Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/10/05 Minutes1 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of October 5, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, October 5th, 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: Peter Dunne, Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer and Mike Bleck Building Review Board members absent: none 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 September 7th, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the September 7th, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of signage for a new business, LifeWorking, at 717 Forest Avenue. Owner: L3 Capital, LLC (Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Tenant and Representative: Steven Whittington, CEO, LifeWorking Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Whittington introduced the petition noting that it was continued from the previous meeting. He provided images of the interior of the space and reviewed the modifications that were made to the signage in response to the Board’s comments. He noted that as originally presented, the sign had a white background. He stated that as suggested by the Board, the sign as now proposed has a brushed aluminum background. He explained that the 2 background field was reduced from 24 inches to 20 inches and that dimensional letters are now proposed. He reviewed the location of the sign at the corner of Forest Avenue and Westminster noting that the sign will be visible from both streets. He provided a perspective drawing of the sign at the corner of the building. He noted that no changes were made to the wall sign since the last meeting. Ms. Czerniak explained that the Board endorsed the general concept of the vertical sign at the last meeting. She stated that the changes made to the corner sign are responsive to the Board’s comments. She added that the 2 signs are consistent with one another since the white background was eliminated. She stated that most of the Board members had the opportunity to view a mockup of the corner sign prior to the meeting. She noted that the staff report provides findings in support of the proposed signage. Board member Moyer stated that the changes made are significant and responsive to the Board. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Whittington clarified that the “coworking” phrase will be located on the interior of the sign, closest to the building and confirmed that the sign will be two-sided. Board member Bleck stated that the onsite mockup appeared to be appropriate in scale. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak explained that the height of the sign is larger than is typical because the sign will be installed at the second floor which helps to identify that the business is on the second floor. Board member Friedman requested that the height of the sign be positioned relative to the existing masonry and where it aesthetically makes sense. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Whittington stated that the overall thickness of the sign is 1/8 inch. Board members Diamond and Dunne expressed support for the revised signage. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final 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. 3 1. 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 the motioned passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new single family residence, overall site plan and landscape plan on a vacant lot 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. Board member Bleck stated that his firm was involved with the plat of survey for the seller of property in the past, but stated that he has not worked with the current owners and will be able to review the project impartially. Mr. Neylan provided a color rendering of the proposed residence and reviewed the changes made since the last meeting noting that the elevation of the house was lowered and the finished floor, as now proposed, is one foot above grade. He stated that the previously proposed stone base for the house was removed. He presented an alternate rendering of the house with wood siding and shutters instead of a brick façade with no shutters, as is proposed. He noted that the garage was rotated to improve the ingress and egress. He explained that the general layout and form of the house was not changed and the one story height was retained at the request of the owners. He identified the style as Early Colonial Revival or Greek Revival and noted that the roofline balustrade was removed and replaced with a metal railing. He stated that a railing over the garage roof was also added. Rob Schwarz, Mariani Landscaping, introduced the landscape plan and explained that it is similar to the previous plan. He noted that the driveway was modified due to the revised garage configuration and that a back-out area was added. He stated that turning radius studies were provided to demonstrate that the garage is functional . He noted that the lot is very pastoral and woody and explained that the previous arborist that completed the tree survey inaccurately assessed the trees on the site. He stated that the trees proposed for removal are in fair and poor condition. He showed images of the owner’s current home and noted that similar arborvitae will be planted to screen the proposed garage from the neighbor. He stated that the hardscape includes granite cobbles set vertically and noted that an option is presented which would add plantings in the City 4 owned parkway, to create a more natural setting. He noted that evergreens would be planted in naturalistic formations. Ms. McManus stated that the petition was continued by the Board at the previous meeting and explained that since that time, staff was able to verify the location of the steep slope setback and the limits of the tableland and non-tableland. She confirmed that the tree survey was updated to accurately reflect the conditions of the trees and noted that the City’s Certified Arborist concurs with the new assessment. She stated that the grade of the overall site and elevation of the top of the first floor were lowered in response to the Board’s comments. She added that the garage was modified and now sits at an angle to the house. She noted that staff requested that the auto turn to demonstrate that the driveway and garage are functional. She stated that the revised garage is not compatible with the symmetry of the house. She stated that at the previous meeting, the Board expressed concerns regarding the proposed home and how its fits in with the streetscape. She stated that staff is recommending that the petition be continued noting that the changes made to date are not fully responsive to the Board’s direction. She added that a letter was received from a neighbor expressing concerns about the proposed design. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Ms. McManus explained that the design guidelines encourage the use of no more than 2 exterior wall materials. She stated that the proposed residence has a number of materials which was raised as a concern at the previous meeting. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Payton stated that the materials include brick, limestone trim, wood windows and doors, a metal ornamental rail, stucco, and a wood cornice. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Neylan stated that all the materials are essential for creating the building envelope and clarified that the shutters shown in the rendering are no longer proposed. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Neylan provided a material sample of the brick selection. He stated that the windows are white and the railing is black. Board member Diamond noted that the railing over the entry appears overly busy. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Neylan stated that the railing consists of very fine quarter inch balustrades. 5 Board member Friedman thanked the petitioner for the changes made to date. He noted that there is still quite a bit of grade change and fill proposed. In response to Board member Friedman’s comment, Mr. Neylan clarified that the grade change on the site, from left to right, is about 10 feet. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Payton stated that the number of risers approaching the house was reduced and the noted that the grade is very close to that of the house that was previously located on the site. Board member Friedman stated that the revised siting of the garage presents problems and is not compatible with or related to the house. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Neylan stated that historically, the garage would have been an outbuilding added later and that the proposed design intentionally presents a garage that does not match the house. He stated that the owners desire an attached garage adding that the garage and driveway are now more functional than previously proposed. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Schwartz stated that an ornamental specimen tree is proposed at the front of the garage to screen that element. He noted that the garage is subordinate to the house and the focus will be on the main entry to the house. He stated that dense plantings will help give an organic character to the property. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Ms. McManus explained that the proposal to add plantings to the parkway is new and was not reviewed by staff. She stated that normally, plantings in the parkway are not permitted due to utilities, snow plowing and liability. Mr. Schwartz stated that he may be able to pull the plantings back from the right of way and still provide screening of the home. Board member Bleck stated that most vehicles on Walden Lane will come from the west and views to the garage will be prominent from that direction. He acknowledged that the desire for a large, one story home dictates a significant footprint which is challenging on the restricted site. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Neylan stated that the length of the house, including the garage, is approximately 125 feet. In response to comments by Board member Bleck, Mr. Schwartz stated that evergreens are proposed to screen views of the garage from the west. 6 Board member Reda stated that there are discrepancies between the plans provided in the packets and the presentation. He stated that he is supportive of landscape screening, but noted that the house is oversized and very wide given the configuration and limitations of the lot. He stated that there are ways to make the selected style work on the property. He stated that the materials to staff for the Board packet need to be clear and consistent with the plans and images presented at the meeting. He noted that to date, the plans do not fully meet the standards in the Code adding that the information is not clear and there are inconsistencies. In response to comments by Board member Reda, Mr. Neylan stated that the use of wood siding is now being considered and was presented in the color rendering. He noted however that the owners have decided that they do not want wood siding. He acknowledged that the rendering presented does not accurately represent the house as now proposed. Board member Reda suggested that as previously recommended by the Board, accurate, detailed drawings, a color elevation that accurately presents what is proposed, and a massing model would all be helpful. He stated that based on the materials presented to date, the massing of the home appears very large for the site and the style, incompatible. In response to the suggestion from Board member Reda, Mr. Neylan stated that creating a massing model would be difficult due to the topography of the lot. He stated that the massing of the house is simple. He agreed that options for a garage that is consistent with the architecture of the house could be explored. He noted that the garage could be turned toward the street. Board member Reda agreed that the architecture of the garage should match the house. Board member Moyer noted that he has lived 2 houses to the east of the subject property for 25 years. He stated that all traffic comes from the west adding that it has been a guideline in Lake Forest to avoid garage doors directly facing the street. He noted that the view of the garage will be most prominent with the garage seen first and the house second. He noted that the geometry of the garage does not work with the geometry of house noting that the garage is clearly forced. He added that the orientation of the house does not take advantage of the property or the potential views of the ravine and noted that there are potential views towards the garage doors facing the street. He stated that as a result of the current siting, views toward the northeast are ignored. He suggested rotating the plan to see if an alternative siting can work on the site. He suggested exploration of moving the garage to the east elevation. He stated that the garage should have appropriate geometry in relation to the house. He 7 acknowledged that as presented, the massing of the house is challenging. He noted that the entryway canopy and columns appear to lead to something grand, but do not. He added that the mass above the entry has a commercial quality. He acknowledged that the site is difficult and added that a plan that moves the garage away from a prominent location on the streetscape would be favorable. In response to Board member Moyer’s comments, Mr. Neylan stated that the entry leads to views into the courtyard. He explained that the garage location was dictated by the steep slope setback on the property due to the ravine. He stated that the mass of the house cannot be rotated because there will be no space for the garage. He noted that views to the garage will be screened by landscaping and the meandering nature of the road. He stated that the large courtyard at the rear of the home takes advantage of the views to the ravine. He confirmed that the interior dome does not necessitate the full height of the proposed portico. Board member Moyer acknowledged that rotating the house may not work, but reiterated that it is worth looking into to achieve an improved plan for the homeowners and to allow an improved relationship to the property and the street. He stated that the shape of the lot should be considered in designing the house. He stated that given the limitations of the property, an H-plan does not work. He stated that he understands the sequence of the interior spaces, but noted that the dimensions and massing of the entry are not successful from a design perspective. Chairman Notz agreed that further exploration of options for the garage is needed. He stated that the footprint of the house as proposed is large and abuts both side yard setbacks. He stated that the project has made great strides since initially presented but noted that the garage is very problematic. He requested that a color rendering be provided to accurately reflect what is intended. He suggested that in an effort to more fully meet the design standards, consideration could be given to removing the shutters and to whether the use of stucco is appropriate. He stated that the hip roof feature above front door should also be reconsidered since it does not serve a purpose and is not fully in keeping with the overall massing and design of the house. He suggested that consideration could be given to a single flat canopy with no railing. He offered that reconsideration of the dentil molding could also help to lighten and simplify the appearance of the house. He stated that the black line renderings alone do not convey the intention of the project well. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Neylan clarified that the windows in the gables are not functional and that they are ornamental. 8 In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Schwartz stated that the garage is a great distance from the neighboring property and noted existing evergreens and a 6 foot tall fence along the west property line which together provide a significant barrier to the neighboring property. Board member Bleck stated that the concern is more with views of the garage from the street than from the neighboring property. In response to comments from Board member Bleck, Mr. Neylan noted that there was a conscious decision made to curve the driveway to allow trees to be planted in strategic locations. He stated that they are aware of the need to screen the garage from view. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Friedman stated that the Board is not trying to be difficult but noted that the Board is charged with considering the aesthetics of the community and to consider the proposed design of the home in the context of the character of neighborhood and the surroundings. He stated that the garage is contrived due to the significant restrictions on the site as a result of the proposed footprint of the home. He stated that the siting of the proposed house is problematic and conflicts with the natural ravine setting of the property. He noted that the scale, massing and layout of the house presents challenges for the architect and as a result, the plan is forced and as a result, presented challenges for the Board. He stated that a rendering and the required color study will help the Board to better understand the project but noted that the project appears to be trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Board member Reda explained that the Board must evaluate the project based on standards and noted that the standards deal with the site plan, the elevations, textures and materials, and the overall site layout. He noted that as part of the evaluation, the Board must consider each element in the context of the character of the streetscape and neighborhood. He stated that although the house is beautiful , it is not compatible with site noting that a larger lot would be a good setting for the house as designed. He noted that as proposed, the house is fitted into a tight buildable area. He encouraged the petitioner to consider an alternate design. Board member Bleck added that the entire project seems forced noting that on the east, west and south, the house is up against the setbacks. He noted that as proposed, about half of the landscape screening is on the public right-of-way, not on private property. He stated that the parameters guiding the development 9 are not consistent with the property and as a result, make the entire project challenging and that is why the Board is struggling. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to consider the comments, suggestions and requests offered by the Board and the comments in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of additions and alterations to the existing residence at 171 Stone Avenue. Owner: LK Homes (Lori Glattly and Ken Hite) Representative: Adam Lyons, 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. Lyons reviewed the neighborhood noting the siting of the adjacent homes. He stated that the subject house is one of the smallest homes on the street and the neighborhood is characterized by homes built predominantly in the 1960s and 1970s designed in traditional styles. He reviewed photos of the existing house noting the overhang of the second floor and deep eaves. He reviewed the interior floor plan and stated that the sunroom was a later addition. He stated that the existing layout consists of 3 bedrooms and a small bathroom with only a shower. He provided historic examples of the Colonial Revival style and stated that the proposed design has a moderately steep pitched roof with a portico as well as dormers and a traditional shed roof running the length of the façade. He stated that the mass of the garage is stepped down and a brick chimney is proposed. He reviewed the proposed site plan and noted that the simplicity and scale of the home was taken into account in the design of the additions. He stated that the addition projects out 17 feet at the rear of the residence and noted that the portico is consistent with the style of the house. He noted that the new roof is more steeply pitched that the existing roof and pointed out the balcony with a simple balustrade proposed above the garage on the rear elevation. He stated that there is a balance in the placement of the windows and noted that consistent ornamentation is proposed on all elevations. He noted that a pergola is proposed on the rear of the addition. He reviewed the landscape plan noting the intention to soften the house and patio. He stated that evergreens or arborvitae plantings are proposed along the west side of the property. He provided a color rendering and noted that no variances are 10 requested and the house is well below the allowable height and is 4 percent under the allowable square footage. Ms. McManus stated that the petition is a request for a partial demolition and modifications and additions to the existing home. She stated that the house is not architecturally significant and the proposed modifications appear to be consistent with the design guidelines and appropriate for the neighborhood. She noted that the exterior materials will be upgraded from what exists today and noted that the proposed additions are in full conformance with all applicable regulations. She stated that staff recommends approval of the petition. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Mr. Lyons stated that the replacement siding is true wood, the roof is gray architectural asphalt shingles and the windows are fiberglass with exterior and interior muntin bars. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lyons clarified that the chimney is not visible from the front of the house. In response to a question from Board member Freidman, Mr. Lyons confirmed that the rendering is representative of the intended color palette. He noted that the windows in the garage door will be slightly lower than they appear in the rendering. He stated that the intention is to try to repurpose the front stoop or add pavers over the concrete. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Lyons stated that the selected light fixtures will be frosted to minimize light impacts and clarified that landscaping will be enhanced on the east side to provide screening, as recommended in the staff report. Board member Moyer stated that the proposed modifications are a great improvement to the existing house. In response to a question from Board member Notz, Mr. Lyons clarified that 2 dormers are proposed over the garage. He stated that the dormers have cedar trim board and a 24 inch x 24 inch sash. He stated that there will be space for siding between the trim and the dormer. He explained that the shed roof is needed at the rear balcony and reconfirmed that the clapboard siding is natural wood. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. Glattly stated that she is willing to enhance landscape screening along the east property line subject to the approval of the City Arborist. 11 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public testimony. Robert Lisk, 914 Valley Road, stated no objection to the proposed addition, but stated that the columns should be appropriately sized. He explained that there is currently a drainage problem on his property and noted that he is considering re- grading his property to address the water issues. He stated that it is very important that the proposed addition not contribute to the drainage problems on his property. He stated that landscape screening is welcome, but asked that the trees be sited to not grow in a manner that encroaches on to his property. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will alert the City Engineer to the neighbor’s concern and existing drainage issue so that the concerns can be considered during review of the plans submitted for permit. She added that the City’s Arborist will consider the landscape plan to verify that plantings are on the subject property and sited far enough from the property line to accommodate future growth without encroaching on to the neighboring property. In response to public testimony, Ms. Glattly stated that no change to the existing grade is proposed. She agreed to work with the neighbor and City staff on the additional landscaping. Chairman Notz stated that there are many ways to provide for privacy and screening. He stated that he is confident that staff will review the plan to mitigate any exacerbation of existing drainage issues. He invited final comments from the Board. Hearing none, 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. Detailed demolition plans shall be submitted and staff is direct to verify that in total, the demolition proposed will impact less than 50% of the existing house. 2. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Lead Plans Examiner, an evaluation of the existing structure, prepared by a structural engineer, shall be submitted to verify that the structure is adequate to support the proposed additions. 3. If modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development or in response to direction from the Board, 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 12 determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 4. A final lighting plan, including specifications and cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures proposed shall be submitted for staff review and subject to a determination that the fixtures are 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. Unless the City Engineer determines that a grading waiver is appropriate given the limited scope of the project, the final grading and drainage plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to verify that the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices and to properly direct drainage. The City Engineer shall verify that as a result of the proposed additions increased drainage will not be directed to adjacent properties. 6. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Enhanced landscaping is provided along the east property line to screen the new addition. b. The new plantings are sited to allow growth without encroaching on to the neighboring property. c. Existing landscaping ng on neighboring properties cannot solely be relied on to provide adequate screening of the mass of the new addition. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes , ordinances, rules, and regulations. 13 The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family residence located at 30 Washington Circle and a replacement residence, detached garage, overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owner: Gary S. Pennella Representative: Sam Kang, 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. Kang reviewed the neighborhood and location of the property. He reviewed the dimensions of the lot and stated that the house was built in the 1920s and the garage was added later. He stated that there is no architect of record and stated that based on his review, the demolition criteria are met. He provided elevations of the proposed house and streetscape. He provided a color rendering and stated that the exterior materials consist of clapboard siding, cedar trim and an asphalt roof, consistent with the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the goal was to design a home that fits into the neighborhood. He provided historic examples of the selected farmhouse style and noted that the design proposed is also influenced by other styles such as Greek Revival, Salt Box and Colonial Revival. He stated that the proposed house has a functional porch and a gable roof typical of the farmhouse style. He reviewed photos of the neighborhood and the pattern of setbacks in the area. He stated that a 2 car, detached garage is proposed at the rear of the property. He reviewed the floor plans and provided overlays of the existing and proposed elevations. He stated that the overall height of the residence is 28 feet from grade. He stated that the garage has 2 carriage style doors. He noted that 3 trees will be removed to accommodate the new residence adding that the removals were approved by the City Arborist. He added that there will be an inlet for storm water installed as part of the construction subject to approval by the City Engineer. Ms. McManus stated that the existing home is in severely deteriorated condition and is not architecturally significant. She stated that the demolition criteria are fully met and noted that the proposed residence is an improvement to and consistent with the streetscape. She stated that the trees proposed for removal are in poor condition. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition as presented. In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Mr. Kang stated that the proposed chimney meets Code requirements, but can be raised for aesthetic reasons, if desired. 14 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Kang reviewed the reasons for the roof as proposed noting that he did not want to repeat detailing of a neighboring home. He stated that the porch wraps around the front of the house. He stated that the rear door is centered and explained that the location was dictated by the floor plan. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Kang confirmed that the existing overhead wires will be buried. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Kang stated that the porch has cedar columns and a bead board ceiling and the deck is bluestone on concrete. He stated that he considered continuing the hip roof but noted that the gable would be too wide from the side elevation, so a shed roof was used to keep the height and massing down. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Kang stated that the front door is wood and the columns are wrapped with cedar. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Kang clarified that the columns are 10 x10 square and that a consistent size is used for the shingles on the roof. He confirmed that the roof plan indicates a cricket behind the fireplace. In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Mr. Kang confirmed that the plans in the Board’s packet incorrectly show the porch canopy. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Dan Siebold, 560 Ivy Court, stated that he shares a backyard with the subject property and that outdoor lighting is a concern. He questioned whether the property will continue to be used as a rental unit. He provided a photo of a farmhouse style building in Virginia and suggested that the rear elevation could be refined to be more aesthetically pleasing. He expressed concern regarding the amount of asphalt as a result of locating the garage at the back of the property. In response to public testimony, Ms. McManus stated that a condition of approval is recommended regarding exterior lighting and limiting light impacts to neighboring properties. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that the detached garage at the rear of the property will increase the area of asphalt on the site, but confirmed that the garage is located in compliance with zoning regulations. She stated that given the small lot, the City engineer will look closely at the grading 15 and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. She suggested that consideration could be given to using a pervious surface for a portion of the driveway. In response to public testimony, Mr. Kang stated that recessed lighting is proposed on the porch and soffits and the siting of the garage was selected to provide more yard space. He confirmed that the home will be for sale. Laura Ernst, 34 Washington Circle, questioned the height of the chimney in relation to neighboring properties. In response to public testimony, Mr. Kang, stated that the chimney will be slightly taller than the adjacent properties. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Ms. Czerniak stated that she is not certain if the City Arborist looked at the trees at the rear of the property and the potential impact of the garage on those trees. She stated that the trees will be considered prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage. Chairman Notz suggested considering using pavers or another pervious material for the driveway. Board member Moyer noted that adjacent houses have higher chimneys. He stated that he is concerned both with the appearance of the chimney and whether it meets Code requirements for separation from the roof. Ms. Czerniak stated that when plans come in for permit, staff will verify that the chimney meets Code. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the demolition. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 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 16 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 of the house and garage and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit. b. Details shall be provided on the chimney pots and further consideration should be given to the appropriate height for the chimney considering both Code requirements and aesthetics. c. Detailed information on the windows, sill and frame shall be submitted with the permit application. Windows and framing shall have historically accurate profiles with muntins affixed to the interior and exterior of the glass. d. The siting of the garage should be adjusted if necessary to avoid impacting trees at the rear of the site. e. Consideration should be given to using a pervious surface for all or some portion of the driveway. 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. Careful consideration of drainage is critical to protect neighboring homes and properties given the small size of the property. 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation on the site, including the trees at the rear of the property, 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 be drawn on the approved grading plan to allow confirmation by staff that there are no conflicts between proposed plantings and overland storm water flow routes and shall specify how the replacement tree inches, if any, will be accommodated. 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 from the streetscape and neighboring properties. 17 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 and curve of the street. 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 c odes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 7. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family residence located at 854 Everett Road and a replacement residence, attached garage, overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owner: Elena Ciorobitca Representative: Firmin S. Senga, 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. Senga introduced the petition and explained that the previous architect proposed to only partially demolish the home. He noted that based on input from the Board, the petition now requests approval for a full demolition. He reviewed the neighborhood noting the different uses nearby. He reviewed site photos and provided precedent images of the French Eclectic style. He noted that the proposed house conforms to the required setbacks. He stated that the existing driveway and curb cut will be retained. He stated that the owner desires a 3 car garage and he confirmed that studies were done to confirm that the driveway and motor court provides adequate ingress and egress for the garage. He reviewed the floor plans noting the open living space on the first floor. He stated that the scale of the garage was brought down from the earlier proposal. 18 Ms. McManus stated that the Board previously saw a request for this property for a partial demolition and significant modifications to the existing home. She stated that copies of the previous petition were provided in the packets for reference. She explained that the Board suggested that a full demolition be considered to allow a replacement residence to be designed without the limitations of working around the existing house and in conformance with the design guidelines. She noted that since the previous meeting, the owner hired a new architect and a full demolition is now proposed along with a replacement residence in a different architectural style than previously proposed. She stated that the proposed residence does not appear to fully meet the design standards yet. She stated that recommendations are offered in the staff report in an effort to achieve a plan that more fully meeting the applicable standards. She recommended that consideration be given to adjustments to the garage including the possibility of a connecting element to reduce the scale of the garage and its proximity to the entrance to the home. She also recommended that adjustments be made to the dormers, tower and roof forms. She noted that high quality, natural materials are proposed. She stated that the new design lowers the overall massing of the house from the earlier proposal noting that the house is now more in keeping with the streetscape. She stated that staff recommends continuation of the petition to allow for some modifications to achieve a home that more fully complies with the applicable standards. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Mr. Senga confirmed that the client desires a 3 car garage and stated that the proposed house does not exceed the allowable square footage. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Ms. McManus stated that the relationship of the tower to the front façade of the house is not clear. She noted that the tower appears to be flush with the façade and is very close to the garage wing. She suggested consideration of refinements that allow the tower to project out from the front façade. Board member Dunne stated that as presented, the tower looks contrived. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Senga confirmed that the gates and pillars shown on the previous petition are no longer proposed. He confirmed that the elevations accurately reflect the garage doors and noted that the windows on the garage doors and on the house have traditional grill patterns. He provided brick and stone samples. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Senga stated that the style of the home is French Eclectic and reviewed the exterior materials; brick, limestone, stucco and white gutters and downspouts. He reviewed the landscape plan and stated that the maple tree behind the house will not survive. He stated a 19 willingness to give further consideration to the details of the driveway. He stated that the material of the soffits has not yet been determined and noted that pl ywood is being considered. He noted that the roof is cedar shake. Board member Freidman stated that a more detailed and embellished landscape plan is needed. He stated that as proposed, the driveway lacks integrity and grace. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Senga confirmed that the driveway goes up to the front of the house and as currently proposed, there is no space for foundation plantings. Board member Bleck requested that the petitioner consider pushing the residence back on the property to provide space for plantings and additional maneuvering area for cars. He noted that the inspiration photos provided by the petitioner show homes with substantial plantings in front of the residences. Board member Reda asked that petitioner give further consideration to the consistency of massing, roof forms and dormers around the house. He noted that the 3 most visible dormers are each different sizes. He noted that the square bay to the right of the entry should also be reconsidered. He added that the windows are various shapes and sizes and suggested that adjustments be made for consistency. He recommended that consideration be given to shifting the garage to the west to allow the tower to be shifted forward. He stated that this house will set a precedent for future redevelopment along this section of Everett Road. He requested that the petitioner look at ways to reduce the massing of the garage and the roof height. He complimented the simplicity of the rear elevation, but noted that the same consideration should be given to the side elevations noting that the expanse of brick wall be broken up. In response to Board member Reda’s comments, Mr. Senga explained that the center dormer provides light into interior, but agreed to consider refinements to make it more consistent with the other dormers. Board member Moyer stated that the home is a refreshing change to the streetscape and complimented the overall character. He stated that some refinements are needed and noted that there appear to be some issues with the drawings, likely as a result of the CAD program. He noted that the round tower appears different on the floor plans and agreed that the element is not as successful as it could be and should project out further. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Senga acknowledged that the roof plan is inaccurate. He clarified that the quoins are limestone. 20 Chairman Notz stated that the west elevation is a very long expanse of unbroken wall. He suggested consideration of bumping the garage out to the west to noting that shift would provide additional room for the tower and break up the elevation. He stated some variation in the pitch of various roof elements and suggested further study and refinement to achieve consistency. Board member Friedman agreed that the west elevation is very massive and highly visible. He noted that there appears to be space to shift the garage west and break up the elevation with an offset. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Michael Mallarkey, 1025 Evergreen Drive, stated support for the proposed demolition and noted his concerns about the proposed replacement house and the property in general. In response to Mr. Mallarkey’s comments, Chairman Notz reviewed the Board’s purview and asked that public testimony be limited to matters before the Board. Hearing no additional public testimony, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Diamond stated that the driveway should be modified to accommodate plantings in front of the house and to assure functionality. Board member Freidman requested that modifications be made to soften the garage. Board member Bleck stated that the revised design is improved over the plan previously presented to the Board and acknowledged the work to date in response to the Board’s comments. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to refine the design based on the comments, suggestions and direction of the Board including refinement to minimize the visual prominence of the garage from the streetscape. He added that a landscape plan should be prepared for review by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 21 8. Introduction: McKinley Road Redevelopment – Concept plans for a new multi- family building proposed as a replacement for two office buildings located at 721 and 725 McKinley Road. No action is requested at this time. Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Board member Bleck recused himself noting that his firm is involved wi th the project. He left the Council Chambers for the duration of the meeting. Mr. Witmer introduced the project. He reviewed the existing office buildings on the site which will be demolished. He provided an overview of the concept plan for the larger redevelopment area that is currently being considered by the Plan Commission. He stated that the access, circulation and open space are being considered by the Commission as important aspects of the overall plan. He noted that the area will be redeveloped with residential development, replacing the existing office uses in the area. He noted that the various buildings in the redevelopment area will be designed individually but in the same context and with similar materials. He stated that the goal is to reflect the fact that the buildings were constructed over time. He explained that only the first building is before the Board for review at this time noting that this building will be constructed as the first phase of the redevelopment of the area. He stated that the front of the building will align with the 333 Westminster condominium building. He explained that the existing office building is located five feet from the 333 Westminster condominium building and the proposed condominium building is sited to provide more space, fifteen feet, between the buildings. He stated that a parking garage will be constructed under the building and will be accessed from the east. He pointed out the proposed new east-west road noting that it is intended for both vehicles and pedestrians. He noted that the new development will be background buildings to the important, historic buildings in the area; the Church, Library and Market Square. He reviewed images of other buildings in Lake Forest and elsewhere. He reviewed the streetscape along McKinley Road showing images of the massing of both the existing and proposed buildings. He reviewed the proposed building discussing the window openings in relation to the scale and mass of the building and the building components: the base, middle and top of the building. He reviewed sections of the buildings and noted the relationship of the massing and height to the neighboring 333 Westminster building. He presented conceptual views of the proposed building from various points in the surrounding area. He noted the intent to create some type of roof garden portions of which could be visible from the street. He reviewed the proposed floor plans, and a plan for the rooftop terraces. He stated that the rooftop mechanicals will be screened by a parapet wall. He noted that there are three floors of residential units and roof top penthouses. He noted that windows are placed to take advantage of natural light and to limit impacts to the 333 22 Westminster building. He stated that all 4 elevations of the building are articulated consistently. He reviewed the proposed details of the building including gray pre-cast panels below the double hung black clad windows. He stated that the walls are articulated with panels and voids created by balconies. He provided details of the cast stone pilasters and railings. He stated that the front elevation is defined with a cast stone base and cantilevered balconies with terraces below. He provided details of the roof and illustrations of views from the roof to the surrounding area. He described the ornamentation planned on the roof including urns and open railings which provide transparency. He noted that the front doors have cast stone surrounds, with lights and noted that the balcony provides cover. He stated that brick panels are proposed, rather than individual bricks and stated that samples of the panels will be provided at the next meeting. He stated that he was involved in the design and development of Regent’s Row and noted that he learned from that project. He stated that careful consideration was given to the streetscape and the use of spaces between the road, the landscaping and the building. He stated that he has learned how to get landscaping to thrive and how to provide adequate acoustic separation between the residential units. He acknowledged that the articulation of the massing of the building is important and stated the intent is to construct a building that is a durable asset to the community. He acknowledged that landscaping and lighting will be very important to the site and stated that additional details on these elements will be presented at the next meeting. Ms. Czerniak stated that this presentation is an introduction to the McKinley Road Redevelopment project and welcomed questions, comments and direction from the Board and from members of the public. Board member Moyer stated that the mass of the building limits the opportunity for articulation; however, his initial reaction is that the design is appropriate for the urban context and location. He observed, however, th at as designed and articulated the building is reminiscent of commercial factory buildings designed economically, with repetition of materials and elements. He noted that the rendering suggests that portions of the buildings will be obscured by landscaping. He stated that a more detailed landscape plan will be helpful as consideration continues, to allow the Board to better understand the intentions for the site. Board member Reda stated support for redevelopment of the area and said he is looking forward to seeing further details as the plan develops. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer clarified that there are potentially 3 phases of the project noting that consideration of the overall plan is still underway. He stated that the new building on the 721 and 725 McKinley Road properties will be the first phase of the project. He stated that, as currently planned, the second phase would be redevelopment of the 711 23 McKinley Road parcel and the last phase, redevelopment of the property to the east, the parcel on which the Historical Society is currently located. He added that there are tenants with long term leases in the existing 711 McKinley Road building. Ms. Czerniak noted that City Council has not yet made any decisions on the future of the City owned property. In response to Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer reviewed some of the Plan Commission’s discussions about the area to date. He stated that the goal is to develop a Master Plan for the area to establish the road and building locations. He stated that as the area builds out, the Board will review each building for compatibility of architecture, detailing and materials. He stated the intent is to make the buildings individual pieces with some variation. He pointed out that there is approximately 4 to 5 feet of grade change from the west side of the parcel on which the first building is proposed and the east side. He stated that as designed, the floors are level and the buildings are kept as low as possible, and generally consistent with 333 Westminster. He stated that he just now had the opportunity to read the Preservation Foundation’s letter, but is not prepared to respond. He stated that it may be feasible to pitch the parking garage floor plate, but noted that providing for accessibility creates some challenges. He acknowledged that acoustics are very important and that concrete block will be used. He stated that cast stone is a better solution than cut stone for durability. Board member Friedman stated that the aesthetic of cut stone is superior to cast stone. Mr. Witmer stated that a sample of the proposed high quality cast stone will be provided at the next meeting. He noted that historically, poured concrete was used for bases and foundations. Board member Diamond stated that the development will help anchor the east side of the Central Business District. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Witmer stated that as currently envisioned, the east building, the third phase of the buildout, will be a 2 story building to transition to the single family homes. He stated that the treatment of the outdoor spaces and lighting will be carefully considered as the project is developed further. He stated that consideration will be given to building a model. He confirmed that all the units will be condos. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Witmer stated that as now design, there will be 32 parking spaces under the building. He stated that in addition, parking will be available on the streets internal to the development. 24 Board member Dunne stated that the development will be a positive addition to the area and he looks forward to seeing more details at the next meeting. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer discussed security of the parking garages and the need to meet the desire of residents for adequate onsite parking. Chairman Notz acknowledged that efforts made so far to break up the long north and south elevations. He encouraged further study and development to add variation and articulation to the building. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated that the development guidelines from the Plan Commission provide a good summary of the discussions to date. He stated that the proposal as presented does not meet the guidelines. He stated support for the 3 story height and pointed out that there is an elevation change from the train station to the east side of the site of about 7 feet. He stated that the building as proposed has a very industrial appearance. He added that he is supportive of an urban appearance, but commented that an industrial character is not appropriate or what people in the area desire. He stated that his main issue is that a new street and curb cut on McKinley Road is proposed. He stated support for a more urban, continuous frontage along McKinley Road, without a curb cut. He stated that the balconies appear to be low quality and unappealing. He suggested stone balconies or a bay window be considered to provide for views for the new residents. He stated that there is no need to provide for 3 parking spaces for each condominium unit. He agreed that accommodating guest parking indoors may be appropriate. He noted that the setback of 25 feet along McKinley road seems large and asked for an explanation of the reason for the setback. Catherine Lemmer, Library Director, requested information on the time frame and expressed concern about the potential for disruption to the Library operations during each phase of the project. She asked when the access point off of McKinley Road would be constructed . Ruth Bruggeman, 55 Farnham Lane, stated that she is representing the owners of 697 McKinley and the Church property. She expressed concern about impacts from the development on the Church owned property which includes the adjacent single family house. She asked the Board to consider a 2 story building or a single family home on the 711 McKinley Road property. 25 Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited responses to public testimony from City staff and the petitioner. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that the parking plan and street configuration are under the purview of the Plan Commission. She acknowledged that it is important to find the right balance between providing enough parking and not overbuilding the parking. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Plan Commission recognizes that this site is ideal for residents who want to be less dependent on a car but noted that the Commission also wants to ensure that there is sufficient parking to meet the demands of the new residents and to make the units attractive to potential buyers. She pointed out that presently, each of the three office buildings have a curb cut on McKinley Road, she noted that the proposed plan eliminates two of the curb cuts and proposes only a single curb cut. She stated that the zoning of the area permits multi-family residential use. She stated that in this area, the setbacks are less than in most residential districts. She stated that as proposed, the new building is setback generally consistent with the 333 Westminster building to the north. She noted that the timing for construction of each phase is not known at this time but that that steps will be taken to minimize disruption on adjacent streets and to adjacent properties to the extent possible. She noted that some interior demolition activity has begun on the site in an effort to move construction along quickly. She confirmed that there will be future opportunities for public review and comment as the project develops. In response to public testimony, Mr. Witmer agreed that the site rates very high on the walkability scale and that people will be attracted to it for that reason. He noted that the phasing is a work in progress and that the goal is to be good neighbors and make the development memorable. Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. Hearing none, he requested a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow further development of the plans for the first building as discussed and recommended by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and the motioned passed by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. 26 There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 10. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner