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