Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2011/02/23 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the February 23, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Kurt Pairitz, Commissioners Virginia McTier, Guy Berg, Mary Ellen Swenson, Bill Ransom, Fred Moyer and Jim Preschlack Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Pairitz Chairman Pairitz introduced the Commissioners and staff and provided an overview of the meeting procedures. 2. Approval of the January 26, 2011 meeting minutes. The approval of the minutes of the January 26, 2011 meeting was postponed. CONSENT AGENDA 3. Request for an extension of a previously granted Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing an addition and accessory structure at 140 Ridge Lane. Owner: Shelley Johnstone Representative: Austin Depree, architect 4. Ratification of refinements to a previously approved plan for the residence located at 222 E. Onwentsia Avenue. Owner and Representative: David Poulton Chairman Pairitz asked for any requests from members of the Commission or from the public to remove items from the Consent Agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner McTier made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. CONTINUED PETITION Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 2 5. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for entrance signage for Elawa Farm at Waukegan Road and Middlefork Drive. Owner: The City of Lake Forest Representative: Joanne Miller, Elawa Farm Foundation Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Paul Bergmann presented the petition on behalf of the Elawa Farm Foundation. He presented the proposed sign to the Commission noting that the sign represents the size of the sign that will be used for the sign inside the building. He explained that a larger version of the sign, 3.5 feet wide by 4 feet tall, will be used for the entrance sign on Waukegan Road. He presented an image of the historic sign hanging on a light pole upon which the concept for the new sign is based. He reviewed the process used to document the historic sign and to develop the new sign. He stated that the sign will be stainless steel, mounted on a 4 inch diameter pole, with a finial. He stated that the pole will stand 13 feet above ground. He stated that the sign will be ¼ inch thick stainless steel noting that the sample sign presented is much lighter than the proposed sign. He stated that the powder coating used on the sign was selected for its durability. He explained that the letters will be cut out and welded onto the sign and painted white. He commented on the brackets noting that they will be custom manufactured to fit the pole and the sign. He stated that the brackets are 1/8 inch stainless steel and designed to provide rigidity noting the open space that will allow the wind to blow through the sign. He showed images of the existing condition noting the numerous signs related to Elawa Farm currently displayed on Waukegan Road. He commented that the sign is intended to be a prominent feature on Waukegan Road. He stated that a similar sign will be installed at the entrance to Elawa Farm itself. He clarified that the different text colors on the sample were used to determine the color for the interior building signs. Ms. O’Neill stated that this sign is the final piece of the overall signage plan for Elawa Farm noting that the Commission has seen various components of the plan over time. She noted that when the Waukegan Road entrance sign was initially presented to the Commission, it was more complex. She explained that based on feedback from the Commission, the sign has been simplified. She noted that the sign preserves the residential character of the drive entrance. She noted that the entrance signs will replace all of the signs related to Elawa Farm currently located in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Mr. Bergmann stated that the designer of the original sign is not known. He stated that there is a home movie created by the Armour family that shows several cut metal signs throughout the property. He stated that it would be great to recreate all of the metal signs. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 3 In response to a question from Commissioner Moyer, Mr. Bergmann noted that the brackets and pole will be painted the same black color. He stated that everything will be black except the white letters. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Bergmann stated that the current pole supporting the City sign is about three inches square. He stated that the pole that will be used is a flag pole. Chairman Pairitz questioned whether the diameter of the pole as proposed is the proper proportion in relation to the sign. He cautioned that the pole should not look too light to support what appears to be a fairly substantial sign. Commissioner Berg suggested that further consideration be given to evaluating the proper diameter of the pole noting that the diameter should be large enough to properly support the pole from a visual standpoint. He stated that a full elevation should be provided showing the entire height of the pole with the sign in elevation. Commissioner Moyer suggested that consideration be given to a tapered pole. He added that consideration should be given to a pole from a lighting standard manufacturer and noted that even a fluted pole could be considered. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Craig Bergmann, 1065 Acorn Trail, asked whether lighting would be installed at the Waukegan Road location. Paul Bergmann confirmed that there are no plans to light the sign. Commissioner Berg made a motion to grant a Grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Approach and Arrival signs as part of the overall Signage Plan for Elawa Farm with the following conditions of approval. 1. An elevation drawing of the Approach and Arrival Signs shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of a permit for this work. The selected poles should be robust enough to physically support the sign and visibly support the appearance of weight and size of the sign. 2. The use of a fluted or tapered pole for the Approach and Arrival Signs shall be considered. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. NEW PETITIONS 6. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of an addition and alterations to the residence at 900 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: William and Barbra Schumann Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 4 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commissioners to identify any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Berg recused himself due to his involvement with the architectural firm representing the owner. Ms. Melichar introduced the petition and identified the goals of the project. She described the property noting its location on a private lane and the extensive landscaping on the property. She reviewed the existing floor plan noting the strong east to west axis. She provided photos of the exterior of the home and described the architectural details and materials. She noted some weaknesses of the current design noting the lack of embellishment of the exterior of the structure at the central door openings compromising the elegance of the home. She reviewed photos of the home and compared them to the proposed elevations describing each of the proposed modifications. She discussed the site plan noting the confusion created by the existing driveway entrance. She noted that as a result of the existing site configuration, the house is approached from the side, not from the front, and the landscaping and historic arbor are disassociated from the house. She described the proposed driveway configuration noting the relocation of the driveway to the east side of the property allowing for a front approach to the house. She stated that the proposed driveway will follow the arbor. She provided photos of various architectural references used in the project. Craig Bergmann, landscape architect, described the landscaping intended for the property noting that the landscape buffer will be re-established along the east side of the property. He provided photos of the current driveway noting its appearance of being sunken. He stated that the sunken appearance will be retained providing for screening of headlights. He discussed the proposed shift of the driveway entrance noting that the final location will be based on input from the City Arborist. He stated that the entire driveway will be gravel, at grade, to limit impacts on vegetation and water flows. He stated that the dense character of the existing estate plantings will be replicated in the location of the existing driveway and that the side of the house will be covered to the eave height with landscaping at the time of planting. He described the portion of the historic arbor proposed for removal and noted the alignment of the proposed driveway as it will follow the arbor. He discussed the central axis as the new drive approaches the house. He reviewed an historic air photo of the site noting the location of vegetation. He noted that today, there is only limited vegetation within the landscape buffer area in which the arbor is located. He reviewed the intended foundation plantings noting that they will be simple. He discussed the pathways and various plantings intended to link various portions of the site. He reviewed an overall site plan noting the allees and trees intended for preservation. He stated that the intent is to set the house in a proper landscape setting. Ms. O’Neill stated that the changes proposed to the overall site closely align with the architecture of the house and serve to enhance the site. She stated that the architectural details appear to meet the standards in the ordinance. She Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 5 reviewed the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. She acknowledged that to achieve the intended realignment of the site, some trees need to be removed. She stated that the preliminary landscape plan presented is comprehensive noting that a final, more detailed plan will be needed if this project moves forward. She stated that close coordination with the City’s Certified Arborist will be required to assure that the intended enhancement of landscaping long the perimeter areas of the site is achieved. She commented on the history of the subdivision noting the intent to preserve and enhance landscaping between structures. She stated that this petition offers an opportunity to fill in any gaps in the landscaping between structures. She stated that the proposed project allows for more views of landscaping from the private drive than exist today. She noted the intent to preserve the trees along the private drive. She clarified that the private drive is owned by the owners of the property to the west and that any removal or addition of vegetation along the drive requires their approval. She noted that the owner of the private drive contacted staff and expressed support for the driveway changes and requested careful attention to the screening between properties. She commented on the use of a gravel drive noting that the material choice establishes the driveway as more of a landscape feature, than a driveway, and recommended a condition of approval requiring the use of gravel. She reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and suggested that the conditions be modified to include enhancement of the landscaping on the west portion of the property. She noted the need for periodic inspections of the property throughout the construction process given the importance of appropriately carrying out the details to achieve the end product as presented. She recommended approval of the project. In response to questions from Chairman Pairitz, Mr. Bergmann described the existing lighting on the site and stated that no additional lighting is proposed. In response to a question from Chairman Pairitz, Ms. O’Neill stated that there is a landscape buffer along the east property line. She stated that the landscape buffer was put in place as part of the subdivision process to assure that adequate landscaping would remain between the structures. Commissioner Preschlack commended the project and noted the importance of the City’s Arborist working with the petitioner to ensure the preservation of significant trees throughout the construction process. Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited Commission comments and action. Commissioner McTier commented on the previous owner of the house. Commissioner Moyer offered comments on the private road and suggested that the driveway be considered in an alignment that evokes the curvilinear character of the northern approach noting that as the driveway turns south, the connection to the formal design of the house is lost. He suggested a reverse curve to transition between the curvilinear start of the drive and the formal Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 6 character of the approach to the house. He acknowledged however that the arbor lends reasoning for the straight driveway as proposed. He noted that the use of a reverse curve could provide the opportunity to preserve one or more trees. He asked that his comments be given consideration, but not be required as a condition of approval. Chairman Pairitz commented that the proposed alignment of the driveway responds to the challenge of protecting the landscape buffer on the east side of the property. He noted however that the idea presented by Commissioner Moyer is interesting. Ms. Melichar agreed to give consideration to the use of a reverse curve. Mr. Bergmann noted that as the drive is finalized, some of the straight lines will be softened and agreed to look for opportunities to preserve trees and provide more room between the drive and significant trees. Commissioner Moyer commented that the curve will need to be great enough to not look like a mistake. Commissioner McTier made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions shall be satisfied. 1. Consideration shall be given to softening the straight line of the driveway as it turns south along the trellis consistent with the comments from the Commissioners and with an eye toward preserving additional trees. 2. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing house and site shall be submitted and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the pre-construction conditions of the site. 3. The final driveway location shall be shown on an approved grading plan and subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist to ensure tree removal associated with the proposed driveway changes are kept to the minimal necessary to install the driveway. 4. Approval must be received from the owner of the private drive prior to the removal of any trees or vegetation along the private drive, not on the subject property. 5. The driveway shall be gravel, recognizing its location within the landscape buffer and due to the extent of driveway area on the site. 6. The garage addition shall maintain an 18-20 foot setback from the grove of Spruce trees located in that area to protect and preserve the mature trees. 7. A detailed landscape plan, depicted on the approved grading plan, shall be submitted subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist shall confirm that the plan achieves the following goals before approving the plan: a. The plan shall identify all existing plantings: those that will remain and those intended for removal. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 7 b. The plan shall clearly indicate the portion of the historic trellis to be removed and the portion of the trellis to remain. The remaining portion of the historic trellis must be preserved and properly maintained on an ongoing basis. c. The plan shall enhance the existing landscaping along the east and west property lines to provide a landscape buffer between adjacent structures. d. The plan shall provide significant landscaping between the house and the private drive to screen views of the main house and garage from the private drive and maintain a consistent character along the road. e. A note shall be placed on the landscape plan stating that approval of the plan is for plantings only, any lighting, additional garden structures, pool, fences or other accessory structures will require separate approval and permits. 8. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted and be subject to review and approval by staff. All construction activity must remain on the property. 9. Protective fencing, as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist and the City Engineer, shall be erected to protect vegetation and prevent stormwater runoff on to neighboring properties during construction activity. The fencing shall remain in place and properly installed until removal is authorized by the City. Other conditions. 10. City staff is directed to conduct periodic, pro-active inspections of this site to assess and confirm that the work on the site is proceeding consistent with the approved plans. The standard inspection fee shall be assessed in accordance with the Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council. 11. In the event that landscaping cannot be completed prior to the scheduling of a final inspection due to the time of year, a financial guarantee in the amount of 110% of the full cost of materials and labor shall be posted with the City. All plantings shall be completed during the first available planting season as determined by the City’s Certified Arborist. 12. Any landscape lighting will require additional consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Preschlack and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. Commissioner Berg rejoined the Commission. 7. A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of a pool and pool house located at 902 N. Green Bay Road. No replacement structure is proposed. Owners: John and Stephanie Harris Representative: Roger Chancellor, architect Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 8 Chairman Pairitz asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Chancellor presented the request to remove the pool and pool house. He stated that the criteria for demolition are met. He described the pool and pool house noting their location in the front yard of the home, visible from the front of the house. He stated that as a result of the existing vegetation and setback of the lot from the street, these structures are not visible to the general public. He stated that the pool and pool house are only visible once you have arrived at the house. He stated that removal of the structures would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He pointed out that although the pool house is of the New Formalist style, it is not considered a significant example of the style. He added that the pool house is not 50 years old and is not consistent with the Georgian style of the house. He stated that a pool is normally located in a backyard and noted the future intent of the owners to install a pool in the backyard. He noted that a landscape plan was provided to the Commission with the intent to re- establish what is believed to be the original landscape plan for the site. Ms. O’Neill noted that the Commission recently approved a separate project on this property. She noted that at that time, potential removal of the pool and pool house was mentioned, but that there was not sufficient information for the Commission to rule on that portion of the request at that time. She stated that since that time, the property owners hired a preservation consultant to research the significance and history of the pool house. She stated that the information from that report is the basis of the findings presented for the demolition. She stated that the pool and pool house are unique and designed by an architect prominent in the history of Lake Forest. She stated that the material in support of the demolition submitted by the preservation consultant and petitioner focus on the intent to restore the character of the historic house noting that the new formalist design of the pool house is inconsistent with the architecture of the main house. She stated that staff requested that the petitioner consider relocating the pool house on the site. She noted that the owners may have interest in constructing a new pool in the backyard at some point, but do not desire a pool house structure. She commented on the original nomination for the historic district noting that the main house was called out as a contributing structure. She noted that a neighbor, and prior owner of the property, Mr. Chandler, contacted staff and stated support for the project but expressed concern about the possible location of a pool in the rear yard. She recommended an additional condition to make it clear that Commission review would be required for any pool or other structure proposed on the site in the future given the historic context of the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Preschlack, Ms. O’Neill noted that no replacement pool is currently proposed, but that a new pool, at a different location on the site, is being contemplated. She confirmed that accessory structures are required to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner McTier noted that Ike Colburn was the son-in-law of the original owner of the property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 9 Chairman Pairitz invited public comment. Pauline Mohr spoke on behalf of the Preservation Foundation. She provided some background on the development of the Green Bay Road Historic District. She noted that the approval of the district was supported by the significance of homes within the district. She noted that structures 50 years old or older were considered for identification as contributing structures. She reviewed the social history of the property. She commented on accessory structures on historic properties noting that there is disagreement among those in the field as to the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of consistency of style with the main house. She acknowledged that this will be a difficult decision for the Commission. She questioned if the landscape in the area of the pool and pool house will actually be restored, or if the effort will be to do something in the character of the original landscaping. Rommie Lopat, 410 Woodland Road, noted that she is involved with the Preservation Foundation. She stated that photographs should be required to document the historical setting and appearance of house and the overall site. She stated that Colburn architecture is distinguished by the mortar joints noting the importance of creating a thorough architectural record for future research on Colburn. Chairman Pairitz commented that this decision is more difficult than it may appear on the surface. He commented that the siting of the pool and pool house is unfortunate, but noted that the structure is iconic. He stated that the structure is intact and has not been changed from the original design. He suggested consideration of whether the structure could be used elsewhere on the property. He stated that he would support removal of the pool and maintenance structure. He noted however that removal of the pool house itself is more difficult. He noted that at this time, a detailed restoration landscape plan is not provided with the application and that all demolitions require detailed information on the proposed replacement structure, or in this case, landscaping. Commissioner Preschlack commented that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider this request more holistically. He requested a more complete explanation of what is planned including a detailed plan for the proposed landscape restoration as well as information on the proposed location for a new pool even though that project is not planned to be built at this time. He asked that a study of alternative uses of the existing pool house be completed and presented to the Commission as part of the demolition request. Chairman Pairitz suggested that the Commission take more time to consider the request given the significance of the structure. He acknowledged that lack of visibility of the property from Green Bay Road, but noted that this property is an important part of the fabric of the historic district. He acknowledged that the structure could be replicated. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 10 In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. O’Neill clarified that an overall conceptual landscape plan was included in the Commission’s packet. She suggested that in response to comments from the Commission, a more detailed plan and explanation be requested regarding the proposed restoration of the area. Mr. Chancellor described the location of the pool house in relation to the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Berg noted that without the pool, the pool house does not have a raison d’etre. He stated that there is an outside promise of something elegant, noting that it is taken away when you actually interact with the structure. Ms. Harris stated appreciation for the comments of the Commission noting that they raised appropriate questions. She stated that she is pleased with the construction project on the main house to date and stated appreciation for the Commission’s input into that process. She described the thought process that led to the request for demolition of the pool house. She stated that the pool is in poor condition and as a result, she does not know what to do with the pool house. She stated that the future pool is proposed in a location close to the existing tennis court. She stated that there will be screening between the pool and any adjacent structures. She noted that the pool is located in a “secret” area currently, and is not visible. She stated that the intent is to restore the gardens previously located in the area of the existing pool and pool house and noted that historic photos will be used to guide the landscape restoration. She stated that the integrity of the layout of the overall site will remain the same. She commented on previous changes to the landscaping including the reconfigured driveway that occurred over time. She stated that no original drawings were found for the landscape plan. Commissioner Berg suggested that some thought be given to the potential remodel and reuse of the structure as part of the garden. He noted that he has access to a landscape diagram of this property and would make it available to staff to share with the petitioner. He stated that there may have been a water feature in this location in the past. Ms. Harris noted that the layout of the pool house is not conducive to a repose area. She stated that the location of the pool house disrupts the flow through the gardens. In response to a question from Commissioner Swenson, Ms. Harris noted that there are no photographs of the Shaw designed play house that was on the property at one point. Ms. O’Neill suggested that based on the comments and additional information presented at the meeting, the Commission may want to continue the petition and direct staff to work with the petitioner to provide a more detailed, comprehensive plan for this project. She noted that detailed information on the proposed landscape restoration, a study of alternative uses for the pool house Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 11 and information on the proposed future pool location could be provided to the Commission at a future meeting. Chairman Pairitz agreed that the petition would benefit from additional thought, study and detailing. Commissioner Moyer stated that if a preservation ordinance had been in place 50 years ago, the Commission may not have granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of the pool house. Commissioner Berg noted the inappropriate additions that were attached to the main house. He noted that the Commission granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of those Colburn additions. He questioned when the sleeping porch was removed noting that the timing of that removal might have aligned with the construction of the pool house. He commented on other unfortunate changes on the property such as the reconfigured driveway. Ms. Harris noted that they may consider reconfiguring the driveway at a later date. Mr. Chancellor noted that the driveway cuts are still visible along the private drive. Commissioner Berg made a motion to continue the petition to allow time for the petitioner to explore alternative, adaptive re-use options for the I.W. Colburn designed pool house, to develop a detailed restoration landscape plan and to prepare a master plan for the site reflecting the proposed locations of a new pool or other structures planned for the future. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. OTHER ITEMS 8. Continued consideration of a Code amendment pertaining to the maintenance of structures which are under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. This item was postponed pending further work at the staff level and pending input from the City Attorney. 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non-agenda items. There were no additional comments from the public. 10. Additional information from staff. No additional comments were made by staff. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 23, 2011 - Page 12 The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development