BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/08/03 Minutes
Page 1 of 16
August 3, 2017
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of August 3, 2017 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Thursday,
August 3rd, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Training Room at the City’s Municipal Services
Facility, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board
members: Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, and Fred Moyer
Building Review Board members absent: Peter Dunne and Chris Bires
Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director
of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Notz
Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff
to introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes of the July 5, 2017 meeting of the Building Review
Board.
The July 5th, 2017 meeting minutes were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of changes to the siting of a previously
approved replacement residence at 234 W. Westminster.
Owner: Chicago Title Land Trust Company (Mary Liz and Peter Lehman –
beneficiaries)
Representative: Melissa Aust, project associate
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Aust introduced the petition noting that the project was brought before the
Board and was approved in 2016. She explained that, at that time, the plan was
to reuse the existing foundation of the house proposed for demolition. She noted
however that after the home was demolished, it was determined that the
foundation was not viable for reuse. She stated that since a new foundation is
needed, there is an opportunity to reconsider the siting of the replacement house
on the lot. She reviewed the previously approved site plan and the proposed site
Page 2 of 16
August 3, 2017
plan noting that the house as now proposed, is more centrally located on the site
providing more opportunity for a buffer along the side yards. She stated that the
proposed site plan locates the replacement house parallel to the street, rather
than at an angel, and noted that evergreens are proposed to screen the house
from the street.
Ms. McManus stated that the Board approved the demolition of the previous
house and the replacement residence in 2016. She noted that during those
discussions, questions were raised by the Board and staff about the viability of
reusing the foundation. She stated that the site plan as now proposed, sites the
home centrally on the lot. She stated that a letter was received from a neighbor
requesting additional screening along the side yard property lines. She noted that
2 additional trees will be impacted by the new site plan and noted that
replacement trees will need to be added to the landscape plan to, at a
minimum, replace the tree inches that will be lost.
Board member Moyer stated his support for the changes.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Aust stated that the
landscape and hardscape concepts have not changed and will include native
plants. She stated that the driveway and motor court are modified in the revised
plan noting that the garage doors are no longer oriented toward the street.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Aust reviewed the
plantings proposed to enhance the screening along the west property line,
including evergreens and dogwoods. She noted that the existing vegetation will
be retained. She explained that the front motor court will be screened from the
street with a mix of low plantings, existing trees and new evergreens.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. Aust confirmed that
the same types of plantings will be added along the east property line. She stated
that the owners are willing to plant additional vegetation if more screening is
needed.
Ms. McManus suggested that a condition could be added that requires the City
Arborist to review the final landscape plan and the plantings once they are
installed, to assure that a reasonably dense planting buffer is established along
the side property lines.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Aust stated that the house was
not pushed further east in an effort to avoid impacting a mature tree. She added
that the proposed siting also maximizes the yard area. She stated that the
landscape architect believes that the turning radius of the driveway is adequate,
but stated that aspect of the plan can be looked at more closely.
Page 3 of 16
August 3, 2017
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public
comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Ms. Czerniak explained that
payment in lieu of replacement plantings on site is required only in situations
where there is not sufficient space for the replacement plantings on the property.
She stated that the City Arborist reviews landscape plans to assure that trees are
located so that they have sufficient room to grow and mature, consistent with
good forestry practices.
Chairman Notz stated that the landscape plan should be carefully reviewed to
assure adequate screening. He recommended that consideration be given to
shifting the house to the east if possible, without impacting the tree.
In response to Board comments, Ms. Czerniak suggested that a condition could
be added requiring further study of the adequacy of the turning radius for the
driveway and motor court.
Board member Freidman noted that if the house is shifted east, there will be more
space for plantings on the west side of the property to increase screening as
requested by the neighboring property owner.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on
the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented
and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design
standards and requirements of the City Code. He noted that approval is
recommended subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval
1. Revised construction drawings shall be submitted detailing the new foundation and
any other modifications necessitated by the change in the scope of the project.
The drawings shall be subject to standard review prior to approval of the revised
plans. The revised plans shall address the following:
a. Studies shall be included to document that the hardscape surfaces; the
driveway, entrance to the garage and motor court, all are configured with
sufficient space to accommodate the turning radii of vehicles.
b. To the extent possible without compromising the existing mature tree, the siting
of the replacement house shall be shifted east.
Page 4 of 16
August 3, 2017
2. The final landscape plan shall reflect the additional tree removals which are
necessitated by the revised plan and shall docum ent the replacement tree inches.
The final landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Arborist. At a minimum, the tree inches proposed for planting shall provide, at a
minimum, an inch for inch replacement for the trees that will be removed. In
reviewing the final landscape plan, the City Arborist shall verify that the plat
provides for the following:
a. Adequate screening of the motor court area from the street and along the east
and west property lines.
3. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of
The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
rules, and regulations.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 5
– 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval to enclose a portion of the front porch
on the existing residence located at 120 Woodland Road. A building scale
variance is also requested.
Owner: Suzanne Boren
Representative: Diana Melichar, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Melichar introduced the petition and provided background information on
the property. She stated that the owner purchased the home in 2000 and since
then, has restored the home and garage, winning a preservation award. She
reviewed the location of the property at the intersection of a busy thoroughfare
noting that the traffic and noise prevent the owner from enjoying the front porch.
She stated that the home is a typical American foursquare with simple massing
and 3 arched bays on the front porch. She noted that the porch wall is thick and
solid at the bottom, and is of strong masonry construction. She stated that it is
important to retain the feeling of the arched openings while meeting the owner’s
desire to enclose the porch by infilling the 2 east bays. She stated that the
enclosure will provide for some transparency and the design emphasizes the
arches. She stated that the enclosure is consistent with the style of architecture
and historic neighborhood. She explained that the westernmost bay will remain
open, creating a covered entry. She stated that the east facing bays currently
are infilled with wood lattice. She noted that the lattice will be removed and
replaced with glass. She noted that the 3rd arched opening on the east elevation
is a later modification that will remain. She noted that the vertical mullions have
awkward proportions which would make it difficult to treat it similar to the infill
Page 5 of 16
August 3, 2017
planned for the other arches. She explained the design rationale for the proposed
infill noting that small lites appear lighter than large expanses of glass. She stated
that the windows will be wood with simulated divided lites. She reviewed the floor
plan noting how the living room will open on to the enclosed porch area. She
stated that the overall appearance of massing will remain the same adding that
the proposed changes will not impact the neighbors. She concluded that the
proposed enclosure of the porch will allow the owner to utilize the space
comfortably while at the same time, preserving the character of the home.
Ms. McManus stated that the proposed changes are fairly minimal, but require a
building scale variance. She explained that the current house is over the
allowable square footage. She stated that currently, the porch area is counted
as a design element but once it is enclosed, it will add to the square footage of
the home. She stated that the proposed infill will alter the perceived mass of the
porch as seen from the street, but noted that the proposed changes are
appropriate for the age and character of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Melichar stated that
the color of the muntins and mullions proposed on the windows will match the
house. She confirmed that the windows are wood, with simulated divided lites.
She confirmed that the front entrance will not change.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Melichar confirmed that
the glass in the 4th bay, on the east elevation, is not part of the project because
the window was recently installed and the owner does not wish to replace it. She
acknowledged that the window will not match the infill windows proposed for the
front bays. She noted however that the plantation shutters provide some scale for
that window, she also noted that the window differs in proportions from the
windows proposed in the other bays. She stated that the new windows will be
transparent and will include operable casements. She confirmed that the
enclosed porch will be conditioned space. She explained that the existing
window on the interior wall of the porch will be converted into a door by lowering
the sill to allow access from the living room to the enclosed porch. She stated that
there will be a window in the wall that will be added just east of the front door to
enclose the porch. She confirmed that it will be similar to the windows that will
infill the bays. She explained that the width of the porch is very narrow so a door
is not appropriate in the new wall that will be located east of the existing front
door.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Melichar stated that
the exterior of the house is stucco on block or frame. She confirmed that there is a
crawl space underneath the porch. She stated that it is unclear why the
downspout is located where it is.
Page 6 of 16
August 3, 2017
Board member Friedman stated that in his opinion, there is too much focus on
downspouts and suggested relocating the existing downspout.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Melichar explained the reasoning
behind the proposed window configurations. She noted the desire to retain the
arched openings and the feeling of a void in each opening.
Board member Moyer commented on the floor plan and stated his support for
the project as proposed. He pointed out that the new windows express the porch
and the existing window, on the east elevation, is part of the house and
appropriately, has a different expression. He stated that painting may separate
the window visually from the house.
Chairman Notz stated that the window design is strong, but noted concern about
the new windows not matching the existing window. He noted concern that the
existing window is too similar to the proposed new windows.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Melichar explained that the
owner uses the space with the existing window as an office and does not want to
disrupt that space with construction. She added that the windows are expensive,
high quality windows and there are budgetary concerns as well.
Board member Friedman suggested that consideration could be given to adding
divided lites to the existing windows. He stated that he too has concerns about
the compatibility of the new and existing windows.
In response to suggestions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Melichar agreed to
do further study but stated concern that appearing to try to hard could worsen or
accentuate the difference.
Chairman Notz suggested that perhaps there is a less expensive window that
could be carried through all 3 bays. Hearing no further questions from the Board,
he invited public comment.
Jonathan Clair, architect, suggested adding grilles to the existing window noting
that window manufacturers can apply muntins to the exterior and interior of the
glass.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Notz invited final comments from the
Board.
Board member Diamond and Friedman stated that they are supportive of
consideration of the addition of simulated divided lites to the existing window.
Page 7 of 16
August 3, 2017
Chairman Notz questioned if the grilles should be applied to the windows in all of
the bays.
Board member Moyer stated support for simulated divided lites noting that true
divided lights may be more important within the Historic District. He noted that in
this case, simulated divided lites are appropriate and will be at a lesser cost. He
noted that he appreciates the difference between the existing and new windows
noting that uniformity is not necessary. He stated that he is in support of the
project as presented.
Board member Friedman stated that he prefers to see uniformity because the
windows are a very visible element of the house.
Chairman Notz stated that in his opinion, there should be consistency in the
appearance of the windows. He noted however that there is no specific
construction technique that needs to be used to accomplish the goal.
Ms. Melichar noted that generally, from a preservation perspective, there is a
desire to distinguish new from old. She noted it is important that the windows be
high quality.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on
the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented
and as modified by the recommended conditions below, meet the design standards
and requirements of the City Code. Approval is recommended subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval
1. Further study should be conducted of the windows in an effort to achieve
more consistency between the existing and proposed windows. The final
solution shall be subject to review and approval by City staff in consultation
with the Chairman as appropriate.
2. Any modifications made to the plans, in addition to those directed above
related to the windows, either in response to comments from the Board or as a
result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and
a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for
comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation
with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are
in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance
of any permits.
Page 8 of 16
August 3, 2017
3. Comprehensive photo documentation of the portion of the existing residence
that will be modified must be provided to the City in a digital form determined
to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to
preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake
Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction
vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be
subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the
neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended
for preservation. No on street parking is permitted and the public sidewalk
should not be blocked at any time. Contractors may need to park off site and
walk or be shuttled to the site.
5. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and
provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, rules, and regulations.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 5
– 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of a rear addition and alterations to the
existing residence located at 50 N. Western Avenue. A building scale variance
is also requested.
Owners: Justin and Kelly Cohen
Representative: Jonathan Clair, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Clair stated that the proposed indoor pool addition is needed for the
wellbeing of the owners’ son who has a degenerative bone disease which is
benefitted by daily exercise and therapy. He explained that the owners explored
a variety of options including moving to a new house, but determined that
adding onto their existing house was the best option. He stated that zoning
setback variances to support the addition were recently endorsed by the Zoning
Board of Appeals. He stated that the house was built in 1998 and is sited away
from Western Avenue. He noted that the house has steep roof pitches which
contribute to the large building square footage. He stated that the proposed
addition exceeds the allowable square footage and a building scale variance is
requested. He reviewed site photos and noted that there is mature landscaping
throughout the yard to provide screening of the addition from the street and
neighbors. He stated that the home is primarily brick and dryvit. He noted that the
exterior materials on the addition will match those on the existing house and will
Page 9 of 16
August 3, 2017
repeat the dark green and white stucco. He pointed out that several neighboring
homes have swimming pools. He reviewed the site plan noting the setbacks from
property lines. He stated that although the existing landscaping is dense, the site
will be supplemented with additional plants. He stated that a 10 inch evergreen
will be removed, but the existing patio will be retained. He stated that usable yard
area will remain north of addition. He reviewed the elevations of the addition
noting the hip roof with a decorative gable on the north elevation. He stated that
there will be a ramp on the north and east sides of the addition with a simple grab
rail and small landing to make the pool accessible from the front of the house as
well as from the inside of the house . He stated that the addition is sited near the
kitchen and family room and directly accessible from family areas. He reviewed
the roof plan and explained how water will drain over the new porch. He stated
that the height of the addition is under 19 feet to minimize the building scale
overage and the appearance of mass. He clarified that the windows will be vinyl
not wood since the space will be humid. He noted that decorative windows with
shutters were introduced on the addition and sliding or bi fold doors are proposed
on the north elevation. He stated that the addition is not visible from the front of
the house and Western Avenue. He noted that a residential window was added
on the front façade to assure a residential character.
Ms. McManus stated that the addition is sited in a manner that minimizes impacts
on the streetscape and on neighboring properties. She stated that a building
scale variance is requested and noted that the criteria are reviewed in the staff
report. She stated that the addition will be consistent in exterior materials and
design with the existing residence. She noted that 2 letters of support were
received from neighboring property owners.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Clair confirmed that
the windows on the south elevation do not have divided lites because the
addition is a different use than the main house. He explained that the goal is to
bring as much light into the space as possible. He stated that the addition is
stucco with cedar shingles and cedar trim, matching the house. He confirmed
that the stucco will be on metal lath, true cement stucco.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Clair stated that there is
approximately 8 feet from the addition to the south property line and noted there
are arborvitae and a stockade fence along the property. He stated that the
owner is open to adding shutters or shades to prevent light spillover and
recommended a plastic pull down shade because of the humidity.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Clair reviewed
alternative concepts that comply with the zoning setbacks and reviewed why the
various options are not workable. He stated that the addition will have a stucco
Page 10 of 16
August 3, 2017
interior wall with tongue and groove cedar and decorative trusses. He added
that the floor will be a textured concrete.
Board member Moyer complimented the planning and design noting that the
interior space relationships offer good visual connections. He pointed out that the
roof slope on the north side presents challenging corner conditions. He
commented that the siting of the addition preserves the back yard and green
space.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Clair confirmed that the
porch roof is flared.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public
comment.
Ms. Cohen introduced herself and stated that they have been working on finding
the best solution for their son for a year and ultimately determined that the
solution presented to the Board is the best approach. She thanked the Board for
considering the petition.
Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Notz invited final comments from
the Board.
Board member Reda stated that the building scale variance process is designed
for unique situations like the Cohens. He stated that his only concern is the
potential for offsite light impacts. He stated that he is confident that the petitioner
can work with staff to address this issue.
Chairman Notz suggested that windows be selected to accommodate an interior
blind system to prevent off site light spillover.
In response to suggestions from the Board, Mr. Clair stated that wall sconces will
be used to minimize light spillover from the interior. He stated that the owners will
consider a blind system that is appropriate for a humid climate.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on
the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented,
and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design
standards and requirements of the City Code. He noted that approval is
recommended subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval
Page 11 of 16
August 3, 2017
1. Consideration shall be given to mitigate light impacts on neighboring properties
from any exterior lighting and from interior lighting of the pool area. A plan for
mitigating light shall be submitted along with the plans submitted for permit.
Consideration should be given to fixtures that screen the source of the light and
direct it away from neighboring properties, additional landscape screening and
the installation of interior shades.
2. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in
response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the
modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan
originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is
directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate,
to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s
direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect
any trees identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will
be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.
4. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, 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.
5. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review
and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and
Director of Community Development. On street parking on Western Avenue is not
permitted. Offsite parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be required.
6. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of
The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
rules, and regulations.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 5
– 0.
6. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of significant portions of
the existing house and additions, and modifications to the exterior façade
materials, architectural style and roof massing of the existing residence
located at 1565 W. Everett Road.
Owners: Karl and Marz Svensson
Representative: David Wickwire, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Wickwire reviewed images of the existing house noting that the house is a
ranch style, constructed in the 1950s and is not visible from the street. He stated
Page 12 of 16
August 3, 2017
that the existing landscaping requires some maintenance and noted that the
existing deck will be removed. He provided examples of the Midcentury Modern
style and reviewed the proposed exterior materials including stone, stucco and
large expanses of glass. He stated that the proposed home will have 2 story glass
walls on the rear. He reviewed a color coded site plan and identified the areas
proposed for demolition and reuse. He reviewed the proposed elevations and
stated that there is a recessed entrance and noted that the garage will remain in
the current location. He stated that the vertical element on the front elevation is a
stairwell. He stated that there is a sloped roof over the proposed kitchen addition
and noted the skylights, ribbon windows and cedar siding proposed on the front
and side elevations. He stated that aluminum clad wood windows are proposed
and noted that the glass walls are aluminum frame window walls to provide a
strong connection between the interior space and the outside. He noted that the
east elevation will be the least visible from off of the property. He stated that the
stone will wrap the front elevation and extend a few feet around the corners on
to the side elevations and will serve as an accent. He reviewed the proposed
floor plan and stated that a 2nd floor addition with 2 bedrooms and office is
proposed. He provided exterior material samples including dark bronze aluminum
frame windows, charcoal asphalt roof, natural cedar siding and gray stone in an
ashlar patter and noted that the mortar color will be similar to the color of the
stone. He stated that the gutters and downspouts will match the windows and
explained that the slight cant in the roof elements is required for drainage.
Ms. McManus stated that as presented, the petition proposes partial demolition
and significant additions and alterations to the existing house. She noted that the
intention is to reuse portions of the existing foundation and walls, but noted that a
structural evaluation has not been completed to date. She stated that a
condition of approval is recommended requiring an evaluation of the foundation
by a structural engineer to verify whether the proposed reuse is advisable. She
suggested that the Board consider the petition as a full demolition in the event
that the foundation and walls cannot be reused given the extensive demolition
proposed. She stated that based on staff’s evaluation, the demolition criteria are
satisfied. She noted that the staff report includes recommendations regarding
architectural detailing and refinement of the fenestration.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Wickwire stated that the
roofing material will be a rolled membrane on the canted areas. He stated that
the soffit material is cedar, tongue and groove.
Board member Moyer noted that the lot is visually insulated from the surrounding
neighborhood and has no visual relationship to its neighbors.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire stated that
the only existing landscaping that will be disturbed is ground cover. He
Page 13 of 16
August 3, 2017
confirmed that no trees will be impacted. He stated that the grass will be retained
and noted that the lot is fairly flat with some terracing on the west side. He
confirmed that the walkways are proposed as limestone with possibly bluestone
at the front entrance.
Board member Reda asked that the petition provide a color rendering of the
house as proposed. He explained that he is generally in favor of the project, but
noted concern about reusing portions of the existing house when so much
demolition is occurring. He questioned whether a better project could be
achieved by starting with a clean slate, a complete demolition.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Wickwire confirmed that the cedar is
a blonde wood and the stone is gray. He explained that the stone is a massing
element, not an accent, and provides balance on the front façade. He stated
that the stucco will be white with a gray hue and noted that vertical cedar siding
will be used on the stair element.
Board member Reda suggested minimizing the number and pattern of exterior
materials.
Ms. Svensson stated that the design is influenced by a neighboring home.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire stated that
the fascia is mahogany.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Wickwire stated that the cedar
will be natural in color and used as a horizontal lap siding.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Wickwire stated that
they consulted with several structural engineers about the foundation and all
recommended that the footings be exposed to allow a thorough evaluation. He
noted that the property owner is reluctant to expose the footings. He stated that
in his opinion, the basement appears to be in good condition with 10 inch thick
concrete walls. He stated that the 4 skylights proposed on the front façade will
have a dark bronze finish and the stone is intended as a massing element and is
not proposed to be carried around on all elevations.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire stated that
the front door has not been selected, but will be a solid door with sidelights.
In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Mr. Wickwire stated that the
skylights will be standard and flat against the roof and are desired to provide
natural light into the kitchen and entry.
Page 14 of 16
August 3, 2017
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Wickwire stated that the new
deck will be cedar to match the house. He confirmed that all of the elevations
will be refaced and the existing brick removed. He stated that additional
plantings will be added to break up the large expanse of wall on the front
elevation and agreed to consider additional fenestration on the side elevations.
Board member Moyer pointed out that the cedar reveal helps break up the
expanse of wall.
Chairman Notz noted that the area above the rec room also has no fenestration.
Ms. Svensson stated that she is willing to consider ribbon windows and a cedar
strip to the unbroken elevation.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Wickwire stated that he does
not yet know how the property drains. He agreed that the existing landscaping is
overgrown and needs maintenance.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public
comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Reda reiterated that a color rendering would be helpful to put all
of the concepts together in one clear image.
Board member Friedman stated that it is a complex design and asked that more
information be provided to allow the Board to more fully understand the intent,
execution and detailing.
Chairman Notz asked for input from the Board members on whether the petition
should be continued or approved with direction for further refinement and final
review by staff.
Board member Reda noted that in his opinion, more clarity is needed and some
refinement. He stated that the stone should be applied consistently around the
house and perhaps, under the porch. He suggested that the number of skylights
should be reduced. He requested more information on the windows and on any
refinements proposed to the fenestration.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Wickwire confirmed that
the windows are fixed with a frame and an inset sash. He confirmed that there is a
seam between the windows and explained that the cedar abuts the metal on
the corners. He noted that the sill is metal.
Page 15 of 16
August 3, 2017
Ms. Czerniak suggested that providing a dimensioned profile of the windows may
be helpful to convey the transition from the plane of the wall, to the cedar trim, to
the window.
Chairman Notz added that photo examples of similar installations will be helpful.
Board member Friedman added that in addition to the items identified by the
other Board members, a more fully developed landscape plan and details on
how the stone and cedar wrap the corners of the building should be provided.
He noted that the tongue and groove soffits are an important detail.
Mr. Wickwire commented that the changes requested appear to be minor and
noted that the owners are anxious to move forward.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to conceptually approve demolition of the
existing residence.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 5
– 0.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Chairman Notz explained that
the demolition approval allows the flexibility for a complete demolition in the event that
the foundation and walls cannot be reused. He noted that this provides the property
owner with the flexibility to demolish the entire structure without further Board re view if it
is determined that a better project can be achieved by starting with a clean slate.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue consideration of the proposed house
to allow the petitioner to provide additional details on the proposed replacement
structure including, but not limited to:
a. A color rendering.
b. Detail of the transition between materials including details of how the cedar banding
and stone wrap around the structure.
c. Consistent application of the stone around the house.
d. A detailed landscape plan.
e. Details of the windows including a dimensioned profile.
f. Further refinement of the skylights.
g. Consideration of limiting the number of different exterior materials.
h. Further refinement of the fenestration or other techniques to break up large
unbroken expanses of wall.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 5
– 0.
Page 16 of 16
August 3, 2017
OTHER ITEMS
7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-
agenda items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
8. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner