Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/07/06 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of July 6, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, July 6th 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: Jim Diamond, Mike Bleck, Ross Friedman and Peter Dunne. Building Review Board members absent: Fred Moyer and Robert Reda 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 4th, 2016 and June 1st, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the May 4th, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. The minutes of the June 1st, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family residence located at 152 N. Ridge Road and approval of a replacement residence, attached garage, overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owners: Silex, LLC (Richard Portis) Representative: Scott Renken, 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. Renken reviewed the comments from the Board made at the previous meeting and noted that several changes were made in response to the Board’s suggestions. He reviewed the location and size of the property and stated that the property to the north was previously approved for a new residence. He provided images of the neighborhood, site and existing ranch home. He noted that the demolition criteria are met and that the Board expressed support for the demolition at last month’s meeting. He noted that a single curb cut is now proposed in place of the circular drive and two curb cuts proposed on the last plan. He stated that with this configuration, no parking will occur within the front yard setback. He stated that the proposed site plan preserves the trees in the front yard and noted that the only trees to be removed are small evergreens along the north property line. He stated that the preliminary grading plan was reviewed by the City and noted that the drainage runs south to north into an inlet in the rear yard, running underground between the properties to the street. He provided an alternative site plan with a double curb cut noting that it would require the removal of 2 trees. He provided a streetscape elevation explaining that the front elevation of the proposed residence is similar to the earlier plan presented to the Board. He explained that the home is designed in the Colonial Style and possesses typical characteristics of the style. He stated that the front gable element was revised since the last meeting and now terminates into a side gable roof, eliminating the previous awkward roof connections. He provided samples of the materials, white aluminum for the gutters and copper for the bays and stated that his client prefers white aluminum gutters to blend in with the trim. He added that the copper bays are intended to be accents on the home. He compared the previous and current elevations and noted that the front dormers were eliminated and the roof pitches were adjusted to be consistent on the various elements. He added that the chimney was relocated and is now visible from front of house and stated that the side elevations were redesigned to be more consistent and cohesive. He noted that true wood siding is proposed in place of Hardieboard. Ms. McManus explained that the petition was continued from last month’s meeting noting that the Board expressed support for the demolition of the existing house and provided direction that the double curb cut be eliminated, the side elevations be refined and that the roof forms be consistent and simplified. She added that the petitioner outlined the changes made since the last meeting in the statement of intent and stated that staff finds the revisions to be responsive to the Board’s comments. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Renken clarified that the field stone does not wrap around whole house because the stone is intended as an accent and is picked up on rear porch for balance. He stated that the stone is influenced by the stone used on Connecticut farmhouses. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Renken stated that the siding will be painted white or a very light color, shutters are black and the windows and gutters are white. He added that the walkways are proposed as bluestone and reiterated that Eden stone will be used as an accent. In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Renken explained that approximately half of the house is sided in stone. He stated that the house is clapboard with stone accents. He reviewed the landscape plan and stated that 4 trees will be removed in the front yard. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Ms. McManus confirmed that the City arborist reviewed the landscape plan and recommended that the 2 significant trees in the front yard be preserved. She confirmed that inch for inch replacement plantings of trees will be required for any quality trees removed. Board member Dunne thanked the petitioner for the changes made and noted that his questions have been answered. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Pamela Engel, 187 Ridge Road, stated that the other homes on the block are brick and expressed concern that the home as proposed, white clapboard siding with pillars, may not be consistent with the neighborhood. She noted that the change to a single curb cut for the driveway is an improvement, but stated continued concern about drainage. She asked that the architecture of the home be softened to blend into the neighborhood. In response to public testimony, Mr. Renken stated other colors can be considered for the clapboard siding and stated that the stone will be a medium tone to contrast with the wood. Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Bleck thanked the petitioner for being responsive to the Board’s comments and providing an explanation on the use of copper and aluminum. He added that the streetscape landscaping will be important. Board member Friedman stated that he is supportive of the color palette as proposed and is confident that the drainage will be handled appropriately. Board member Diamond stated that the home will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Chairman Notz added that the demolition criteria are satisfied and the revised plans for the replacement residence are responsive to the Board’s comments. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing residence. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved by a vote of 5 – 0. Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. If 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 provided to the Board on July 6, 2016, 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. 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 and that the overall height of the residence, when measured from the lowest point of existing adjacent grade, does not exceed the height permitted by the Code. The grading of the site shall be considered in the context of the grading proposed for the new house on the lot to the north. Additional information, as determined to be 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 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. 4. 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 landscape plan shall specifically identify the trees that will be planted to account for the required replacement inches for the trees removed from the site. The species, size at time of planting and the locations of the new trees shall be indicated on the plan. Payment in lieu of on site planting, in the event that replacement inches cannot be fully accounted for on the site in a manner that is consistent with good forestry practices; must be paid in full prior to scheduling final inspections at the completion of the project. 5. 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. 6. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be provided on 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 shield the neighboring property from impacts from any exterior lighting on the side load garage. 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 limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 8. Prior to the 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a monument sign at Woodlands Academy, 760 E. Westleigh Road. Owner: Woodlands Academy Representative: Timothy Archibald, 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. Archibald reviewed the petition for a new monument sign at Woodlands Academy and provided a site plan of the campus. He reviewed the location and provided images of the existing wayfinding signs on campus explaining that the goal is to identify the campus as a whole. He stated that he previously met with staff regarding the request and stated that the intention is to fit the sign comfortably within the landscape. He noted that the sign picks up on the colors in the existing signs and that the scale of the sign was dictated by both the function of the sign and context of the site. He provided a rendering of the sign and read a statement of intent written by Sam Danenberger, Mariani Landscaping, regarding the landscaping. He noted that the intention is to visually connect the sign to the lawn and that no ground plantings are proposed around the base. He stated that crabapple trees are proposed near the sign, on the lawn and explained that the sign will be visible, but will not over power the landscape. He explained that early on in the process, the design team explored several sign sizes and determined that the proposed dimensions, a 25 foot brick base and a 20 foot long sign, are most appropriate. He stated that the sign is painted and of wood construction with a painted metal cap. He noted that the letters are off set from the sign face and painted metal. He stated that ground lights are proposed to shine on the sign. He added that the lights are at grass level and will be on only during the hours when there is activity on the campus. He provided an alternate color option explaining that the school prefers red letters. He concluded that he agrees with staff’s suggestion to shift the sign slightly back on the lawn. Ms. McManus reviewed the petition noting that the request is for a monument sign and enhanced landscaping on the Woodlands Academy campus. She noted that the request is unique in that it is a campus setting and the typical allowable square footage for signage does not apply. She noted that there are currently directional and wayfinding signs on the campus and noted that the proposed size is appropriate given the large scale of the lawn. She added that a color mockup was installed on the site prior to the meeting and that 2 color palettes were provided. She stated that staff has concerns about the appropriateness of the red lettering. She requested the Board’s input on the color scheme and stated that staff recommends that the sign be shifted further back on the lawn to allow sufficient foreground to support the large sign. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus clarified that there is no maximum allowable square footage for signage on a campus and that the Board can determine if the proposed sign is appropriate for the site given the intended function. Board member Diamond stated that he is supportive of shifting the sign back on the lawn and the black lettering. He questioned whether the size of the sign can be further reduced. Board member Friedman stated that he is comfortable with the proposed size of the sign and shifting it back slightly. He thanked the petitioner for providing a mockup and cautioned that the wood sign will require maintenance. In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Archibald agreed that the black lettering is more consistent with the existing signs on campus, but noted that the intention was to have the signs relate, but not fully replicate the wayfinding signs. He added however that the red letters are more integral to the school’s identity. Board member Dunne expressed support for shifting the sign back and using the black letters in place of red. He thanked the petitioner for providing a mockup and added that the black letters are more powerful. He suggested that a red logo on the sign be explored. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Archibald stated that the proposed ground lighting is desired by Woodlands Academy and is intended to be classic and traditional. He explained that they looked at other signage lighting throughout the area and found that other fixtures felt too modern. He stated that the lights will melt the snow, so they are not concerned with snow cover. He said that Woodlands Academy is not changing the existing wayfinding signs. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Dunne stated that the petition was well thought out and that black lettering is more appropriate. Board member Bleck recommended shifting the sign back and asked that the landscaping comply with the City arborist’s recommendations. Chairman Notz expressed concern that shifting the sign back too much may diminish the scale of the sign. Ms. Czerniak offered that staff can work with the petitioner at the time of installation to determine the most effective location for the sign. Board member Friedman suggested that the sign be shifted back no further than 10 feet. Board member Dunne stated that he is comfortable with the current location of the sign and with shifting it back as suggested. Board member Diamond stated that he is comfortable with the current location and that he is in favor of the black letters. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Dunne made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Any modifications to the plan, either to respond to direction from the Board or changes made for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the approvals granted and the conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. 2. Light fixtures shall be selected and sited to avoid views of the fixtures or the source of the light from the streetscape. 3. Native trees shall be planted in lieu of the crab apples and all plantings shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist consistent with the intent of preserving the front lawn as a conservation area. 4. The siting of the sign shall be shifted back, approximately 10 feet, to provide more fore ground for the sign and to preserve expansive views of the great lawn. The location shall be subject to final approval by City staff. 5. The approved color palette consists of black letters, a white background , with an option for red accents subject to review and approval by City staff. 6. Lights on the sign shall be on only during activities at the school. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of additions and alterations to an existing residence located at 611 E. Illinois Road. Owners: Zachary Jacobs and Stephanie Caparelli Representative: Michael Hrusovsky, designer Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the owners are new to the city and seeking approval for additions and modifications to the existing home. He noted that the property is located on the south side of Illinois Road, an area characterized by older homes and narrow lots. He reviewed the streetscape elevations and photos and stated that there is a shared driveway between the house and the neighbor to the east. He explained that the house is relatively intact and there is a large patio and a newer 2 car garage at the rear of site. He stated that the home is older and has some limitations. He explained that the second floor has 2 bedrooms which were likely sleeping porches originally and small living spaces on the first floor. He reviewed the roof forms noting that the rear roof has a shallow hip over the sleeping porch and the gable roof has clipped ceilings. He stated that the windows were replaced with aluminum windows, but are relatively new and will be retained or relocated. He stated that if the additions were to comply with setbacks, they would encroach further toward a mature tree in the rear yard. He stated that the addition will require a zoning variance, but will stay outside of the dripline of the existing tree. He stated that a rear covered porch is proposed and supported by piers. He noted that the proposed first floor plan provides for an enlarged kitchen, mudroom, powder room, a small entry porch on the side and open stairway. He reviewed the interior layouts and explained that the roof lines borrow from the original house’s roof forms. He noted that there are minimal changes proposed to the front and that the existing patio will be reduced to make way for the addition. He noted that large arborvitae buffer the house to the west and no new windows are proposed on the west elevation. He stated that any demolition is incidental to the additions and the pointed out that the additions are modest in size and comply with the allowable square footage. He noted that there will be minimal impact to the streetscape. Ms. McManus noted that the petition requires a side yard zoning variance . She stated that staff requested clarification on the extent of demolition and details on any windows proposed to be replaced. She noted that staff recommends removing or replacing the existing shutters and adding windows to the side elevations to break up the expanse of walls. She stated that the proposed additions are an adequate distance from the mature trees on the property and confirmed that the site was staked prior to the meeting. She concluded that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Ms. McManus stated that the elm tree will be protected during construction. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the side porch will be modified to create a more functional pantry and confirmed that the existing materials will be matched on the additions. He explained that although the materials are not of high quality, they will be retained at this point in time and hopefully upgraded in the future. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Ms. McManus explained that the existing materials do not meet the City’s design guidelines, but that it is reasonable to approve the use of materials on the additions that are consistent with the materials on the existing house. She stated that the approval will not set a precedent for new construction. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the shutters will be adjusted or eliminated and pointed out that the windows were eliminated on the side elevations due to the kitchen location. He added that the house to the west is screened by arborvitae and a 6 foot fence. He stated that he is open to working with staff on refinement of the windows and French doors. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the additional landscaping planned is minimal and noting that there is not a lot of room for plantings. He stated that very few changes are proposed with respect to landscaping. He explained that replacing the existing siding around the house would be a significant cost to the owners and is not in their budget. He stated that the owners intend to retain the existing aluminum siding at this time. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the arborvitae are not being impacted by construction and stated that an excavation near the bushes will be hand dug to protect the roots. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the entire home will be painted. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus explained that if the Board approves the petition with conditions, any refinements would be reviewed at the staff level for consistency with the Board approval. Board member Friedman stated that he is concerned about the aluminum siding, but stated that the proposed additions are sensitive to the house and fit the character of the neighborhood. He added that adherence to the detailing is important. Chairman Notz stated that there does not appear to be an opportunity to add windows to the side elevations, as staff recommended and encouraged the petitioners to consider replacing the siding with a natural material in the future. He stated that he is comfortable with staff reviewing the changes to the shutters. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of 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 and to any other direction offered by the Board. If additional modifications are made to the plans 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 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. Shutters shall be properly sized or eliminated on the rear elevation. b. Muntin patterns shall be generally consistent on all windows and doors and affixed interior and exterior muntins shall be used. 2. A demolition plan shall be submitted clearly indicating all existing elements of the house proposed for demolition. The plan shall provide details, locations and dimensions of portions of all walls and roof that will be removed to accommodate the proposed additions and alterations. 3. 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 fully screened from view. The dark sky, right to night concept shall be followed. 4. 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. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 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. No more than two vehicles are permitted to be parked on the street, in front of the house only, during construction activity. 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 Dunne and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of significant demolition of portions of the existing residence, various additions and alterations and modifications to the overall site plan and landscaping at 854 W. Everett Road. Owner: Elena Ciorobiteau Representative: Cristian Gansari, project manager Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Gansari introduced the petition noting that additions are proposed to a one and half story house including additions to the rear and the addition of a full second story. He reviewed the location of the property noting that there is a mix of commercial and residential uses and the property is located on the edge of two zoning districts. He reviewed the neighboring properties and explained that the existing house is a split level with a garage on the right side and that there are several smaller trees in the front yard. He stated that they are proposing to remove the trees in the front because they are in poor health, but the trees in rear yard will be retained. He stated that the trees along the east side of the property will also be removed and new plantings will be added for screening. He provided images of the existing house and floor plans and stated that the proposed house is influenced by the Georgian Revival style. He reviewed typical characteristics of the style and reviewed the proposed elevations noting the rectangular double hung windows, hipped roof, flat deck, dormers, symmetry and balustrade. He stated that the home is brick with quoins, and a 2 story portico. He provided images of historic examples of the style and reviewed the site plan with brick piers and wrought iron fencing along the front property line. Ms. McManus explained that the petition is before the Board for direction and initial input and consists of a request for demolition of the majority of the existing house and substantial additions. She noted that staff met with the petitioner on numerous occasions and recommended that consideration be given to demolishing the house in order to achieve a better end product that meets the City’s design guidelines. She stated that several areas of concern were outlined in the staff report regarding the replacement structure and site plan. She stated that staff recommends that the Board continue the petition with general support for the demolition and direction to the petitioner to design a replacement residence that is consistent and true to a single architectural style. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Gansari stated that fully demolishing the house is a cost issue and confirmed that front and rear of the home will be demolished, including 80 percent of the front wall, as part of the current proposal. In response to Board member Friedman, Mr. Gansari confirmed that the existing brick is red and stated that the new brick will be similar in color. He stated that the side walls that will remain and will be patched with new brick. He stated that consideration could be given to re-bricking the entire home. He stated that aluminum gutters and an architectural asphalt shingle roof in a gray color are proposed. He noted that the proposed columns are wrapped with wood, but agreed that alternate materials could be considered. He explained that if a full demolition were pursued the replacement home would likely also be designed in the Colonial Revival style. He explained that the existing house is a split level with a 5 foot difference between sections of the house creating challenges with achieving consistent window placements. Board member Friedman stated that re-bricking the entire house would be a better solution than patching. He stated that as proposed, the house is stark and should be softened. He questioned whether there will be a significant cost savings as a result of trying to work with the existing house. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Gansari agreed that the homes across Everett Road are larger and that the adjacent homes, on the south side of Everett Road are smaller in scale. He confirmed that the Evergreen Subdivision is in a different zoning district. Board member Bleck expressed concern about the existing foundation based on the information provided in the structural report. He stated that it may be less expensive to put in a new foundation than work with the existing foundation. He stated that the proposed house does not meet the design guidelines and is out of scale with the character of the neighborhood. Board member Dunne expressed concern regarding the proposed brick selection noting that there is too much color variation from the existing bricks. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Mr. Gansari confirmed that the widows walk along the roof line is for aesthetics only and not meant to be functional. Chairman Notz stated that he is concerned with maneuvering in and out of the garage based on the site plan presented. In response to Chairman Notz’ comments. Ms. Czerniak stated that auto turn studies were requested to verify the adequacy of the area available for maneuvering into and out of the garage. She confirmed that the side yard setback is 12 feet. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Maureen Mullarkey, 1025 Evergreen Drive, stated that she appreciates the improvements that are proposed for the site, but is concerned with construction staging and traffic. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that it would not be unusual to add conditions that speak to construction parking and staging with specific prohibitions about on street parking in the neighborhood. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. Board member Dunne stated that the brick piers along the front property line are inappropriate for the neighborhood and stated concern about the size of the proposed residence and the brick selection. Board member Bleck stated that if the existing house is retained, a new foundation should be put in and the overall height of the structure should be reduced. He encouraged the petitioner to design a home that is sensitive to the adjacent neighbors. Board member Friedman questioned the cost analysis noting that a full demolition and construction of a new house may result in cost savings. He encouraged the petitioner to design a new home that is not limited by the constraints of the existing house. Board member Diamond stated that he is supportive of a full demolition and encouraged the use of more organic materials to soften the elevations. Chairman Notz stated that the challenges associated with working with the existing house may result in a higher cost. He encouraged the petitioner to consider a full demolition which would solve some of the issues including the inadequate turning radius for the garage and the proposed raised patio at the rear of the home. He stated that he is not supportive of the petition and the stated that the design should be considerably reevaluated and re-created before the petition returns to the Board. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Bleck made a motion to continue consideration of the petition with direction to the petitioner to consider a full demolition of the existing residence rather than work within the constraints of the existing structure given the magnitude of the work proposed and to design a house in keeping with the context of the surrounding area. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of a new single family residence, overall site plan and landscape plan on a vacant lot at 1124 Fairview Avenue. Owners: Thomas and Kathleen Feifar Contract Purchaser and Representative: Peter Childs, developer Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Board Member Bleck recused himself as his company is involved with the project and left the Council Chambers. Chairman Notz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Breseman reviewed the history of the property and stated that there are severe grading issues on the site. He stated that the proposed home will require a height variance due to the existing low grade of the site. He stated that the proposal includes filling the site to raise it to a level consistent with adjacent properties. He stated that the architectural style of the proposed residence was selected to be comfortable and homey noting that the massing and eave heights are consistent with the neighboring properties. He noted that Hardieboard siding and wood trim are proposed. He reviewed photos of the streetscape and the proposed site plan stating that the house is sited to align with the neighboring homes. He stated that there are 3 major storm sewer inlets in the area and discussed connection to and upgrading of the storm sewers to address drainage issues on the property. He noted that the proposed grade is the midpoint between the adjacent houses and provided conceptual drawings of the proposed design of the house. He stated that the plans presented were simplified in response to the staff report and are different from the plans included in the Board’s packets. He provided comparisons of the revised elevations noting that the porch was modified to simplify the roof forms and the windows were adjusted. He provided a colored rendering and stated that the dormer was simplified and its height brought down. He stated that the landscape plan shows foundation plantings. Ms. McManus stated that the site is unusual in that it sits significantly below the grades of the adjacent properties and the street. She stated that the petitioner proposes to raise the grade of the property to be more consistent with the neighboring properties, and as a result, a height variance is requested since the overall height of the house and the proposed amount of fill together exceed the allowable building height. She noted that the proposed grade change may be logical; however the City Engineer has not yet had the opportunity to review the grading plan due to a late and incomplete submittal by the petitioner. She stated that a neighbor provided a letter expressing concerns about drainage in the area and potential impacts to neighboring properties. She stated that the site is heavily wooded and it is expected that a number of trees will be removed as a result of the proposed filling of the site . She added that a tree survey has not yet been submitted and a landscape plan was received a day before the meeting. She explained that the City Arborist has not had the opportunity to review the proposed landscape plan. She stated that staff recommends some refinements to the elevations as outlined in the staff report and recommends that the petition be continued so that the petitioner can submit a complete submittal and to allow staff the opportunity to review the proposed plans and the grading and drainage of the unique site. She acknowledged that the petitioner is anxious to move forward and that this meeting gives the Board the opportunity to provide direction to the petitioner based on the information available tonight. Board member Dunne acknowledged that the lot is difficult and stated that it is important to hear the City Engineer’s review comments. He noted that the architectural refinements based on the comments in the staff report are an improvement. He stated general support for the proposed design. Board member Friedman stated that he is confused about which plans the Board is being asked to consider since the plans presented at the meeting differ from the plans included in the packets. He agreed that the refinements simplify the home, but questioned the double gable over the front entry. He acknowledged that the lot is difficult and stated support for a height variance subject to the City Engineer’s review. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Breseman stated that the columns as proposed are carpenter built square pilasters, the stoop is brick pavers, the porch is bead board and the soffits are cedar. Mr. Childs confirmed that as proposed, the downspouts are not tied into the storm sewer. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Breseman explained that the casement windows were removed from first floor but retained on the 2nd story. Mr. Kelley, the contract purchaser, explained that a dog run is proposed in the yard. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Breseman agreed that the double gable over front door could be eliminated and confirmed that currently the property and the surrounding properties drain to the center of the lot. He confirmed that the material above the dormers is copper with no seams. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Notz invited public testimony. Mike Moebs 1140 Highland Avenue, stated that he has lived in his house for 14 years and has lived in Lake Forest 25 years. He stated that his neighbors had to build a retaining wall on their property because of significant drainage issues resulting from the property proposed for development. He stated that a child and his dog got stuck in the water and mud on the property and said that he believes that there may be an underground water source on the site. He stated that the neighbors have looked into the issue but have not been able to identify the source of the water problem. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff only recently received the grading plan and it has not yet been reviewed by the City Engineer. She noted that additional research or studies may need to be completed to better understand the existing conditions. She stated that the plans presented are not consistent with the plans received by staff and included in the Board packets. She state that staff has not received a copy of the plans presented at the meeting. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the petition is incomplete at this time and more study is needed to understand the unique drainage situation. She stated that a continuation of the petition would be appropriate and added that once approved by the Board, the permitting process could be expedited. Mr. Breseman stated that the property is the last vacant lot in the neighborhood and is at the lowest grade. He stated that the water from surrounding properties drain to the site and takes a while to drain away. Board member Diamond stated that proper engineering of the site is important. He stated that overall, he is supportive of the project. He suggested that refinements to the porch roof could be worked out with staff. Board member Friedman stated that he is confident that the grading will be worked out, but pointed out that it is important that staff have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed plans. He stated that he is supportive of the overall architectural design. Board member Dunne stated that he is sensitive to the contract purchaser’s timing, but is hesitant to move the petition forward without the opportunity for staff review of the plans presented to the Board. Chairman Notz stated that a complete application is needed and noted that the changes to the elevations included in the Board packet were confusing. He stated that the petition should come back before the Board when the submittal is complete, engineering reviews are complete and the elevations are finalized. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to continue consideration of the petition with direction to the petitioner to submit a complete and detailed application packet including engineering information and refinements to the front porch. The motion was seconded by Board member Dunne and approved by a vote of 5 to 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 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner