Loading...
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2016/06/02 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission Proceedings of the Special Meeting - June 2, 2016 Meeting A special meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, June 2, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Grieve and Commissioners Elizabeth Sperry, Bob Alfe, Wells Wheeler, Carol Gayle and Bill Redfield. Commissioners absent: Susan Athenson City staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Grieve reviewed the meeting procedures followed by the Commission and asked the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations and additions to the existing residence located at 1220 Elm Tree Road. Owners: John and Kathryn Collins Representative: Jeff Hartig, architect Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Collins introduced himself as the owner of the property and apologized for missing the February meeting. He explained that the petition is personal to his family and that much thought was put into the project. He noted that his family is engaged in the community and that the home has some challenges. He stated that he intends to live in the house for a long time and his family needs more living space and parking areas. He noted that the basement is leaking and has very low ceilings and as a result, is not useable for living space. He stated that there is currently no guest room or mudroom and the laundry room is in the basement. He stated that he has hired a strong architect and the project has been considered in the context of Italian architecture. He stated that although the balustrade on the rear of the house is a later addition, the project would add the same balustrade to the front. He noted the unique nature of the lot and pointed out that the project is within the allowable square footage. He stated that the previously proposed motor court was shifted to the west and is now in conformance with zoning regulations and was reduced in size. He stated that there is only one place on the lot to build due to the ravine and that location requires the removal of some trees. He stated that the front entry was simplified in response to the previous comments from the Commission and noted that there will not be light Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 2 impacts to the neighbors due to existing landscaping on neighboring property. He noted that the revised plan sets the linking element, between the house and garage, back to appear more one-story like. He explained that a one story addition does not meet the need for a family room. He stated that only 3 families have lived in the house and noted that he contacted a previous owner who stated support of the project. Mr. Hartig explained that the revised design responds to concerns from the Commission and he reviewed the existing elevations and revised site plan. He noted that the garage addition is further north than in the previous plan to provide more space along the south property line. He stated that the garage is a simple rectangular form with an operable coach house door on the front to give the element identity as a garage. He reviewed the floor plan and colored renderings and explained that the hip roof was kept as low as possible. He stated that the front entry was simplified with a limestone surround and iron railing. He stated that the scale of the arborvitae on the neighbor’s property screens the garages. He provided a 3D rendering. He reviewed the revised configuration of the driveway and noted that the addition is simple, with an offset chimney. Sam Danenberger, landscape consultant, stated that there is less paving in the revised plan than in the plan initially presented and he noted that the entry court was reduced in size providing a gracious approach to the house. He stated that measures will be taken to preserve one oak tree during construction and stated that an arborist is being consulted. He noted that the tree will be pruned, asphalt near the tree will be removed and fencing will protect it. He stated that a white pine will be removed and is in decline. Ms. McManus stated that the petition was before the Commission in February of this year and a number of concerns were raised including the size and scale of the addition, the potential impacts to the south neighbor, the non -conforming motor court and garage court, the removal of significant trees, and the ornateness of the front entry. She stated that the Commission requested alternatives for the addition including concepts for a one story addition and a concept relocating the garage doors to the front to minimize impacts to the neighbor. She added that some alternatives were included in the Commission’s packets. She noted that the revised plan brings the front motor court into conformance with zoning regulations, but the other concerns have not been fully addressed. She stated that the City Arborist reviewed the revised plans and noted that an independent study of the tree proposed for preservation should be completed prior to, during and after construction, to assess if the new driveway will impact the tree. She stated that staff recommends that the petition be continued so that the previous suggestions and concerns can be fully addressed including consideration of reducing the scale and height of the addition and relocation of the garage doors to the front of the addition to avoid locating the garage apron immediately adjacent to the neighboring home. She added that the site was not staked upon the staff’s last inspection, as required, although the petitioner’s indicated that staking was completed shortly before the meeting. She stated that viewing the staking of the proposed addition, driveway and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 3 garage apron would be helpful for staff and the Commission to understand the potential impacts on the streetscape, trees and on the neighboring property to the south. She stated that several letters were received from neighbors. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Hartig reviewed the impervious surface calculations and noted that the reconfigured motor court reduced the amount of impervious surface from the previous petition. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that removal of heritage trees is strongly discouraged by the City’s regulations and in the past, every effort has been made to preserve and protect heritage trees . She noted that despite best efforts, oak trees are often impacted over the long term by construction activity. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Hartig acknowledged that the site was not staked until after 3pm. He explained that although the footprint of the proposed addition decreased, the overall square footage increased. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Collins pointed out that the addition was shifted 3.5 feet further away from the south property line. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Mr. Hartig confirmed that a functional coach house door is proposed on the front façade. He stated that the garage court is close to the south property line but there will be enough space to plant dwarf arborvitae for screening. He noted that the existing curb cut will remain to provide access to the garage and the north curb cut will be shifted further north to provide access to the drop off area. He added that cars will only park near the garage. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Danenberger stated that there is approximately 4.5 feet between the motor court and property line. He stated that some vegetation and a stockade fence are proposed. He stated that there is ample space on the property to plant double inch for inch replacement for the oak trees being removed. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Mr. Collins stated that a number of trees had to be removed from the property in the past due to damage and disease and that he does not take lightly removing the oak trees. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Mr. Collins stated that the neighbors to the south live out of state for part of the year and confirmed that he has tried to connect with them. He stated that he discussed the project with the neighbors to the north, but not the neighbors to the east. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Hartig stated that the lot is very challenging due to the ravine and the fact that the northeast corner of the house Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 4 encroaches within the setback. He stated that the motor court will provide sufficient space for cars to maneuver. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that progress has been made and the revised design is an improvement over the plans previously presented. He stated that 2 driveways is an appropriate solution. He stated that the house is a Contributing Structure, but will likely not retain that designation with the addition, making it ineligible for the tax credit. He agreed that the lot is very difficult with the ravine and agreed that exterior lighting may be an issue. He stated that the design is more consistent with the guidelines than the previous design noting that it steps down from the mass of the main house. He suggested that the side door at the mudroom be painted so as not to draw attention. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Collins stated that the space above the garage is needed for a family room and that considering a one story addition would significantly increase the footprint in order to meet the family’s needs. He stated that the large garage eliminate cars parked in the driveway. He stated that they are anxious to begin the project and would like to move the petition forward. In response to questions from Mr. Collins, Chairman Grieve explained that the Commission will deliberate and added that the goal of the Commission is to provide specific direction, and if appropriate conditions of approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. McManus confirmed that the petition as presented will require a zoning variance and will need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Wheeler noted that it is important that the driveway and motor court be functional. He stated that he is supportive of the revised plan and in his opinion; the owners have demonstrated a need for the addition, in the location proposed. He stated that the front entrance appears more inviting than in the plan initially presented and noted there is continuity between the arch over the door and other elements of the residence. Commissioner Gayle stated that this petition is similar to another petition the Commission reviewed which required a significant addition and removal of heritage trees. She stated that she is in support of the front entry, but asked that the balustrade be reconsidered. She acknowledged that the existing garage cannot be modified and expressed concern for the tree removal. Commissioner Redfield stated that he is supportive of the petition with the exception of a zoning variance. Commissioner Sperry acknowledged the time and effort spent on the project and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 5 expressed support for the demolition of the detached garage. She noted that she did not have the opportunity to see the site staked and asked that the petition be continued so that the Commission, staff and neighbors could review the staking and better understand relationships with the street and neighboring property . Commissioner Alfe complimented the design and stated that the light fixtures will need to comply with the lighting guidelines. He stated that a condition of approval should be added requiring a report from an independent arborist on the tree that is intended to be preserved to determine whether it remains viable after construction activity or if additional replacement inches should be required. Chairman Grieve stated that the Commission is supportive of making a home more livable and noted that this property is not dissimilar to a number of properties in Lake Forest which also face unique challenges. He observed that the residence currently has a soft entry and a grand backyard. He noted that the sight lines from the home encourage views to the rear yard. He stated that it is not in keeping with the original concept for the site to add more formal entry. He agreed with previous concerns that were expressed about incorporating the balustrade element, which is not original to the residence, into the front entrance and suggested simplifying the front entry further. He summarized that the Commission appears to be generally supportive of the demolition of the original detached garage. He suggested that consideration be given to angling the driveway so that there is less impact from headlights on the neighboring property. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Mr. Danenberger stated that the courtyard is proposed as a chip and seal surface with a paver edge, and the south driveway is asphalt. He confirmed that the south curb cut already exists. In response to a question from Commissioner Gayle, Mr. Hartig stated that the impervious surface areas have been reduced from the original proposal to the extent possible while still maintaining adequate turning radius. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving alterations and additions to the existing residence, tree removal and driveway reconfiguration and expansion on the property located at 1220 Elm Tree Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the revisions detailed below. These changes, and any further modifications that are made in response to Commission direction and/or as a result of design development, must be clearly detailed and highlighted on the plans at the time of submission for permit. The submittal must also include the plans originally presented to the Commission. The plans will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 6 verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. a. Consideration shall be given to eliminating the balustrade from the front entry in order to further simplify the design. b. The site must be staked prior to issuance of the permit and auto turn diagrams must be presented and will be subject to staff review and approval. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. A plan for monitoring and documenting construction activity in the vicinity of tree number 508 throughout the construction process must be submitted by a Certified Arborist. A final report on the tree, documenting any and all construction impacts and including an opinion on the five-year survivability of the tree shall be included. If safety concerns are raised, the property owner shall be issued a tree removal permit. Double inch for inch replacement in the form of plantings or payment in lieu of onsite plantings shall be required if the report concludes that the long term vitality of the tree is compromised. 4. A landscape plan detailing how double inch for inch replacement will be achieved through the planting of trees on the site, in the areas impacted by the removals. The plan will be subject to the review and approval by the City Arborist and said review shall include a determination that the proposed tree locations, species and size at time of planting offer the best chance of replacing a significant tree canopy on the site, in the general area where the removals occurred. Trees should be selected that will help to, over time, replace the significant tree canopy that will be lost. Trees must be planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless due to the time of year, planting cannot occur in which case a bond shall be posted with the City in the amount of 110% of the cost of the trees and plant materials and labor. a. The final landscape plan shall be made available to the adjacent neighbors for review prior issuance of a permit. b. The driveway shall be designed in a manner that minimizes the impacts to the existing Oak tree identified for preservation. A report from a Certified Arborist must be submitted detailing inspections that occurred during construction, an evaluation of impacts on the tree and a forecast of the viability of the tree for a t least five years following construction. If, in the opinion of the City’s Certified Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 7 Arborist, the tree has been compromised to the extent that its survival is in doubt, double inch for inch replacement shall be required. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a payment in lieu of on site planting for any tree inches that cannot be accommodated on the site in a manner that will replace the lost tree canopy over time, shall be submitted to the City to fully satisfy the double inch for inch replacement requirement. The payment shall be used to support street tree plantings in the neighborhood. 6. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood and protect the ravine during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation both on the site and on neighboring properties. 8. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 5 to 1 to approve the petition with Commissioner Sperry voting nay. 3. Consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a demolition of the building located at 361 E. Westminster. No replacement structure is proposed however, redevelopment of the larger area is in the planning stage. Owner: The City of Lake Forest Representative: Susan Benjamin Chairman Grieve asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Susan Benjamin introduced herself as the historic preservation consultant hired by the City of Lake Forest, the owner of the property. She explained that the coach house was built in association with the Dr. Quinlan estate house and noted that both structures were designed in the Second Empire Style. She provided a historic photo showing the visual relationship between the coach house and main house. She noted that originally, there was a close visual and stylistic connection but over the years, the mansard roof was removed from the estate house as a result of a fire. She stated that Dr. Quinlan only lived in the home for a few years and in 1887, a new family purchased the property. She reviewed other coach house examples in Lake Forest and explained Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 8 that the Quinlan coach house is now isolated in relation to its surroundings because land was sold off around it and developed. She stated that the coach house was sold to the Masonic Temple and substantial alterations were made under that ownership which are evident on both the exterior and interior of the structure. She noted that a neoclassical entrance was added and dormers were removed. She stated that a shed dormer was added, windows were punched in around the building, and a seal was added on the wall next to the entry. She stated that there are 2 ghost arched windows that can still be discerned, and commented that the punched windows were added insensitively where light was needed. She stated that the added windows break the cornice line and disrupt the original mansard roof. She stated that the entrance to building was relocated to the south. She reviewed images of the interior spaces and stated that the structure currently houses the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society. She stated that evidence of the Masonic Temple is still evident including a G symbol on the wall. She stated that the City purchased the site in the 1990s and leased it to the Historical Society. She concluded that the structure was built in the Second empire style but no longer has architectural integrity or an association with the Quinlan house. Ms. McManus stated that the petition requests approval for the demolition of the existing structure and noted that the site is part of an area planned for future redevelopment. She stated that a historic resource evaluation and structural evaluation were submitted in support of the demolition and stated that the structural report documents that the existing structure has significant issues which do not make it suitable for further adaptive reuse. She stated that the structure no longer retains architectural integrity due to interior and exterior modifications over the years and noted that the coach house no longer retains it context since it it separated physically and visually from the estate house. She noted that it is identified as a Contributing Structure to the historic district due to its age and past association with a significant estate. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that generally, a replacement structure is proposed in conjunction with a demolition request. She stated that the City is not proposing a replacement structure in this situation because the future of the site is unknown. She stated however that the City Council has discussed the future of this structure for a number of years given the concerns about the long term viability and safety of the building. She stated that City Council is aware that other properties in this immediate area will likely be redeveloped in the near term and rather than allow incremental redevelopment, the City Council directed that the Historic Preservation Commission consider whether or not demolition of the building is appropriate so that a redevelopment plan for the area can take that decision into consideration. She stated that the Historical Society has purchased another building and is working to raise funds for improvements to the new space prior to relocating. She stated that if approved, demolition of the City owned building is not planned immediately. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheeler, Ms. Benjamin confirmed that the coach house was built at the same time as the main house and they originally complimented each other stylistically. She noted that the Second Empire style Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 9 developed in the mid-1850’s, in France. Commissioner Gayle stated that the report was very informative and justifies the demolition. She stated that the building is orphaned and has lost its original function and form over time. In response to questions from Commissioner Alfe, Ms. Czerniak stated that there is no timeline for the demolition at this time, but noted that the City Council has expressed concern about the condition of the building and is in discussions with the Historical Society about a timeline for vacating the building. She noted that the property will be restored to open lawn once the structure is demolished until a redevelopment plan is approved. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Czerniak stated given the unique circumstances of this property: it is City owned, part of a larger redevelopment area, is being vacated by a community institution, has no association with the original estate house and has been significantly compromised from an architectural perspective over time, a precedent would not be set for approving demolitions in general, without a replacement structure. In response to questions from Commissioner Redfield, Ms. Czerniak explained that the terms of the lease with the Historical Society are under the purview of the City Council, not the Historic Preservation Commission. She added that the Commission can recommend that the City Council be sensitive to the needs of the Historical Society in considering a timeline for demolition of the building. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grieve asked for public testimony. Andrew Lind, 338 E. Westminster, stated that he lives across the street from the building. He explained that he understands the desire to remove the structure but expressed concern that the process seems rushed. He stated that he believes that the structure should not be demolished until a replacement structure or redevelopment plan is proposed. He added that the structure could be reused or adapted for another purpose. In response to a question from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak explained that at this time, the City Council is looking for a decision on whether the building should be preserved or whether demolition is appropriate. She stated that the Commission’s decision will be factored into an overall redevelopment plan. She reiterated that there are no immediate plans for demolition. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the ordinance does not support demolition without a replacement structure. He stated that to recognize the unique aspects of this petition, the Commission should add findings to justify approval of the demolition in advance of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 10 consideration of a replacement structure so that a precedent is not set. He noted that the building is not architecturally significant, but is historically significant as the home of the City’s first African American policeman and as the Masonic Temple. He expressed concerns regarding the timing of the relocation of the Historical Society and the archives. He stated that the future redevelopment plan for the area should encourage high quality, classic design and sensitivity to the neighborhood and community. Doug Donavan, 373 Westminster, stated that he has lived next door to the coach house for 13 years and is apprehensive about the proposed demolition because he has a vested interest in the area and is concerned about how the area will be redeveloped. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Grieve asked for final comments and questions from the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the terms of the City’s lease with the Historical Society are under the Council’s purview. She confirmed that the Commission could offer a recommendation to the Council on the time frame for vacating the building. She said that the Plan Commission will consider a redevelopment plan for the larger area that could include overflow parking for the Library, shared parking opportunities, green space or other amenities. She stated that the Commission could consider a condition of approval that recommends that any future redevelopment in the area be of high quality design and materials. In response to questions from Chairman Grieve, Ms. Czerniak stated that the property is currently in the historic district, but other properties in the redevelopment area are under the purview of the Building Review Board. In response to questions from Commissioner Sperry, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Council has been discussing the site for a number of years and a special Task Force study was completed in 2011. She stated that 2 office parcels in the immediate area were recently purchased by a developer and the City Council intends to take this opportunity to look at the redevelopment in this area comprehensively, rather than as piecemeal projects. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he initially had reservations about the demolition request, but stated that based on the information presented, it is clear that the building has been compromised. Chairman Grieve stated that the structure will continue to deteriorate. He added that is it important to provide clear findings to distinguish this request from others so that a precedent is not set. In response to questions from Commissioner Gayle, Ms. Czerniak stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness is generally only valid for one year, but noted that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 11 Commission could modify that timeline in the interest of working with the timeline of the Historical Society. Hearing no future comments from the Commission, Chairman Grieve invited a motion. Commissioner Wheeler made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness approving the demolition of the existing structure based on the specific findings included in the staff report and as identified during the Commission’s deliberations. He noted that the motion is subject to the conditions as detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gayle. Chairman Grieve suggested a condition requiring documentation and preservation, as appropriate, of interior features and elements prior to demolition including elements such as doors, railings, and other architectural elements deemed of historic or architectural value. He suggested that as appropriate, the elements be reused, reincorporated into the new home of the Historical Society, or preserved. Commissioner Redfield suggested a condition that encourages the City Council to be sensitive to the Historical Society’s timeline for vacating the building. Commissioner Wheeler accepted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Gayle seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Alfe seconded the motion and the Commission voted 6-0 to approve the petition subject to enhanced findings demonstrating the uniqueness of the property and the following conditions of approval: 1. The City shall coordinate the timeline for demolition with the Lake Forest/Lake Bluff Historical Society with sensitivity to the Historical Society’s timeline for moving into the new building. Reasonable time should be allowed for the Historical Society to safely and securely relocate documents and artifacts. 2. Prior to demolition, interior features and elements, including, but not limited to, doors, railings, and other architectural elements deemed of historic or architectural value shall be documented and as appropriate, reused, reincorporated into the Historical Society’s new home or preserved, as determined to be appropriate. 3. The redevelopment plan for the larger area and replacement structures shall be of high quality design and materials consistent with the character of the community and historic district. 4. A staging and parking plan for demolition must be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 2, 2016 - Page 12 5. The City must provide comprehensive photo documentation of the structure, the overall property and the streetscape for the purpose of preserving an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 6. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the structure and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the structure and property must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 7. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 8. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. OTHER ITEMS 3. Opportunity for the public to address the Historic Preservation Commission on non- agenda items. Art Miller, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, provided the Commission with an informative brochure of architectural terms and guidelines. 4. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner