will be weep holes or scuppers of a modest size on the bay element. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Pairitz invited public comment, hearing none, he commented that the house is interesting noting that after visiting the house in person, the photos and drawings were easier to understand. He stated that the existing house does not have a hierarchy of massing but noted that the proposed addition is sympathetic to house. He noted that although there will be limited visibility of the proposed modifications, efforts should be made to think about ways to trick the eye and give the appearance of minimized mass. He suggested that perhaps the trick is a change of color at the siding or comes in the form of landscaping. He acknowledged that the issue may be more with the existing house, but stated that efforts to minimize the appearance of mass will be worthwhile as the design matures. He stated that if he lived in the house, he would like to have the opportunity to view the Lake through a bay window. Commissioner Preschlack summarized that the house is a newer house, and is not historic, but instead, a quirky and interesting design. He noted that the house does not have street frontage. He stated that the addition tries to address scale and massing issues and improve upon the existing house. He stated that he supports the homeowner’s efforts to improve the functionality of the house and take advantage of the views. He stated that this project presents a special circumstance and stated that he can support the petition. Commissioner Athenson asked that the first floor windows be addressed. Commissioner Wheeler stated that consideration should be given to assuring that the proper distance requirements are met with the chimney as the addition is put in place. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 12 Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pairitz invited a motion Commissioner Travers made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving modification and extension of the existing 1st floor bay window to the 2nd and 3rd floors on the east elevation. He stated that the approval is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the testimony and the Commission’s 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 the following modifications. a. Modify the 1st floor windows in the bay to make them generally consistent with the 3rd floor windows and the 2nd floor windows to the north and south of the bay. b. Clarify that windows, generally consistent with the 3rd floor windows, are intended for the walls of the 2nd floor bay that transition from the outer edge of the bay back to the main wall of the house. c. If any other modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. 2. Tree Protection Plan – No trees are indicated as being impacted by this project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Protection Plan, to protect trees during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Chairman Pairitz recognized a member of public who wished to speak. Elizabeth Surak, 152 Ahwahnee Road, stated that she has lived in Lake Forest for 30 years. She stated that based on recent community discussions, she is concerned about the future of the former Miller Estate house. She suggested that the house would be a nice location for the Lake Forest/Lake Bluff Historical Society. She stated that she would like to see the woods on the property preserved, or at least some of the trees. She noted that only a small amount of prairie is left in Illinois. She stated that more greenery would be good for the Route 60 Corridor as people get off of the Tollway and enter Lake Forest. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 - Page 13 9. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development