Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/03/02 Minutes 2 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of March 2nd, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 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: Robert Reda, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond Building Review Board members absent: Mike Bleck 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 February 3rd, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the February 3rd, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of partial demolition of the residence at 810 Green Briar Lane and approval of an addition, alterations, overall site plan and landscape plan. Owners: Eric and Nancy Meier Representative: Michael Breseman, 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. Breseman introduced himself and the homeowners. He reviewed the history of the neighborhood noting that most of the homes were constructed in the 1950s and later. He pointed out the oldest home in the area. He stated that there is a mix of architectural styles in the area and stated the house at 810 Green Briar Lane was built in the 1950s. He reviewed the goals of the project including repurposing existing spaces and adding space. He explained that a three car garage and mudroom, master suite and front portico are desired by the owners. He stated that the home is positioned at the north end of the lot and noted a mature oak tree to the southeast of the house. He explained that the design of the addition is intended to be respectful of the tree. He noted that the corner lot creates challenges due to greater setback areas than on mid-block lots. He pointed out that the existing residence has simple massing with cascading elements. He noted that there is horizontal clapboard siding and a cedar roof on the home and the pointed out that the proposed garage is segmented to control the massing. He stated that a secondary porch was added to the front elevation to unify the addition with the house. He stated that the materials on the addition will match those on the existing house. He explained that cottage double hung windows will replace the odd panels currently located under the windows on either side of the entry. He stated that the g arage is stepped back and that the owners are open to adjusting the material of the driveway to protect the tree. He stated that the existing garage will be demolished to allow the proposed addition to be constructed. He showed images of the mature oak tree and a color rendering. He highlighted the proposed changes to the façade and showed a streetscape elevation with one adjacent home to the west. He provided a site plan noting that the curb cut will remain in the existing location. He reviewed the demolition plan and layout of the existing home noting that the kitchen will be turned into a breakfast room, and a hearth area is proposed at the rear of the house. He noted that the second floor will contain a master suite with a master closet and bathroom and described the addition as very modest by Lake Forest standards. He showed elevations of the segmented 3 car garage. He explained that he considered using a side gable roof on the garage, but the addition appeared too long and a termination was needed. He discussed the modest second entry that is proposed noting that changes were made to that element in response to initial comments from staff. He stated that shutters will be added and commented that the proposed portico is very simple, designed in the Colonial Revival style. He stated that the garage steps back from the main mass of the house and pointed out the covered walkway connecting the hearth room to the new garage. He showed a section explaining that the lowered roof line was chosen to provide light to the master suite. He stated that the cupola element on the new garage was influenced by the cupola on the existing garage. He reviewed the landscape plan noting linear plantings along the west and front façades. Ms. McManus acknowledged that the lot is challenging due to zoning setbacks. She stated that staff met with the petitioner early on and identified concerns regarding impacts to the oak tree at the front of the residence. She stated that an alternative to asphalt for the driveway could help to minimize the impacts and increase the chances that the tree may survive. She stated that a condition of approval is recommended requiring a protection plan for the tree. She added that if the tree does not survive in the long run, then replacement inches will be required by planting new trees on the site or making a payment in lieu of planting which will be used to plant trees in the parkway in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the 4 proposed addition steps down and back from the main house and staff is recommending approval of the petition. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Breseman clarified that there is a combination of casement and double hung windows on the house and addition. He stated that casement windows are located on either side of the front entry and are shown on the second porch. He stated that cottage double hung windows are located on the rear elevation and reintroduced on the front elevation. He stated that the owners are working closely with an independent arborist who will complete a pre and post construction protection and maintenance plan for the tree. He stated that the guidelines and recommendations will be closely followed. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Breseman stated that to the extent possible, the owners are open to shifting the driveway away from the tree as much as possible while still allowing the garage to be functional . In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Breseman confirmed that there are no changes proposed to the east elevation and that the intention is to be respectful of the existing home and keep the addition simple. He stated that at this point, a topographical survey has not been prepared, but the property is fairly flat but drops 2-3 feet at the rear of the lot. He stated that the garage is located on the flat portion of the lot. He confirmed that the gutters and downspouts are white aluminum and the flashing will be copper. In response to a question from Board member Grieve, Mr. Breseman stated that the front walkway material has not been decided yet. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Breseman stated that the intention is to step the addition back away from the tree as much as possible. He noted that the home is not architecturally significant and pointed out that the addition is stepped back from the main mass of the home. He stated that the proposed addition steps back gradually from the existing house. He confirmed that the existing foundation will not be used for the addition and that a new foundation will be poured. He stated that addition could be shifted forward and stated that the house is in conformance with the allowable square footage. He stated that there is no room on the west side of the house to add a side loaded garage. He stated that alternatives were explored including a detached garage and angling the attached garage. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Breseman confirmed that the colors will match the existing home and confirmed that the shutters will be black. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Grieve stated that he is supportive of petition and comfortable with the addition as shown, stepping back from the main mass of the house. He stated that the decorative garage doors are a nice visual element and acknowledged that a side loaded garage would be very tight. He stated that the house is described as Colonial Revival, but noted that the proposed portico is more Federal in style. He noted that the shed roof over the walkway causes the walkway to compete with the portico. He suggested looking at the two elements and adjusting the front entry style slightly. He suggested that the shed roof pitch be adjusted and possibly lowered. He suggested that the material for the walkway be closely considered noting that an alternate material could add character to the property. Board member Friedman suggested that consideration be given to shifting the addition so that it is flush with the existing house. He observed that the east elevation of the house is very important due to its visibility from Sheridan Road and suggested that consideration be given to some embellishment of that area at some point in a manner that is consistent with and sensitive to the style of the home. Board member Reda noted that as proposed, the home appears to have 3 distinct sections. He stated that the middle section is visually problematic and could benefit from some simplification. He suggested enlarging the master suite portion of the addition to make it flush with the house. He agreed with Board member Friedman’s comments regarding the east elevation. Board member Diamond agreed that the master suite portion of the addition should be shifted to be flush with the existing residence. Chairman Notz stated concerns about the multiple layers of roof lines and the linear aspect of the house which results from trying to fit a three car garage on the si te . He noted that neighboring homes do not have 3 car garages and suggested considering a 2 car or 2-1/2 car garage instead. He added that the 3 car garages seem overwhelming for the site. He stated that as presented, he is not supportive of the petition. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report with the addition of a condition requiring refinement of the massing to shift the middle portion of the addition so that it is flush with the existing house and as a result will have a single roofline and a single vertical plane on the front of the house. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond. 6 The motion failed with Board members Friedman and Grieve, and Chairman Notz voting nay. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioners to consider refinements based on the comments and concerns expressed by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Grieve and was unanimously approved by the Board. Mr. Breseman, from the audience, stated that it appears that, with the exception of the Chairman, there seemed to be a consensus among the Board members that with a modification to step the center portion of the addition forward, the petition would be acceptable. He objected to the Board’s action to continue the petition. Chairman Notz stated that he would entertain further discussion of the petition if so desired by the Board. Board member Friedman explained that in his opinion, the garage should be studied further. Mr. Breseman stated that the proposed garage is 39 feet and noted that the overall length of addition is slightly longer than existing home. He stated that he does not know the overall length of the house, inclusive of the proposed addition. Chairman Notz asked the Board for confirmation, on whether there is support for shifting the middle portion of the proposed addition forward so that it is flush with the house. Board member Grieve clarified that he could not support the first motion because he does not support a condition that requires the middle section of the proposed addition to be shifted forward. He added that he is supportive of the petitioner working with staff to refine this element and to see that the Board’s comments are addressed. Board member Diamond stated agreement with Board member Grieve. Board member Reda made a motion to reconsider the previous motion approved by the Board and approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval 1. The plans must be modified to address the conditions detailed below. If any other modifications are made to the plans, either in response to comments from the Board or as a result of final design development, the changes shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. The middle section of the residence shall be flush with the existing residence and under one roof line. b. Efforts shall be made to reduce the size of the garage addition. The alternative studies shall be subject to staff review and approval. 2. Extraordinary efforts, as directed by the City’s Certified Arborist, shall be taken to protect the significant tree at the front of the house includ ing, but not limited to: prohibiting construction access or staging of materials in the vicinity of the tree, enclosing a large area around the tree with a chain link fence throughout construction, constructing the expanded driveway in a manner that minim izes excavation and constructing the expanded driveway at the end of the project to avoid use of the driveway by construction vehicles. Double inch for inch replacement or payment in lieu of on site replacement shall be required if the City Arborist determines that the long term viability of the tree is threatened as a result of damage, root compaction or other impacts resulting from construction of the addition, garage and expanded driveway. 3. Prior to the issuance of permits for any work on the site, a pre and post construction tree maintenance and care plan shall be submitted subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist and consistent with the approved plan, any pre construction treatments and measures shall be completed. 4. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted and must be in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. Fixtures shall direct light down and all light sources shall be screened from view. The dark sky, right to night concept shall be followed. 5. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, to properly direct drainage. Grading in the vicinity of the tree shall be avoided. 6. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 8 7. Tree Protection Plan – In addition to the above requirements for the significant tree on the site, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any other trees identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan, which avoids use of the portion of the property near the large tree, 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. 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 Friedman. The motion passed 3 to 2 with Chairman Notz and Board member Grieve voting nay. Board member Grieve clarified that he is supportive of the petition, but not of the condition to shift the middle section of the addition forward so that it is flush with the existing house. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing residence at 682 Oakwood Avenue and approval of the replacement residence, overall site plan and landscape plan. Repair and restoration of the existing garage is proposed. Owners: 682 Oakwood Avenue, LLC (Peter and Jamie Childs) Representative: Laszlo Simovic, 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. Cassil, representing the architect for the project, stated that demolition of the existing house and construction of a replacement residence is proposed. He reviewed the site plan noting that the majority of the homes along Oakwood Avenue are close to the front property line with the exception of the new home to the north. He showed a colored rendering of the proposed house and explained that the existing detached garage will be retained and a new door and siding will be installed. He stated that the replacement residence is very simple, designed in a Farmhouse style to mimic the existing house. He noted that an open front porch is proposed with wood columns and railings. He noted that the existing house is very close to the north lot line but the proposed house is sited to meet the side yard setback. He stated that the new house as sited will require a variance from the front yard setback. He showed a streetscape elevation noting that the proposed house is similar in size and scale to adjacent homes. He stated that there is a side entry with a small awning. He reviewed the proposed floor plans and roof plan noting that the roof consists of 2 simple gables with the house stepping in from the side property line at the rear. Ms. McManus stated that the petitioner initially considered adding on to the existing home, but the result was a compromised design due to constraints of working with the existing structure. She added that the demolition request appears to meet the demolition criteria and the existing home is not architecturally significant and is in deteriorating condition. She stated that replacement residence is a fairly simple design, consistent with the general character of the neighborhood. She noted that there are large expanses of unbroken wall on the side elevations be broken up and recommended further study of how the side elevations might be better articulated. She stated that the proposed house will require a zoning variance from the front yard setback. She noted that if the house was sited back a bit further on the property, there would be a more natural transition between the new home to the north, which meets the 40 foot setback and the older home to the south which is located near the street. She noted that staff received 2 pieces of correspondence including a letter from the Preservation Foundation which expressed some concerns with the compatibility of the proposed residence with the surrounding streetscape and a letter from a neighbor requesting gutters and downspouts be installed on the existing garage to address drainage concerns. She added that if the Board should find it appropriate, a condition could be added requiring gutters and downspouts to be installed on the existing garage. She concluded stating that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Cassil confirmed that gutters and downspouts will be installed on the garage. He stated that the south elevation of the proposed house is constrained due to the driveway location and the tightness of the second floor plan. He stated that they are very close to the allowable square footage. He pointed out that the awning was added over the side entry to break up the elevation. He explained that they considered reducing the front yard setback but noted that other homes in the neighborhood are set back the same distance. He added that shifting the house back creates a challenge for the garage turnaround area. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Cassil confirmed that the porch columns are drawn incorrectly on the elevations and will terminate at the porch deck. He clarified that the elevation shows where the railing terminates and confirmed that the proposed colors are accurately reflected in the rendering. In response to the staff recommendation that the windows be aligned, he noted that the floor plan dictates the window locations. Board member Reda stated questioned whether supporting a front yard variance would set a precedent for other petitions. 10 Mr. Cassil stated that the property to the north is a much larger lot and noted that pushing this house back creates challenges with respect to ingress and egress from the garage. Board member Friedman suggested raising the window in the stairway noting that could allow the window to better align with the adjacent window. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Cassil stated that in his opinion, the window in the stairway provided a nice rhythm and does not appear ornamental but instead, functional. He reviewed the rear porch and confirmed that no railing is proposed. He stated that the front porch will be wood and will be set on a concrete foundation. He confirmed that the roof is proposed as black/dark gray and confirmed that the existing driveway will be repaved at the time that the landscaping is completed. He added that the curb cut will be retained and noted that less than 2 feet separates the drive from the home. He stated that plant material will be chosen that will survive in a tight space. He stated that the existing garage doors will be replaced with carriage style doors noting that the doors are not centered due to the narrow entry. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Childs confirmed that cedar trim is proposed on all windows. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Cassil agreed that a horizontal band around the house may help break up the expanses of wall. He pointed out the north wall of the residence steps back at the rear and as a result, the side elevation will not appear as expansive as is shown in the drawings. He stated that the window and door surrounds will be wrapped cedar and noted that the chimney is several feet in front of the window on the rear elevation. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Michael Yakes, 674 Oakwood Avenue, stated that he submitted an email to staff requesting that gutters be installed on the garage. He clarified that the gutters and downspouts should be configured to direct water to the north side of the garage. He added that the garage is very close to property line. He stated that he is supportive of the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback because the setback will allow improved views from his home and noted that the proposed siting of the home may help to alleviate noise and provide a buffer for his home. He noted that he has concerns about where snow will go if the back yard is reduced in size. In response to public testimony, Mr. Childs noted that the design of the replacement house is intended to replicate the existing home. He noted that the existing porch is enclosed and was likely originally open. He explained that the new porch is deeper and open to soften the streetscape appearance of the home. Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Grieve acknowledged that window pairings are consistent with the chosen style of the house; however, he recommended that the windows on the rear elevation be separated. He suggested consideration be given to an alternate design for the window in the stairway on the south elevation. He agreed that the open porch helps to mitigate the close setback. He stated that the Oakwood Avenue streetscape has changed over time along with the neighborhood aesthetic. He stated that in his opinion it is not necessary to try to replicate what was previously there. He encouraged the petitioner to add ornamental nuances to the house to add character. Board member Friedman suggested adding detailing to the top of the chimney in keeping with the character of the home. He agreed with the comments of the other Board members regarding the setback but noted that the extent of the variance requested is extreme. He encouraged the petitioner to try to find a middle ground. Board member Reda stated that he is generally supportive of a variance to allow the house to encroach into the front yard setback but agreed that the extent of the variance requested is significant. He noted that shifting the home back slightly will create a transition between the two neighboring homes. He recommended working to try to find a way to reduce the extent of the encroachment. He noted that the colors should be true to the rendering and the chimney should have corbeling or chimney pots Board member Diamond stated support for gutters and downspouts as requested by the neighbor. He agreed that the north elevation should be modified to break up the façade. He stated that he is supportive of siting the house within the front yard setback but asked that consideration be given to reducing the extent of the encroachment. Chairman Notz questioned whether lowering the eaves may help to reduce the unbroken mass of the side elevations. Mr. Childs responded noting that lowering the eaves will reduce the height of the 2nd floor hallway. He stated a willingness to consider modifications to the window configurations. Chairman Notz noted that he is less concerned with the window configuration and more concerned with breaking up the expanses of wall. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 12 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 1. The plans shall be modified as noted below. If any further modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the B oard 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 replacement residence shall be shifted back on the lot, approximately 8 feet, to provide a natural transition between the house to the north and the house to the south. b. The window placement on the north and south elevations shall be refined to break up large expanses of wall and to achieve some greater consistency. c. Horizontal banding and ornamentation, consistent with the style of the house, shall be added to further break up the visual mass of the house and shall be submitted to the City and will be subject to review and approval. d. If it is determined that the structure of the existing garage is not sufficient to accommodate re-siding, re-roofing and a new garage door, complete construction plans shall be submitted to the City and will be subject to review and approval. The footprint, height and design of the garage shall remain consistent with the existing structure. e. Subject to review and approval by the City’s Engineer, gutters and downspouts on the detached garage shall drain to the north. f. The color palette shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Board. g. Decorative chimney pots and corbeling shall be added to the chimney. h. The paired windows on the front elevation shall be separated. i. The stair window on the south elevation shall be modified, as directed by the Board and shall be submitted to the City and will be subject to review and approval. 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 adjacent properties. 3. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following: a. Protection plan for the mature tree located at the front of the lot. Tree protection must remain in place as directed by the City’s Certified Arborist at all times throughout construction until removal is authorized in writing by the City. b. Additional screening as determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist. c. Replacement inches for trees removed should be planted at least in part in the form of larger, deciduous trees. Replacement inches may need to be in the form of a payment in lieu of onsite plantings to support parkway plantings in the vicinity, due to the limited lot size. 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 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. 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. No construction parking is permitted on Oakwood Avenue. Offsite parking and shuttling workers to the site may be necessary due to the traffic on Oakwood Avenue. Permits can be obtained for parking in the public lot across the street. General 6. Prior to demolition, two copies of 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. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code, 8. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 14 The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved 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 7:51p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner