Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/11/03 MinutesPage 1 of 11 November 3, 2016 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of November 3, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 3rd, 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, Robert Reda and Fred Moyer Building Review Board members absent: Peter Dunne and Mike Bleck 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 October 5th, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. Approval of the minutes of the October 5th, 2016 meeting was postponed to allow time for further review. 3. 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 explained that the petition was reviewed by the Board last month and he summarized the revisions made in response to the Board’s direction. He reviewed photos and the location of the existing home. He reviewed images of the streetscape and stated that natural materials are proposed for the exterior of the home. He reviewed the site plan explaining that the Board expressed Page 2 of 11 November 3, 2016 concerns about the length of the east elevation, the lack of details on the proposed landscaping and the massing of the garage. He noted that additional landscaping was added to the plan to mitigate the mass of the garage. He provided images of the proposed fence and piers at the front of the property noting the simple design of these elements to keep the focus on the house and landscaping. He stated that the piers will be brick, to match the house. He reviewed turning radius studies to demonstrate the functionality of the garage and explained that the house was shifted further back on the lot to allow space for plantings between the house and the driveway. He stated that decorative pavers are proposed for the driveway. He stated that the roof line on the house was simplified in response to Board comments and he noted that the tower element is now more prominent at the center of the front façade. He noted that the dormers were refined to be consistent around the house. He reviewed the previously proposed elevations and compared them to the refined elevations now presented for Board approval. He stated that the doors on the rear façade were brought down to avoid breaking the eave line. He stated that the garage doors will be consistent with the style of the house. He presented a color rendering. Ms. McManus stated that the petition was continued from the previous meeting and noted that the revisions made appear to be responsive to the Board’s direction. She stated that the proposed residence is currently 12 feet over the allowable square footage, but will be brought into conformance with the building scale requirements prior to submitting plans for permit. She noted that the City Arborist reviewed the conceptual landscape plan and found it acceptable. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Senga confirmed that the color palette has not changed since the last meeting and provided samples of the proposed exterior materials. He confirmed that true limestone will be used as noted on the plans for various elements including window sills. He stated that a model was not constructed. Board member Diamond noted that the house has changed dramatically from the initial plans presented to the Board. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Senga stated that copper is proposed for the gutters, downspouts and flashing. He explained that the driveway slants to al ign with the existing curb cut. He stated that a gray color palette will be used for the house. He confirmed that the roof is wood shake and the garage doors will be custom built wood doors. He stated that cast stone is proposed. Page 3 of 11 November 3, 2016 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Senga confirmed that the window configuration on the west elevation is drawn incorrectly. He clarified that a gable roof form is proposed on the east elevation. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Senga stated that the house will have a flared roof and acknowledged that the roof lines are drawn inconsistently on the plans. Board member Moyer stated that it will important that the construction plans accurately reflect the intended forms and details. He pointed out that the tower element is nearly in the center of the house; however, the house is not symmetrical. He suggested that the tower may be more visually effective if it is moved slightly to the west. He suggested adding side windows at the front door to celebrate the entry. He noted that the window to the west of the tower repeats the window type used everywhere else and suggested that the window at this location be special. He suggested that three dormers be considered for the rear elevation, instead of four. He commented that, in his opinion, the previous elevations were more successful than those currently presented. He stated however that the overall design is still very refreshing. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Senga confirmed that there is sufficient head room in the link between the house and the garage. He stated that the roof in that area will slope up to 8 feet. He agreed to consider shifting the location of the tower, as suggested by Board member Moyer. He stated that the chimney pots are ceramic, the chimney cap is limestone and the chimney is brick. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Senga stated that the soffit material is wood, tongue and groove, painted to match the shade of the limestone. He added that the front stoop is concrete. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Senga agreed to consider separating the paired doors on the rear elevation. He noted however the intention is to open all 4 doors at the same time onto the pool area. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Moyer suggested that consideration should be given to increasing the height of the tower. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Page 4 of 11 November 3, 2016 Board member Reda made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing residence. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Reda moved to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development or in response to Board direction, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. The site plan shall demonstrate that there is a minimum of five feet between the garage court and the house to allow space for minimal foundation plantings consistent with the Code requirements. b. Details on all exterior materials shall be provided. Natural materials, consistent with the plans presented to the Board, should be used consistently on all elevations and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit. c. Details shall be provided on the chimney pots. d. Copper shall be used for the gutters and downspouts. e. Windows, both on the house and on the garage shall be generally consistent in form and detailing. f. Detailed information on the windows shall be submitted with the permit application. Muntins shall be affixed to the interior and exterior of the glass. g. The residence shall fully comply with the building scale ordinance. h. The gate and fencing shall fully comply with zoning regulations. i. The tower shall be shifted further west on the front façade to retain the asymmetrical character of the façade and consideration should be given to increasing the height of the tower. j. Consideration shall be given to reducing the number of dormers from 4 to 3 on the rear elevation. k. Consideration shall be given to separating the rear doors. 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. Page 5 of 11 November 3, 2016 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation and to protect trees and vegetation on neighboring properties during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. The final landscape plan shall reflect at a minimum, replacement inches for trees removed as determined to be required by the City Arborist consistent with the Code requirements. The plan will be subject to final review and approval by the City Arborist. a. The final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading plan to allow confirmation by staff that there are no conflicts between proposed plantings and overland storm water flow routes. b. Foundation plantings must meet, but may exceed, the minimum Code requirements. c. Sufficient perimeter plantings are shown to screen the mass of the house and the garage court from the street and from adjacent properties to the east and west. 5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 6. Details of exterior lighting 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. 7. 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. 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 on Everett Road and Evergreen Road is not permitted. Off-site parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be required. Page 6 of 11 November 3, 2016 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. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motioned passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residential condominium building on properties addressed as 721 and 725 McKinley Road. Consideration of the architectural design, exterior materials, landscape, lighting and entrance piers. This building is the first phase of redevelopment of a larger area located on the east side of McKinley Road, south of Westminster. Owners: 721 McKinley Road (Todd Altounian and Jim Altounian) and 725 McKinley LLC (Todd Altounian, Peter Witmer and Jerry Jacks) 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 project. The Board reviewed a model of the development. He stated that model is helpful to understand the overall design envisioned for the area. He stated that since the last meetings, further refinement and study was completed in response to the Board’s comments. He noted that landscaping is important to the overall site and streetscape. He stated that Regents Row, a development that he was involved in on north Western Avenue, was studied to understand the relationship of the buildings and effectiveness of the street width and landscaping. He provided photos of Regents Row. He noted that trees dominate the Regent’s Row streetscape and the same approach is intended with the development now proposed. He provided images of the model from eye level and stated that parkway trees are proposed along McKinley Road as well as along the proposed east/west road. He stated that the new street will be bordered on the north and south with some canopy trees and lower plantings such as hedges to provide privacy for the residents. He stated that he reviewed other condo buildings in Lake Forest to understand the qualities that make a building appear residential rather than commercial. He reviewed various developments noting color palettes and color contrasts. He presented various design and massing studies for the proposed building. He reviewed the original design and noted that as now proposed, the corners of the building are articulated. He stated that models were constructed for all the designs as part of the study. He agreed that the previously proposed elevations appeared somewhat commercial in character. He stated that the incorporation of balconies, French doors and a stone base create a more residential feel. He reviewed a design scheme with mansard roofs in response to comments at the previous meeting and stated that in Page 7 of 11 November 3, 2016 his opinion, the mansard roof design is not successful. He stated that different exterior treatments were considered including a limestone façade. He stated that the limestone façade appeared very prominent and over powering on the streetscape. He stated that the current design, with a limestone base is more appropriate. He reviewed different roof options that were explored noting that in those schemes, the roofs appeared as add-ons. He stated that 1920’s apartment buildings were used as reference for the current design. He reviewed the elevations as currently proposed and provided streetscape elevations of Regents Row and the project now proposed on McKinley Road. He noted that the roof is a defining part of the design and explained the intent to offer useable, outdoor space on the roof, a feature that is not offered in the Lake Forest housing market. He stated that the roof top mechanicals will be screened by the parapet roof and explained that the penthouses will be designed to disappear. He reviewed the exterior materials including historic brick, cast or cut limestone and limestone columns on either side of the entries. He noted that the light fixtures will be traditional in style. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the project is also currently under review by the Plan Commission and noted that the redevelopment of the larger area, and how this building will offer opportunities, or place limitations on future development, is being considered by the Commission as well as the City Council. She explained that the Board’s role is to consider the massing, detailing, exterior materials, landscape and lighting of the building now proposed. She suggested that given the prominence of the site and its long term importance to the Central Business District, the Board may want to consider appointing a subcommittee to meet with the developer to offer input and clarification on comments from Board members. She stated that the final design will be presented to the Board at the next meeting for action. Board member Reda stated support for a subcommittee given the uniqueness of the project and the importance of the project to the entire community. He stated that Regent’s Row development is successful noting that it has a visual presence on Western Avenue and that the façade incorporates variation. He noted that if, at some point, the property south of the proposed development is redeveloped, the new development, with the center road, would somewhat mimic the composition of Market Square. In response to comments and questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Witmer stated that Regent’s Row is a very different type of development and noted that the intention is not to duplicate it with this development. He confirmed that a mansard roof was studied, but not found to be successful for this project. He clarified that the proposed building will be a condominium building, not row homes. He stated that over the long term, development in this area will be composed of different buildings, with harmonious designs and materials, but noted that the buildings will not necessarily be identical. He stated that the design intent Page 8 of 11 November 3, 2016 is an urban building in a neighborhood that has evolved over time; as opposed to giving the appearance that one developer constructed one large, multi-building development. He stated that future buildings constructed in this area should be different stating that in his opinion; redevelopment of the area will not be successful if the buildings were all the same. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the proposed building is setback 15 feet from the north property line, 10 feet further than the existing office building, providing more open space between the existing 333 Westminster condominium building and the new building. Collen Barkley, Mariani Landscape, stated that hedges, approximately 4 to 5 feet in height, are proposed along the streetscape to create the feel of private terraces for the first floor residential units. She noted that the landscaping is designed to highlight the building entrances. She noted that street trees will be planted at heights of 15 to 20 feet. She stated that layered plantings are proposed along the property lines. She pointed out that the model reflects the placement of the plantings, but not the shape. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Witmer stated that an apron of pavers is proposed at the McKinley Road entrance if such an approach is approved by the City Engineer. He stated that the sidewalks are concrete and asphalt. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the zoning setbacks are met with the exception of the balconies. She noted that as currently proposed, the balconies encroach into the front yard setback. She stated that a height variance is requested as a result in the grade change over the site. She noted that the building is consistent with the permitted height of 35’ however; the roof top penthouses are slightly taller than permitted. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer clarified that the balconies were adjusted and now fully comply with zoning setbacks. He stated that the side yard setbacks are larger than required. He agreed to consider cut stone, instead of cast stone, but noted that cast stone allows more flexibility with respect to shapes. Board member Friedman noted that cut stone has a quality that cast stone does not. He suggested that the grade change on the site could be used to the developer’s advantage, to add interest to the building. He noted that Scheme 2 presents a less dominant building on the McKinley Road streetscape. He commented that it is difficult to determine the best design because the future phases of redevelopment in this area are not yet known. He stated that it is difficult to focus on only one part of a development, but agreed that the buildings should not all be the same. Page 9 of 11 November 3, 2016 In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Witmer stated that the schemes with simpler roof forms are more successful in his opinion. He stated that Scheme 6 appears to be moving in the right direction. He noted that dark red historic brick, black windows and plantings on the roof are proposed. He stated that the intention is to build something that is not currently available in Lake Forest. Chairman Notz thanked the petitioner for a well thought out presentation and for doing further study of the building massing to address the concerns raised by the Board. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer stated that the floor plan dictates that the building is not entirely symmetrical. He stated that in his opinion, the limestone should not extend all the way up the façade. He noted that there is an interesting play between the balcony and railings. He reviewed the different projections and variations on the façade. He noted that there are limitations to projecting massing because it is important to allow space for plantings. He noted that the rooftop living space will be on the internal portion of the roof noting that configuration allows for more privacy and space. He stated that cast panels are proposed below the windows and noted that the trim pieces will be in a darker color. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, provided images of the train station on McKinley Road and noted that Howard Van Doren Shaw used a lot of gable ends. He stated that the project is moving in the right direction, but suggested that the proposed building needs more thought and more subtle articulation. He stated that he is concerned about the impact to the Library and its integrity as the larger area redevelops. He noted that parking in the area is tight and stated that the nearby historic buildings and historic context of the area should not be adversely impacted. He suggested looking at the building at 450 Green Bay Road in Glencoe for reference. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated appreciation for the overview provided by the petitioner. He noted that the building will be prominent from the train station and stated that he is generally displeased with the architectural style because, in his opinion, it does not fit in with the overall context of the area. He stated that the design is too industrial and belongs in a campus setting. He stated that he prefers eliminating the balconies stating that in his opinion, they will not be used very often and are unattractive. He stated that bay windows would be better and would take advantage of the views. He stated that he is concerned about traffic and parking. Page 10 of 11 November 3, 2016 He stated that parking for the library should be separate from the residential development. Ruth Brueggeman, Board of Directors of the Church of the Covenants, stated that the massing of the building is too large. She stated that her primary concern is the future building that could be built just north of the Church property. She expressed concern that a precedent will be set with the first building dictating that the second building be designed in the same manner. 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 Plan Commission is looking at an overall master plan to guide the future development of the area; however, the Building Review Board is considering only one building at this time. She confirmed that future buildings will require review and approval by the Building Review Board and will be subject to public hearings. She stated that approval of this building does not mean future buildings in this area will be identical in massing, design or materials. She stated that each building will be considered on its own, in the context of adjacent and surrounding buildings and streetscapes. She stated that during construction, staff will work with the developer to minimize disruption to the extent possible. Mr. Witmer stated that his team is sensitive to the surroundings and the intention is not to compromise the design or integrity of nearby important buildings. He stated that he is working closely with the City to design the best project possible. Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. Board member Moyer stated that positive steps have been made since the last meeting. He stated that the massing and articulation is improved over the previous design. He stated that Scheme 1 may be appropriate somewhere else, but stated that he favors Scheme 2. He noted that the building should be a background building and not try to emulate Market Square. He stated that the dark brick is appropriate and should relate to the train station. He added that the model is very helpful and pointed out that the 8 foot grade change from the train station to the development site will help the building recede in the context of the surrounding important buildings. He agreed that the mansard roofs studies are not successful. Board member Reda thanked the petitioner for presenting the model . He encouraged further refinement of the building facades. He stated that in his opinion, the design standards are not yet fully met. He stated support for a Board subcommittee to work with the petitioner to evaluate and offer input on further refinements. Page 11 of 11 November 3, 2016 Board member Friedman stated that the project is on the right track. He agreed that further study and refinement of the offsets and details will benefit the project. He agreed that a subcommittee is appropriate given the importance of the project and added that landscaping will be important. Board member Diamond agreed that the design is on the right track. Chairman Notz stated that the presentation was very helpful and successfully made the case that darker tones are appropriate and help to not call to much attention to the building. He agreed that the details should be further fleshed out. He stated support for building Scheme 6. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition and to authorize the Chairman to appoint a subcommittee of two members of the Board to work with the petitioner to offer input as further refinement of the design occurs. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and the motioned passed by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated that on November 19th from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., the Preservation Foundation will celebrate its anniversary at the train station. He stated that tours will be offered to highlight the restoration that has been completed to date and the work yet to be done. 10. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner