Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/12/06 Minutes Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 1 of 17 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of December 6, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Training Room at the City of Lake Forest Municipal Services Facility, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members Robert Reda, Jim Diamond, Chris Bires and Ross Friedman Building Review Board members absent: Board members Peter Dunne and Fred Moyer Staff present: 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 November 1, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the November 1, 2017 meeting were approved with one correction as requested by Chairman Notz. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing home and construction of a new residence and attached garage and approval of the overall site plan and the conceptual landscape plan. The property is located at 1540 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: JB Holdings, LLC (Jamie Childs, 100%) Representative: Paul Psenka, architect Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Psenka introduced the petition. He noted that a structural report detailing the condition of the existing home was provided to the Board. He stated that the existing house was built in the 1950’s and explained that over time, the house has settled and as a result, the bricks are pulling apart. He noted that various repairs were made to the house over the years however, given the condition, the house would be difficult to stabilize at this point. He pointed out that the ground pitches toward the foundation and the drain tiles are likely blocked causing some water Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 17 problems. He reviewed the property in the context of the neighborhood and presented images of surrounding homes. He noted that several demolitions have occurred in the area and replacement homes built. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting that the foot print of the replacement house is generally in the footprint of the existing house to minimize impacts on mature trees. He presented an overlay of the existing and proposed residences. He pointed out that the curb cut and driveway will remain in the existing locations. He identified the trees planned for removal and those that will be protected during construction and preserved. He stated that an English Tudor style house is planned. He reviewed the landscape plan noting how the plan works with the trees that are intended for preservation. He presented a rendering of the proposed house pointing out the quality materials that will be used including bricks in a herring bone pattern in some areas, timber inlays, limestone surrounds and a slate roof. He stated that simulated true divided lite windows are proposed. He noted that louvered wood vents are proposed in the gable ends as a traditional detail, not active vents. He stated that cedar is proposed for the soffits and fascia. He presented a conceptual streetscape image of the home noting that the story and a half massing fits the character of the overall streetscape. He presented an overlay illustrating the difference in height and mass between the existing and the proposed house. In response to the staff report, he presented updated elevations which reflect the locations of the downspouts in logical places, away from the front facing elevation. He reviewed the side and rear elevations noting that the level of detail and finishes are consistent on all elevations and consistent with the Tudor style. Ms. Czerniak stated that the demolition criteria are satisfied adding that the house is not remarkable or historically significant. She noted that any significant modifications and additions to the house would likely require most of the house to be demolished and the result would be a compromised end product. She stated that findings are presented in the staff report in support of demolition of the existing residence. She stated that the proposed replacement house is generally consistent with the selected architectural style and high quality, natural materials are proposed. She called attention to the chimney as a dominant feature on the proposed residence. She acknowledged that the chimney must meet a minimum height requirement and asked for Board input on whether the chimney is appropriately proportioned to the overall residence. She noted that the north elevation may benefit from additional study and refinement despite the fact that it will have only limited visibility from off the site. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Psenka described the exterior stair confirming that a wrought iron railing will be visible on the south elevation. He confirmed that cedar will be used for the soffits and stated that the stoop will be Bluestone. He confirmed that the chimney detail as reflected in the materials presented to the Board is reflective of the intended detailing including the chimney pot. He reviewed the front elevation and confirmed that the wrought iron railing is consistent with the English Tudor style. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 3 of 17 Board member Friedman complimented the proposed house noting the nice proportions and quality materials. He commented that the wrought iron railing appears to be forced and not entirely compatible with the selected style. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Childs confirmed that the rendering is representative of the intended color palette. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Psenka stated that copper, half round gutters and copper downspouts are proposed. He reviewed the garage apron noting that a distance of 23 feet is provided, with a buffer beyond, to provide for an adequate turning radius. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Psenka commented on the windows on the side elevations and agreed to consider separating the two double windows. He explained that the dormer is cut into the roofline because there is a vaulted ceiling in the kitchen and the owners desire to locate the glazing higher into the ceiling. He clarified that the sills of the windows on the side elevations will be even with each other, but the head of the windows differ. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Psenka agreed to do further study of the relationship of the roof line to the eave. In response to questions from Board Member Reda, Mr. Psenka confirmed that the roof will be slate. He stated that Arborvitae will be planted to screen the driveway apron at the garage from the neighboring property. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Psenka stated that he is not sure whether there is a direct sightline from the house to the north into the driveway but noted that the proposed landscaping can be arranged to minimize any direct sightlines. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Childs noted that the proposed tree removal and replacement plantings are reflected on the plan. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Psenka acknowledged that there is conflicting information in the Board’s packet with respect to the alignment of the walkway that extends from the driveway to the front door and the configuration of the patio. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Childs stated a preference for the curved walk, rather than a straight walk, from the driveway to the front entrance. He stated that the existing asphalt driveway will remain to minimize impact on the trees that are intended for preservation. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff recommends installation of a curb along the north edge of the driveway apron, Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 4 of 17 opposite the garage doors, to avoid drainage toward the rear of the neighboring home to the north. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Psenka stated that the project engineer may recommend a swale along the north side of the driveway apron to direct water. He stated that installation of a curb in the area can also be considered. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Psenka confirmed that the balcony on the rear elevation is functional noting that the railing will be cedar and the balcony will be traditional in character. He confirmed that the herring bone pattern will be created from the same brick used on the rest of the house. He acknowledged that the second floor bedroom is offset, but noted that the house overall is asymmetrical, consistent with the architectural style. He noted that the second floor is configured to remain under the allowable height and within the allowable square footage. In response to Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the construction plans will be reviewed to verify that the height of the chimney meets the minimum required separation distance from the roof. She noted that the chimney appears as a dominate element on the house, consistent with the Tudor style. She stated that the height of the chimney will be reviewed to verify that it is not excessive. She stated that detailing of the chimney in a manner consistent with the plans presented to the Board will be important given the prominence of the element. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Betty Pierret, 365 Ravine Park Drive, stated that she lives west of the property proposed for redevelopment. She asked for clarification of the landscape plan and asked whether her property will receive additional drainage as a result of the proposed redevelopment. She said that she lives in a one-story brick house that was built in 1957 adding that her home is one of the few original homes left in the area. She stated that as properties in the area have redeveloped, the grades on the properties have been raised and homes built out to the edges of the properties. She stated that the swale located behind her home does not dry out. She asked for clarification on what is intended for the over grown pine trees along the property line, the wood piles and the shed. In response to questions from Ms. Pierret, Mr. Psenka reviewed the engineering plans. He stated that the top of the foundation for the new residence will be raised six inches above the foundation of the existing house to avoid water infiltration. He reviewed the existing grades on the property noting that grades will only be changed in the area within and just outside of the footprint of the new house. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 5 of 17 In response to questions from Ms. Pierret, Mr. Childs confirmed that the old shed will be removed and the rear yard will be cleaned up. He stated that at this time, there are no plans to construct a fence along the rear property line. He confirmed that he is building a speculative house on the property and will market the new home. In response to Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that it appears that water drains from the property both to the east and west. She stated that the City Engineer can be directed to pay particular attention to and address the potential for any increased drainage from the site toward neighboring properties. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Bires complimented the project and asked that the following items be addressed as the project moves forward. He asked that the construction drawings be carefully reviewed to verify that they reflect the images presented in the color elevations that were presented at the meeting. He asked that further attention be paid to refining the detail of the rear balcony and the rear dormer as it relates to the roof line, that a curb be installed at the north edge of the driveway apron opposite the garage doors, and that the approvals include a requirement for removal of the old shed in the rear yard. Board member Reda agreed that the approval should clearly direct that the design, details and materials of the house should not deviate from the plans that were presented to the Board at the meeting. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence based on the findings detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the replacement residence including approval of the overall site plan, the building design, exterior materials and the conceptual landscape plan 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. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The plans submitted for permit shall address the items listed below. a. The construction plans shall clearly reflect the detail of the chimney and in particular, specify a clay chimney pot. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 6 of 17 b. The details on the rear balcony shall be fully delineated on the construction drawings. c. Further study and refinement of the relationship of the dormer to the roof line on the north elevation shall occur. d. The construction plans shall reflect the locations of all downspouts. e. The plans submitted for permit shall describe the materials intended for the rear, second floor balcony and the vents in the gable ends. f. The construction drawings must be consistent with images presented in the colored elevations and renderings. If additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development or in response to the Board’s deliberations, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the construction drawings and a copy of the elevations originally presented to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any substantive 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. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site shall be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices and to properly direct drainage. Careful consideration of drainage is critical to protect neighboring homes and properties. a. A curb shall be installed along the north edge of the driveway apron, opposite the garage doors, and in other areas as determined to be necessary by the City Engineer to prevent water runoff toward the rear of the neighboring home to the north given the proximity of the pavement to the property line. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation on the site, including a pre and post tree maintenance plan, and a plan to protect trees and vegetation on neighboring properties during demolition and construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures before the issuance of permits, during construction and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 7 of 17 a. Particular care should be taken to preserve and protect the 29” Red Oak tree in the front yard. 4. The final landscape plan shall be in alignment with the approved grading plan to allow confirmation by staff that there are no conflicts between proposed plantings and overland storm water flow routes or utilities. The plan shall specify the number of replacement tree inches required and how the replacement tree inches, if any are required, will be accommodated. a. The City Arborist shall review the landscape plan to verify that adequate plantings are reflected along the north property line to provide screening given the location of the garage doors, the expanse of unbroken wall and the relationship to the rear and private area of the neighboring home to the north. 5. Details of the location and fixtures for any exterior lighting shall be included with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 6. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation 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. 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 construction impacts on the neighborhood and on trees intended for preservation. No on street parking of construction vehicles is permitted on Sheridan Road due to the traffic volumes, narrowness of the street and proximity of the school. Off-site parking for contractors and shuttles to the site may be required. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition of the existing residence located at 574 Fletcher Circle and approval of additions, alterations and landscape enhancements. Owners: Michael and Jackie Winn Representative: Michael Breseman, architect Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 8 of 17 Mr. Bresemen, reviewed the history of the home. He described the project noting that a first floor addition, front porch, master suite, updated kitchen, sunroom at the rear of the home, and overall renovations are planned. He noted that the proposed end product will be simple and understated and compatible with other homes in the area. He explained that the proposed second floor addition is buried into a main gable that will extend from the front of the house to the back. He noted that the main gable forms the front porch which is detailed with columns and pilasters. He noted that the second floor addition does not span the entire existing first floor which presents some challenges. He described the proposed massing noting the cascading gables that create the sunroom and reviewed the modifications made to create a functional rear porch. He noted that the existing brick will remain on the house and will be painted white to match the horizontal wood siding on the additions. He stated that the roof will be cedar shingles and noted that copper gutters are planned. He stated that double hung windows with simulated divided lites are planned. He noted that the crown molding will be simple. He pointed out that shed dormers are proposed to minimize the roof mass. He reviewed the overall site plan noting that the footprint of the house will not change. He provided images of the existing home and the neighboring homes. He pointed out that the front entry on the existing home is unremarkable and that the house overall has inconsistencies in style. He pointed out the two-story massing of neighboring homes and noted that with the proposed centrally located addition, the home will relate better to the neighboring homes. He noted that no changes are proposed to the driveway and reviewed the conceptual landscape plan. He reviewed the proposed demolition plan and each elevation pointing out the areas of change. He reviewed the proposed floor plans noting that this project is an opportunity to not only add a bedroom, but also to make various updates to the existing home. He reviewed the proposed dormers and the roof plan and presented color renderings of the end product as envisioned. Ms. Czerniak agreed that given the larger massing of the neighboring homes, the proposed partial second floor addition is appropriate. She noted that the proposed second floor addition is centered on the existing house, retaining the one story elements on either side as the house approaches the property lines. She stated that high quality exterior materials are proposed consistent with the City’s design guidelines. She asked for Board input on whether the size and placement of the dormers proposed on the side elevations are consistent with the overall architectural style. She noted that the chimney detail is interesting and appears to be compatible with the other proposed modifications to the home. She stated that the staff report provides findings in support of the petition and offers recommendations for conditions of approval. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Breseman reviewed the exterior materials. He confirmed that the existing brick will remain but will be painted white. He explained that horizontal wood siding will be added to a portion of the front and rear elevations and cedar shingles with a five inch Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 9 of 17 exposure are proposed in the upper portion of the gable ends. He stated that machine-cut cedar shingles are proposed for the roof. He stated that overall, the colors and materials are simple. He noted that the dormers on the side elevations are partially cut into the roof to minimize the appearance of mass. He stated a willingness to study the dormers further however, he noted that the current design defers to optimizing functionality of the second floor space over the exterior appearance. He explained the efforts made to break up the windows on the front elevation pointing out that the windows on the first floor are longer, cottage style windows and the windows on the second floor are shorter. He pointed out that the proportion of the lites in the upper panes are consistent throughout the house. He stated that the chimney is designed in a manner that is consistent with the selected architectural style. He noted that the chimney is a simple form, consistent with the overall design of the house. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Breseman, confirmed that the vents in the gable ends are functional. He explained in the interest of simplicity, the front gable aligns with the existing garage which protrudes from the house. He noted that if the gable is pushed back, the massing and roof forms would be more complicated. He noted that the depth of the front porch allows it to be used and confirmed that recessed lighting and a sconce near the door are planned. He noted that the scale of the porch is dictated by the garage location. He reviewed the detail of the porch columns. He noted that the soffit materials are smooth cedar or fir and will be painted. He assured the Board that any exterior lighting will be sensitively done to avoid impacting neighbors. He stated that the chimney will be constructed of the same brick as the house, Chicago common brick, and will be painted. He stated that the chimney cap will be poured in place concrete or cut limestone. He reviewed the windows throughout the house reiterating that the proportions of the lites in the various windows will be the same. He confirmed that the windows proposed in the dormers are scaled down. He agreed to study the dormer on the north elevation in an effort to achieve an improved balance across the elevation and explore the opportunity to expand the dormer. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Breseman, noted that the existing chimney will be extended up to provide the required distance from the higher roof. He stated that the width of the chimney will not change. He explained that the windows on the second floor addition will have a head piece and crown noting that the crown was added to enhance the detailing in the main gable. He confirmed that a structural engineer will analyze the existing structure to confirm that the proposed second floor addition can be supported. In response to questions from Board member Freidman, Mr. Breseman confirmed that there are no settlement issues on the existing house and it appears to be solid. He stated that there is a crawl space under most of the house extending to 42 inches. He stated that the existing structure has been well maintained. He reviewed that the roof is cedar shingles and the siding will be wide horizontal wood siding without a bevel detail. He confirmed that the exterior will be white or Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 10 of 17 off white. He stated that the half-round gutters, down spouts and flashing will be copper. He stated that the water table at the base of the house will be white, aluminum flashing. He stated that the shed roofs will be copper or standing seam. Board member Friedman stated that the front elevation, the dormers in particular, needs further refinement along with the scale and mass of the dormers above the garage. He acknowledged that the interior floor plan needs to work. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Breseman stated that he considered three dormers as well as a double and a single dormer on the front elevation but noted that they appeared too repetitive and were problematic from a functional perspective. He pointed out that there is a significant amount of roof surrounding the dormers. He stated that if the dormer is pulled out of the roof, its massing appears excessive. He noted that the dormer will be in the vaulted ceiling. He agreed to consider increasing the width of the two dormers. He also agreed to study the dormer on the north elevation further including consideration of making a single, larger dormer. He confirmed that the ceiling of the front porch is bead board. Chairman Notz also expressed concern with the dormers on the front elevation. He noted that in some projects, eyebrow dormers have been successful. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Breseman explained that the squares in the roof are for ventilation and are in keeping with the shingle style vernacular. He noted that the vents will have depth and will be screened with louvers. With respect to the north elevation, he explained that the existing roof appears to extend the full width of the house, from north to south. He noted that the main gable runs east to west, with a lower roof line. He clarified that the roof over the sunroom steps down and in, to comply with zoning setbacks. He agreed that there may be an opportunity to have one gable, instead of three. He explained however that the design as presented maximizes the exposure to natural light. He stated that the garage door is a single wood door configured to appear as two panels. He explained that the sunroom windows will be trimmed out and the wood panels will be nicely detailed. He reiterated a willingness to revisit the dormers taking into account the Board’s comments. He described the secondary porch that leads to the yard and agreed to consider minimizing the overhang. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments. Hearing no requests to speak, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Friedman stated that the design overall is pleasing and functional , and will be an asset to the streetscape. He suggested that the design challenges discussed by the Board be addressed with conditions of approval . Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 11 of 17 Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of additions and alterations to the existing residence and the associated demolition based on the findings detailed in this 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 stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The petitioner shall address the following: a. Further study and refinement of the dormers on the front (east) elevation and on the side (north) elevation shall be completed and reflected on the plans submitted for permit. b. The massing and detailing on the construction drawings shall be consistent with the representations made in the color elevations/renderings presented to the Board. c. The roofs of the dormers shall be standing seam copper. d. The plans shall reflect the details of the vents in the gable ends. If any further modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board, either in response to Board discussion, or as a result of the final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the materials originally provided to the Board shall be included with the plans submitted for a building permit 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. 2. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Lead Plans Examiner, detailed information on the existing structure, prepared by a structural engineer, shall be submitted to verify that the structure is adequate to support the proposed second floor addition. 3. A final lighting plan, including specifications and cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures proposed shall be submitted for staff review and will be subject to a determination that the fixtures are in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. Fixtures shall direct light down and all light sources shall be fully screened from view. The dark sky, right to night concept shall be followed. 4. 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. 5. 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. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 12 of 17 the property due to the location on the cul-de-sac as long as the street is passable at all times. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the conditions as detailed by Board member Reda can be resolved by staff with the cooperation of the petitioner. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing detached garage at the residence located at 91 Washington Circle and approval of a new attached garage, additions and alterations to the existing residence and landscape enhancements. Owners: Carl and Nanette Jenkins Representative: Bob Gebelhoff, designer Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he stated that the petitioners are his friends but stated that he would be able to review the petition objectively. He invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Jenkins, the property owner, introduced the petition. He stated that his family bought the house eight years ago and love the streetscape, curb appeal, landscaping and the flow of the house. He stated that today, his family of five needs more space than when they bought the house. He stated that they considered moving to a new home, but instead, decided to try to modify the home to meet their needs and long term plan. He stated that the proposed plan provides an additional bedroom and bathroom, an attached garage, a mudroom and a larger kitchen. He stated that the intent is to maintain the overall character of the house and to make the additions feel like part of the original design. He stated that various iterations of plans were considered. He stated a willingness to address the issues raised in the staff report. He stated that the existing garage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced so this seems like a logical time to make overall improvements to the property. Ms. Czerniak stated that the property is challenging because it is one of the larger properties in the neighborhood and is prominently viewed from the corner. She noted that the neighborhood is characterized by a variety of home styles, most simple, with primarily detached garages located away from views from the streetscape. She noted that the proposed addition, a two-story element with an attached garage and living space above, is sited closer to the street than the existing detached garage. She noted that the element that links the existing house to the two-story addition steps back from the front plane of the proposed two story addition. She noted that the link element is configured as a secondary porch and entrance on the front elevation, to the side of the original front porch. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 13 of 17 She asked for Board discussion and input on the massing and height of the proposed addition in relation to the original Four Square house and the streetscape. She noted that from the staff perspective, it appears that the proposed addition will present a considerably greater mass to the streetscape. She acknowledged that an attached garage, rather than a detached garage, is a goal for the petitioners but questioned whether stepping the addition back further from the front plane of the house could help to preserve the prominence of the original home and reduce the appearance of mass from the streetscape. She added that the full two story mass of the addition that approaches the north property line will create a tight condition with the neighboring property which is narrower. She suggested that further study and refinement may result in a design that allows the addition to appear more clearly as a secondary mass to the original home. She noted that the overall detailing and materials proposed for the addition are consistent with the original house. In response to staff comments, Mr. Jenkins stated that the property to the north was recently redeveloped with a two story house that fits into the neighborhood. He stated that as proposed, the front of the attached garage is set back from the existing front porch. Board member Friedman noted that the proposed massing changes the streetscape dramatically. He questioned whether the existing front elevation, the front porch with five columns and pronounced roof, is in keeping with the character of what is being proposed. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Jenkins stated that the siting of the addition is driven by the existing floor plan. He stated that the addition is linked to the house at the point of the existing landing in the stairway which provides a logical place to connect to a new master bedroom above the garage. He pointed out that the face of the proposed addition is setback from the front of the existing porch. He noted that in response to staff comments early in the process, the roofline of the addition was stepped down from the roofline of the original house. He confirmed that the exterior materials and color palette of the addition will match the existing house. He stated that the goal is to make the addition look like it was part of the original home. He clarified that no changes are proposed to the existing front porch. He explained that the new chimney is located in a new screened porch proposed off of the kitchen and will provide for an outdoor kitchen. He stated that the outdoor kitchen is not the primary goal of the project and could be eliminated to reduce the massing along the north property line. He stated that as originally proposed, the chimney was stone but in response to early comments from staff, a brick chimney is now proposed to minimize the number of exterior materials. He confirmed that the garage doors will be wood and stated that the sconces on the garage will match those at the front door. He commented on the arch on the proposed secondary porch noting that it was added for interest but could be eliminated since there are no arched elements elsewhere on the house. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 14 of 17 Board member Friedman encouraged the petitioners to do further study on the link element and on the two small windows and arch proposed on the secondary porch. He suggested consideration of an alternate exterior material on the upper portion of the link, perhaps cedar shingles, to add detail, break up the overall mass and to allow the existing house to read as a separate mass from the addition. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Jenkins reviewed the materials of the house and those proposed for the addition. He stated that the intent is to match the existing materials exactly. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Gebelhoff confirmed that the columns will be wood to match the existing columns. He reiterated that the chimney was changed from stone to brick. He stated that the downspouts on the addition will match those on the existing house. Board member Diamond agreed that the detailing on the secondary porch on the front entrance should be studied further noting that there are no curvilinear elements elsewhere on the house. He observed that the detailing on the garage doors appears to draw attention to that element and diminish the main house. He suggested that a simpler design for the garage doors be considered. Board member Reda stated that he lives on the street and is familiar with the neighborhood. He noted that the house is prominently located on the corner and pointed out that the mass of the house is softened from Ryan Place with significant landscaping, but is very visible from Washington Circle. He expressed concern that the large mass of the proposed addition will significantly change the character of the house as viewed from the streetscape. He suggested further study and refinement to assure that the house, with the addition, appears as three pieces. He suggested that consideration be given to a stepped back breezeway concept and shifting the garage element further back to achieve a staggered appearance and dropping the roofline. He noted that by breaking up the massing and dropping the height of the addition, the original house will remain prominent. He agreed that simplifying the garage doors could also be helpful in retaining the prominence of the original house. He stated that the overall direction is appropriate, but further refinement is needed. Board member Bires stated agreement with Board member Reda’s comments and agreed that the house has a strong streetscape presence. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Jenkins confirmed that no windows are proposed on the north elevation. He confirmed that the existing fence will be replaced. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Gebelhoff reviewed the existing and proposed windows. Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 15 of 17 Chairman Notz stated that the setback of the proposed addition may be sufficient but noted that it may be helpful to have a rendering that represents how the addition will relate to the mass of the existing house and porch. He agreed that further study could be conducted to see if the second floor master bedroom could be stepped back while still achieving the same square footage. Board Member Diamond agreed that a rendering would be helpful. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments. A resident at 115 Washington Circle stated support for the project noting that she can still see the basic Four Square character of the house with the addition. She stated that she is less concerned about the impact on the property to the north because the neighboring house only has two high windows on the adjacent elevation. She stated that in her opinion, it would be difficult to construct a detached garage on the site pointing out that most of the side yard would be used up by the garage and the driveway. Mr. Westerberg, the new owner of the property at 104 Washington Road, stated that he plans to redevelop his property with a new home and is happy to see this property improved. Ms. Jenkins stated that two other letters of support were submitted by neighbors. She stated that looking at the elevation it may be difficult to discern, but the proposed addition is stepped back from the front of the existing house. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Notz invited a response to public comment from the petitioner, hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board members Friedman and Reda expressed continued concern about the adequacy of the setback. Ms. Czerniak noted that it could be helpful to have a simple massing model or a rendering to illustrate the setback in relation to the existing house. Chairman Notz stated that he is very comfortable that the proposed setback is adequate and suggested that a next step could be for the petitioner to present a simple rendering that captures the house next door, before studying and refining the massing further. He stated that if the Board finds that the setback, as illustrated by the rendering is adequate, then the project could move forward with the other minor refinements as discussed by the Board. Board member Reda suggested that a quick alternative massing concept, that steps the addition back and down, could also be presented for comparison purposes. He noted that the alternative could incorporate the other comments from the Board as Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 16 of 17 well. Board member Friedman agreed that an image reflecting further refinement as discussed by the Board and exploration of a further setback would be helpful. Mr. Gebelhoff stated that the second floor mass is stepped back six and a half feet from the garage doors. Board member Reda stated concern that the plane above the garage is wider than the existing house. Mr. Jenkins stated that a rendering can be prepared. Mr. Gebelhoff stated that he can arrange for a rendering of the existing plan to be prepared but noted that if revisions as discussed by the Board are to be addressed, that will take more time. Ms. Jenkins suggested that a rendering of the existing plan be prepared and presented to the Board. She stated that she has concerns about pushing the addition back because of the impact on the interior space. Chairman Notz invited a motion from the Board. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to submit an artist’s rendering of the project for Board review before proceeding with further study or refinement of the massing of the two-story addition. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman Chairman Notz suggested that the arch at the secondary entrance on the front elevation be modified in response to Board comments. Board member Friedman asked that consideration be given to further defining and distinguishing the link between the addition and the existing house. He suggested that alternate materials be considered. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 5. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak presented the 2018 Building Review Board meeting schedule for Plan Commission Minutes – December 6, 2017 Page 17 of 17 Board consideration. Hearing no comments on the meeting schedule, Chairman Notz invited a motion, Board member Reda made a motion to approve the meeting schedule as presented. The motion was seconded by Board member Bires and was approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development