Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/12/07 MinutesPage 1 of 23 December 7, 2016 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of December 7th, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, December 7th, 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, Peter Dunne, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Mike Bleck and Fred Moyer 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 October 5th, 2016 and the November 3rd, 2016 meetings of the Building Review Board. The October 5th meeting minutes were approved with revisions as requested by Board member Bleck and Board member Moyer. The November 3rd meeting minutes were approved with revisions as requested by Board member Moyer. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition and modifications to the exterior of the existing residence located at 972 Beverly Place. Owners: Francis and Julie Arseneault Representative: Jonathan Clair, 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. Clair introduced the project and reviewed the location of the property. He stated that the existing house is not architecturally significant and consists of a mansard roof over a builder grade home. He stated that there is a flat membrane Page 2 of 23 December 7, 2016 roof and the second floor is cedar shingle that creates a mansard form. He noted that the house is brick on all 4 sides. He stated that there are punched window openings with shutters on the first floor and punched openings with arched tops on the second floor. He stated that the ornamentation is applied. He stated that the property is heavily wooded and provided photos of the house explaining that the existing open porch is the location of the proposed addition. He stated that the owners initially considered an addition at the north end of the home, but determined that trees would be impacted. He stated that instead, the owners desire to remove the screen porch and construct an addition in a location that has no impact to trees. He stated that the homes along Beverly Place are of various architectural styles and are predominantly builder grade. He stated that the project will not necessitate the removal of any existing landscaping or trees and that the addition will only expand the footprint slightly. He reviewed existing floor plans noting that the home has a center hall and pointed out that the mudroom does not connect to the garage. He stated that interior work is proposed to improve the floor plan and provide a more traditional layout. He noted that the existing breakfast room was a later addition and that as proposed, the flat roof over the garage and rear breakfast rooms will be eliminated and replaced with traditional hip roofs. He noted that a second chimney is necessary to meet Code requirements due to the increased pitch of the roof. He stated that the shingle siding will be replaced with stucco. He stated that the new roof will be asphalt shingles and stated that copper vents are proposed on the main roof. He noted problems with the existing flat roof. He provided colored elevations and explained that the brick will be painted with a limestone based paint allowing the character of the brick to bleed through and the paint to wear over time. He stated that stone is proposed for the chimneys and copper roofs are proposed over the breakfast room and rear door. He stated that the shutters are paneled and explained that the garage doors will not be replaced as initially proposed since they are relatively new. He provided a section of the roofline and eave detail and stated that crown molding, with half round gutters is proposed. He stated that the existing dentil cornice will be removed and replaced with a French detail of scalloped clay tiles. He showed precedent examples of the proposed flared roof lines and showed a photo of the existing garage doors that will remain. Ms. McManus stated that the request is considered a partial demolition and noted that the proposed changes are consistent with the design guidelines. She stated that the addition and modifications will not impact any trees. She stated that letters of support were received from a neighbor and the Preservation Foundation. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Clair stated that the existing garage door matches the existing white windows and noted that the trim Page 3 of 23 December 7, 2016 will be gray. He stated that the stucco will be applied consistent with the manufacturer’s requirements to allow for expansion and contraction. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Clair clarified that the south chimney is proposed and will be clad in stucco and stone. He added that the existing chimney will be re-clad in stucco at the top. He noted the different scale of the two chimneys explaining that the new chimney is intended to be more human scale than the larger north chimney. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Clair confirmed that the pots on both chimneys will match and will be tapered terracotta with a rustic appearance and decorative spiral. He noted that the gutters are half round aluminum in a weathered brown to match the copper roof. He stated that the existing boxwood shrubs around the base of the existing chimney and the patio pavers will be removed and replaced. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. McManus clarified that the configuration of the existing front parking area is non-conforming as it is located within the front yard setback, but confirmed that no changes are proposed to the parking area or driveway. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Clair stated that no new lighting is proposed with the exception of a can light at the rear door. Board member Dunne complimented the proposed transformation of the home. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Clair stated that the roof vents on the front façade are copper and clarified that the gutter will terminate at each of the dormers with downspouts at each window. He stated that the clay scallops are not applied but cut into clay tile and mortared. He noted that scalloped tile is a traditional French detail. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and the Preservation Foundation, stated that the petition provides a very good example of reusing an existing house and making relatively small changes that make a huge difference. Chairman Notz invited final comments and questions from the Board. Board member Bleck complimented the design and the project. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Page 4 of 23 December 7, 2016 Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of a partial demolition and an addition and modifications to the existing residence based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in this staff report. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval 1. If any modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development or 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 determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 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 proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed addition and modifications. 3. 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. 4. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted and must be in full compliance with the City’s 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. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. All construction parking must be accommodated on the site. No on street parking is permitted. Page 5 of 23 December 7, 2016 7. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residential condominium building on properties addressed as 721 and 725 McKinley Road, on the east side of McKinley Road, south of Westminster. Consideration of the architectural design, exterior materials, landscape, lighting and entrance piers. Property Owners: 721 McKinley Road LLC (Todd Altounian and Jim Altounian) and 725 McKinley Road 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. Board member Bleck recused himself noting that his company is involved with the project. He left the Council Chambers. Chairman Notz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Witmer introduced himself and reviewed the comments from the previous meetings regarding the petition. He explained that the proposed condominium building is intended to be a background building to the important, historic buildings in the area. He noted that 6 different design schemes were presented to the Board at the previous meeting. He stated that since that meeting, as directed by the Board, he met with a subcommittee of the Board to review further proposed refinements to the design in response to the comments and suggestions offered at the last meeting. He stated that the existing office building at 725 McKinley Road is located 5 feet off the north property line and pointed out that the new building is proposed 13 feet from the property line. He presented a dimensional elevation to give a truer sense of how the building will appear. He noted that along the south, street facing elevation, the building steps back 14 feet creating the appearance of two smaller buildings, rather than one large mass. He stated that since the previous meeting, the cornice was simplified and the entrance detailing was refined. He stated that the brick mold is based on the brick used in 1920’s Chicago buildings. He pointed out that metal panes were added above the windows. He noted that metal railings break up the parapet wall on the center 3 bays and he provided details on the projections of the entry porticos. He stated that limestone is proposed for the heads and sills of the windows. He stated that based on the comments received from the Preservation Foundation a short while ago, the columns on the front elevation were changed from limestone to brick. He stated that the massing at the corners of the buildings was refined to break up the massing and various roof forms were studied for the Page 6 of 23 December 7, 2016 corner elements. He stated that a simple roof form is proposed for the lower corner elements to keep the building simple. He stated that the roof top penthouses are shingled and explained that perspective studies were conducted to determine the visibility of the penthouses from various points. He stated that there may be some limited visibility but noted that an appropriate color will be selected for the shingles to avoid calling attention to these elements. He provided images of the brick piers at the entries to the building and stated that limestone porticos mark the front entrances. He reviewed the landscape plan noting that the entrance piers at McKinley Road are no longer proposed. He stated that there are parkway trees along McKinley Road and a hedge row for privacy. He noted that the garden spaces are sunken terraces. He stated that there is a sidewalk, a boxwood hedge and large plantings along the new east/west street. He added that a standard l ight pole, consistent in design with those used in the area, is proposed on the new east/west street. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition is before the Board for the 3rd time with refinements in response to comments and direction heard at the earlier meetings. She stated that the proposed building is part of a larger redevelopment plan for the area. She stated that the Plan Commission and City Council are considering the overall plan for the area and the Building Review Board is considering the massing, details, materials, landscape and lighting of the building now proposed. She stated that at the last meeting, the Board saw various schemes for the building massing and provided direction to the petitioner on the preferred scheme. She added that the Board directed that a subcommittee, appointed by the Chairman, meet with the architect to offer additional input on further refinements. She confirmed that Board members Moyer and Friedman met with Mr. Witmer to offer input based on the Board’s discussions to date. She noted that although the first building will establish a context for future redevelopment in the area, it is expected that buildings may differ in massing, height, roof forms, style and materials in order to appear as though development of the area occurred over time. She noted that the staff report includes findings in support of the building and a recommendation for approval of the petition subject to 10 conditions. She noted that the recommended conditions are detailed in the staff report. She stated that given the importance and prominence of the project, staff recommends that a subcommittee of the Board continue to be involved in the review of the final plans with attention to architectural details and exterior materials. Board member Friedman stated that he was on the subcommittee and noted that in his opinion, the refined plans respond to the comments and direction from the last meeting. He noted that in particular, the brick detailing was refined and the setbacks are now more clearly spelled out including the 15 foot setback from the north property line. Page 7 of 23 December 7, 2016 In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer reviewed the details of the metal panels and railings. He stated that the panels will be finished to match the color of the window mullions. He stated that the columns will be cast stone and the dentils, painted wood. He stated that cut stone is being considered for some elements. He noted that the heads and sills will be limestone and the ornamental pieces on the upper floors will be cast stone. Board member Moyer stated that he was also a member of the subcommittee and commented that the project has had a steady and favorable forward movement. He stated that he reviewed the various elevation studies which were available to the subcommittee at the architect’s office. He stated that adding dimensions to the elevations was very helpful in understanding the building massing. He stated that the building projections and setbacks have substance. He stated that design scheme 2 has strong articulation. He added that conducting the massing studies was helpful. He applauded the architect for the extensive study conducted and agreed that the building should be a background building. He stated that he was initially concerned that the building was too industrial looking, but commented that the central recess essentially divides the building into two residentially scaled pieces. He noted that the building possesses quiet elements reminiscent of buildings in London and commented that the design is restrained and elegant. Board member Dunne stated that the changes made are an improvement over the earlier plans. He noted that the building will be very visible and prominent in the Central Business District. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Witmer stated that the style and materials were influenced by turn of the Century brick buildings and noted that the subtlety of the Walgreens building was used as an influence. He stated that the building has Colonial detailing, different from the 333 Westminster building, which he designed several years ago. He stated that the scale of the building is appropriate adding that the development will provide a much needed housing type in Lake Forest. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Witmer stated that the column material will be cut or cast stone depending on the cost and durability of each material. He stated that the parapet wall is 5 feet in height and the penthouses rise 5 feet above that the wall. He confirmed that a height variance is required for the parapet wall and penthouses. He explained that decorative potted plants will likely be placed on the roof to soften the outdoor living spaces but a green roof is not proposed. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer explained that the garbage and dumpsters are located inside the underground garage and Page 8 of 23 December 7, 2016 confirmed that the site drains to the east and west, toward the alley and to McKinley Road. He stated that the grading of the site will remain close to the existing conditions. He stated that the impervious surface area will be reduced and reviewed the location of the proposed street lights; 2 at the corner of the new east/west street and McKinley Road and one at the east end of the new street. He stated that the penthouses provide rooftop access and are somewhat visible from south of train station. He stated that the penthouses will be sided in cedar shingles stained gray. He stated that only one corner is problematic regarding visibility. Board member Friedman observed that because the details of the overall development for the area are not yet known, it is difficult to review this building without knowing the larger context. He expressed concern that headlights may impact a future building or existing homes to the east but acknowledged that will need to be considered as further buildout occurs. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Witmer stated that the intent is to provide landscaping along the east edge of the redevelopment area over the long term. Ms. Czerniak suggested that the Board could identify the potential for impacts from headlights as an issue that the Plan Commission should consider in reviewing the master plan for the overall site. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Witmer confirmed that an Owners’ Association will have the ability to control what can be placed on the rooftop and balconies. He stated that between the building façade and sidewalk, there will be 8 feet of landscaping and a distance of 15 feet from the road to the building. He stated that the short term intention is to landscape the south side of the new road near the entrance from McKinley Road. He agreed with the recommendation in the staff report that the Board subcommittee remain involved to review the final details of the building. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer stated that the material for the railings will be either aluminum or steel. He noted that steel allows the railings to be anchored more easily. He confirmed that the roof top outdoor areas are not common areas but instead, each area is associated with a specific upper floor unit. He stated that the first floor units have a private patio space noting that the balconies are stepped back to allow light to the lower units. He stated that there is a partition between the 2 patios for privacy. Chairman Notz stated that the facades are well articulated, but noted that the balcony partitions need to be further detailed. He stated that these details could be reviewed by the subcommittee. Page 9 of 23 December 7, 2016 In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Witmer stated that the sidewalks are tinted concrete. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer explained that the balconies on the west elevation do not need partitions since they are not shared. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated appreciation for the change in the material for the piers on the west elevation from stone to brick. He questioned whether urns will be placed on top of the piers. He suggested that consideration be given to cues to direct visitors to the main entrances, on the south elevation, and away from the west elevation of the building. He stated that turn of the Century buildings tend to be simpler and observed that the proposed design still appears busy. He noted that the entry is very classic, but questioned how the limestone projection to the right of entry will connect to the wall. He stated that the quality of the mortar work will be very important and stated support for the concept of a roof top garden. He stated that it will be important to control what is placed on the roof. He suggested further simplification of the design. Dan Siebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated that he is not supportive of the selected architectural style or the proposed east/west road through the development. He stated that the building will not be a background building and commented that the new road which will appear very urban and uncharacteristic of Lake Forest. He questioned what will be allowed on the balconies and if 2 driveway access points into the area are really necessary noting that many developments have a single driveway. Doug Donovan, 373 Westminster, stated that he is a long term resident and lives just east of the development. He stated that he appreciates the progress made to date on the project. He noted that he has plans to redevelop his own property. He stated that he expected the redevelopment of the City property to be integrated into the overall redevelopment of the area. He noted that the current conversation has been isolated to the individual building. He expressed concern as a resident for privacy noting that livable space on the rooftop will make the building feel like a 4 story building from the neighbor’s perspective. He stated concern that approval of rooftop living space on this building will set a precedent for the future phases of the development. Ruth Brueggeman, Board of Directors of the Church of the Covenants, requested clarification on the fence proposed for the south side of the new road. She Page 10 of 23 December 7, 2016 questioned whether the building as proposed will meet Fire Code requirements noting that the Library today has limited access for fire trucks. She stated that she is concerned that the building will set a precedent for the future phases of redevelopment of the area and questioned what the setback distances will be from existing buildings. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the process noting that the City Council will consider a recommendation from the Plan Commission on the overall Master Plan for the area and will consider a recommendation from the Building Review Board on the design aspects of the first building. She explained that approval of the first building will establish a context for future buildings, but will not set a precedent for massing, roof forms, building heights or building design. She confirmed that the plan was preliminarily reviewed by the Fire Department and before permits are issued authorizing construction, staff will verify that the plans comply with applicable Code provisions. Chairman Notz added that the Board’s review of one petition does not guarantee approval of future petitions of the same design since each petition is considered individually. He invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Witm er noted that fire and life safety aspects of the plan are being carefully considered. He stated that a stockade fence, in the short term, will block views of the existing parking lot located south of the new road. He stated that roof top living spaces are rare in Lake Forest, but not unprecedented, adding the space will be a great amenity for the building. Chairman Notz stated that privacy for existing residents from the roof top space is a reasonable concern and should be considered. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Witmer stated that there is quite a distance from the rooftop patio to the neighbor’s house to the east. He stated that the views from the rooftop will be similar to views from the third floor. He stated that there is a large buffer between this building and the neighbors, but agreed the appropriateness of roof top space on later buildings may create a privacy issue. He stated that the mortar work will have a historic appearance. Board member Moyer suggested that consideration be given to using a tinted masonry joint color to reduce the color contrast and give the appearance of age. Mr. Witm er stated that he has had both success and failures with tinted mortar but noted that mockups will be done in different colors to determine the most appropriate mortar. Page 11 of 23 December 7, 2016 In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak clarified that if the Board takes action on the petition subject to review and approval of the final plans by a subcommittee of the Board, the petition would not come back to the full Board. She confirmed that it would be appropriate for the Board to consider two motions, one for the demolition of the 2 office buildings and the other for the proposed condominium building. Chairman Notz complimented the project and invited motions. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the 721 and 725 McKinley Road office buildings. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and the motion passed by a vote of 6 – 0. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of a new condominium building subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The plans submitted for permit shall be subject to review by the Building Review Board Subcommittee to verify that the final plans are consistent with the materials submitted to the Board, that any refinements directed by the Board are incorporated into the plans and that the plans are consistent with the overall Board discussion. In particular, the Subcommittee shall review the following: a. The overall architectural details. b. Final exterior materials selections c. The details of the balcony partitions d. A mockup of materials including mortar samples and the color of the siding for the penthouses. 2. Any grade change on the site shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide for adequate drainage and to meet good engineering practices. The existing change in grade over the site shall be maintained to the extent possible. 3. 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. 4. 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 Page 12 of 23 December 7, 2016 adjacent buildings, neighborhood, streets and the Church, Train Station and the Library during construction. On street parking of construction vehicles or contractors is not permitted. It may be necessary for contractors to park off site, in employee permit parking lots, to avoid congestion on and near the site. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees and vegetation on the 333 Westminster property must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 6. Prior to the rough framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan, shall be submitted and will be subject to final review and approval by the City Arborist. The Arborist shall verify the following: a. Sufficient foundation plantings are provided to establish a residential character, pedestrian friendly building entrances and to create privacy for first floor residents. b. Plantings on the north side of the building, together with existing plantings on the 333 Westminster property, establish a substantial buffer between the two condominium buildings. c. Street tree plantings along the north side of the new east/west access road. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, all landscaping shall be planted consistent with the approved plan or, if planting is not possible due to the time of year, a cash bond in the amount of 110% of the cost of the materials and labor must to posted to assure planting consistent with the approved plan in the next planting season. 8. In addition to number six above, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit, a landscape maintenance bond shall be submitted to the City in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the landscaping, materials and labor, to assure replacement of trees or vegetation that dies, becomes diseased or fails to thrive during the initial five year maintenance period. The City Arborist shall inspect the plantings each spring and fall for a period of five years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit. (The bond shall be replenished if it is drawn down prior to the end of the five year period.) 9. Photo documentation of the existing buildings showing their presence on the streetscape must be submitted to the City in a digital form for the purpose of documenting the buildings in the City archives. Page 13 of 23 December 7, 2016 10. 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 passed by a vote of 6 – 0. Board member Bleck returned to the Council Chambers. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of additions and alterations at Lake Forest Country Day School, 145 S. Green Bay Road. The proposed work is focused on the west elevation, on the Gymnasium and Performing Arts Center wings. Property Owner: Lake Forest Country Day School Representatives: Bob Whelan, Head of School Douglas Pasma, 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. Whelan, Head of School provided some background on the school. He introduced the project architect. Mr. Pasma stated that he has worked with the school for over a year on the proposed changes. He provided an overview of the work proposed. He pointed out the iconic main entrance on the original building which was built in 1931 along with the walkways with trellis detailing between columns. He noted the elliptical window on the 1931 building and stated that some of the historic details of the original building will be replicated on the proposed additions. He provided a site plan and reviewed the existing conditions and the proposed additions. He noted the single family residences located around the campus and reviewed site photos and streetscape photos. He noted that view into the property are limited to the curb cuts due to existing trees along Green Bay Road. He reviewed sight line studies that were conducted. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting that the academic entrance will remain in the center, in the original building, with enclosed walkways to the performing arts center (PAC) to the north and the gymnasium to the south. He stated that new entry porticos are proposed on the PAC and on the gymnasium buildings. He reviewed a site plan indicating the proposed entrances and outdoor courtyard which is accessed from the lower level of the PAC. He stated that the intention of the additions is to create symmetry and tie the buildings together. He stated that the existing open walkways will be rebuilt and enclosed as an interior corridor. He stated that there will be an expanded, triangular lobby at the new entrance to the gymnasium with a seating area and a staircase leading down to the gymnasium. He Page 14 of 23 December 7, 2016 explained that the PAC is a multipurpose room with a stage wall on the west elevation and explained that a lobby/gallery space will be constructed over the east wall, and will be cantilevered toward the courtyard. He noted that the additions address all the functions needed by the school. He stated that the PAC addition will provide a vestibule and a glassed in entrance to the PAC. He provided renderings of the proposed enclosed walkway corridor and of the large windows proposed on the west elevations of the gym and the PAC. He added that a new entrance into the gallery space of the PAC will be established overlooking the courtyard. He stated that signage is proposed on the two new entrance porticos and explained that the walkway corridors will be enclosed with simulated true divided lite windows detailed with mullions. He provided a bird’s eye view of the courtyard area near the PAC noting the outdoor seating area which allows for an outdoor classroom. He stated that the proposed glass wall of the PAC will provide an indoor/outdoor indoor gallery space. He stated that the PAC addition is comprised of curtain wall architectural composite panels and a peekaboo roof line. He stated that the proposed entrance porticos for the PAC and the gymnasium will be the same. Ms. Czerniak stated that there are 4 components of the petition noting if desired by the Board, the various aspects can be handled individually or considered together. She stated that the gymnasium, now referred to as the Athletic Center is located south of the historic building. She reviewed that a new entrance portico and lobby are proposed along with a large window on the west elevation to add fenestration to a solid wall. She stated that concerns about light spillover into the neighboring residences will be addressed with automated shades. She stated that the existing exterior light fixtures on the Campus are bright and unshielded and noted that as part of this project, fixtures should be updated to reduce light impacts on the Green Bay Road streetscape. She noted that the second component proposed modifications to the PAC located to the north of the original building and the main entrance. She stated that a new entrance portico is proposed to match the new portico proposed on the Athletic Center, and a significant addition is proposed to add lobby and gallery space. She stated that the design approach is a contemporary addition in the context of a historic building. She explained that today, the school is a complex, built over time, comprised of different buildings designed by different architects, built over time. She stated that clarification is needed on the details of the proposed extended gable on the PAC and how it will connect to the existing roofline. She stated that as proposed, the new roof peak exceeds the allowable height of 40 feet by approximately 2 feet, based on the information available, and a height variance is required. She stated that no clear dimension is provided on the drawings on the height of the angular roof from the point of lowest adjacent grade. She requested the Board’s input on the proposed addition to the PAC. She stated that the third component is the enclosure of the existing covered, open walkways. She clarified that the original building’s portico will remain open and the enclosures Page 15 of 23 December 7, 2016 will start on either side of the center portico. She noted that the details of the enclosures will be critical to assure that the enclosed walkways are consistent with the residential character of the school campus. She stated that the fourth component of the petition is signage on each of the proposed porticos. She noted that dimensions of the letters were not provided. She requested the Board’s input on the signage and whether identifying wings to north and south of the original building diminish the historic entrance. She questioned whether there is a more subtle approach to identifying the buildings. She stated that the Green Bay Road streetscape is historic and important and suggested that the impact of the proposed changes on the streetscape should be fully understood. She noted that recommended conditions of approval are included in the staff report for the Board’s consideration. Board member Moyer stated that the additions are both aesthetic and functional. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Pasma clarified that there is an existing elevator, but the new elevator provides access to the courtyard. He stated that the there is a lower level under the PAC and a causeway in the basement that goes under the academic building. He clarified that there is no occupancy of the space under the academic building. He stated that the window in the gymnasium will have safety glass on the bottom portion to prevent damage from basketballs. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Pasma explained that the windows on the gymnasium are different then on the PAC because the window detail on the PAC does not need a spandrel beam because the window will be attached to roof trusses. He stated that the gymnasium window has to be designed around the roof system. He agreed that the same horizontal window detailing could be used on both the PAC and gymnasium windows. He stated that automatic shades were not considered for the Athletic Center because school functions generally end between 3:00 and 4:00. He stated that the school will work to address the lighting concerns. He stated that there is approximately 650 feet from the courtyard adjacent to PAC to the centerline of Onwentsia Road and that based on sight line studies conducted, there will be minimal visibility of the proposed addition. He noted that the north corner of the addition is opaque which mitigates the lighting concerns and stated that in other areas, shades or window coverings can be considered to reduce lighting impacts. He stated that the walkways will have flat roofs and will be rebuilt in kind. He stated that on the main entrances to the PAC and the Athletic Center, the muntin detail will be carried across the whole façade; however, he noted that the front trellis of the historic building has a more complex four square detail that will not be repeated. Page 16 of 23 December 7, 2016 Board member Reda requested lighting studies to allow the Board to understand any light impacts from PAC addition. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Pasma stated that many of the existing exterior light fixtures need to be replaced so new fixtures can be included as part of this project. He noted that the signs on the new porticos are proposed to be brushed aluminum letters 14 inches high. He clarified that there is currently no signage on the buildings. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Whelan stated that temporary signs are put up for events to direct visitors to appropriate locations. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Pasma stated that his firm has done other school renovations, but has not previously completed a project for the Lake Forest Country Day School. He stated that he does not know the overall size of Campus off hand but confirmed that the project engineer studied the proposed increase in building footprint and did not identify any storm water management issues. He added that the addition to the PAC is relatively small . He explained that the remodel of the Athletic Center is scheduled to occur first and take approximately 3 months. He stated that the other improvements will occur later. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Pasma stated that the trim on the PAC will match the trim on the other buildings and the existing bronze gutters and downspouts will be replaced. He stated that landscaping is proposed in the courtyard and around the PAC and the new entrances. Board member Friedman suggested that consideration be given to adding more embellishments to the west elevation of the PAC. He suggested a lattice detail or other details consistent with other buildings on the Campus. In response to a question from Board member Freidman, Ms. Czerniak stated that foundation plantings or streetscape plantings will be required if needed once the additions are in place. In response to questions from Board member Freidman, Mr. Pasma explained that the canopy on the PAC addition is proposed as architectural composite metal (ACM) structural steel with vertical mullions every 18 feet. He noted that the columns are 12 inches in diameter and stated that a cast in place post tension structural system is proposed to carry the deck over the courtyard. He stated that the gallery flooring is carpet and the outdoor area is pavers. He stated that the piers and platform are proposed as cast in place concrete with concrete sidewalks leading to the central academic building. He stated that the glass and Page 17 of 23 December 7, 2016 steel addition has a membrane single ply roof that will slope slightly creating a valley which will have interior gutters and downspouts. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Pasma acknowledged that the window on the west elevation is depicted differently on the model than in the rendering. He stated that as now proposed, the window will have a shed dormer with an overhang that will match the academic center. He stated that the roof is a black single ply membrane roof because the slope is too flat for shingles. He reviewed the window pane patterns on the enclosed walkways noting that the trellis details are similar in scale and proportion to those on the academic building, but simplified. Board member Dunne stated that in his opinion, the roof pitch above the entrance of the PAC is less elegant than over the front entrance of the academic building. He questioned if there is a way to modify the roof line of the addition. He suggested reducing the size of the signs or exploring other types of signage to meet the school’s needs. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Pasma explained that the new roof of the PAC extends another 5 feet above the existing ridge point and noted that the extended gable wall sits 8 inches back from the existing façade. He stated that it is unlikely that a complete match for the brick will be found. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Pasma agreed to do some further study of the roofline of the PAC addition in relation to the existing gable. He stated that brick tones can be explored to assure that any difference in brick color appears intentional. He stated that the elliptical window is centered on the existing ridgeline to relate to the original building’s roof line. He stated that further study of the signage will also be conducted. Chairman Notz questioned whether signage on each building is necessary. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Pasma agreed that the signage could be downplayed. He stated that the trim color will be custom to match the existing color. He pointed out that there are many types of windows used on buildings on the Campus. He confirmed that the trim on the windows on the west elevations of the PAC and the Athletic Center will match the trim on the existing buildings. He stated that the lower level gallery of the PAC is open to the courtyard. He stated that he does not have a sample of the metal composite material. He stated that the metal will be a warm gray, flat metal surface with tight seams. He stated that the PAC will not be visible from Western Avenue to the east due to the existing tree line, but noted that because there are 3 curb cuts on Onwentsia Road, the addition may be minimally visible from the north. He Page 18 of 23 December 7, 2016 explained that the fin detail on the PAC is a contemporary feature that gives an air born quality and sense of weightlessness to the building. He stated that the element can be modified, but noted that it will not be as dramatic in reality as it may appear on paper. He stated that there are fixed bleachers on the east wall of the gym and noted that the scope of work includes installation of an air conditioner system, interior repainting and re-flooring. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Pasma confirmed that the roof of the fin detail is open as depicted in the model. He reiterated that the material proposed for this element is metal with a heavy gage steel substructure wrapped with ACM in the same color as the walls. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Czerniak stated that the extended gable on the PAC appears to be just below 42 feet, above the 40 foot maximum height allowed, so a height variance is required. She stated that the height is measured from the highest peak of the roof to the lowest point of the adjacent existing grade. She stated that the height of the fin is unclear but appears to be below the main peak of the PAC. Mr. Pasma clarified that the fin height is 26 feet above the lowest point of adjacent grade. He stated that the signage can be removed from the petition if it is problematic. He confirmed that lighting is not proposed for any of the signs. Board member Moyer noted that the elliptical window on the PAC is depicted differently on the drawing than on the rendering and is more successful on the rendering. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Pasma reiterated that the brick on the addition over the PAC entry will be a slightly different brick color and slightly darker than the brick on the existing building because the existing brick cannot be matched. He stated there is a built up rake mold on the existing building. Board member Moyer stated that he is supportive of using darker brick on the addition, but offered the suggestion that ACM be considered in place of brick to further distinguish the addition from the existing building. He asked that further study be done on how the roof connects with the fin and flared roof. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Pasma agreed to study alternatives for tying the roof line into the fin. He commented that brick maintains the more residential quality of the school as opposed to ACM. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Pasma stated that the shed dormers on the PAC are wrapped in wood on the sides. Page 19 of 23 December 7, 2016 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public testimony. Dan Siebold, 560 Ivy Court, stated that the developer has put a lot of thought into the project, but questioned the durability of the slanted roof addition on the PAC. He noted concerns regarding snow build up and light pollution. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Preservation Foundation, stated that the new enclosed corridor is practical and unites the buildings. He suggested exploring ways to make the academic building more prominent as it is the oldest and most significant building on the campus. He suggested using different paving surfaces or landscaping in front of the main building to draw more attention to it without altering it. He noted that the enclosed walkways should not be overpowering and that different types of lighting may help to emphasize the hierarchy of the buildings. He stated that the PAC is now the dominant building on the site. He noted that the central building, the academic building, was designed by Stanley Anderson. He stated that the PAC addition adds to the bulk of the building and noted that window shades will be important for both buildings to mitigate off site light impacts. In response to public testimony, Mr. Pasma agreed that the existing exterior lighting is too strong. He stated that lighting in the enclosed walkways will be subdued. He added that the exterior lighting fixtures will be replaced to reduce light pollution, Chairman Notz invited final comments and questions from the Board. Board member Moyer suggested that lighting could contribute to wayfinding on the campus by making lighting in the space where an event is occurring brighter than in the other buildings. Board member Reda stated that he is supportive of the direction of the project, but noted concern with the increased potential for offsite light impacts. He agreed with Board member Friedman that the windows on the west elevations of the PAC and gymnasium should be consistent in form and detail. He added that the proposed addition to the PAC is a concern. Board member Bleck complimented the project and agreed that some modifications to the proposed PAC addition are necessary. Board member Friedman stated that the project is terrific overall. He agreed that off sight lighting impacts is a significant issue. He noted that the south façade of the PAC depicted in the rendering is more successful than as depicted in the Page 20 of 23 December 7, 2016 model. He stated support for the brick on the addition to differentiate it from the fin and canopy structure and to anchor it to the existing structure. Board member Diamond stated that he supports Mr. Miller’s comments regarding making the academic building more prominent. He stated that overall, he is supportive of the project. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Pasma stated that it is necessary to raise the roof on the PAC in order to accommodate the interior arena seating. He stated that alternate schemes were studied, but the proposed design is the most successful to marry the existing roofline to the new form. He stated that rotating the fin to the north would be problematic due to space required under the fin and the potential visual impacts to Onwenstia Road. He stated a willingness to study the possibility of adjusting the height of the fin. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Pasma clarified that there is a residential hip roof over the academic building. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. In response to comments from the Board, Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board could approve the renovations to the Athletic Center and discussion of the PAC if desired. Board member Reda made a motion to approve modifications to the athletic center and the enclosure of the walkways subject to the following conditions. 1. Building Plans - The plans submitted for permit shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Board with modifications, refinement or additional detailing as directed by the Board. If other changes are made to the plans as a result of final design development, the changes must be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. The plans as approved by the Board should accompany the plans submitted for permit to allow for a full understanding of any changes made. a. The windows on the west elevation of the gymnasium shall be consistent with the windows on the west elevation of the Performing Arts Center. 2. Interior Lighting – Plans submitted for permit shall detail plans for interior shades for all large expanses of glass to provide a mechanism to mitigate off site light impacts during evening events. a. Interior lights should be located and fixtures selected to minimize off site light impacts. b. Interior lights in areas of expansive glass must be turned off after activities in each space are concluded for the evening. Page 21 of 23 December 7, 2016 3. Exterior Lighting - Details of any new exterior lighting shall be provided on the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. a. Existing exterior lighting on the Athletic Center shall be updated to bring the lights into conformance with current requirements. Light must be directed downward and the source of the light fully shielded to avoid off site impacts on adjacent streets and residential properties on Green Bay and Onwentsia Roads. b. An overall plan for exterior lighting reflecting, at a minimum, all exterior lights on the Athletic Center shall be submitted and will be subject to City review and approval. The plan shall identify safety and security lights which, if fully shielded, may remain on at all times, and lights that will be used only during times of activity on the Campus. 4. Construction Parking/Staging - 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. Parking of construction vehicles or contractors vehicles on public streets is not permitted. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan identifying trees in the vicinity of the proposed construction activity, construction parking and staging of equipment must be submitted along with a plan for protecting the trees during the construction. 6. Landscaping - Prior to the rough framing inspection for the athletic center, a landscape plan reflecting any proposed additional landscaping shall be submitted and will be subject to final review and approval by the City Arborist. The Arborist shall verify the following: a. Adequate foundation plantings are provided around the additions as space permits, to meet minimum requirements. b. Enhancement of landscaping at the perimeter of the Campus, if any is proposed or determined to be necessary to soften views of the proposed additions or mitigate light impacts, are detailed on the plans. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Athletic Center, a site inspection shall be conducted by City staff to evaluate whether building additions and light impacts from interior and exterior lights are adequately mitigated. Additional landscaping or modification of light placement, fixtures or shades shall be required if determined to be necessary. Page 22 of 23 December 7, 2016 8. Photo documentation of the existing building must be submitted to the City in a digital form for the purpose of documenting the Campus over time in the City archives. 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 7 – 0. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will work with the petitioner to explore alternatives for the PAC, to reduce the height of the fin and roof line and to study alternatives for signage before returning the petition to the Board. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the request for modifications to the PAC and signage. The motion was seconded by Board member Freidman and approved by a vote of 7 – 0. Board member Moyer suggested the petitioner explore options to express the PAC addition better with structural framing and infill that is neutral and straight forward about adding a structure of a different character. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation announced an open house at the Train Station and stated that the Foundation is raising funds to support the renovation of the interior of the Station. 10. Additional information from staff. Staff requested Board review of the proposed 2017 Meeting Schedule. Board member Bleck made a motion to approve the schedule. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman. The Board voted 7 to 0 to approve the Meeting Schedule. Page 23 of 23 December 7, 2016 The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner