Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/06/07 Minutes Page 1 of 8 June 7, 2017 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of June 7, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, June 7th, 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, Peter Dunne, Ross Friedman and Chris Bires Building Review Board members absent: Robert Reda 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 May 3rd, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The May 3rd meeting minutes were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition, additions and alterations to the existing residence located at 1137 N. Griffith Road. Owner: Barbara J. Stephens Contract Purchaser: Lauren McCracken Representative: Jeff Letzter, Aspect Design Group Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Letzter introduced himself and Joshua Crow, an intern at his firm. He stated that approval of a partial demolition of the existing house is requested. He explained that his clients are in the process of purchasing the home which is a small ranch constructed in the 1940s. He stated that the house was constructed prior to current zoning regulations and as a result, the home is located within the front and north side yard zoning setbacks and variances are required to allow the proposed additions and modifications. He stated that the Zoning Board of Page 2 of 8 June 7, 2017 Appeals recommended approval of the variances. He stated that the existing foundation and exterior walls appear to be in good condition, but noted that the home is modest in size at just over 1100 square feet. He stated that the buyers desire more space and updates to the home. He stated that a full demolition was considered, but since significant portions of the house are usable, an alternative to complete demolition is proposed including a 2nd story addition. He stated that there is a dropped gable element on the north elevation that conforms to the established setbacks. He noted that the house is well below the allowable height. He reviewed the front elevation and stated that only a small overhang is proposed over the entry to minimize any further encroachments into the front yard than what exists today. He noted that the overhang will be supported by brackets and stated that simple trim is proposed around the windows and doors. He reviewed the proposed floor plans noting that the interior is proposed to be entirely reworked. He explained that the location and size of the existing window openings will remain unchanged. He stated that one tree is proposed for removal, not because it will be impacted by the project but because of its location very close to the house and driveway. He stated that removal was recommended by the City’s arborist since it is damaging the driveway. He reviewed images of the neighborhood and adjacent homes. He noted that there is an accessory structure on the neighboring property to the north which sits very close to the property line. He stated that the property is not rectangular and tapers toward the rear. He explained that the second floor addition steps back from the existing first floor on the north elevation in order to conform to the current zoning setback requirement. He stated that the exterior will have white clapboard, Hardie siding, cedar trim, aluminum gutters and architectural asphalt shingles and he noted that the color palette will be very similar to the colors of the existing house. He stated that the existing garage will remain and will be resided. Recognizing that the neighbor was present with a small chil d, Chairman Notz invited public comment in advance of staff comments. Henson Robinson, 285 Rose Terrace, explained that he lives directly to the north of the subject property. He complimented the overall project however, he expressed concern about the loss of privacy due to the proposed addition of a second story. He noted that the 2nd floor windows on the north elevation will have direct views to his pool and deck. He stated that his garage and small pool house, both one-story, are located near the property line, but will not block views from the second floor windows. He confirmed that he is not concerned with the rear elevation windows, only the 2 windows proposed on the north elevation. He stated that there is a slight grade change between the two properties that contributes to the privacy concerns. He noted that the 1137 Griffith Road property sits slightly higher than his property. Page 3 of 8 June 7, 2017 In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Robinson stated that there is very little space on either property to add additional plantings. In response to public testimony, Mr. Letzter noted that the rear portion of the second story on the north elevation steps back from existing north wall of the house which may mitigate views somewhat. He stated that there are functional and aesthetic reasons why windows are proposed on the north elevation. In response to public testimony, Board member Friedman suggested that frosted glass could be required in the 2nd story windows. Chairman Notz agreed that frosted glass could provide for greater privacy for all parties and suggested that in addition, the windows on the north elevation be fixed if they are not needed for egress purposes. In response to the Board’s discussion, Mr. Robinson stated that proposed requirements should help to address his privacy concerns. He offered to provide photos from his property to illustrate the potential impact of the windows on the north elevation. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter agreed that frosted glass could be used for the bedroom window. He noted that the bathroom steps back away from the neighbor’s yard and may be less of a concern. He stated that he does not believe either window is needed for egress. He stated that a new window type should not be introduced since double hung windows are used around the home. He suggested that the fixed window should be detailed to give the appearance of an operable window. In response to a question from Board member Bires, Mr. Letzter stated that it will be difficult to see the windows from the street due to the angle of the house in relation to the street and the proximity to the neighboring property. He stated that the existing house is 3.51 feet from the property line at the closest point. He reiterated that the second floor is pulled back from the existing north wall of the house to meet the current zoning setback. Ms. McManus stated that based on the information provided by the petitioner, 44 percent of the existing structure will be removed and as a result, the proposed work is considered a partial demolition. She stated that a detailed demolition plan will be required as part of the submittal for a building permit to allow for staff verification that the extent of demolition is consistent with the representation made to the Board. She recommended that a structural evaluation of the existing foundation be completed and submitted along with the application for a building permit to verify that it is adequate to support the proposed 2nd floor addition. She confirmed that the City’s recommend s removal of the tree that is Page 4 of 8 June 7, 2017 adjacent to the driveway. She stated that the proposed design and exterior materials for the house are appropriate for the neighborhood. She noted an awkward condition of the massing at the northwest corner of the house and requested input from the Board on the projection proposed in that area. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Letzter stated that as proposed, the siding is Hardieboard with a 6 inch reveal. He noted that all trim will be cedar. Board member Dunne stated that he is supportive of staff’s recommendation to require a structural engineer’s report to verify the condition and adequacy of the existing foundation and he noted that the proposed house is a vast improvement over the existing house. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter reviewed the landscape plan noting that additional landscaping is proposed primarily along the front of the house. Board member Friedman stated that landscape screening should be enhanced on the north side to the extent possible. He stated that the proposed plantings are too sparse. Mr. Letzter reviewed the plat of survey noting the location of the neighbor’s fence and trees and the limited space available for plantings . He stated that additional landscaping will be limited to a radius of plantings around the northwest corner of the house and to the area directly in front of the house. He agreed that the landscaping at the northwest corner of the house can be embellished. He confirmed that the driveway is asphalt and will remain asphalt. He explained that the garage is in decent condition, but will be resided and reroofed to match the house. Board member Bires stated that in his opinion, the proposed second floor addition is appropriately setback. He agreed that additional landscaping is needed and will help soften the north elevation. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Letzter stated that the front steps and stoop are concrete and he confirmed that the location of the entry will not change. He explained that because the project required zoning variances, the contract purchaser did not want to invest in a structural engineer’s report on the foundation until it was clear whether the required variances would be granted. He noted that the foundation appears to be in good condition. He stated that the landscape plan will be modified to address the Board members’ comments. He confirmed that there is an existing crawl space under the northern portion of the house, and a full basement under the portion of the house located Page 5 of 8 June 7, 2017 closest to the driveway. He confirmed that all mechanicals and the electrical system will be replaced. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter stated that the contract purchaser is satisfied with the size of the bedroom closet along the north wall of the addition. He reiterated that the addition is set back to conform to the zoning setback and to be sensitive to the neighbor to the north. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. McManus explained that enlarging the closet in the proposed location would require a modification to the zoning variance that was recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that as proposed, the projection on the north elevation to accommodate the closet creates an awkward element and a more complicated north elevation than would normally be found on a house of this type of design. She noted that to remain true to a selected architectural style, generally, the interior floor plan should not dictate the exterior massing or window placement. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not specifically discuss the closet size, but noted that the Board did express appreciation that the second floor addition is designed to step back and conform to the required setbacks particularly given the proximity of the existing house to the property line. Mr. Letzter explained that the closet projection helps to create symmetry of the front gables. He stated that if the closet is relocated or enlarged, the front elevation would be negatively impacted. Ms. Czerniak offered that additional landscaping at the northwest corner of the house, as recommended by Board member Friedman, should help to soften the projection proposed on the north elevation. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the exterior materials on the garage will match the materials on the house. He agreed that adding a window on the north elevation of the garage would help to break up that elevation. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited final comments, Hearing none, he invited a motion. 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. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: Page 6 of 8 June 7, 2017 1. The plans shall be modified to address the items listed below. If any further modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board discussion, 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 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. a. Frosted glass shall be permanently installed on the north facing windows on the second floor given the proximity of the addition and views from the windows directly to the pool and deck of the neighboring yard. b. The north facing windows on the second floor shall be fixed, so long as all applicable codes are met. The fixed windows shall be detailed to appear as double hung windows. c. The landscape plan shall include enhanced plantings along the north side of the property and around the northwest corner of the house to provide screening and to visually break up and soften the north elevation. 2. A structural evaluation of the existing foundation and walls shall be completed by a licensed engineer and shall provide a conclusive opinion on whether or not the existing foundation and framing, in its present condition, can support the proposed additions. 3. A detailed demolition plan shall be submitted clearly indicating the areas proposed for demolition including any exterior walls, interior walls, foundation, roof, mechanicals, windows and doors so that staff may verify that the extent of demolition in consistent with the representations made to the Board. 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, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, outlining 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. All tree protection fencing shall remain in a sturdy and upright position throughout the project and until removal, or partial removal, is approved by the City’s Certified Arborist. 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 from off the property. Page 7 of 8 June 7, 2017 6. 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 is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 7. Prior to the partial demolition, 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. 8. Until a permit is obtained, the house, property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 9. 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 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. Staff agreed to poll the Board to determine availability for upcoming meetings and for the bus tour proposed with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. Chairman Notz suggested that consideration be given to including members of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the bus tour. Members of the Board suggested that consideration be given to holding the Lake Forest Institute more often. The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Page 8 of 8 June 7, 2017 Kate McManus Assistant Planner