BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/08/08 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of August 8, 2016 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
August 8th, 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, Ross Friedman and Robert Reda.
Building Review Board members absent: Peter Dunne, Mike Bleck, 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 July 6th, 2016 meeting of the Building Review
Board.
The minutes of the July 6th, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a signage plan for NorthShore
University Health Systems located at 915 S. Waukegan Road.
Owner: NorthShore University Health Systems
Representative: Peter Witmer, 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. Witmer introduced the petition and explained that the signage request was
previously continued by the Board to allow refinement of the proposal. He provided an
overview of the three sign locations as now proposed. He described the sign proposed
on the west side of the building, on the Waukegan Road streetscape, noting that an
aluminum frame is proposed for durability. He stated that the frame is black and the
letters are blue and black. He noted that blue lettering is important as part of the
identity of the business. He noted that the sign was reduced in size from the previous
proposal and added that the sign was re-located away from the utility boxes along
Waukegan Road. He explained that the height of the sign is proposed at 6 feet for
visibility. He provided images of the streetscape. He described the sign proposed on
the east elevation, near the entrance, and the directional sign at the entrance to the
parking lot. He stated that lighting is only proposed for the monument sign located on
the west side of the building.
Ms. McManus noted that in response to the Board’s comments at the June meeting, the
sign proposed on the south elevation was eliminated. She stated that the overall square
footage of signage was significantly reduced from the previous proposal. She noted
that at the last meeting, the Board requested that alternate color palettes be
considered. She noted that although blue lettering is still proposed and described as
being integral to the business’s identity, additional information is presented on the exact
shade of blue that is proposed. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the
petition and requested the Board’s input on the height of the height of the monument
sign and the color palette.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Witmer provided a color sample
and confirmed that the color is a darker blue than what was depicted in the
presentation materials.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer stated that the cedar
proposed for the sign will be stained.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Witmer acknowledged that the
roof top mechanical equipment was not installed as represented to the Board at the
time of approval of the building addition. He stated that options for concealing the
equipment are being explored.
Board member Friedman stated that the shade of blue on the color sample is far more
acceptable than the blue color presented in the images although it still makes a bold
statement. He stated appreciation for the changes made.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Witmer acknowledged that
Northshore University HealthSystems has allowed slight variations to the corporate color
palette at a limited number of locations particularly where the location is part of a
larger complex with established signage. He noted that the blue lettering, as proposed,
will contrast with the black and the reduced size of the sign will help to mitigate the
color.
Board member Diamond expressed support for the blue lettering with the condition that
the color used is consistent with the color sample presented to the Board.
Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board may want to add a condition requiring that the
color of the letters match the sample as presented.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the sign
previously proposed at the northwest corner of site was eliminated. He noted that the
monument sign proposed on the west side of the building replaces that sign. He stated
that the intention is to keep the height of the monument sign as low as possible as long
as it is visible.
Chairman Notz agreed that the blue presented in the color sample is acceptable rather
than the color depicted in the renderings.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak commented that due to the
grade change from Waukegan Road to the site, it may be appropriate for the exact
height of the site to be determined in the field, subject to staff approval.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment,
hearing none; he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Hearing no
further comments from the Board, he 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 height of the monument sign shall be finalized in the field, subject to
approval by staff. Consideration should be given to the elevation of
Waukegan Road and the relationship of the sign to the building. A mockup of
the sign on the site shall be provided to allow consideration of various heights.
2. The color palette shall be consistent with the samples provided to the Board ,
not with the renderings.
3. Any modifications to the signage, either to respond to direction from the Board
or as a result of further design development, must be submitted for review and
a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate,
that the signs are in conformance with the approvals granted and the
conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans for permit.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 4 to
0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of a signage plan for the multi-tenant
building located at 207 E. Westminster.
Owner and Representative: William Marlatt, Wane Hummer Trust Company
(William C. Marlatt, Kathryn G. Marlatt, William Kenney Marlatt)
Chairman Notz stated that consideration of this petition is postponed at the request of
the petitioner.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of a new front porch and alterations to the
existing residence located at 1229 Cascade Court South.
Owner: Joseph and Courtney Oriti
Representatives: David Wytmar, architect and Joseph Oriti, owner
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Oriti introduced the petition and explained that he moved into his home a year ago.
He stated that soon after purchasing the home, an oak tree fell on home causing
cosmetic damage. He noted however, during the repairs, it was discovered that the
foundation was in poor condition and severely cracked. He stated that an open front
porch will help to protect the foundation and will reduce the extent of work and the
cost of repairs to the foundation. He stated that it is more economical to add a front
porch than replace the entire foundation. He added that the existing house does not
have eaves and the front porch will help to prevent future water infiltration. He noted
that the materials will match the existing house.
Ms. McManus stated that the petition includes a request for approval of a new front
porch and repairs to the existing exterior of the home. She explained that the proposed
porch encroaches into the side yard setback and as a result, a request for a variance
will be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals as a follow up to the Board’s action.
She noted that although the proposed materials are inconsistent with the City’s design
guidelines, they are consistent with the existing house. She added that in this situation,
staff is recommending approval in order to match the existing conditions of the home
and in recognition of the need for repairs to the home.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Oriti stated that he plans to
add shrubs around the front porch after it is completed.
Board member Diamond stated that in his opinion, the porch will enhance the house.
Board member Friedman stated that landscaping will be very important to the success
of the project and should not be an afterthought.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Oriti stated that the siding on
the entire front façade will be replaced with Hardieboard painted a medium gray. He
said that the roof of the new porch roof will be architectural asphalt shingles to match
the house. He explained that the house was re-roofed shortly after the tree fell on the
house. He pointed out that the house is not symmetrical and noted that the door is off
center, making the column spacing difficult. He acknowledged that the house does
not have much detailing and stated that the windows do not lend themselves to
adding shutters. He noted however that the dentils on the house will be repeated on
the front porch. He stated that the scope of the project is limited to adding the front
porch and required repairs. He stated that he has not considered painting the
chimney.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Oriti explained that the
foundation has not yet been repaired and explained that buttresses are planned,
below grade, to support the foundation. He noted that drain tile will also be added. He
noted that the front porch will help to conceal the planned repairs. He explained that a
zoning variance is needed because if the porch were to comply with the setback, it
would stop short of the side of the house because the existing house encroaches into
the setback. He stated that to support the foundation repairs, the concrete slab must
extend across the entire front façade. He stated that the porch columns are wood and
have simple detailing on the top and bottom. He reiterated that the spacing of the
columns is difficult but stated that the spacing as presented is the best option. He
added that eliminating the center columns may create structural issues.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Oriti clarified that the porch roof will be
above the window and confirmed that the detailing on the front door will remain. He
stated that the window surrounds will likely only be visible from the porch. He stated that
the porch treads and risers will be bluestone veneer. He explained that he considered
making the area below the porch habitable space, but opted not to in order to prevent
more water seepage issues.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Wytmar stated that the
underside of the porch roof will be finished grade plywood, smooth or bead board. He
added that the ceiling of the porch will not be flat but instead, will be pitched.
Board member Friedman suggested that bead board be used in place of plywood for
the porch ceiling.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Oriti stated that the existing Fypon
trim will be retained where possible.
Chairman Notz noted that the dentil cornice appears to be out of scale with the
residence and he encouraged reconsideration of the size of that element.
In response to a suggestion from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wytmer stated that the
interior configuration of the house does not allow the windows along the front elevation
to be relocated.
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 Reda stated support for the project with a condition requiring the
petitioner to explore alternate placement of the columns with final approval of the
column locations delegated to the staff.
Board member Friedman stated that a landscape plan is critical to allow the new front
porch to settle into the site. He stated support for delegating review of the landscape
plan to staff.
Board member Diamond suggested that the petitioner consider painting the chimney
and agreed that landscaping is important to the success of the project.
Chairman Notz stated that he understands the challenges with adding shutters. He
encouraged the petitioner to consider the scale of the dentils and to reduce the size if
that element is going to be replaced. He stated that, in his opinion, the approval should
not be conditioned on painting the existing chimney. Hearing no further comments
from the Board, he 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.
1. Further study of the placement of the columns should be conducted to
determine if there is a solution that would better achieve consistency with the
windows.
2. If modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design
development or in response to the Board’s discussion, 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
representations made to the Board and the Board’s direction and approval
prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that 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 and to
direct drainage away from the petitioner’s home and to avoid directing
additional stormwater to neighboring homes and properties.
4. A landscape plan for the immediate area in front of the porch shall be
provided and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified
Arborist.
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 intend ed
for preservation.
6. 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 4 to
0.
6. Consideration of a request for approval of additions, alterations and driveway
modifications at the existing residence located at 1579 Conway Road.
Owner: Scott Verschoor
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 home was built in the 1960s and designed by Balfour Lanza, a
local architect who was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright. He stated that the house served
as Mr. Lanza’s personal residence. He stated that the house is located at the end of
Conway Road and noted that many of the neighboring homes are ranch homes. He
noted that the property is heavily wooded and the house is not visible from road. He
reviewed the site plan and stated that the home was recently marketed as a tear
down. He explained that the new owner desires to retain the house, but noted that the
house has some limitations. He noted that the owner desires additional garage space
and a music room. He stated that to accommodate the owner’s needs, the garage is
proposed to be extended at the front of the house and an addition is also proposed on
the west elevation. He reviewed conceptual studies and provided renderings of the
proposed additions. He noted that a few small trees will be removed.
Ms. McManus stated that the home is architecturally significant and was designed by a
prominent local architect. She stated that the original design of the house is intact
noting that only minimal changes have occurred over the years. She confirmed that 2
additions are proposed, one on the front, and one on the west side of the house. She
stated that the additions appear to be compatible with the existing residence. She
added that the home is not visible from the street. She noted that minor modifications
to the driveway are also proposed. She stated that an existing maple tree may be
impacted by the garage addition and replacement trees will be required if the tree is
lost totaling an inch for inch replacement. She noted that a new window type is
proposed on the front elevation and that although the window is consistent with the
time period and style of the home, it is not consistent with the existing windows around
the house. She requested the Board’s input on the proposed windows.
Board member Reda pointed out that details of the architectural elements were not
provided to the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that the
house has 3 small bedrooms and a large mezzanine which could easily be converted to
a master suite.
Mr. Verschoor added that the existing master bedroom has excellent detailing and
paneling which would be lost if the rooms were reconfigured. He added that the interior
walls are brick with very little dry wall in the interior.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that all
brick work will match the existing brick. He added that the soffit, fascia and windows on
the additions will also be consistent with those on the existing house. He stated that the
original drawings of the house are available.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the
home has central air conditioning, but the mezzanine does not. He noted that the brick
is Chicago common brick and information is available on where it was purchased. He
clarified that the overhangs are 4 feet deep with gravel beds underneath. He stated
that drainage is not expected to be an issue. He stated that the garage doors will be
replicated to match the existing garage doors with flat wood with reveal lines.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Hrusovsky clarified that the
existing master closet is not drawn on the plans. He stated that the roof was originally
cedar, but later replaced with asphalt. He explained that the large overhangs direct
water away from the house and that there are no drainage issues.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Verschoor stated that he is
the 3rd owner of the home which was owned first by Mr. Lanza and then the Stuart
family.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that modifications
could be made to the windows proposed in the mudroom to make them appear more
consistent with the existing windows. He noted however that the owner wants to limit
visibility into the mudroom and laundry room.
Board member Friedman suggested that 2 horizontal windows may be more
compatible with the windows on the rest of the house.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky described the existing and
proposed garages and confirmed that the two existing windows on the rear of the
existing garage will be retained. He confirmed that the garage doors and floors are at
different levels because the addition steps down. He added that the grade change is 6
inches to a foot. He stated that the grading of the driveway will match the elevation of
the garage floor.
Chairman Notz expressed concern about the grade of the driveway that will be
needed to meet the different levels of the garage floors.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the
roof has a 3:12 pitch with a water shield. He confirmed that generally asphalt shingles
would be used on roofs with a steeper pitch.
Board member Freidman offered that a standing seam roof could help address water
issues.
Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the owner may consider a standing seam roof in the future.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Dave Carlson, 1566 Conway Road, expressed support for the project noting that it will
add value to the property and neighborhood.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited final questions and
comments from the Board.
Board member Diamond stated that he is in favor of the petition.
Board member Friedman noted that the home is an asset to the community. He
recommended modifying the mudroom windows to achieve greater consistency with
the rest of the house.
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 shall be modified consistent with the direction detailed below. If, as the
result of final design development further modifications are made, each modification
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.
The windows on the mudroom shall be modified to be more consistent with the
existing windows on the house.
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 or other elements that will be required to be
removed to accommodate the proposed additions.
3. Prior to any demolition or construction, photo documentation of the existing house
must be provided to the City to preserve a record of the original Balfour Lanza
residence.
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 fully 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.
6. 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.
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. All
construction parking must be accommodated on the site.
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.
Mr. Hrusovsky provided a map of Lanza’s work to the Board.
7. Consideration of a request for approval of a new single family residence, overall site
plan and landscape plan on a vacant lot located at 980 Walden Lane.
Owner: William C. Vance
Representative: Robert Neylan, 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. Neylan stated that the street is a mix of different styles of 2 story residences. He
explained that the selected architectural style for the new residence is Greek Revival.
He noted that the proposed balustrade and the elevation of the floor three feet above
grade create the perception of a taller residence. He reviewed the site plan noting
that the site is challenging because it is located on a ravine. He stated that the house
complies with the zoning setbacks. He noted that the garage is a secondary element
adjacent to and set back from the main mass of the residence. He noted that the
house is symmetrically laid out with a center entry. He provided elevations of the house.
He stated that brick, stone, wood, stucco and metal are proposed on the exterior of the
home.
Ms. McManus reviewed the request for a new residence on a vacant lot. She noted that
the staff report identifies some areas of concern. She explained that considerable filling
is proposed to raise the grade on portions of the site several feet. She noted that
generally, grading and filling is kept to a minimum to retain the existing topography.
She stated that the siting of the home pushes the garage court very close to the west
property line. She stated that staff requested auto turn studies to verify whether the tight
conditions will allow adequate space for maneuvering into and out of the garage. She
stated that based on the information submitted to date, the City Engineer was not able
to verify whether the residence as proposed complies with the steep slope setback. She
noted that overall clarification of the architectural massing and detailing is needed and
explained that although the Board cannot dictate a particular architectural style, the
design guidelines call for consistency with the overall character of the streetscape. She
stated that the proposed house appears very formal in contrast to other homes in the
neighborhood. She noted that the City Arborist recommends the addition of native
plantings to the landscape plan to soften the streetscape. She stated that staff is
recommending that the petition be continued in order to allow for further study and
refinement of the siting of the house, grading, the functionality of the garage court, the
building massing, architectural detailing and the color palette.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Neylan explained that the
grade change is proposed for aesthetic purposes to provide a level site for the house.
He stated that the site is not level and pointed out that the adjacent street changes
about 10 feet as it runs along the property. He added that the raised grade adds to the
appeal of the residence. He confirmed that the primary exterior materials are brick,
standing seam metal for the roof, limestone, wood and stucco. He stated that the brick
is interrupted by 6 inch limestone frames and the windows are wood. He clarified that
the white space in the drawings is brick. He explained that the frieze, a traditional
element, will be painted wood. He added that the pediment above frieze is white
plaster. He stated that the balustrade is limestone, the entry pediment is stucco, the
columns are painted wood, the stairs are bluestone clad and the chimney is brick. He
stated that the base of the house is proposed as a 2 foot high limestone base. He
pointed out that the house is designed with a base, middle and top.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Neylan stated that cut
limestone will be used. He agreed that consideration could be given to reducing the
width of the standing seam metal roof panels. He confirmed that a significant number
of trees on the site that are proposed for removal but noted that some are dead or in
poor condition. He noted that the houses along Walden Lane have no predominant
architectural style, but instead, are designed in a wide variety of styles. He stated that
the owners desire a one story home and noted that a one story home in any other style
could read as a commercial building. He added that the balustrade is a defining
feature of the Greek Revival style.
Board member Friedman clarified that he does not expect a uniform architectural style
along the street, but an overall design that is compatible with the location.
Board member Reda stated that the house would be appropriate on a larger lot, but
setting the house on a pedestal, on this property, is not appropriate. He suggested
lowering the building or stepping the foundation to work with the natural grade of the
site. He stated that in his opinion, standards 2 and 5 are not met and requested further
development of the landscape plan and detailing before the petition returns to the
Board.
Board member Friedman stated that color renderings of the site and house would be
helpful.
Chairman Notz encouraged the petitioner to consider reducing and simplifying the
number of exterior materials and to take a closer look at the functionality of the garage
and driveway. He agreed that perspective images and renderings would be helpful.
In response to Board comments, Mr. Payton stated that the house as proposed is in
conformance with the allowed height.
Board member Friedman pointed out that the lot is irregularly shaped and the proposed
house is very linear, symmetrical and stark. He added that it would be more appropriate
on a larger and a site with a different character. He suggested that the new home
should fit the character of the site instead of being forced on to the site.
Mr. Payton reiterated that the owners desire a one-story Georgian and requested
clearer direction from the Board.
Mr. Vance, the property owner, stated that he understands the Board’s concerns and
said that they will look closely at the design before returning to the Board.
Board member Friedman reiterated that the home is not designed for the site and
added that the number of exterior materials should be reduced to simplify the house.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Ron Cole, 955 Walden Lane, noted that he lives across the street from the proposed
house and is interested in hearing what is proposed.
Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Notz invited final questions and
comments from the Board. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a
motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition and directed
refinement of the design of the new house to achieve greater compatibility with
the neighborhood and the ravine setting of the property. He noted that the Board
recommends that in general, the existing grade of the site be preserved and the
overall character of the lot and streetscape be preserved. He added that the
number of exterior materials should be reduced as directed in the City’s design
guidelines.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 4 to
0.
OTHER ITEMS
8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
9. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner