Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/11/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the October 26, 2011 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, October 26, 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, Jim Preschlack, Mary Ellen Swenson and Guy Berg. Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz opened the meeting, reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Board and asked members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the September 12, 2011, September 21, 2011 and the September 28, 2011 meetings. The minutes of the September 21, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Chairman Pairitz. The minutes of the September 28, 2011 were approved as submitted. CONTINUED PETITIONS 3. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a new single family dwelling, restoration of two historic outbuildings, demolition of one historic outbuilding and an amendment to the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code all pertaining to property at 580 Broadsmoore Dr. Owner: Dr. Ritacca Representative: Scott Streightiff, 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. Streightiff introduced the petition noting that this matter was last before the Commission in September and at that time; the petition was continued with direction to consider additional alternatives for preserving the historic outbuildings located on the property. He reviewed the three existing structures, the Carriage House, Pump House and Gardener’s Cottage. He stated that since purchasing the property in 2007, the owners and two architectural firms have studied options for the site in an effort to balance preservation interests with the interest in developing the site with a new home. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 2 He noted that all three outbuildings on the site were designed by the same architect and all have characteristics that relate to the main estate across Broadsmoore Drive. He stated that studies have determined that is it difficult to achieve a functional design that preserves all three structures and is cost effective. He reviewed five alternative plans for the property providing a site plan for each option and describing the pros and cons of each alternative. He noted that the options include: Option 1 - Preservation and restoration of the Carriage and Pump houses at their present locations and removal of the Gardener’s Cottage while preserving the impression of the Cottage as part of the new residence. Option 2 - Relocation of the Gardener’s Cottage to the rear of the property and removal of the Carriage House. Option 3 - Relocation of the Gardener’s Cottage to the front of the property, toward Broadsmoore Drive, and removal of the Carriage House. Option 4 – Development of a new plan designed around the Cottage in its existing location, removal of a portion of the Carriage House and removal of the Pump House. Option 5 – Incorporation of the Cottage as the north wing of the new residence and removal of the Carriage House. He stated that the petitioner prefers Option 1 which removes the Gardener’s Cottage from the site but recreates the impression of the Cottage on the north wing of the new residence. He explained that although removal of the Cottage would represent a loss of 33% of the historic buildings on the site, the Pump and Carriage Houses would be preserved and restored in their original locations and function as an active part of the new development. He added that the later addition to the Carriage House would be removed as part of the restoration work. He noted that this option preserves the open space at the front of the parcel and mature trees consistent with the historic estate. He stated that the preferred option conforms to all Code regulations and does not require any variances. He stated that the petitioner is also willing to pursue Option 2, if Option 1 is not acceptable to the Commission. He reviewed that Option 2 relocates the Gardener’s Cottage to the rear of the property, adds a one car garage to the Cottage and removes the Carriage House. He commented that there are drawbacks to this option noting the significant demolition that will occur since much of the Cottage will need to be replaced to make the structure functional as a garage and the significant mass that would be added to the rear of the property with the relocation of the Cottage. He described Options 3, 4, and 5 in greater detail and reviewed the pros and cons of each noting that the owner does not support these options. He returned to discussion of the petitioner’s preferred option noting that as part of this option, the owner is willing to designate the Carriage House as a Local Landmark in lieu of the Gardener’s Cottage. He added that the petitioner is also willing to donate the cottage to anyone interested in moving it as an alternative to demolition within 60 days after the Commission’s approval. He concluded stating that this property is unique and deserves a creative solution and is in need of investment. He stated that the solution needs to address both preservation and function. He stated that the preferred option is a good solution and stated the owner’s interest in finding a mutually acceptable solution to allow this project to move forward. Ms. O’Neill noted there have been a number of discussions about this property. She explained that at the time of consideration of the request for subdivision, a request for designation of two of the structures was presented by the then property owner to the Historic Preservation Commission. She stated that at that time, it was noted that all of the outbuildings were of interest but to allow for flexibility on the property, and in recognition that the subdivision would allow a new residence to be built on the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 3 property; only two of the building were designated as Local Landmarks. She stated that as part of that action, it was assumed that the third building would be removed from the site at the time of development. She pointed out at the time the structures were designated, there was no plan presented for development of the property. She stated that the preferred option presented by the petitioner is a good one, preserving and restoring two structures in their existing locations. She added that the petitioner has worked diligently to explore various alternative plans for the site and concluded that the preferred option presents a plan for sensitive development and restoration. She introduced Ms. Benjamin, a preservation consultant hired by the City, to conduct a third party review of the request. Ms. Benjamin stated that it is important to preserve two of the historic outbuildings given the importance of outbuildings to the historic Thorne Estate. She stated support for the preferred option as presented which restores and preserves the Carriage and Pump Houses and removal of the Gardener’s Cottage. She noted the importance of the relationship of the Carriage and Pump Houses to each other and stressed the benefit of continuing that relationship through preservation of the structures in their current location. She noted that removing the later addition to the rear of the Carriage House will restore the historic integrity of that structure. She added that the plan allows the two structures to essentially be used consistent with their original uses. She stated that several years ago she wrote a report stating that the Gardener’s Cottage should be landmarked, but not the Carriage House. She explained that the Carriage House was not recommended for designation because of the unsightly addition to the west side of the structure which detracted from the significance of the building. She added that the Gardener’s Cottage was recommended for designation due to its relationship at that time with the estate house across the street. She explained that at that time, a dialogue between the service building and main house existed, but today, as the result of the construction of a large wall and significant landscaping on the estate house property across the street, that visual connection has been erased. She stated that the options that require relocating the Gardener’s Cottage or attaching it to the new residence diminish its significance. She stated that based on the strong preferred plan presented and the loss of the original visual connection to the main house; her opinion is that the Cottage should be permitted to be demolished. She emphasized that preservation and restoration of the Pump and Carriage Houses, in their original locations, in a manner that will make them a functional part of the new development is commendable. She stated that she supports the request as presented by Dr. Ritacca. Ms. O’Neill stated that from a process stand point, the staff recommendation based on the present request is in support of two actions by the Commission, designation of the Carriage House in lieu of the Gardener’s Cottage and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the petitioner’s preferred plan. She stated that the preferred option is preservation minded and consistent with all Code requirements. She noted that correspondence received on this petition was included in the Commission’s packet. She noted concern from a neighboring property owner about drainage due to the significant grade change between the properties. She stated that the City Engineer is aware of the concerns of the neighbor, the significant grade change and the need to assure that grading and drainage plans direct water away from neighboring homes, toward the storm sewer system located to the west of the property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 4 She provided an overview of the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Benjamin confirmed that her previous report was in response to an offer from the then owner of the property to designate two of the outbuildings as Local Landmarks as part of a request to subdivide the property. She confirmed that no redevelopment plan for the property was presented at that time and that the offer to designate two properties was considered in isolation. She stated that after consideration of the current circumstances affecting the property and the plan presented, she formulated her present recommendation. She stated that the present proposal saves two of the three significant structures in their existing locations and is a good preservation solution. She stated that she is comfortable with her present recommendation after having re-thought this property, re- visiting the site and reviewing the plan which retains two of the buildings as part of a new ensemble. She stated that the proposal is an excellent solution. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Commission has acted on requests for demolition of properties in the district in the past. She stated that in each case, the Commission considers the petitions on their own merits. She stated that in this unique situation, the removal of one structure is a tradeoff for preservation of two other structures. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak stated that she does not recall a similar request in which designation of one structure is offered in lieu of another. She confirmed Ms. O’Neill’s comment that the Commission has seen requests for demolition of structures located in the historic district and has on occasions found some of those requests to be consistent with the criteria in the Code and granted approval. She stated that in this case, the Commission received a consultant’s report in support of the request. She explained that the Historic Preservation Commission is established by the Historic Preservation Chapter in the Code for the purpose of reviewing changes proposed to designated properties. She commented that if, once a property was designated by either inclusion in a district or through an individual landmark status no changes were possible, the Commission would not have petitions to consider. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that the Gardener’s Cottage can be moved, but noted that in doing so; elements of the building will likely be lost and need to be replaced. He stated that in order to adaptively reuse the structure, the interior would need to be gutted and rebuilt, rather than restored. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Streightiff stated that restoring the Cottage in its existing location was considered by the petitioner but due to the impact on the overall site plan, it is not an option that he is willing to pursue. He reiterated that the petitioner has considered many alternatives for the site and is willing to invest in the first two options identified since they present good functional plans. He confirmed that only one option was considered for redevelopment of the site with the Cottage remaining in its present location. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 5 In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that at the time of purchase, the owner was aware that the two buildings were designated as local landmarks. He stated that the owner purchased the property with the understanding that the Cottage could be relocated on the property. He stated that the Cottage has not yet been offered to other parties for relocation pending action by the Commission. Commissioner Athenson stated that the Commission received a letter from the Preservation Foundation requesting that the Carriage House be restored to its original condition. Chairman Pairitz confirmed that restoration of the Carriage House is part of the petition as presented. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak clarified that at the time of subdivision, Ms. Benjamin was hired by the then property owner to support the request for designation of the two buildings. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission at that time accepted the nomination for designation as presented by the property owner. In response to questions from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Streightiff stated that the owner would like to build a new house on the property noting that preserving all three buildings adds up to a significant amount of square footage. He added that the option of retaining and relocating the cottage uses up a good portion of the allowable square footage as well. He confirmed that the proposed square footage of the new house has been reduced from the earlier plan presented. Commissioner Moyer questioned the necessity to demolish any of the buildings and stated that it would be a shame to lose any of the structures since all are considered to be of historical significance. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Chairman Pairitz estimated that with preservation of all three outbuildings, a new home of approximately 4,000 square feet could be constructed on the lot. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff confirmed the sizes of other homes in the neighborhood noting that they are all quite large, in excess of 4,000 square feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Chairman Pairitz clarified that the designation of the two historic structures was based on a request from a previous property owner. He suggested that re-visiting that decision is not before the Commission. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment hearing none; he returned the matter to the Commission for further deliberation. He commented that this is a unique petition and pointed out that it is noteworthy that the Preservation Foundation submitted a letter to the Commission in support of the petition. He stated appreciation for the input from Ms. Benjamin. He stated that in his opinion, the Gardener’s Cottage House is a more Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 6 handsome building than the Carriage House, but stated that the preferred option as presented is well done and is the result of a great deal of study and work on the part of the petitioner and the architect. He stated that the design is appropriate for the neighborhood and acknowledged that there are drainage issues that will need to be addressed by staff as is normally done. Commissioner Preschlack agreed that the letter of support from the Preservation Foundation is significant. He noted that since the last meeting, the proposal to designate the Carriage House, in lieu of the Gardener’s Cottage, was added to the request. He stated his understanding that there is a process by which this can be done and stated that it is important to follow the appropriate process in considering this request. He stated that his hesitation is that Option 4 appears to be the only study that was conducted of how the Cottage might be reused in its original location. Chairman Pairitiz stated that when the subdivision was allowed, the opportunity for development of this parcel with a new home was established. He commented that once that happened, a new set of circumstances was created. He commented that both Ms. Benjamin and the Preservation Foundation seem to be making the point that the options of moving or incorporating the Gardener’s Cottage into a larger structure diminish its integrity. He stated that the benefit of the preferred option is that two of the outbuildings are preserved and restored in their original location and functionally integrated into the site plan for the new house. Commissioner Ransom observed there are limited options for relocating the Gardener’s Cottage on the site and reusing the structure and the petitioner presented the options that seemed reasonably sensible. He stated that of the many options presented, the one preferred by the petitioner is the best solution. He stated that it should not be lost that at the time of designation of the two structures, only the two structures were presented for consideration and no overall plan was presented. He stated support for the petition as presented. Commissioner Athenson stated that she is not in favor of demolition of the Cottage. She stated that two buildings on the site are landmarked and that of the three structures, the Cottage is the most significant. She stated that the petitioner was aware that the two structures were designated before the property was purchased. She noted that the buildings illustrate the working class of the community and are important from that perspective. She stated that alternatives should be explored that save all three accessory structures. Commissioner Moyer added his support to the comments of Commissioner Athenson and noted that he sees a possible potential solution with further refinement of Option 4. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Streightiff clarified that in Option 4, a partial demolition of the Carriage house was proposed to keep the project within the allowable square footage. Commissioner Berg stated support for the preferred option as presented by the petitioner. He agreed that consideration at the time of subdivision could have been more thorough and acknowledged that an overall conceptual plan for redevelopment was not presented at that time to inform the decision of the Commission as to which Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 7 structures should be designated. He stated that as a member of the Commission at the time designation was requested, if the present plan was presented, he and others on the Commission might well have made another decision. He stated that in his view, the Commission at that time would probably have been supportive of this petition. He stated an understanding of the concern about approving the demolition of a designated structure, but noted that this project was done piecemeal and not well thought-out originally. He stated that to now suggest that all three outbuildings need to be retained presents a significant burden and cost to the property owner noting that the property is approved as a lot for a new single family residence. He questioned whether such an approach is fair. He stated that retaining the Gardner’s Cottage at its present location could overload that portion of the property. He noted that what is being offered is a compromise, noting that the loss of one structure is balanced with preservation and reuse of two other structures and a good plan. He noted that this property is not a museum. He stated that with Option 4, two separate single family homes are presented at the front of the property creating a poor design. He noted concern that the Commission may try to take the easy route of trying to save everything but stated that the Commission has an obligation to assure that the property is workable for a single family residence going forward. Commissioner Swenson described herself as a rule follower, noting that in purchasing a property with designated buildings, she would start from the point that the buildings must be preserved. She stated concern about questioning or re-thinking the decisions of a previous Commission. Commissioner Berg stated that it is appropriate for the Commission to look at the property and petition as presented today and consider current conditions. He suggested that this decision is really part of a long process of making a good decision for this property. Commissioner Preschlack stated that at the last meeting, strong feedback was given to the petitioner to consider variations on option four. He agreed that the letter from Preservation Foundation is meaningful however he encouraged the architect to explore more alternatives noting that the Commission cannot take a request of this type lightly. Chairman Pairitz commented that the Commission has spent considerable time on this petition and has not taken it lightly noting that this is the 3rd meeting on this petition. He stated that he understands that there is an option that could preserve the cottage but stated that this property is located in a single family zoning district and that it is not appropriate to have two free standing houses on the property. He stated that if he was a neighbor of the property, he would not support that approach. He stated that approach would change the character of the subdivision more than other options. He added that he also recognizes that there is an option that incorporates the Cottage into the new house, but noted that will not preserve the Cottage. He noted that the author of the original historic report is before the Commission testifying that the preferred option presented today is a sound scenario and good preservation solution for this property. He encouraged the Commission to find a way to support developing this property noting that the property needs investment and a steward because it is deteriorating. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 8 Commissioner Moyer noted that the petitioner’s preferred option replicates to some extent the Cottage on north wing. He questioned why the Cottage would be torn down and then replicated rather than using the real thing. Commissioner Athenson stated support for considering a building scale variance in exchange for preserving all three buildings. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak noted that during the Plan Commission discussions, the Commission declined to authorize a building scale variance in exchange for preserving some of the out buildings. In response to questions from Commissioner Swenson, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that consideration was given to pulling the new residence forward on the lot but noted that preservation of the mature trees and open lawn were identified early on as priorities. Chairman Pairitz noted that the critical issue is the Cottage and if it is to be preserved at all, preserved as a stand alone structure, or become part of the new house. He commented that unless the Cottage is allowed to stand alone, it is not being preserved, noting that what may result is a nod toward the cottage. He stated that it may be nicely done, but it will just be a “nod” and not preservation. He stated that if the Cottage is preserved as a stand alone building, then the new house will need to be reduced significantly in size noting that the present design is close to the allowable square footage. Commissioner Preschlack stated he recognizes that two of the structures are landmarked and based on that, in his opinion, a plan that preserves those structures could gain his support. He stated that the Carriage House is already compromised and he could accept a plan in which it is not preserved. He requested that more variations on Option 4 be studied to find the best solution in keeping with the concept presented in that option. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Streightiff stated that any variation of Option 4 will essentially be two single family homes next to each other unless the function of the Gardener’s Cottage is changed. He noted that given the changes that would be needed to change the function of the Cottage, those options were not pursued. He acknowledged that one of those options was to move the Cottage, change its function and adaptively reuse it as a garage. Commissioner Preschlack stated an understanding of property rights, expense and use, but stated that he would still like to see other options explored to preserve the Cottage. Chairman Pairitz asked for any additional public comment, hearing none, he suggested a Commission subcommittee to work with the petitioners to explore options given the difference of opinions on the Commission. Commissioner Berg stated concern that the Commission not force poor design. He asked whether in establishing a subcommittee, the Commission is willing to consider utilizing the Gardener’s Cottage to achieve Option 1. He noted that this option could preserve the exterior form of the Cottage, but would allow the interior to be adaptively Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 9 reused. He pointed out that Option 1 subordinates the north wing which he views as a positive design aspect of the project. He stated that allowing the flexibility to reuse the Cottage as a garage, incorporated as the north wing of the new house, while at the same time, preserving and restoring the Pump and Carriage Houses should be an option that the subcommittee is willing to consider. He stated so long as a subcommittee can operate with that flexibility, he is supportive of establishing a subcommittee for this petition. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to continue the petition to allow review of options with a subcommittee of the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swenson and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 4. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a revised landscape plan reflecting the reconstruction of the original East Service Drive and modified landscaping at 395 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: Neil and Jane Cummins Representatives: Michael Breseman, architect Nick Patera, landscape architect. Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Patera introduced the homeowner and architect. He noted that he is the landscape architect for the property stating that the project team has worked on the property for several years. He noted that the homeowner has a good understanding of the history of the project. Mr. Breseman provided an overview of the property noting that this is one of the few estates where access to the original service drive is maintained. He clarified that the owners have the right to access the property from Western Avenue as well as from Green Bay Road, the front entrance. He stated that the owners are requesting approval to re-instate the 1911 service drive. He reviewed the standards in the Code for evaluating requests. He stated that re-instating the drive in the proposed and original location is appropriate and is in fact the only suitable location and alignment for a service drive on the property. Mr. Patera noted that considerable study was done of the history of the property to confirm the original service drive location. He stated that the property owners talked with several nearby property owners about the proposal and that they understand that the neighbor to the north has concerns about the re-instatement of the service drive. He stated that in response, the original plan was modified in an effort to address concerns. He stated that Two Gables is a significant property. He pointed out that the approach to the estate from Green Bay Road is restricted by the porte-cochere on the north and a sunken garden on the south. He stated that emergency access to the property is limited from Green Bay Road. He noted that the drive is proposed as a service drive, not to be used for daily services, but for typical lawn maintenance vehicles. He noted the previous efforts to restore and preserve the front entry as a country lane. He stated that currently, the gates to the property from Western Avenue Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 10 are not automated, but must be unlocked manually. He stated that the manual gates and the original location of the service will be maintained. He showed images of the neighboring property to the north noting that the proposed location of the service drive minimizes views of the pavement from the upper windows of the neighboring house. He reiterated that no variances are requested noting that the driveway is proposed at 12 feet in width. He noted that two drainage inlets are provided and confirmed that no lighting is proposed. He stated that the existing six-foot fence on the north property line will be maintained. He noted that the history of the property is well documented and the location of the historic service drive is documented. He explained that the property extends to Western Avenue at the point of the service drive and noted that adjacent properties have access rights to the driveway. He presented the landscape plan as originally approved noting that the request to re-instate the service drive is a modification to the approved landscape plan. He reviewed historic landscape plans noting the location of the service drive. He stated that the current proposal is an effort to continue the restoration of the property. In response to concerns from the neighboring property owner, he offered an alternative landscape plan to provide additional screening of the pavement from the neighbor to the north. He showed images of how the property looks today and provided a rendering of the proposed orchard noting that it will further help to buffer the drive and property from the neighbors. He stated that the landscape alternative which includes Spruce trees will provide greater four season coverage. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that based on information provided, the property has a legal right to access Western Avenue. She stated that the petition before the Commission is a request for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. She stated that this is a large property and that it is reasonable to request a second driveway entrance noting that many properties in the City have multiple entrance points. She stated that the enhanced landscape plan offered by the petitioners in response to comments from the neighbor provides additional evergreen screening between the neighbors. She stated staff support for the proposed plan with the enhanced, year round landscaping. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Commission’s previous approval of a landscape plan without the service driveway did not remove the right of the property owners to access the property from Western Avenue. Mr. Patera stated that the current proposal is well thought out based on how the property will be used going forward and how it was used in the past. He stated that the original efforts of the current owners were to improve the property as seen from Green Bay Road. He stated with improvements along Green Bay Road completed, the focus is on the east side of the estate property. In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Ms. Czerniak clarified that it is appropriate for the Commission to consider driveway configurations as part of an overall landscape plan. She noted that design considerations, curvilinear or straight, and how the driveway relates to structures and landscaping are appropriate aspects for Commission consideration. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 11 In response to questions from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Patera stated that he is not sure of the surface of the original service drive, but confirmed that the location of the service drive is consistent with the alignment shown on historic plans. He stated that asphalt is proposed for the service drive consistent with the surface of the front driveway. He confirmed that alternative materials could be considered, but stated that asphalt is intended as a low key solution with minimal visibility. He stated that turf blocks are not viable over the long term for the service drive. He commented that gravel may generate more nuisances for the neighbors in terms of noise and dust. He stated that the owner’s preference is for a simple, 12 foot wide service driveway. Commissioner Athenson suggested that consideration be given to the use of pavers since the driveway is not intended for frequent use. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Patera stated that drainage is not an issue in this area and noted that the noise is primarily related to the lawn maintenance activity, not the use of a service drive. He stated that lawn maintenance activity will generate noise regardless of where the maintenance vehicles park or drive. He confirmed that the terminus of the driveway is at a paver circle but noted that the use of pavers the distance of the service driveway would be a significant cost with no clear benefit. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the property owners have a legal right to access Western Avenue. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak stated that restricting the use of the driveway to certain days or hours is really beyond the scope of the Commission’s purview. She added that monitoring and enforcing such conditions would be difficult. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Mr. Stride, neighbor to the north on Vine Avenue, stated that this is a zoning matter. He stated that the driveway was abandoned 30 years ago and that there is no remnant of the original service drive remaining. He stated that at the time the temporary construction access was approved from Western Avenue, it was clear that the construction road would be removed upon completion of the project. He stated that he objected to the use of the service drive from the beginning of the restoration project. He suggested that a spur be extended from the front drive to provide for access for service vehicles given the size of the property. He stated that there are other options for maintenance and emergency vehicles to gain access to the property. He showed images of views from his house to the existing construction drive. He stated that he has the right to quiet enjoyment of his property. He stated that the property owners, the Cummins, say they have no intent to subdivide the property but stated that they will not own the property forever and that establishing the access from Western Avenue could set the stage for subdivision. He stated that the service drive will have a negative impact on his home and property value. He requested that the petition be denied. He commented that there will be no supervision of the use of the driveway. He questioned how emergency vehicles will gain access if the gate is locked. He stated that he was not able to meet with the owners but confirmed that the Cummins offered Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 12 many dates that did not work with his schedule. He reiterated his opposition to the driveway. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Stride stated that if the service drive is re-established, his preference is to have as much landscaping as possible planted, including evergreen and deciduous trees, to screen the views from his house. Rommy Lopat, 410 Woodland Road, offered information on historic driveway materials noting that from an historical perspective, asphalt would not be appropriate for a service drive, especially one that goes through an orchard. She stated that more likely, it would have been two gravel strips. She acknowledged that it might not work for landscaping trucks but noted that it would offer a more appropriate aesthetic. Mr. Stride noted that the straight service drive does not allow any room to turn around. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, confirmed that the historic estates on Green Bay Road went through to Western Avenue. He stated that when the property was subdivided, access to Western Avenue was intentionally maintained. He commented on the texture of the driveway. He stated that there is historic precedent for a service drive in this location. In response to a question from Mr. Stride, Mr. Patera stated that the intention is not to create a drive wide enough to turnaround, but only to allow service vehicles to get from point A to point B. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Patera confirmed that no lighting is proposed and that the gate will remain a manual gate but will not be a barrier for emergency vehicles. He stated that the service drive will not be convenient for daily use. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the property has a legal right to access Western Avenue and confirmed that no variances are requested. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that she reviewed the question of access to Western Avenue with the City Attorney. She confirmed that the property extends out to Western Avenue. Chairman Pairitz noted that at the last meeting, the Commission requested that the question of access be further reviewed. He noted that in response to that request, the Commission received a legal opinion from the City Attorney confirming the right to access. He asked that the Commission move forward with review of the appropriateness of the driveway. Mr. Cummins provided some perspective as the owner of Two Gables property. He stated that he and his family are privileged to live in Two Gables noting that in the United Kingdom where they previously lived, they restored a 17th century home with the guidance of a group similar to the Historic Preservation Commission. He stated that when he took ownership of this property, he was aware of the legal obligations of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 13 purchasing an historic house and understood that the property needed to be maintained consistent with the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. He stated that he has received no complaints to date of noise, the improvements he has undertaken or the overall management of the property. He stated that the property is a private residence and the normal activity levels for that type of use occur on the property. He reiterated that they purchased the property out of foreclosure noting that this property was substantially deteriorated and noted that they have spent a substantial sum of money to bring the house and property back to its original historic character and stature. He stated that they have communicated with the adjacent neighbors noting that with one exception, all neighbors have voiced support for the project. He stated that this is an opportunity for the Commission to support a historically relevant proposal. He stated that the proposal is the result of a careful, thoughtful process. Commissioner Swenson stated that the opportunity for emergency access to the site is important and she stated that in her mind, the legal question with respect to access has been answered. She stated support for an asphalt driveway as proposed to assure that it is functional for the intended use. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Breseman confirmed that the current owner built the coach house and the front gate and wall. He stated that over five million dollars have been put into this property in recent years. Commissioner Berg stated that from the point of fairness, when the reconfiguration of the front driveway was considered in 2003, there was no service drive shown. He stated that if the intended service drive was shown at that time that could have affected the Commission’s deliberations and decisions. Commissioner Swenson questioned whether the driveway would be visible to the neighboring property owners given its placement and the existing and proposed landscaping. Mr. Stride interjected his thoughts on the amount of construction and planting that will occur in close proximity to his property. Commissioner Athenson stated an understanding that there is a legal right to the service drive. She stated that the Commission is looking for a compromise. She stated that there is the potential for a negative impact on the neighboring property owners. She suggested that there could be a change in the proposed material that would soften the proposed service drive. She suggested the use of pavers that allow grass to grow in the area. Commissioner Preschlack stated appreciation for the interest in seeing a compromise reached, but stated that sometimes a compromise is not possible. He suggested that the Commission make a decision tonight and stated support for the petition as presented. Commissioner Ransom stated that he accepts the City Attorney’s opinion on the right of the petitioners to access Western Avenue but stated as presented, he cannot support Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 14 the request. He stated that there are alternative driveway materials that may be more appropriate. Commissioner Preschlack stated that the additional deliberations will not likely address the objections given the comments to date from the neighbor. He stated that the Commission has enough information to make a decision. Commissioner Ransom noted that an asphalt driveway is not appropriate. Commissioner Moyer stated that he was in favor of the petition at the last meeting and remains in favor of the request. He stated that a continuance would put a hardship on the owner. He stated that either landscaping plan is acceptable noting that the landscaping will serve to screen the driveway from the neighbors and the neighbor’s house from the Cummins’s property. Chairman Pairitz stated support for the petition noting that the Commission previously continued the petition to provide the opportunity for the neighbor to meet with the petition. He encouraged the Commission to take action on the petition. He stated that the asphalt is appropriate noting that the use of more expensive materials for a service drive is not a reasonable expectation. He stated support for the original orchard landscape plan noting that the petitioner could work with staff to finalize the plan to assure that it offers appropriate screening. Commissioner Preschlack made a motion to accept the petition as presented with the suggestion to refine the landscape after discussions with the neighbor. The motion was seconded by Swenson and it was approved by a vote of 4-3 with Commissioners Ransom, Athenson and Berg voting nay. NEW PETITIONS 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage and awnings at Jos. A. Banks, a new retail business locating at 240 E. Deerpath. Owner: Yogeshi Gandhi Representative: Kristy Medina, North Shore Sign Co. and Calvin Coatsworth, architect Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petition. Ken Fogel, representative of North Short Sign Co., introduced the petition noting the intent to remove the existing awnings and install new awnings. He stated that signage is proposed for the south and west elevations. He explained that the signs will be backlit with an opaque face to the letters. He commented on the materials noting that the sign will be made of individual, aluminum letters. He stated that the letters will be painted white. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Fogel confirmed that a mockup is installed on the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 15 Ms. O’Neill stated that the sign as proposed is in compliance with the size permitted in the Code and the height as specified in the Signage Guidelines. She requested Commission input on the proposal for signs on both facades and on the proposed illumination of the sign. She noted that there is a streetlight on the corner in front of the building. In response to Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the proposed letters are the corporate font for Jos. A. Bank. She noted that the signage as proposed is not as large as signs on this building for previous businesses. Ms. O’Neill clarified that the Code allows for a total of 25 square feet for the signs on both facades pointing out that by having two signs, the overall size of the sign is reduced from what could be installed if a single sign was used. In response to Commissioner Ransom, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that although lighting of signs is not permitted outright by the Code, the Commission has the ability to approve lighting for signage. She noted that staff recommends a condition requiring that the lighting be turned off at the close of business to preserve the night-time character of the business district. Commissioner Berg and Athenson commented that there are not many illuminated signs along Deerpath. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Walgreen’s sign was installed before the current Code requirements for signs were in place. In response to a question from Commissioner Ransom, Mr. Fogel stated that the sign will be illuminated from the back noting that no illumination will emit from the front. He stated that the effect would be a subtle halo. Chairman Pairitz suggested that the sign could be approved as an unlighted sign and commented that the material should be more consistent with the Design Guidelines. He stated that a mockup of the proposed lighting, intensity and material could be considered at a later time. Commissioner Berg stated that he is opposed to any lighting in this area noting that it will significantly change the character of Deerpath. In response to a question from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Fogel commented on the hours of operation of the store. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Pauline Mohr, 2000 Knollwood Road, noted that the historical sign from Robertson’s was donated to the Lake Forest, Lake Bluff Historical Society. She stated that the Blockbuster sign was objectionable and observed that the company is no longer in business. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 16 Don Brown, 272 Sheridan Road, stated that the Commission needs to be flexible to allow new businesses to come to Lake Forest. Ms. Wallace, 25 West Stone, noted that the business district does not need any additional lighting noting that she was not happy with the installation of the new brighter street lights along Western Avenue. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Pairitz asked for final Commission comment and deliberation. Commissioner Athenson stated support for signs on both elevations using the same size lettering. She stated that lighting of the sign is not needed given the nearby street lights and building lights in the immediate area. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the signs as proposed are the same size on each façade. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Fogel confirmed that the signage is proposed in the corporate font and color. Commissioner Berg commented on the appropriateness of the color white for the sign. Chairman Pairitz stated that the material does not seem appropriate for an unlit sign. Commissioner Ransom questioned if the corporate office would agree to an alternative material. Chairman Pairitz noted that staff could approve the material noting that a non-plastic sign would be more appropriate. Commissioner Athenson made a motion to approve the proposed sign and awnings subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. No lighting of the sign is permitted. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a sample of the material for the letters shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. The sign letters should be wood or another material found to be acceptable and consistent with the direction of the Commission and overall design guidelines subject to staff approval. Commissioner Ransom seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. In response to a question from the petitioner, Chairman Pairitz noted that any illumination would need to be brought back to the Commission for approval noting the importance of a mock up to allow an evaluation of the intensity and appearance of any proposed the lighting. 6. A request for an amendment to the Local Lake Forest Historic District to remove Old Main, at Barat Campus, from the District. Barat Campus is addressed as 700 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 17 Westleigh Road. This request is a first step in the process of requesting approval of the demolition of the Old Main building to allow reuse of the site for educational purposes by Woodlands Academy. Applicant: Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart Owner: LaSalle 115 Holdings, LLC Representative: Deborah Haddad Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Haddad introduced the petition noting that she represents the contract purchaser of Barat Campus. She stated that potential donors have offered to gift the Barat property to Woodlands Academy after purchase and only after the removal of Old Main from the property to allow Woodlands Academy to receive the property unencumbered. She recognized that Old Main is a historic building but noted that it is only a ghost of what it once was. She stated that the Chapel was stripped of all significance by a prior owner and noted that the City already approved the demolition of the Tabor Wing of Old Main. She noted that the Commission recently had the opportunity to tour Old Main. She stated that there is an opportunity to transform a blighted site into an extension of the Woodlands Campus. She stated that there was an extensive marketing campaign to locate a preservation minded developer willing to develop the Barat property with the Old Main Building. She stated that no such buyer was found. She explained that the donors wish to remain anonymous to focus attention on the gift, not on the individuals involved. She stated that the purchase of the property by the contract purchasers, the donors, will provide assurance that the property will remain in an educational use. She requested approval of the request to remove Old Main from the City’s Historic District. She explained that a portion of the Barat parcel falls within the Lake Forest Historic District and is adjacent to Woodlands Academy. She stated that the petition has been filed in accordance with the requirements in the Code. She stated that this request is supported by findings that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation. She addressed the criteria for designation of a district as outlined in the Statement of Intent. She commented on the architecture of Old Main. She stated that the property is not wholly contiguous to the Historic District and pointed out that Old Main was not part of the original plat of Lake Forest. She stated that over a decade ago, this property fell in to disuse and began to deteriorate. She stated that Old Main is no longer representative of the Catholic tradition. She stated that the opportunity for continued educational use of the property is important. She concluded stating that Old Main no longer enhances the character of the area and requested the Commission’s approval of the request. Ralph Elwart, resident and member of the Woodlands Academy Board stated that he was surprised to learn of donors willing to gift the Barat property to Woodlands Academy. He stated that the donation gives the school options. He stated that the original purpose of the Barat property was education noting that this gift will continue that mission. He pointed out that there is a need to balance the opportunity for continued educational use of the property against the preservation of the building. He stated that the Commission can vote either in favor of the opportunity to return the property to a viable educational use or against the demolition of Old Main. He stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 18 that denial could result in a developer coming to the property and eliminating the historic educational. Chairman Pairitz noted that this is an unusual request. He explained that the Commission is asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council on this matter since it involves a Code amendment. He pointed out that the Commission has specific criteria to consider and noted that none of the criteria speak to economics. Given the uniqueness of this request, and the large number of people in the audience, he invited public testimony in advance of a report from staff or comments from the Commission. Sandy Ganun, 650 Northmoor Road, noted that the Commission is not considering whether Old Main should be razed, but whether it should be removed from the District. He stated that Harris Bank and an anonymous group are pressing the City to amend the Historic District and remove this property as a way to more easily request demolition of Old Main. He pointed out that he cannot comment on any City petition during public comment without giving his name and address and commented that allowing an anonymous donor to make this request is a terrible precedent. He stated that if this request is approved, the Commission will likely see more requests of this type. He stated that the Historic District map was distorted to include Old Main and commented that this was not an arbitrary boundary. He noted that the Commission has a process that must be followed for demolition requests. He stated that “cherry picking” properties out of the District, to meet individual needs, is not a good approach to preservation. He stated that the Commission can choose not to approve the request and the City Council can override the decision. He stated that the Commission should not be driven by the economic needs of an individual. Suzanne Boren, President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, noted that the Commission has a written statement from the Foundation. She commented that the donation of the property might permanently secure the Barat property for educational purposes however, the petition before the Commission, to remove the Barat property from the District, challenges the due process outlined in the Code by requesting the City to support removal of the property from the District in order to allow demolition of Old Main. She stated that due process first requires the Historic Preservation Commission to consider the request to rescind the property from the district noting that there is a process for petitions that are denied a Certificate of Appropriateness. She noted that this request as presented violates the Code which requires proof that the property no longer meets the criteria in the Code. She stated that this property continues to meet several of the designation criteria. She noted that as a Certified Local Government with several historic properties, the City of Lake Forest has an obligation to follow the proper process. Mark Kindal, Vice Chairman of the Woodlands Board of Trustees, noted that all 21 members of the Board voted unanimously to accept the gift. Mr. Brown, 272 S. Sheridan Road, noted that he agrees with the proposed plan for the expansion of Woodlands Academy noting that Old Main is no longer a productive part of the community. He stated that the previously proposed plan for development of the property would have been a good plan, but noted that it proved to not be viable. He commented on the extraordinary cost to rehabilitate Old Main noting that the City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 19 should allow the building to be demolished. He stated that this proposal will help to restore property values for surrounding properties. Leslie Stevens, 142 S. Stonegate, stated that there was a miscommunication during the bidding process used by Harris Bank to find buyers for the property. She stated that she represents Spectrum Properties, a firm that bid on the property with the intent of restoring Old Main for use as a retirement community. She stated that her firm discussed the property with Woodlands Academy. She stated her firm’s intention to spend the millions of dollars that it would cost to restore and rehabilitate Old Main. She stated appreciation for Woodlands Academy and suggested that a compromise is possible to make the situation work for all parties. She stated that under her firm’s proposal, the use of Old Main would change, but the building would remain noting that the Chapel would become a dining hall for residents and the community. She stated that her firm’s proposal includes swimming and athletic facilities that could be shared with Woodlands Academy. She stated that her firm has evaluated the property and believe that their proposal is feasible. She added that the firm has been in business for over 20 years. She asked that Commission members review her website and asked that the Commission consider this alternative option. Michelle Burgis, 1271 N. Green Bay Road, noted that she is aware of two builders in the Chicago area who would be happy to restore Old Main and develop the historic building into condos and recondition the Chapel for adaptive reuse. She noted that the builders are willing to work with Woodlands Academy and collaborate with Lake Forest Open Lands. She stated that collaboration and looking for new ways to approach the problem is important. She cautioned the Commission about jumping into the first solution found noting that this proposal results in the loss of a significant historic structure. Louis Asavas, 745 Northmoor, noted that he has lived near the Barat property for 25 years and has watched the property with a great deal of interest. He stated that as a nearby property owner, he was rarely consulted and has watched the property deteriorate. He stated that the huge subdivision that was recently proposed, Barat Woods, did not show much respect for the surrounding property owners and uses. He stated that there is a new proposal on the table now that should be considered. He reiterated that he has watched Old Main deteriorate noting that the windows are boarded up and the property is enclosed with a chain link fence. He noted that the other buildings on the campus have been removed. He stated that there are ongoing maintenance issues on the property. He noted that if Old Main is to be preserved, the opportunity for Woodlands Academy will be lost. He stated that Woodlands Academy has never been a problem or created a noisy situation in the neighborhood. He stated that Woodlands is a good neighbor and stated confidence that they will continue to be a good neighbor after the inclusion of the Barat property into the campus. He stated that he is confident that the property will remain open and remain in an educational use. He stated concern about what will happen to the property if this deal does not go through. He stated that Old Main, in its current state, is not good for his property value. He asked the Commission to approve the demolition of Old Main. Ivan Kane, representing the title holding entity, the bank, explained the marketing process that was undertaken by the owners. He stated that the marketing plan Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 20 encouraged preservation proposals for the property noting that extensive information on preservation tax credits and local incentives was included in the marketing materials. He stated that the previously approved Barat Woods plan was presented in the materials as a viable option. He stated that the marketing effort targeted users with experience in adaptive reuse and historic renovation. He stated that contacts with potential buyers were made using electronic and direct mail and the request for bids was advertised through various newspaper and media postings. He stated that the marketing material offered the potential to divide the land with the hope of finding a creative solution that would focus on the preservation of Old Main. He stated that eleven written offers were received, but none were found to be economically viable. He stated that the bid that was identified by a prior speaker was not on the short list of bids and commented on the faults of that bid. He stated that the price offered in that bid was not close to the desired price and the purchase contingencies were not acceptable. He stated that the estimated restoration costs were significantly lower than those presented in other bids. He stated that a responsible bidder was identified who can reunite the property with the historic educational use. He acknowledged the difficulty of the decision before the Commission. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, spoke in support of the statement of by Ms. Boren on behalf of the Preservation Foundation. He stated that there are Code criteria to be met and procedures to be followed. He questioned why removing the property from the Historic District is the first step noting that the City has criteria and standards for demolition. He stated that the timeframe presented with this petition is short. He questioned why this is happening so fast. He stated that the City’s preservation process is in jeopardy. Neva Ganun, 650 Northmoor, stated that she has lived behind Old Main for several years. She stated that the issue before the Commission is deciding what to do with the historic property. She stated that other issues will be discussed at a later time. She stated that the Commission needs to focus on the preservation issues at hand. Rommy Lopat, 410 Woodland Road, stated that she owns a contributing property to the East Lake Forest Historic District and commented that had she known that the City would consider allowing the home to be demolished, she would have rethought the investment put into the structure. She stated that there is no difference between Old Main and other properties noting that the Commission is sending an important message with this decision. She questioned whether Market Square would suffer the same fate as the Barat property noting that Market Square is tied to the Historic District by a thread. She stated that historic properties are always under pressure noting that the pressure in this case is from the donor who is forcing a quick decision. She stated that there have seen disasters in other situations when the City was forced into decisions by donors. She referenced the Adler designed Chicken Coop at Elawa noting that the structure was demolished quickly, without community discussion. She asked that the Commission stay true to their cause and consider the preservation issues. She quoted from the staff report noting that historic preservation is important. Leslie Stevens, a previous speaker, added that the bid she made was in the high seven figures and noted that she was asked to increase the bid to match the current donor’s bid. She commented that her estimated restoration costs were similar to others Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 21 presented. She noted that the intent of her proposed project is to make Lake Forest the best it can be. Pauline Mohr, 2000 Knollwood Road, stated that the majority of the comments presented focus on the demolition of Old Main. She stated that removing the Barat property from the Historic District is a critical decision. She stated that the configuration of the district is not a reason to remove the appendage from the District. She asked the Commission to consider this matter carefully noting that this decision will change the community down the road. She acknowledged that Historic Districts are generally compact, but not always. She noted the districts are configured in a manner that relates to history and stated that configuration is not a valid reason for de-listing. Susan Benjamin, Highland Park resident and preservation consultant, noted that she is well versed in Lake Forest history and once taught a preservation course at Barat College. She stated that in lieu of a final exam, the students gave presentations to Barat College alumni on the history of the campus. She stated that she has files on the history and architecture of Barat Campus. She stated that she would like the opportunity to share the papers with the Commission noting that she is a source of information for the Commission and community. Charlie Wimmer, stated that he is a Barat College alum, class of 1990, and commented on the beauty of the building. He stated that he is not ready to give an intelligent studied rebuttal to the request before the Commission, but noted that the beauty of the building restored his faith in himself noting that he is saddened by how it looks now. He stated that the Commission should not make a hasty decision. Cynthia Maloney, 445 E. Deerpath, stated that she has remodeled several homes in Lake Forest and has been before the Commission for several petitions in the past. She stated that the Commission has been consistent and has been the gatekeeper for the community. She cautioned that Lake Forest will become like other communities, where properties and history are not respected. She stated that the community prides itself on the fact that small aspects of a project are given equal consideration in an effort to protect the character of Lake Forest. She stated that Old Main is an enormous iconic building located at the entrance to the community and urged the Commission to seek the right solution. She stated that the Commission has wisely counseled several other petitioners to compromise and seek solutions that meet all standards in the Code. She stated that the Commission should not give up and should continue to strive toward preservation. Chairman Pairitz invited staff comments. Ms. Czerniak stated that the future of Barat Campus is a difficult discussion, one that has been going on for several years. She stated that this matter is not brought before the Commission hastily, or without thought. She stated that DePaul University “saved” the campus several years ago when Barat College was struggling. She noted that DePaul University had big plans for the campus and put a considerable amount of money into the campus before deciding to sell it. She stated that since DePaul University’s decision to cease its operations at Barat Campus, the City Council has struggled trying to find an appropriate long term, sustainable solution for the property. She stated that former Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 22 Mayor Preschlack appointed the Barat Community Planning Team which recommended priorities that should be considered in any redevelopment or reuse of the site. She noted that those priorities included the preservation of Old Main, re-use of the Cooney Library, preservation of the front lawn and the protection of the ravine. She stated that many compromises were made in approving the earlier Barat Woods plan. She pointed out that in order to preserve Old Main, the City Council approved the demolition of the Thabor Wing and approved a density significantly greater than the underlying zoning. She noted that several buildings on the campus have already been demolished. She stated that in early meetings with Harris Bank representatives, the bank confirmed its intent to use a marketing strategy to achieve the preservation and restoration of Old Main. She reviewed that when the City Council heard the announcement from Woodlands about the potential gift of the property, the Council determined that it was important for the community to consider proposal. She acknowledged that what is proposed does not achieve the priority of preserving Old Main, but noted that it does achieve the priorities of preserving the front lawn, protecting the ravines, preserving the educational use of the campus, and ensuring that the surrounding neighborhood are not negatively impacted by increased density and traffic. She stated that the City Council recognized that this is a unique property and a unique request and gave consideration to the appropriate process for considering the request to demolish Old Main. She stated that the Council considered various process options including whether to tell the donor that the City was not interested in seeing this proposal move forward. She stated that another option considered by the Council was to encourage the donor to bring forward a request for demolition of Old Main, however the Council recognized that the Commission previously considered and denied a request to demolish the Thabor Wing of Old Main as part of the Barat Woods proposal. She explained that after consideration, the Council directed that removal of Old Main from the District be pursued. She commented that the intent of this process is to protect the integrity of the preservation provisions in the Code. She stated that the City Council, not the Historic Preservation Commission, must make the final decision in matters pertaining to the district boundaries. She stated that the Commission must consider such request based on narrow standards however the City Council is able to consider a broader set of factors. She stated that the staff recommendation supports amendment of the district but noted that findings both in support of the request and in opposition to the request are provided to the Commission for consideration. She stated that given the Commission’s role as the steward of preservation in the community, it may be appropriate for the Commission to deny the request. She noted however that given the Council’s ability to consider a broader range of factors, the Commission may want to recommend conditions of approval even if the Commission recommends denial of the request. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak clarified that in response to litigation related to the City Council decision to approve the demolition of the Thabor Wing in conjunction with approval of the Barat Woods development, the Code provisions related to Historic Preservation were amended to provide a process for the designation historic interior spaces. She confirmed that those amendments do not pertain to the petition that is now before the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Local Historic District was adopted by the City in 1998 at the time the Historic Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 23 Preservation Ordinance was adopted. She confirmed that since that time, there have been no boundary changes made to the District. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. Czerniak explained that in the Council’s discussions on this matter to date, the Council expressed an expectation that removal of Barat Campus from the Historic District would be subject to conditions of approval that provide some certainty with respect to achieving an outcome consistent with the announcement by Woodlands Academy. She commented that the properties on which both Woodlands Academy and Barat Campus are located are zoned for residential use and noted that educational uses are governed by Special Use Permits. She confirmed that at this time, Woodlands Academy has not yet developed a master plan for expansion of its campus and use of the Barat parcel. She stated that if this petition moves forward, Woodlands Academy will need to present an updated and expanded master plan to the City for review and approval. She stated that in the short term, Woodlands Academy intends to use the existing library for academic purposes and use part of the parcel for athletic activities. She stated that beyond that, redevelopment of the site in any manner, consistent with the educational use, would need approval through a Special Use Permit process. She confirmed that if Old Main is demolished, the site will need to be restored. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that an amended Special Use Permit for Woodlands Academy will provide the framework for any future development. She stated that an amendment to the Special Use Permit will first be needed to authorize the expansion of the campus to incorporate the Barat parcel. She confirmed that if new structures are proposed, design review would occur consistent with standard processes. In response to questions from Commissioner Preschlack and Chairman Pairitz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Council can consider factors beyond the specific criteria in the Historic Preservation chapter of the Code, factors that relate to the overall best interest of the City. She confirmed that the criteria in the Historic Preservation chapter of the Code provide the framework for the Commission’s discussion on the matter. She confirmed that consideration of factors such as the impact of the request on surrounding property values would fall under the purview of the City Council. Commissioner Athenson acknowledged the challenge before the Commission and the City as a whole with respect to the Barat property. She stated that in her opinion, transparency in the consideration of this matter is very important. In response to questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Elwart confirmed that the potential donors do not wish to be identified. He stated that the identity of the donors should not be important given that Woodlands Academy is the petitioner with the approval of the current property owner. He stated that the donation will be made to Woodlands Academy, not to the City of Lake Forest. He stated that Woodlands Academy, as a “resident” of Lake Forest, is making this request. Chairman Pairitz noting the hour, asked for a motion to extend the Commission meeting beyond the mandatory adjournment time of 11 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 24 Commissioner Swenson made a motion to extend the meeting 30 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ransom and was unanimously approved by the Commission. In response to further questions from Commissioner Athenson, Mr. Elwart stated that the timing is driven by the current owner who wishes to sell the property before the end of the year. He stated that Woodlands Academy cannot accept a gift of the property if the building remains standing noting that the school does not have enough money to restore the building and the school does not have a practical use for the building. He stated that what is proposed is the best solution for Woodlands Academy and in his opinion, for Barat Campus. He stated that the donors have conditioned the purchase on the approval of demolition of Old Main based on their knowledge of the challenges and limitations preserving the building would put on Woodlands Academy. Chairman Pairitz stated that he is not in favor of the petition for many reasons. He stated that taking something out of the district is contrary to the criteria in the Code. He commented on the character of Lake Forest acknowledging that protecting community character may go beyond preserving buildings but noted that is an appropriate consideration for the City Council, not the Commission. He stated that it will be difficult to find a way to demolish Old Main based on the standards in the Code. He stated an understanding that timing is important in this matter and stated support for Commission consideration of forwarding conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report to the Council for consideration in the event a decision is made by the Council to remove the property from the District. He stated that the City Council will need to override the importance of the historic significance of the building in order to move this forward. Commissioner Moyer noted that there is a lot of information provided regarding the deterioration and poor condition of the building. In response to a question from Commissioner Moyer, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City has provisions in the Code that address distressed properties. She stated that City staff has communicated with the current owner, and the previous owner, on an ongoing basis to assure that the building remains secure and maintained to a minimum standard. She noted that the boarding up of the first floor windows and chain link fence were installed at the request of City public safety staff in response to issues that were occurring on the property. She noted that the current owners, the bank, have kept the building weather-tight and replaced the copper gutters and downspouts which were stolen, with temporary materials to divert water away from the mortar and bricks. Commissioner Berg noted that this petition has been forwarded to the Commission at the direction of the City Council. He stated that the proposed donation is generous and unique. He stated an understanding of why the Council would want the opinion of the Commission, but stated that the Commission’s denial of this request is good governance and consistent with the Commission’s charge. He also stated an understanding that Woodlands Academy and the donors are seeking input prior to the purchase of the property. He stated that it is important for the City to consider this Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 25 request in a way that protects the integrity of the Historic Preservation provisions in the Code. He commented on the decisions made by the Commission over time noting the other petitions that the Commission reviewed at this meeting. He discussed the conditions recommended in the staff report noting that if this moves forward, the conditions raise important points. He stated that the conditions should be included as a rider to the Commission’s denial as a means of giving direction to the Council on this matter. He agreed that protection of the south lawn and ravines on the site is important. He stated that including the suggested conditions of approval would benefit the City Council. Commissioner Ransom stated agreement with the comments of other Commissioners. Commissioner Preschlack stated support for denial of the petition and stated agreement with some of the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. He noted however, that the conditions of approval are not part of the purview of the Commission if the Commission recommends denial of the request. Chairman Pairitz suggested that the conditions of approval do not need to be part of the official motion to deny this request. He stated however that the Commission could direct staff to present the conditions to the Council for consideration. Commissioner Athenson encouraged the City Council to consider the precedent that may be set. She stated that demolition of an historic building is not what Lake Forest is about. She acknowledged that the City Council may be focusing on the economic aspects of the situation and not paying attention to the historic character of the community. Commissioner Moyer noted that several members of the Commission have expressed their intention to deny this request. He noted that the findings presented by the petitioner to support removal of the property from the District in response to the various criteria in the Code are flawed. He acknowledged the members of the public who spoke on this matter and stated agreement that the building should be preserved. Chairman Pairitz concluded the meeting stating that the City Council has a tough job which requires balancing the community’s interest in and commitment to preservation with broader interests in the community. Commissioner Ransom made a motion to recommend denial of the request to removal Barat Campus from the Historic District. He requested that the comments of the Commission related to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report be provided to the City Council in the event that the decision of the Commission is overturned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 26, 2011 - Page 26 There were no additional comments from the public. 6. Additional information from staff. There were no additional comments from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development