Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/05/04 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of May 4, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, May 4, 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: Mike Bleck, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman and Peter Dunne. Building Review Board members absent: Jim Diamond 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. Chairman Notz welcomed Peter Dunne as a new member of the Building Review Board. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the March 2, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the March 2nd, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence and a replacement residence and detached garage located at 104 Washington Circle. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner and Representative: David Lidstrom, developer Contract Purchaser: Judith Gleason Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Lidstrom introduced the petition and explained that he was before the Board in 2013 for approval of the demolition of the existing house and approval of a replacement residence. He stated that he never proceeded with the project at that time because until now, he did not have a buyer for the property. He noted that the plan now presented is generally the same at the replacement residence previously approved by the Board, but a few changes are proposed. Judith Gleason, contract purchaser, explained that she is looking to downsize and is a resident of Lake Forest. Mr. Lidstrom noted that in the plan now presented, the first floor was raised by one foot to provide taller ceilings. He stated that the color palette was changed to reflect the preference of the owner. Ms. McManus stated that a similar petition was approved by the Board in 2013, subject to conditions; however the approval is only good for 2 years and has since expired. She explained that this is considered a new petition and a request for approval of both the demolition and replacement residence. She noted that a zoning variance will be required as the front porch encroaches in the front yard setback. She stated that the staff report outlines some recommendations including using asphalt roof shingles on both the house and porch roofs in order to avoid a mix of materials and to simplify the front elevation. She requested the Board’s input on the increased height of the front porch since this matter last was before the Board, and on the proportions and relationship between the balcony and front porch columns. She recommended refinement of the front elevation of the garage. She explained that the house as presented is over the allowable square footage but noted that staff can work with the petitioner to bring the project within the allowable square footage. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the petition subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Lidstrom reviewed the proposed exterior material and presented samples. He noted that natural stone is proposed in multiple sizes and depths. He stated that there are 2 stone chimneys and 4 stone columns at the front porch and 2 at the rear porch. He clarified that the gray material sample is Frasier cedar shingles. He stated that the trim board has a pink cast because he painted over pink paint. Board member Reda stated that he lives near the property and finds the roof line problematic because the roof is in front of one chimney and behind the chimney on the other side. He noted that the eaves appear lost as a result of the placement of the chimneys and not characteristic of the Craftsman style. He suggested considering pulling the chimneys inside the house to achieve greater consistency with the Craftsman style. In response to Board member Reda’s comments, Mr. Lidstrom expressed concerns about how the building scale is calculated. He stated that they are looking at ways to reduce the size of the residence and questioned whether the calculations were different in 2013, when he last presented a project for this property. He noted that the 2nd floor has 2 center windows flanked by doors and confirmed that all window lite configurations will match. He clarified that the window at grade provides light to the stairwell and stated that they could add a window well to support the window. He stated that the small window on the side elevation is configured to fit the space which is limited by the slope of the roof slides down and as a result, is half the size of the other windows. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Lidstrom explained that the chimneys are different sizes and shapes because to relate to the fireplaces on each level. He explained that the 2nd floor door panel is glass and the front door is glass. He clarified that the front porch columns are tapered and square and noted that due to the low height of the porch, a railing is not needed. He stated that below the porch, stone will be located against the foundation and stated that the porch will have a stone surface. Jerry McManus, architect, noted that the porch roof is complicated because the rear balcony is one step down from the second floor level which determines the roof structure and height of the front porch. He noted that in the process of increasing the height of the first floor ceiling, the balconies are impacted. He explained that because of the proximity of the side entry to the driveway, the first floor is only 2.5 steps above grade. He added that the porch is lower than in the previous proposal, even though the porch roof is higher. In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Lidstrom confirmed that the porches are elevated by 2 risers and will have a bluestone surface. He stated that the area under the front porch will be filled. He stated that the windows were shortened on the north elevation because the windows are in the master closet. Board member Friedman noted that the shorter windows are inconsistent with other windows on the porch and pointed out that the proportions are more graceful with the full length windows. He stated that front porch encroaches into the front setback for consistency with neighboring homes. He added that the basement foundation is behind the setback line and the porch is the only part encroaching into the setback. Board member Friedman noted that there is plenty of room behind the home to shift the house back. He stated that he does not support removing the brackets and eaves overhangs in order to reduce the square footage. He recommended reducing the square footage of the house slightly. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lidstrom confirmed that the width of the metal roof panels proposed on the porch is 18 inches. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. McManus explained that staff is recommending asphalt shingles on the porch roof for consistency with the overall house and to further simplify the front façade. Mr. Lidstrom stated that he considered a metal roof on the entire house because he has concerns about using asphalt shingles on the lower pitched roofs. He confirmed that the metal proposed for the porch roof will be gray to match the flashing. He stated that they are reconsidering the 6 foot fence. He confirmed that Mariani Landscaping is involved with the project. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Mr. Lidstrom clarified that the dark material sample is for the front door which will be dark brown or black, but mostly glass. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. McManus stated that based on available information, the square footage may need to be reduced to conform to the allowable square footage. She stated that the roof overhangs and brackets are consistent with the Craftsman style and noted that removal would compromise the integrity of the design. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Lidstrom showed examples of chimneys pots being considered including a Prairie influenced design and a simple clay pot. He stated that the front balcony is painted wood. He noted that the porch railings depicted in the presentation were not reflected on the materials included in the Commission’s packets. He stated that the garage elevations are also different from the material in the packets. He stated willingness to add a continuous dormer on the garage. He noted that the previously proposed skinny window was eliminated from the garage. He noted that lattice was added to the garage in place of the window and confirmed that the garage basement is a full height basement. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Lidstrom stated that the base of the front porch is stone and on the rest of the house, wood siding will be extended to the ground. He stated that the horizontal banding is wood. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Wayne Lasson, 126 Washington Circle, stated that he is the neighbor located to the north of the property. He explained that he moved to the community 20 years ago and renovated and rebuilt his home. He stated that his 2nd floor garage will overlook the back yard of the new house. He stated that the existing house is an eyesore. He stated that he is supportive of the project. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Dunne stated that he is supportive of shifting the house further back on the lot and reducing the square footage to meet building scale requirements. Board member Friedman stated support for the demolition and the overall character of the replacement home. He recommended refinement of the windows on the north elevation and agreed that the square footage should not exceed the maximum allowed. He stated that in his opinion, the setbacks should be met. He stated support for the standing seam roof on the porch. He added that the rafter tails and brackets should be retained noting that they are important to the character of the home. Board member Bleck stated in his opinion, the proposed siting of house, within the front setback, is appropriate because it relates to the streetscape. He pointed out that in 2013, a zoning variance was recommended for a new house on this lot in keeping with the character and pattern of the streetscape. He agreed with the comments of other Board members that adjustments should be made to the garage dormers. He stated that the house should comply with the allowable square footage. He agreed that reducing the depth of the eaves is not a good solution. Board member Reda agreed that the eaves and rafter tails should be retained. He agreed that the replacement house must conform to the allowable square footage. He suggested that a final decision on the setback issue be worked out with staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He agreed that the windows should be modified as discussed by the Board. He stated that the demolition criteria are met. Board member Moyer agreed that the home should not exceed the allowable square footage and that the eaves and brackets should not be eliminated. He stated that he is in favor of the standing metal roof because it is a higher quality look. He expressed concern regarding the color palette and noted that the colors are not complimentary to each other. He stated that the door color makes a difference, and that the colors are in conflict. Chairman Notz stated that the demolition criteria are met and requested further direction and discussion from the Board regarding conformance to the front yard setback and the color palette. Board member Bleck stated that the setbacks are the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Zoning Board of Appeals will make a recommendation on the request for a front yard setback but noted that input from the Building Review Board on the compatibility of the siting of the house with the neighborhood and streetscape would be helpful to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She clarified that as proposed, the porch encroaches into the front yard setback about 6 feet. 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. 1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development or in response to Board direction, the modifications 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. Details on all exterior materials shall be provided. Natural materials, consistent with the quality and character of the exterior materials commonly found in the neighborhood, should be used consistently on all elevations and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit. b. The house and garage must be in full compliance with the Building Scale provisions of the Code. c. Consideration shall be given to shifting the house further back on the lot to conform more closely to zoning setbacks. d. The porch roof shall be standing seam metal, consistent with plans presented to the Board. e. The front porch, columns and projecting balcony shall be modified to achieve appropriate proportions and proper visual support for the projecting balcony. f. The height of the porch roof shall be lowered to better achieve a pedestrian scale and to achieve greater consistency with the Craftsman Bungalow style. g. Windows, both on the house and on the garage shall be generally consistent in form and detailing. The windows on the north elevation shall be enlarged to maintain consistency of window openings. h. The dormer windows on the garage shall be modified to be consistent on the north and south elevations. i. Detailed information on the windows shall be submitted with the permit application. Muntins shall be affixed to the interior and exterior of the glass. j. The color palette shall be refined. 2. 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. 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation and to protect trees and vegetation on neighboring properties during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. The final landscape plan shall reflect replacement inches for trees removed as determined to be required by the City Arborist consistent with the Code requirements. a. The final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading plan to allow confirmation by staff that there are no conflicts between proposed plantings and overland stormwater flow routes. 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. 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 and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking is not permitted due to the narrowness of the street and the proximity to the intersection. Off site parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be required. 8. 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 6 – 0. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. In response to questions from Mr. Lidstrom regarding illustrations in the building scale calculation workbook, Ms. Czerniak explained that the workbook provides visual examples of the Code requirements. She offered that staff will work with the petitioner to clarify the calculations. 5. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner