Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/09/21 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission and Park and Recreation Board Proceedings of the September 21, 2011 -- Joint Meeting A joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Park and Recreation Board was held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer, Susan Rafferty Athenson, Mary Ellen Swenson, Guy Berg and Jim Preschlack. Commissioners absent: None Park and Recreation Board members present: Chairman Robin Ford, Board members Michelle Green, Dan Marinic, Scott Schappe, Robert Taylor and Curt Volkmann Board members absent: Lauren Turelli 1. Opening Comments and Introductions of Board and Commission members Chairman Ford and Chairman Pairitz Chairman Ford opened the meeting and provided introductory comments. She clarified that this is the only agenda item before the Board and Commission this evening. She reviewed the order of the agenda noting that the Forest Park Project Board will make a presentation of the findings to date and review the work of the various committees. She clarified that at this time, there is no final report or master plan being presented and that no action from the Board or Commission is requested. She noted that comments, concerns, questions and ideas from the Board and Commission members and the public are welcome after the presentation. Chairman Pairitz stated that the Board and Commission are here to work with all parties to continue the community tradition of reviewing projects such as this through a deliberate public process. He noted that the Board and Commission are here to work with all parties to preserve the special character of the community. He reiterated that there will be an opportunity for public comment and noted that copies of the agenda and a sign-up sheet to receive notice of future meetings on this topic are at the back of the room. He invited members of the Board and Commission to introduce themselves and invited introductory comments from staff. 2. Background Information – Process overview, Role of Board/Commission What is a Master Plan? City Staff Ms. Van Arsdale provided an overview of the anticipated process for consideration of the Forest Park Master Plan. She reviewed the various phases of the process and explained that over the past year, the Forest Park Project Board has been conducting research, analysis and, preparing committee reports. She stated that the project is currently in the community input phase noting that this phase started with a community meeting held by the Project Board last May. She stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 2 that the purpose of the May meeting and this joint meeting is to present the findings of the Project Board to date to the Board and Commission as well as to the public with the intent of hearing feedback on the work completed to date. She explained that after this meeting, the plan development phase of the project will get underway during which the Project Board will work to resolve various open issues and reach alignment of the work of the various committees. She continued noting that after the final report and Master Plan are completed; they will be presented to both the Park and Recreation Board and the Historic Preservation Commission and reviewed through the public hearing process. She stated that recommendations of those bodies will be presented to the City Council for consideration prior to the Council’s final action on the Master Plan. She stated that assuming approval of the Master Plan, a private fund raising phase will begin. She noted that improvements as directed by the Master Plan are intended to be privately funded. She stated that finally, once funds are raised, the project will enter the implementation phase. She concluded noting that there are still multiple steps ahead in this process. Ms. Czerniak provided an overview of the master planning process and the roles of the Board and Commission in the process. She noted that the process described by Ms. Van Arsdale is not a process that was created just for this project, but one that is used over and over again in the community, with some modification, for various projects, large and small. She noted that the Plan Commission recently began a similar process last week hearing an informational presentation from Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital at the outset of the master planning process for revitalization of the hospital campus. She explained that master plans have been adopted for many sites in the community and serve as guiding documents that establish parameters for what can and what cannot happen at the various sites. She added that master plans can be detailed to a greater or lesser extent depending on what is desired. She noted that once adopted, the Forest Park Master Plan will provide a strong foundation to guide future decisions about the park. She noted that the Master Plan may also detail a process for moving various components of the plan forward. With respect to the roles of the Park and Recreation Board and Historic Preservation Commission, she clarified that both bodies are recommending bodies to the City Council and that both will be involved in reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council on the final plan that is presented. She pointed out that this joint meeting is an opportunity for the Board and Commission members to hear the perspectives of their colleagues on the other body. She noted that the Historic Preservation Commission will be charged with evaluating the plan based on some regulatory requirements in the Code and the Park and Recreation Board will be charged with evaluating the plan from a programming, operations and functional basis. 3. Presentation by Forest Park Project Board and Committees Ralph Gesualdo, President, Forest Park Project Board Committee Representatives Mr. Gesualdo thanked the Board and Commission members for their work noting that he previously served on a Board and understands the commitment and amount of work required. He stated that Forest Park is the only park in the City without a master plan to guide decisions about the park. He stated that for that reason, the community began this important discussion almost two years ago and the Forest Park Project Board was created. He stated that the group was formed to study, analyze, solicit public comment and ultimately develop a master plan to reflect the community’s shared goals for the park and meets the needs of the entire community, not just a vocal minority. He explained that the Project Board understands the complexity of the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 3 project and will strive to find the right balance between rehabilitation, preservation and enhancing the park to meet the recreation needs of the community for the next 100 years and beyond. He stated that the presentation will review the goals and process used by the Project Board to date and noted that the interim reports of three committees: historic preservation, horticulture and engineering, will be presented. He noted that the reports represent countless volunteer hours spent researching and preparing findings. He pointed out that not every interim report looks the same because each committee followed its own methods and used its own analysis process. He stated that these reports are just a first step in the process and acknowledged that some of the findings in the reports conflict with each other on certain issues. He commented that these differences are appropriate given the many opinions about the project. He said that the Project Board must review all sides of the issue to make fully informed decisions as the final plan is developed. He stated that contrary to recent rumors, no decisions have been made about any aspect of the final master plan and stated that in fact, the purpose of this meeting is to present the information gathered to date and solicit input. He stated that all input received is valued. He discussed the Executive Board of the Forest Park Project Board noting that it was developed based on recommendations from the City. He stated that the Executive Board has people in appointed leadership positions and a legal advisor. He added that to form the Board and the committees, a number of local experts in various fields were identified to chair the various committees. He named the chairmen of each committee. He stated that representatives of three of the committees will present their findings at this meeting. He noted that since discussions about Forest Park began, this is the 13th public meeting at which information is being shared with Lake Forest residents with the opportunity for public comment. He stated that the meetings were held to reach out to the public to find out what the community wants the park to be. He stated that the reports will not be reviewed in their entirety at this meeting but he encouraged the Board and Commission members to read the materials provided. He stated that much of the same information was shared at a public forum held last May which was attended by over 100 residents. He noted that after that meeting, the Executive Board felt that before taking steps to develop a final plan, it was important to make a presentation to the Park and Recreation Board and Historic Preservation Commission and solicit comments. He concluded by introducing Gail Hodges, a member of Historic Preservation Committee, to present the findings of that committee. He recognized the tremendous and amount of time this group spent researching Forest Park. Ms. Hodges introduced the interim report of the Historic Preservation Committee noting that the group began work last September. She stated that after six months of work, the group presented an interim report which was unanimously approved by the committee. She pointed out that Forest Park is more just one of the City’s parks and more than the City’s oldest park noting that it is a Cultural Landscape as defined by the U.S. Secretary of Interior. She explained that the park is a Cultural Landscape for several reasons: 1) it exemplifies the work of two distinguished 19th Century landscape architects, Almerin Hotchkiss and O. C. Simonds; 2) it is one of the oldest parks in the United States dating back to 1896 like other Chicago area parks of the same era, Washington Park, Lincoln Park and Jackson Park; 3) it is identified as a contributing property in the Original Lake Forest Historic District; and 4) it is in the National Register District. She explained that the founders of Lake Forest, working with Hotchkiss, could have chosen any site for a park, but selected a prime and very valuable site for Forest Park. She noted that future changes to Forest Park should meet the criteria for Certificates of Appropriateness and the standards for the treatment of Cultural Landscapes. She added that if any Federal funding is Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 4 obtained for the park, the State Section 106 review process will be required. She noted that the committee considered the park in the context of Lake Forest’s history of responsible stewardship of historic elements of the community through private efforts, public efforts and public/private partnerships. She pointed out examples including Market Square, City Hall and most recently, Elawa Farm. She noted that the committee looked at Forest Park in the context of consequential planning decisions made in the City including adoption of the first Zoning Code in 1923 which limited the uses that could be established in the vicinity of Forest Park, establishment of the Plan Commission in 1926 and enactment of the Preservation Ordinance in 1997. She stated that in laying out the City in 1856, Hotchkiss created a “City in a park” and later, O. C. Simonds was hired as a planner for Forest Park, the only park in Lake Forest at that time, and emphasized the natural environment and defined a setting for passive enjoyment of nature. She pointed out that Forest Park has been a passive park for over 150 years and that as part of the beach referendum; it was made clear that the top of the bluff, Forest Park, was to remain a passive park. She discussed Hotchkiss’ design philosophy noting that it runs through every project he designed. She stated that the street plan for Lake Forest designed by Hotchkiss was defined by existing topography, hydrology and vegetative features. She noted that the curving roadways are integrated into the natural terrain, scenic opportunities are provided along the Lake and the native landscape is preserved at every opportunity. She noted that the legacy of the Hotchkiss plan has dictated development in the community for over 150 years. She explained that Forest Park was a unique component of the plan as the only set aside for a public park. She noted that Forest Park was the only park in Lake Forest until West Park was developed about the time of the development of Market Square in the early 1900’s and is the only lakefront park in the community. She stated that Simonds’ design philosophy was similar to Hotchkiss’ but carried one step further to create a design to engage individuals with the landscape. She noted that Simonds’ work was based on a naturalistic idiom with a philosophy that “less is more”. She noted his use of local materials, native plants and response to the natural topography. She noted that a site along water was one of his favorites. She explained that the 10 acres and 3,200 feet along the Lake were established to give the best possible enjoyment from a passive perspective. She noted Simonds’ belief in somewhat restricted views to increase visible involvement with the landscape. She noted that in the original plan, the ring road is clearly defined. She noted the strong visual relationship between the park and the open lawns on the properties along the Lake Road and the importance of retaining that relationship in the future. She stated that one of the committee’s best finds was a 1911 survey of the park by the James Anderson Company, a firm that surveyed almost the entire community. She noted that the survey found that the ring road was located exactly as Simonds’ specified and paved with macadam. She stated that there were no streetlights until a 1930’s streetlight project. She noted that it is known that maple, cherry and apple trees existed in the park since field notes revealed that the coordinates were set up from certain trees along with a central path that was part of the Simonds’ plan. She pointed out that the Simonds’ plat leaves the community with a legacy noting two aerial views, one from 1939 and the other from 2007, which show some change in the landscape, but reflect that the overall patterns of coverage in the park remain similar to the original plan. She noted that actual documentation of the park in 1915 was found. She stated that the legacy of Simonds’ plan sets a background for the interdependent elements that need to work together going forward: the geographic features, the natural systems and the historical elements. She noted that the community is faced with a number of deteriorated and diminished components of the park which remain from the early plans including, the ring road, walking paths, the bluff and ravines, the ravine road, what remains of the woodlands and understory, vistas, the visual relationship Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 5 between the park and the lawns of the properties across Lake Road and the 1964 belvedere and stairs. She added that this project is being undertaken because the park is facing challenges of use, deterioration of the landscape, trees in decline, the need for sustainable maintenance practices and the deterioration of infrastructure. She noted that the historic landscape has been compromised with some of the views obscured, a loss of native plant materials and a mix of signage and amenities. She stated that the historic preservation committee recommends respecting the past while being forward looking and observing the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for preservation, rehabilitation, stewardship and enhancement. She stated that it is important to create a sustainable model for the park which could serve as a model for all of the City’s parks. She explained that preservation is required to respect and honor the work of Hotchkiss and Simonds and that rehabilitation and enhancement should recognize the need to make alterations or additions while retaining the park’s character. She stated that the work should result from a conscious decision making process noting that no change is routine in a historic district or with a cultural landscape. She commented that overtime, individual, incremental changes can erode the historic character and leave the community with nothing of value. She stated that the committee suggests a goal of developing a master plan that ensures the preservation of the cultural landscape, supports sustainable solutions for infrastructure and ongoing maintenance and enhancement to the park to meet present and future community needs all in a manner consistent with the guidelines for cultural landscapes and with the Preservation Ordinance. She stated that an in depth review is needed of prior changes that have affected the parks integrity. She noted that the community is lucky to have Simonds’ plan to guide suggestions for future plant removals and plantings. She stated that Forest Park is a unique cultural asset, deserving of responsible stewardship now and in the future. Mr. Gesualdo introduced Peter Witmer, a member of the Engineering and Technical Committee. Mr. Witmer stated that the Engineering and Technical committee looked at the existing conditions in the park. He stated that the group considered a core sample of the road. He stated that in general, the road is in good shape, with some deterioration from use noting that the top could be ground down and the based fixed in some areas. He stated that the committee recommends keeping the road in basically the same location, without widening. He stated that no evidence was found that the road is causing degradation of the bluff. He stated that the committee recommends removal of the steel curbing noting that it was not part of the original design and in its current condition, is dangerous. He added that the committee concluded that some type of curbing may be appropriate to hold the edge of the road but that the current curbing on Lake Road is not appropriate for the ring road. He stated that the storm drainage system is in place but that the drains need repair or replacement and the locations of the inlets may need to be reoriented for improved water collection. He stated that the 1960’s stairs and belvedere are structurally sound, but also need repair. He commented that if the stairs and belvedere are removed, in order to meet current Code requirements, any replacement may not be consistent with the character of the park. He stated that the committee observed that the wooden ramp is structurally good, but that the structure needs to be maintained and appears that it has not received much attention since it was installed. He stated that the ramp is a unique way to get to the beach and noted that as with the stairs, if it is torn out, it will need to be upgraded to meet current Codes. He discussed parking suggesting that a solution may be to have fewer parking lots than shown on the conceptual master plan, and to add spaces to the south lot. He noted that the details of an expansion should be reflected on the master plan adding that the south lot could Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 6 be expanded slightly to allow a bus to turn around and drop off. He noted that the committee observed that the ring road functions as a wide sidewalk most of the time with an occasional car. He stated that the committee found that there was not much conflict and found no need to add a parallel sidewalk. He stated that the ring road provides accessibility in both winter and summer. He reviewed the committee’s comments on the bluff noting that there is not a huge amount of water erosion on the bluff and stated support for continuing the program to remove trees on the bluff to allow light to penetrate, improve stability and to open views. Mr. Gesualdo introduced the Chairman of the Landscape and Horticulture Committee, Cliff Miller. Mr. Miller identified the members of the landscape committee and reviewed their credentials and areas of expertise. He stated that the group evaluated the concept plan presented by the Garden Club to the City of Lake Forest noting that it was not a final plan and explained that the group intended to offer ideas that could be helpful in the development of a final plan. He noted that the report submitted to the Board and Commission covers the information in more detail. He explained that the committee’s report outlines the process followed noting that this process is followed by the professionals on the committee in all projects. He explained that the process started with understanding the goals and intent of the project and then going through the process of looking at the historical significance, design and environmental aspects and considering park usage and people. He discussed how the various aspects are balanced. He stated that the park represents a forest that by its nature supported the development of the park. He noted that the committee’s comments relate to the master plan that was prepared by Stimson. He explained that the committee feels that it is in the best interest of the community to separate pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic noting that he often sees interaction between the two systems at the park. He stated that separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic improves safety. He explained that the committee suggests a curvilinear design for the road and pedestrian paths in keeping with the naturalistic design and noted that the committee agreed that the road should remain, but be improved. He noted that the committee’s report notes various suggestions for improvements to the road. He discussed parking noting agreement that the parking at the center of the park should be removed and some concerns about redevelopment of the south parking lot due to the interest in preserving the remnant forest. He discussed the stairs and beach access stating that the committee recommends maintaining what exists and giving consideration to ways to better connect the table land to the beach. He discussed the importance of the relationship of the various elements of the site and while at the same time, meeting the needs of the residents. He discussed the elements of the park as considered by the committee noting that the vistas at the park are in need of redevelopment noting that some no longer exist and others do not relate to the plan. He observed that the groves of trees are disappearing and that the trees that remain are old and in need of management. He reviewed the technical issues considered by the committee including paving and drainage noting that there appear to be environmentally sound and cost effect solutions to address needed improvements. He stated that the committee recommends further review of the vegetative inventory to ensure that there is factual information as a starting point and complete data. He noted that going forward, management techniques should be identified to increase stabilization and maximize views. He noted an example of a long term, low maintenance bluff restoration that was done in Lake Bluff. He noted that the mature woodland in the park is the only remaining woodland on the table plan from when the park was set aside by Hotchkiss and commented that protecting it should be a primary goal. He stated that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 7 the committee encourages reconstruction of the woodland in a manner that maintains the continuity of the ravines, bluff and table land and retains the level of intimacy provided by the woodland. He pointed out that the existing curvilinear path from the south parking lot provides a place to be alone and adds a different dimension to the park, one with no views. He noted that the committee observed the places in the park where there are things, in comparison to places where there are not things. He discussed the importance of the interrelation of spaces and as part of that, the importance of negative spaces. He noted that a grove of trees, minus the surrounding negative space, is a forest, and noted that the negative space defines the grove. He noted that one of the problems identified by the committee was the random planting of trees that occurred over the years, with no direction or plan. He noted that a well thought out plan will consider plantings as they relate to the overall park. He pointed out that Lake Forest College has an overall reforestation plan for the campus that could be looked to as a model to assure good design, good management and good long term direction. He noted that the committee recognized Forest Park as a unique geographical feature and that one of the greatest assets is the view of the Lake, a view that is not available elsewhere in the community. He noted that driving along the edge of the bluff, the view is fabulous. He stated that the park has always been about the table land and the view, but noted the significance of the ravines in which all kinds of plants exist that do not exist in other ravines. He added that the ravines are a hidden jewel and that consideration should be given to ways to provide access and to integrate the ravines into the park plan. He noted that one of the problems is that everyone thinks about the park as the grass, the table land, but that park is more. He noted that unlike ravines, the bluff has under gone a complete change from 100 years ago; noting that what is there now is not what was there then. He stated that this is an issue to be looked at to determine what role should now be played in managing this area given its manipulated natural condition. He commented on the amenities noting that today, there are many different kinds of signage, benches, garbage cans and bike racks. He stated that the committee recommends a review of what is necessary and then consideration of how to achieve a consistent aesthetic. He noted that good design drives both maintenance and management. He stated that development of a plan is paramount to the long term of the park and currently, a plan is a missing piece. He noted that currently one of the primary uses of the park is as a staging area for the beach below commenting that it is used by the Parks Department and the residents to drop people off and for buses to drop people off all headed for the beach below. He stated that the park is also a passive recreation area used for dog walking, biking and walking, primarily by residents who live nearby. He stated that some cars use the road for viewing the Lake but agreed with earlier comments that there is not much traffic on the road. He stated that it is important to consider the uses and the long term goals to determine how to deal with the road in the future. He stated that historically, the road is very important. He stated that there is disagreement among the committees relating to the design of the park. He stated that the park was not designed, but set aside. He explained that no interior work was done, but the park was protected. He stated that after it was protected, there was minor tree cutting and harvesting of gravel from the road. He described a haul road that used to exist extending through the north entrance and up through the ravine area. He noted that there were trails in the park that were used by nearby residents such as the Farwells. He stated that the park is a remnant, lake-forest, noting that the forest interior was preserved, but not designed. He stated that the plan that Simonds put together reflected the ring road but noted that the southern part of the road shown as dashed on the plan was not built or at least never put into macadam according to the plat. He emphasized that Simonds was not involved in the interior landscape of the park noting that early photographs show none of the plants from Simonds’ plan. He acknowledged that Simonds laid out the road Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 8 and stated that the fact that Hotchkiss set the park aside is historically valuable. He noted however that neither designed the park as a whole. He stated that Anderson’s firm designed the belvedere noting that today such an element would likely not be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. He stated that the subcommittee found that the belvedere is an interesting structure, with great history and noted how it controls the view to the Lake. He noted that it is also the most important exercise element in the park. He stated that the committee found that there is no need to remove the road or the belvedere but observed that both need to be restored and there needs to be an understanding of how they react to current needs. He commented that the road is a functional, simple loop, in keeping with the historical plan. He added that the landscape itself was created by removals, rather than by additions. He noted that the Farwell family requested and received permission from the City to cut timber in the park. He observed that the park is unique in that it is a forest that was “picked at” and over time, the Oak over story was diminished and should be restored. He noted that in response to the change, plantings were added over time, without a plan. He stated that the committee observed that Simonds’ and others’ goals for the park were probably never much more than heading toward an idea of what park should look like. He stated that it is important to accurately represent the history of the park noting again that the interior was never designed specifically. He stated the committee’s agreement that the use of the park is passive and discussed his own use of the park and his experience watching other people use the park. He stated that the park is not used a great deal but is all about the view and today, a place for residents to exercise. He stated that the findings of the Landscape and Horticulture Committee are further detailed in the report and on the Project Board’s website. Mr. Gesualdo thanked all of the committee representatives for their work and presentations. He stated although the committees differ on some aspects, there is a commonality among the committees with respect to care and concern for the park, a treasured asset. He stated that this common concern binds the group together and will allow the group to move forward to prepare a final report and master plan for presentation to the Park and Recreation Board and the Historic Preservation Commission. He invited comments, concerns and questions from all present. 4. Park and Recreation Board and Historic Preservation Commission questions and comments Board and Commission members Commissioner Preschlack commented on the scope of the master plan noting the importance of integrating the park, the access to the beach, the bluff and the beach below to assure that all are considered as the plan is developed emphasizing that the park serves as the entry to the beach. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Gesualdo confirmed that other than the beach itself, his expectation is that the master plan will consider all of the various aspects of the park as mentioned. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Van Arsdale explained that there is a comprehensive plan that serves as a guiding document for all of the parks in the community. She noted that the plan categorizes parks as community parks or neighborhood parks and defines the primary intended use of each. She noted that in the discussions to date, no desire has been expressed to have Forest Park become something other than a passive park. She noted however Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 9 that to put an ordinance in place dictating passive use is limiting and commented that the community could change its mind in the future. Commissioner Athenson stated that the passive nature of the park should be protected. Mr. Gesualdo confirmed that the intent of the master plan is to define acceptable uses for the park and also confirmed that to date; all discussions follow the path of retaining the passive use. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the master plan will serve as the document that directs usage of the park once approved by the City Council and will protect the passive use if that is what the plan identifies as appropriate. Board member Volkmann commended the presentations. He noted that one presentation mentioned the designation of the park as a cultural landscape and contributing property to the City’s historic district but another committee raised questions about the historic significance. He stated his understanding that the designations carry some statutory requirements with respect to process and what can happen in the future. He stated that there appears to be disagreement among the committees in this area. In response to Board member Volkmann, Mr. Gesualdo agreed that these are points for future discussion by the Forest Park Project Board. He explained that at this point, each committee has given its presentation to the Executive Committee and to date, the work is at the fact finding stage. In response to questions from Board member Volkmann, Ms. Van Arsdale stated that no other park in the City is defined as a cultural landscape and confirmed that review under the City’s preservation requirements will be a new process for the park. At the invitation of Mr. Gesualdo, and in response to questions from the Board, Ms. Hodges explained that the preservation committee of the Forest Park Project Board unanimously agreed that the park meets the definition of a cultural landscape. She summarized the reasons why the park meets the definition noting that the park is a contributing structure to the historic district, important people were involved in the park, it is one of the oldest parks in the Country, the founders of Lake Forest were significant in the development of the Chicago region and the park was set aside in the original plan for the City. She clarified that it is not a matter of pursuing designation because it meets the definition and as a result, the applicable standards should be considered as part of the review process for future plans. Board member Schappe noted that in the presentation from the engineering committee, there was some discussion about expanding the upper south lot for a bus turn around and drop off but also discussion of using the lower south lot for a bus drop off. He expressed concern about dropping young children off in the lower south parking lot due to the proximity of the boat dock area. In response, Mr. Witmer agreed that the engineering committee needs to do some further analysis of the numbers to understand the potential conflicts with summer camp children and use of the boat docks. He noted that the initial observation is that use of the boat docks is high on the weekends, but lighter during the week. He agreed that this is an area that needs to be studied. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 10 Chairman Ford noted that dropping off very young children at a location where they need to walk by the boat docks, an area with a huge drop off and no wall, is not a viable option. She noted that in the original master plan, the bus drop off was planned for the upper, south lot. She noted that also in the Stimson plan; there was discussion of enhancement of the south woods with paths and the addition of a seat wall and benches to take advantage of the views. She noted that she did not hear those elements discussed in the presentations. Mr. Gesualdo noted that those issues are under the purview of the engineering and technical committee. He noted that the committee tackled the road element first since that was a focus of discussion. He stated that there will be further discussion of the other elements before the plan is brought back to the Board and Commission for consideration. Board member Green commented on the stairs down to the beach noting that the building in the center does not appear to be used and questioned whether changes could occur in this area. Mr. Gesualdo noted that a suggestion was made to leave the structure in its present form but he stated the intent of the Executive Committee to discuss the belvedere and wooden stairs and acknowledged that there is a part of the structure that is not being used. He stated that the final plan will address the table land, access, drop off areas and stairways. Commissioner Berg recognized the amazing effort on the part of the various committees. He noted that it is a testament to the community not only that there are residents willing to volunteer the time to do this work, but that this expertise exists in the community. He commented that the project has come a long way since first presented to the community. He stated that after reading the reports and hearing the informational presentations, he is much more informed. He commended the process noting that at the outset there was concern that decisions would be made without input. He noted that instead, the process is unfolding in a unique way in which many people are being involved in some facet of the final plan. He observed that the designer, the consultant, is not present at the meeting and noted that may be a lost opportunity for the designer to hear valuable input first hand. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak explained that all of the comments from this meeting will be considered by the Forest Park Project Executive Board as the group works to resolve differences and develop recommendations for a final master plan. She stated her expectation that the Executive Board may choose to bring in one or more consultants to assist in the plan development process and will likely call on City staff from various departments to offer input. She stated that there is significant work ahead of the Project Board before a final plan is presented for public review. Mr. Gesualdo stated that it was a conscious decision of the Executive Board not to have Mr. Stimson attend the meeting. He stated that the Executive Board is still in a fact finding process to find out what the community wants. He confirmed that a consultant may be involved in the future. He agreed with earlier comments that although at times the earlier discussions on this project were heated, that was a good part of the process and the Project Board learned from the people who spoke up. He stated his amazement at the quality of the people on the committee and the willingness of the individuals to expend so much effort. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 11 Commissioner Pairitz agreed with Commissioner Berg’s comments regarding the benefit of the community discussions and participation in this project to date. He reminded the Commissioners and Board members that since no action is requested at this time, the group will not be deliberating toward a vote, but encouraged the members to offer qualitative comments, even if they are just knee jerk reactions to what has been presented at this point, to help the Project Board in making decisions going forward. He observed that as acknowledged by Mr. Gesualdo, there are some differences of opinion among the committees and the Executive Board will need to make some decisions. He offered his own comments stating that he is intrigued by the notion of whether the interior of the park was designed or not designed. He commented that the park really already has a master plan referring to the materials presented and noted that the work that is needed is just to update it. He commented that the beauty in identifying this parcel of land for a park was that the trees were already there, a decision just needed to be made on which ones to avoid impacting. He observed that in simple terms, the park designed itself and commented that the character of the park is what the community is aspiring to maintain. He acknowledged that there are areas of the park that can benefit from improvement and restoration. He observed that in looking at the plan and understanding what the intentions of O. C. Simonds might have been, how the park is entered and how the view unfolds through the first bend in the road is a character that should be considered. He noted that as a result of the south parking lot, vehicles today enter the park along a straight, grid-type street noting that the meandering of the road does not start until approximately the belvedere. He observed that there may be an opportunity to resolve the entrance, without extending it back to the south end, to re-create the character of how the view is supposed to unfold, rather than having a straight street. He stated that the ring road is really the heart and soul of the park and commented that the width of the road, whether it is tree lined, whether it has a sidewalk adjacent to it or whether it is restored with macadam will all be important considerations. He acknowledged that the road surface needs to be considered in terms of how it will hold up to the winters. He commented that whether the road is 18’ wide or whether the road is 12’ wide with adjacent sidewalks will create different vistas and will be important to how the view unfolds. He commented that this decision is really the heart and soul of the matter. He urged caution in these decisions noting that there may be an opportunity for creative design for instance splitting the sidewalk off from the road at only the north and south ends and by doing so, keeping the sidewalk as a minor aspect of the plan instead of elevating it to a major role. He stated that the ring road has been established as probably the most historic part of the park. He commented on the discussion of curbing or no curbing stating an understanding of the interest in removing the steel curbing but also observing that if maintained properly, the steel curbing is innocuous. He commented that concrete curbing is not innocuous even when the curb is flat and seems to affect the character of the road. He suggested consideration of stone, a natural material, if a curb is desired. He stated confidence that the Project Board has the expertise needed to decide which trees should remain or be replaced and reiterated that the decisions on the road will be key. Commissioner Berg commented that since the Commission heard the initial presentation on Forest Park, he has been thinking consciously about the ring road. He noted the number of times he used the ring road to take the opportunity for a quick driveway. He recalled that there was a great deal of discussion about whether the ring road should be vacated and stated that in the early discussions, he was intrigued by the notion of converting the ring road to a pedestrian way, but after thought, believes that it should continue to provide for vehicle access. He agreed with Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 12 Chairman Pairitz that if a pedestrian walkway is integrated into the road, how it is done will require careful consideration. He noted that the addition of a walkway and seating will be important design features to consider. He recognized the comments of the landscape committee citing a possible advantage to providing a separate pedestrian pathway, in the form of a path parallel to the road, as a means to psychologically separate vehicles from pedestrians. He observed that the approach might be effective but pointed out that there is not room for the extension of a parallel path the full length of road, but commented that a path sporadically branching off of the road might be interesting to provide access to benches. He discussed options for seating from minimalist slabs to wood or metal benches. He observed that longer and fewer seating options might help the park to appear less cluttered. He reiterated his opinion that the vehicular nature of the road should not change and stated that in keeping with the country lane character, concrete curbs would not be appropriate. He pointed out that traditional country estate lanes do not have curbing, just areas of transition from the road to the lawn noting that often gravel is used. He noted the mention of the use of bioswales to address water issues commenting that bioswales are favored today as a way to incorporate direction of storm water into natural features. Commissioner Athenson stated that she was not on the Commission for the initial presentation of the Forest Park project adding that she is impressed by the amount of work and research that has occurred. She stated that from her perspective, as a Commissioner, the most compelling aspect is the historical significance of the park. She stated that the historic significant should drive any redevelopment of the park with a focus on preserving the natural and historic features. She stated that the ring road should be preserved consistent with the original design. She stated that Forest Park is a jewel of the community. Mr. Gesualdo commented that it is a tribute to the process that at the outset of the project, the ring road was proposed for elimination but at this point the discussion is about curbing on the road. He stated that the change of focus occurred because of comments from residents and months of research. He stated that the process has been about finding out what the residents of Lake Forest want Forest Park to be. Board member Marinic questioned how much design went into the park originally and how much of the park was just naturally beautiful. He stated that the ring road was put in to serve the needs of a horse and buggy. He observed that the park is dynamic and has changed over time and will continue to change in the future. He stated that today, the park needs some attention. He noted that in the 1960’s, the stairs were installed and that over the years, vegetation and trees were planted where people wanted to plant them. He stated that much of what has occurred in the park seems to have been arbitrary. He questioned whether the discussion should be about trying to go back to a specific design or about paying attention to a beautiful plot of land that evolved through the years. Mr. Gesualdo agreed that the Executive Board will need to sort through those issues, come to some decisions and develop a plan. Chairman Pairitz offered a counter point noting that the community can continue to allow the park to change and evolve without a plan but cautioned that it may turn into something that the community does not like. He stated that the community seems to like the character that exists Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 13 and commented that it will take a planning approach to preserve that character as changes occur. He stated that the first job is to understand and take advantage of the unique character of the park. He stated that a master plan will do that to assure that for instance trees and bushes are not planted in an area that is an important open area. He stated that in his opinion, the community is on the right track with the current process. Board member Marinic stated that he has no disagreement with having a plan, but noted that until now, he assumed that everything in the park was planned all along. He stated that he is surprised to hear that much of the park was natural starting out as a grove with forested areas and some vistas. He agreed that the process will determine what the community wants. He clarified that elements are not going to be eliminated, for instance trees cut down, simply because the park looks different than it did in the early years. Mr. Gesualdo stated that the goal of the Project Board is to rehabilitate and preserve the park for the next 100 years. He stated the intention to bring the park up to date and correct what needs to be corrected and stated that preservation is a part of the mission. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Gesualdo agreed that attention needs to be paid to not adding too much to the park. He noted that the amenities and memorials committee did not make a presentation yet but noted that group will consider the many types of existing amenities. He stated his expectation that the master plan may propose less than what exists today for instance by identifying one type of bench or memorial, instead of many. He stated that these issues will require discussion and agreed that sometimes, less is more. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board or Commission, Chairman Ford invited public comment. John Drummond, 410 Woodland Road, recommended a book by Barbara Geiger and noted that she is a tremendous resource on O.C. Simonds and his contemporaries and suggested that consideration be given to hiring her as a consultant for the Forest Park project. He spoke to the question of how much of the park was designed and based on a plan and noted that after visiting Quincy, Illinois and several parks designed by Simonds, he believes the park was very much a Simonds’ design. He noted similarities in the various parks designed by Simonds noting that some of the same components exist in Forest Park such as the way that the road approaches the edge of the bluff and the limited vistas. He respectfully disagreed with the observations that the park may not have been designed. He stated that the book by Geiger is a road map for a master plan for Forest Park noting that the book will help the community understand and incorporate important concepts into the master plan. He showed a postcard from 1910 noting that it illustrated the importance of the automobile in LF at that time. He observed that driving along the ring road in Forest Park may have been a highlight because it was an opportunity for the public to view the Lake since it was not private property. Kathy Dorman, 730 Highview Terrace, recommended a book, Geology Underfoot in Illinois by Raymond Wiggers. She suggested that the master plan for Forest Park should extend to the Witchhazel ravine. She noted that there has been much discussion about the ring road but not the ravines. She pointed out that the grassy areas provide vistas, the woods offer privacy and solitude, and the ravine provides mystery and a look into the past since the ravines date back to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 14 glacial times. She stated that the ravine is full of wild flowers that are older than the trees and noted a photo essay on the ravines which is available on Gazebo News. She stated that the master plan needs to cover the entire bluff coast; the bluff, Lake, forest and ravines since they are all one unit and part of the experience. She discussed dark sky friendly lighting and stated the importance of lighting the areas where people walk for safety while at the same time not lighting the sky to allow for stargazing. Jan Gibson, 59 E. Franklin Place, recommended O.C. Simonds’ book, Landscape Gardening, noting that the preface is informative and that Lake Forest, the roads, landscaping and mystery views, are discussed. She suggested that to engage the community and for transparency, the Forest Park Project Board, perhaps in working with the City, consider continuing a dialogue with the community since there are many issues to resolve. Pauline Mohr, 2000 Knollwood Road, thanked the presenters for informative and interesting material. On behalf of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, she presented a position paper regarding a master plan for Forest Park and offered comments. She stated that the Foundation recognizes the well qualified members of the Project Board and asked that the process assure that the plan produced is consistent with the visions of Simonds and Hotchkiss and that final decisions are evaluated based on the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Cultural Landscapes. She noted that a cultural landscape plan should be developed for each of the following: the maintenance of the ring road, a one lane, pervious carriage road; vehicle access; views consistent with the Simonds’ plan. She stated that prohibiting vehicles on the ring road violates Simonds' vision of a public park and that to remove the road would violate the criteria. She stated support for limited parking near historic vistas but stated that parallel parking on the east side of the ring road should not be allowed. She stated that Forest Park should be a respite, a place to enjoy nature, not a service area for the beach. She noted that the original vistas are reflected on the plan and should be restored and that if additional vistas are considered, they should be evaluated based on the criteria and Simonds’ design principles. She stated that auxiliary structures, including stairs, memorials, signage and seating should be subordinate to the landscape. She stated that the existing lights in the park are historic and that the belvedere stairs should not be widened. She stated that planting materials should conform to the species list and Simonds' vision and should be reviewed by horticultural experts. She added that design development documents should include maintenance and implementation plans. She suggested that the Project Board seek ongoing advice from the Historic Preservation Commission as it moves through the design development phase. She expressed concern that the Historic Preservation Commission not be asked to approve a final plan at first impression. She stated that the complete position paper developed by the Preservation Foundation is available on the Foundation’s website. Sandy Ganun, 650 Northmoor Road, stated that Forest Park has survived despite benign neglect. He noted that significant and important remnants of the park exist and need care. He noted that when the Stimson plan was first presented, it caused him to take a longer look at the site and that his first instinct was that the existing design is very good functionally and aesthetically and has worked successfully in all seasons. He stated that the core attributes of the original design remain and that there is no reason the same design should not work for a long time. He stated that everything he has learned since has re-enforced his initial thoughts. He urged the Board and Commission members to take the time to read the reports and appendix prepared by the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 15 committees to get a firm basis on which to evaluate the site. He stated that if time is taken to fully understand problems, the solutions become clear. He stated that the ring road is the elephant in the room along with the proposed recessed stone seating in the bluff edge. He stated his hope that the Board and Commission clearly address those issues upfront and stated that once those are addressed; the design development can be worked out. Rommy Lopat, 410 E. Woodland Road, commented that everyone is interested in some aspect of Forest Park. She stated that she has followed the master planning process since the beginning and also has monitored the South Beach Access Road project. She offered ideas for what needs to be done to move the planning process forward noting the in depth study she and others have done. She suggested that the Commission and Board re-read the memo from past Chairman Cooke to the Park and Recreation Board and she read from that memo. She noted that since the time the earlier plan was released two years ago, much study has been done. She noted the establishment of the Forest Park Board and recognized the work of the volunteers. She noted that the preservation committee urged that the Stimson plan be revised to allow preservation and enhancement of the historic character and to be consistent with Simonds’ vision. She stated that contemporary seating or alteration of other significant features should be discouraged. She stated that most importantly, the appropriate guidelines need to be followed as a new plan is developed. She suggested that formal concurrence, on the part of the Board and Commission, with the recommendations in the preservation committee report will give the Project Board clear direction. She stated that if the standards for cultural landscapes are followed, the issues will be resolved. She stated that City staff does not have a recipe for Forest Park and noted that staff has expedited projects outside of the master planning process. She suggested that if there are pressing projects that need to be addressed, they could be identified so those issues could be expedited in the master planning process. She suggested that a landscape architect who is familiar with the cultural landscape process be hired. She concluded stating that more attention needs to be given to promoting public involvement in the process and answering the questions that are asked. A resident spoke commending the work of the committee and recognizing the academic credentials of the members. He stated that many are contributing to a faithful restoration of Forest Park and may well be able to re-create the magic that O.C. Simonds planned over 100 years ago. He noted that community pride in park that might be re-ignited noting that the restoration might be able to be achieved with a relatively small amount of money, but great deal of thought and research. He noted that the reports are detailed and difficult to absorb. He stated that it would be unwise to pass judgment hastily and suggested that the public be given another opportunity to comment noting that the work to date deserves consideration. Cynthia Lee, 327 Granby Road, noted that cultural landscapes imply more than high style aesthetics, but instead are a combined work of nature and man and an evolution over time that embraces cultural aspects. She discussed the first parks noting that they were an effort to provide relief from an urban conditions, she discussed Central Park, the garden city movement and the first planned community. She noted Forest Park’s relationship to these efforts and its connection to the Hotchkiss street plan. She stated that Forest Park and the Cemetery, both O.C. Simonds’ designs, are of National importance. She noted that Forest Park emphasizes restricted views and a road close to the vista as Simonds discusses in his book. She urged the Board and Commission to avoid the temptation to equate the Jens Jensen and Simonds noting that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 16 addition of a Jensen Council ring by cutting seating into the bluff with rock walls would be unfortunate. She added that this work could push the ring road into the park. She stated concern about adding sidewalks and suggested that instead, a feature could be added in the two lane road for pedestrians. She noted that many residents invested countless hours of research and have a great deal of knowledge she suggested that the information be used to honor the park and allow the community to remain stewards of the park. Mr. Falcone, 930 Lake Road, commended the work done on this project and in response to questions raised about the significance of the site; he noted the criteria in the City Preservation Ordinance and provided copies for the Board and Commission. Neva Ganun, 650 Northmoor, stated that when something is planned well, the planning efforts are not noticed. She thanked Ken Leone and Phil Alderks who recognized and protected the landscape document from 1896. She stated that the landscape design still works after 100 years despite changes in transportation methods. She stated that decisions made on Forest Park will set a precedent for how the City handles these types of issues in the future. She stated that working together to work to preserve Simonds’ legacy in Lake Forest is important. She stated that the community is fortunate to have Simonds’ plans and has an obligation to create a cultural landscape plan which respects the National important of the treasure for future generations. Ms. Falcone, 930 Lake Road, stated that the Friends of Forest Park was created shortly after the idea of changing Forest Park was presented in 2009. She noted that after the presentation she sent a letter to the Garden Club and she read from the letter. She explained that the Friends of Forest Park was formed to preserve integrity and visual character of Forest Park which is protected as part of the historic district. She stated that no dramatic changes should be made to the layout or concept of the much loved park. She described the petition that was circulated in an effort to keep the park in its present form and noted 1300 people signed the petition. She stated support for keeping the ring road open to cars. She asked the Board to be circumspect of a plan that alters the park and its historic character and asked that the interested of the residents. David O’Neill, 139 Woodland Road, stated that he has been in Lake Forest a long time. He suggested that local contractors, landscapers and architects be tapped to develop a plan for the park noting their willingness to work together for this effort. He stated that these are the people who have cared for these kinds of properties in the community. He stated that the original plan and plant list should be considered and the police should be asked for input on safety. He stated that a beautiful, refreshed space will make the community proud. Chairmen Ford and Pairitz, hearing no further public comments, invited final comments from the Board and Commission. Commissioner Berg, in response to public comments that he and other members of the Board and Commission have read the reports presented. He made final comments observing that the ring road as referenced in Geiger’s book show views across the water that are not presently available due to the limiting of views that has occurred in the park over time. He stated that not only the plan view needs to be considered, but also the three dimensional vistas. He noted that over time, many trees have been planted in the park affecting the negative spaces and open lawns. He observed that there is worry about making changes but noted that the park has been slowly Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2011 - Page 17 eroding. He stated that some elements might need to be taken away to improve the park from an aesthetic point of view and to define the spatial characteristics. 6. Concluding Comments Ralph Gesualdo, Forest Park Project Board Mr. Gesualdo thanked the Board, Commission and members of the public. He stated that this has been an educational process and observed that the Project Board has much work and reading yet to do. He stated that the Project Board will make every effort to respond to the many comments and questions raised at this meeting on the group’s website. He reiterated that the Project Board has not made any decisions or taken any votes at this point. He stated his belief in the process and encouraged the public to continue to comment and raise questions as the discussions continue. He stated his expectation that the Project Board’s work on the master plan will move forward in a positive way. 7. Closing Comments and Adjournment Chairman Ford and Chairman Pairitz Chairmen Ford and Pairitz thanked all those in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development