Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/01/04 MinutesPage 1 of 6 January 4, 2017 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of January 4th, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members: Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda and Mike Bleck Building Review Board members absent: Peter Dunne and Fred Moyer 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 December 7th, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The December 7th meeting minutes were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new single family residence, overall site plan and landscape plan on a vacant lot located at 980 Walden Lane. Owner: William Vance Representative: Robert Neylan, 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. Neylan introduced the petition and explained that alternatives for siting of the house were studied based on the Board’s direction at the previous meeting. He noted that the design team also met with the City representatives to discuss concepts for various modifications. He stated that as a result of the siting studies, the house as now proposed, is shifted further back on the lot to provide more distance between the house and the street. He explained that to achieve the siting as now proposed, the width of the house had to be reduced. He stated Page 2 of 6 January 4, 2017 that the entry foyer was reduced in width by 4 feet and the courtyard was stepped back to create a narrower footprint that fits on the narrower portion of the lot in compliance with the required zoning setbacks. He noted that the changes also improved the layout of the kitchen. He stated however that the change resulted in a reduction in the size of the garage which now accommodates 2.5 cars, instead of 3 cars. He noted that the adjustments resulted in a change to the ridge line pointing out that there is now a 2 foot offset of the roof forms. He noted however that it is hidden by a flat section of the roof. He stated that the raised roof element over the entry, as originally proposed, was previously removed. He stated that the interior dome in the foyer which is desired by the owners is retained despite the change in the roof line. He provided elevations of the revised garage and images of Georgian/Colonial homes which were used as influence. He pointed out that the precedent images show the use of metal railings over the entry, tall narrow windows, and transom windows. He showed images of houses in neighborhood with transom windows. He reviewed turning radii studies and confirmed that the driveway as proposed provides sufficient space for vehicles to enter and exit the garage. He stated that the proposed limestone window surrounds, standing seam metal roof and decorative railings over entry are all consistent with the selected architectural style. He concluded stating that the changes made in response to the discussions with the Board improved the project. Rob Schwartz, Mariani Landscaping, stated that landscaping is no longer proposed within the parkway because as a result of the house being shifted back on the site, there is space for plantings in front of the house, on the owners’ property. He stated that the additional plantings will help to integrate the house into the site and streetscape. He stated that evergreen trees will be planted to provide year round screening of views of the garage from the street. He noted that there is an existing fence along the west property line which will remain or be replaced. He provided images of the proposed plantings, including lilacs and roses, desired by the owners. He stated that a low profile water feature will be located in the courtyard area, behind the home. He provided images of driveway surface options for the driveway apron and for edging. Ms. McManus stated that the changes made to the overall design in response to the Board comments are outlined in the staff report. She clarified that the preliminary grading plan was reviewed by the City’s engineering staff and found to be generally workable. She stated that a final grading and drainage plan will be required and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. She requested the Board’s input and direction regarding the proposed metal railing above the entrance and the window proportions. She stated that the Preservation Foundation submitted a letter on this petition which was provided to the Board. She noted that the Foundation stated general support for the petition but suggested modifications to the proportions of the front entry and windows. She Page 3 of 6 January 4, 2017 concluded stating that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Neylan clarified that the chimney will be red brick to match the rest of the house despite information in the packet relating to the earlier design. He stated that the front door is 42 inches wide and confirmed that the metal roof panels are 12 inches wide. He presented an enlarged image of the railing detail and another example of a metal railing. He stated that the railing is made of individual members that are thin enough that they appear light. He stated that the railing is an ornamental feature, not functional, and will not appear overly busy. He stated that a gable over the entry would appear under-scaled in comparison to the other gables on the front elevation. He added that the railing adds verticality to the front of the house. Board member Friedman noted that the portico examples provided by the petitioner have subtle detailing including a dentil detailing on the cornice, and more shadow and dimension. He encouraged the petitioner to refer to the examples shown to achieve detailing more in keeping with the selected architectural style. He suggested that the dentil cornice could tie into the frieze. He noted that the columns appear to have no relief and appear cylindrical. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Neylan agreed that the intent is to have a more 3 dimensional quality to the entry, but noted that the simplicity is intentional. He stated that further consideration could be given to increasing the height of the roof to allow the windows to appear less crowded. He noted however that increasing the height of the roof is limited by the allowable square footage. He explained that because the center portion of the house was reduced, there may be room to increase the overall height. He clarified that there is a band under the frieze board that is not clearly reflected on the drawings. He stated a willingness to consider reducing the height of the transom windows. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Neylan clarified that the limestone band around the entry is the same size as the window trim. He stated that the stone will be cut Indiana limestone with a profile and no blunt edges. He noted that the gutters are aluminum to match the color of the roof. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Neylan clarified that the proposed front door is 42 inches wide confirming that the width was reduced as a result of other the modifications. He stated that the portico height could be increased to align with the triglyph and agreed that could be an improvement to the overall design. He agreed to reduce the size of the transom windows. He explained that various muntin configurations were explored for the transom Page 4 of 6 January 4, 2017 windows but stated that the intent is to keep the windows and doors simple and consistent. Chairman Notz informed the Board that he met with the petitioner, architect and staff on two occasions in an effort to move the petition forward. He complimented the design team on the modifications made and noted the difficulties of working within the constraints of the site. He expressed support for the project and suggested that any further refinement of the details be resolved with staff. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Reda acknowledged that the lot is challenging due to its configuration. He stated that as a result, the project is complex. He stated support for the project as now presented subject to additional refinement to the front entry. Board member Friedman stated that he is encouraged by the changes made to date. He noted that landscaping is equally as important as the architecture and stated confidence in Mariani Landscaping. Board members Diamond and Bleck stated support for the project. 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, as modified by the conditions of approval detailed below, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in this staff report. Conditions of Approval 1. The plans shall be modified as detailed below. If additional 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 plans as presented to the Board at the January 4, 2017 meeting 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. a. The driveway should be in full conformance with zoning regulations, parking areas or a driveway of expanded width is not permitted within the front yard setback. Page 5 of 6 January 4, 2017 b. Consideration shall be given to increasing the height of the entry portico to align with the frieze. c. The height of the transom windows shall be reduced by approximately 4 inches. d. Consideration shall be given to increasing the height of the roof, approximately 6 inches, to provide more spacing between the transom windows and frieze. Any changes must be in full conformance with building scale regulations. e. The window and door trim shall be consistent in size, profile and material and constructed of cut Indiana limestone. f. The metal roof panels shall be no more than 12 inches in width. g. The front door shall be 42 inches in width as reflected in the plans presented to the Board. h. The brick used on the chimney and house shall be consistent. i. Details of the metal railing and frieze shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval to assure that the appearance is not overly busy. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on the ravine, trees identified for preservation and the adjacent properties. 3. A final tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The tree removal plan shall identify the location, species, size and condition of trees proposed for removal and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist to assure that tree removal is limited to the areas impacted by the plan as approved by the Board. a. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan to assure that there are no conflicts between the proposed grading and overland stormwater flow routes and trees identified for preservation. The plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The landscape plan shall specifically identify the trees that will be planted to account for the required 67 replacement inches for the trees removed from the site. The species, size at time of planting and the location for the new trees shall be indicated on the plan. Payment in lieu of onsite planting, in the event that replacement inches cannot be fully accommodated on the site in a manner that is consistent with good forestry practices must be paid in full prior to scheduling final inspections. Any payment in lieu of onsite planting will be used to enhance plantings in the parkway in the overall neighborhood. 4. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining Page 6 of 6 January 4, 2017 the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s 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 at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 5. 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. Particular care shall be taken to assure no off site impact from exterior lighting on the side load garage and to avoid light impacts on the ravine. 6. 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, and on the ravine. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 7. 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. 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. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner