Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/09/06 Minutes September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 9 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of September 6, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, September 6, 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: Acting Chairman Robert Reda and Board members: Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Fred Moyer, Peter Dunne and Chris Bires Building Review Board members absent: Chairman Ted Notz Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Acting Chairman Reda Acting Chairman Reda 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 31, 2017 work session and the minutes of the August 3, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The July 31, 2017 minutes were approved as submitted. The August 3, 2017 minutes were approved with a clarification as requested by Chairman Notz (by e-mail). 3. Consideration of a request for approval of fencing, entrance pillars and streetscape landscaping for a previously approved residence at 1020 Walden Lane. Owner: Chris Brennen and Diane Craft Representative: Jerry Eppe, Breezy Hill Nursery Acting Chairman Reda asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Board member Moyer recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition because is the neighboring property owner. Hearing no further conflicts or recusals from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Eppe introduced the petition noting that as a condition of the prior approval of the new house on this site, final approval of the streetscape improvements by the Board is required due to the unique character of the streetscape. He stated that the proposed September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 9 improvements include limestone pillars to match the house, a split rail fence, and landscaping. He stated that the improvements are proposed to separate the private property from the public street noting that today, people cut through the property to get to the ravine. He noted that as originally presented to the Board, a six foot solid fence was proposed. He noted that in response to the Board’s concern about the appropriateness of the solid fence, given the character of the street, an open split rail fence with pillars every sixteen feet is now proposed. He stated that the fence will be sited on private property, two feet from the property line to allow for landscaping, including some evergreens, on the streetscape side, to soften the appearance of the fence. He noted that there will be views into the property. He pointed out the trees proposed along the driveway and clarified that entrance pillars, but not gates, are proposed. He stated that the fence and pillars will complement the house and streetscape. Ms. Czerniak noted that the house was previously approved by the Board and that construction is nearly completed. She noted that at the time that the house was presented to the Board, an overall conceptual landscape plan was submitted and generally supported by the Board. She noted however that concerns were raised about the streetscape and about screening for the neighboring property to the east. She explained that the open fence now proposed appears to fully address the Board’s prior concerns about maintaining the landscape dominate streetscape and views into the property. She noted that correspondence was received from the neighboring property owner expressing continued concern about the adequacy of landscaping along the east side of the house. She added that a letter of support for the petition was received from the Preservation Foundation. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition. Board member Dunne commended the plan noting that it responds well to the streetscape. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Eppe explained that the fence will be natural cedar, rustic in character, with eight inch rough and irregular posts . He clarified that the posts will be round but irregular, with a split look. He stated that the vertical posts will have fasteners to support the 4” diameter horizontal rails. He noted that replacement of the rails when needed; will be easy. He confirmed that the top of the posts will be pitched to shed water. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Eppe confirmed that the pillars will be constructed of the same stone used on the house. He stated that the area where the fence is proposed is relatively flat. He noted that the fence ends before the grade change begins near the ravine. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Reda, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the fence will be on private property, not on the right-of-way, and not adjacent to the asphalt roadway. September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 9 In response to questions from Acting Chairman Reda, Mr. Eppe stated that the stakes on the property do not reflect the location of the proposed fence. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited public comment. Fred Moyer, 1044 Walden Lane, the next door neighbor to the east, stated that he and his wife have lived in their home for 26 years. He noted that they previously indicated support for the project, have watched the construction at the site over the past three years and are delighted to welcome their new neighbors. He noted that he observed the quality craftsmanship and materials that were used and is pleased with the house. He offered a constructive suggestion noting that care should be taken to assure that the manhole will not be in the new driveway to avoid future problems. He expressed continued concern about the adequacy of the landscape screening planned for the east side of the house. He explained that he understood that he would have a view of the neighboring house from his front door, but noted that since the house was constructed, it is apparent that the new house will be highly visible within about twenty- five yards of the windows of his wife’s office. He noted that landscape buffering is a standard condition imposed by the Board. He pointed out that it will not take much landscaping to provide sufficient screening between the two houses. He acknowledged that there are large, one hundred year old Oaks on his property but noted that the canopies are high and do not provide lower level screening. Ms. Czerniak noted that the overall landscape plan addresses screening. She stated that Mr. Moyer’s letter will be provided to the City’s Certified Arborist to make sure adequate plantings are included on the plat to provide screening on the east side of the house. She added that a copy of the landscape plan can be provided to Mr. Moyer. In response to public testimony, Mr. Eppe stated that care will be taken to assure that the manhole is not in the new driveway. He added that he met with the City Arborist on the property to discuss landscape screening and stated that the plan will be tailored to respond to the neighbor’s concerns. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited a motion. Board member Friedman noted that overall the project is an enhancement to the neighborhood and is worthy of support. He noted that adequate landscape buffering will be of mutual benefit. He 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: September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 9 1. Any modifications to the plans, either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan presented to the Board shall be attached, with areas of change highlighted, for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval. 2. Prior to planting, a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the City, and shall reflect the approved grading and drainage plan. The final plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist is directed to assure that adequate landscaping is reflected on the east side of the house, to provide screening between the new house and the house immediately to the east. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Moyer rejoined the Board. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of demolition of significant portions of the existing house and approval of additions and modifications to the exterior 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 Acting Chairman Reda asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Wickwire reviewed the changes made since the last meeting. He provided a color image reflecting how the additions relate to the footprint of the existing house. He reviewed the landscape plan and noted areas where existing landscaping will be maintained and pointed out an overgrown swale that will be cleared out. He noted that plants affected by the construction will be temporarily transplanted and replanted on the site after construction is complete. He reviewed the hardscape plan, noting areas where flagstone or limestone pavers will be used. He pointed out the areas where retaining walls and tiered terraces are planned. He noted the circular planting areas that will be removed and sodded over to create a more natural, less formal landscape. He provided color renderings as requested by the Board. He pointed out areas where windows were added to break up expanses of wall. He noted the cedar banding proposed around the house and noted that the cedar is darker than previously discussed. He noted that no other changes to materials were made. He reviewed each elevation pointing out new windows and the extended cedar banding used to break up the stucco. He noted that stone was added on both the front and the back of the home. He reviewed detailed images and explained how the cedar banding will be attached to the wall. He reviewed the window details, noting that the windows September 6, 2017 Page 5 of 9 have a band of cedar, with thicker trim board on the top and bottom. He explained that the windows will have an aluminum frame and a wood finish on the inside. He stated that cedar trim will provide the transition between the window and the siding. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that when the petition was previously before the Board, the Board indicated general support for the proposed alterations and additions to the house and for the proposed significant or complete demolition of the existing house. She noted that the Board requested details of the various elements, areas of transition and materials. She noted that the Board noted areas where refinement would be helpful to address large expanses of unbroken walls, to provide for consistency in materials and to achieve consistent detail on all four elevations. She noted that the Board requested color renderings. She reviewed that although significant, but not complete demolition is proposed, the Board’s approval of a complete demolition will avoid delay if after work begins it is determined that complete demolition would result in a better end product. She confirmed that a structural report was received and appears to support retaining some portions of the house. She noted that this property stands alone and is not viewed in the context of the streetscape or other homes. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition and offers recommendations for conditions of approval. Board member Bires commented that the landscape plan is comprehensive and commended the color scheme proposed for the house. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Wickwire stated that the new stonework will match the existing thin set natural stone. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the struc tural report was received. She noted that the City’s plans examiner will review the report prior to the issuance of a building permit. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Wickwire described the windows confirming that they will be a typical residential, clad window, with wood trim on the inside. He stated that almost all of the windows are 20” high and four feet wide. He commented on the various windows and their relationships to each other. He stated that the door will be solid wood and the front door will be painted a teal color. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Svensson reviewed the landscape concepts noting that in front of the house, the majority of the existing plantings will remain. He noted however that the addition of a rain garden is planned. He added that around the house, in the areas where work will occur, plants will be removed and saved for replanting. He noted that there is some deterioration on the front foundation and noted that the area will be tiered to prevent continued erosion of the slope in that area. September 6, 2017 Page 6 of 9 In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire explained that the deck will be cedar stained to match the home. He stated that all of the cedar will match. He reviewed the location of downspouts noting that gutters and downspouts will be painted to match the cedar. He stated that he is not sure whether the downspouts will be tied into the storm sewer. He noted that the garage door will be custom made with wood applied to the door to achieve a grooved pattern. He stated that the garage door will be painted to match the cedar. He confirmed that the stucco will extend to the foundation. He stated that the roofing material will be rolled roofing. Board member Moyer noted some discrepancies between the renderings and the plans with respect to the window flashing dimensions. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Wickwire explained his intent to keep the band above and below the windows consistent at 3-1/2 inches. He noted that the drawings more accurately reflect the intention than the rendering. Board member Moyer commended the change made to the corner office windows noting that the space will enjoy a nice view. Board member Dune commented that the changes made since the last meeting reflect significant improvements. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Wickwire stated that a drainage swale extends across the front of the property. He stated that to his knowledge, there are no existing drainage problems on the site. He pointed out that the sunroom and kitchen will be built on the existing foundation noting that in the areas where the footprint will be expanded, the ground is flat. He noted that the overall site is fairly fl at except for the area near the garage which drops down. Acting Chairman Reda complimented the project as now proposed. Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited public comment. Hearing none, he returned the matter to the Board. In response a question from Acting Chairman Reda, Mr. Wickwire confirmed that the intent is to preserve a significant part of the existing residence to the extent possible. He confirmed that the structural report supports that approach. He added that they intend to keep the existing brick and cover it, rather than pull it off. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire stated that the house was likely constructed in the mid-1950’s. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Reda invited a motion on the demolition. September 6, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of demolition of significant portions, or the entire house, depending on the results of the structural engineering report and the conditions found on the site once construction begins. The motion was seconded by Board member Dunne and approved by the Board in a vote of 6 to 0. Board member Friedman commented that the petitioner addressed the Board’s comments sufficiently and noted that although the home is unique, it is tastefully designed and the palette is interesting. He added that it is a standalone home and it speaks to the owners’ personalities. Board member Diamond stated support for the project and commented that it will be a great addition to the neighborhood even though no one will ever be able to see it. Acting Chairman Reda thanked the petitioners for responding to the Board’s requests. He invited a motion on the replacement house. Board member Friedman 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: 1. All exterior materials shall be consistent with the approved plans and the samples presented to the Board. 2. If any modifications are made to the plans, either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached, with areas of change highlighted, 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 approvals prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. A structural evaluation of the existing foundation and walls shall be completed by a licensed engineer if the petitioner intends to reuse portions of the existing structure, to document that the existing structure elements can support the proposed additions and alterations. Alternatively, the structure may be completely demolished and the replacement structure constructed consistent with the approved plans. 4. If portions of the structure are to remain, a detailed demolition plan shall be submitted clearly indicating the areas proposed for demolition and those September 6, 2017 Page 8 of 9 planned to remain including, but not limited to, exterior walls, interior walls, foundation, roof, mechanicals, windows and doors. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 Everett Road is not permitted. Offsite parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be required. 8. Comprehensive photo documentation of the exterior of the residence, the overall property and the streetscape 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. 9. Until a permit is obtained, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 10. 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 Diamond and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 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 7:18 p.m. September 6, 2017 Page 9 of 9 Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development