Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/08/10 Minutes Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 1 of 15 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of August 10, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Monday, August 10th, 2015, 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: Robert Reda, Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond. Building Review Board members absent: 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 reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the July 28th, 2015 special meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the July 28th, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and attached garage located at 347 Bluffs Edge Drive. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner: Thomas F. Fuller Trust, Thomas F. Fuller trustee Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Melichar stated that the petition was previously presented to the Board by a different architect. She reviewed the Board’s previous comments including concerns about the massing, roof forms and lack of consistency in the chosen style. She showed images of the previously proposed residence in comparison with the new design. She noted that the floor plans and circulation patterns have changed. She added that the previous floor plans consisted of a rambling corridor and the new plan is unified with a harmonious composition. She stated that the footprint of the Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 2 of 15 proposed house is more sl ender and less bulky than previously proposed. She stated that the desired butterfly building shape is more recognizable and the roof shapes and ridge line now dominate the structure. She showed a bird’s eye view of the garage elevation and octagonal breakfast area. She showed precedent images of the Shingle Style. She stated that the proposed residence has a long ridge line with sympathetic dormers. She stated that the previous petition consisted of large shed dormers and the new plan has subordinate wings off the main mass and a hip roof to mitigate the size of the residence. She stated that there is a 1st floor stone base, reminiscent of the Richardsonian Romanesque style and the windows are maximized to feature views to the Lake. She stated that the previous design gave the appearance of a condo-like building with separate forms. She noted that there are 3 French doors on the rear elevation to mirror the tripartite arch feature on the façade. She noted that the neighbors to north and south will be less impacted by the home and the elevations have been refined and improved. She stated that improvements were made to the land plan and the home is placed in generally the same location as the previous plan. She noted that the home now acts as a filter between the front yard, meadow, and the Lake. She added that the circular drive now has a relationship to the front entry and is elongated to incorporate green space. She stated that there is an axial arrangement and that only one tree will be removed unlike the previous plan which required additional removals. Ms. McManus stated that the petition was before the Board in April and May of this year and the owner has hired a new design team since then. She stated that the petition is before the Board at this time to hear initial thoughts and receive confirmation that they are moving in the right direction. She added that the new design responds well to the Board’s previous comments and concerns with simplified massing and more consistency with the Shingle style. She stated that as the design progresses, it will be important to ensure that high quality materials are used and recommended that copper be used for the gutters and downspouts and wood windows be used in place of aluminum clad. She added that the stone has yet to be selected, and it will be important that the selected stone is consistent with the Shingle style. She suggested that as part of final approval, an onsite mockup of materials would be helpful. She stated that staff is recommending the petition be continued to allow more time to select the materials, to provide measured drawings and to allow a building scale calculation to be completed. In response to questions from Board member Freidman, Ms. Melichar stated that a full landscaping plan will be presented to the Board at a future date. She added that the hardscape materials have not been determined yet and confirmed that no variances are requested. She stated that she does not believe that the proposed residence will exceed the allowable square footage and noted that the wings are 25 feet in height and the main building mass is 30 feet in height. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 3 of 15 In response to a question from Board Member Grieve, Ms. Melichar confirmed that the roof line slopes. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Friedman complimented the project and requested that line drawings and a landscape plan be provided for the Board prior to the next meeting and recommended that high quality materials be used. Board member Moyer complimented the project and noted that the previous design was not consistent with the Shingle style. He added that screening should be provided for the neighbor to the south and stated that the proposed dormers are a refreshing change. Chairman Notz stated that more details on the proposed materials are needed, but stated that he has no objection to aluminum clad windows. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with a consensus from the Board that the project is moving in a good direction. He stated that the design should be further developed and more detailed plans presented to the Board for final consideration at a future meeting. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 6 - 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a townhome building (2 units) and a single family residence on the northeast corner of McKinley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owners: Taris Partners 2, LLC Representatives: Austin DePree, architect Craig Bergmann, landscape 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. DePree stated that the previous petition presented to the Board consisted of 4 townhomes in 2 buildings. He stated that the revised petition consists of 2 town homes and 1 single family home and requires no variances. He noted that the architectural language previously presented has been maintained, but the north unit Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 4 of 15 has been reduced in size. He stated that the reduced north unit provides a smooth transition from the residential area to the north to the multi-unit development to the south. He stated that the single family building is setback 50 feet from the north property line He added that there is a screened porch on the single family unit which takes advantage of the design element allowance for porches. He stated that the entry portico creates more architectural interest and he showed images of the proposed materials. He stated that the revised design has extended the porticos and noted that the south elevations include a door over the portico at the 2nd floor rather than ribbon windows, as previously presented. He added that clinker bricks are now proposed to add variety and architectural detailing to the design. He stated that a small detached garage is proposed north of the single family unit to evoke a feeling of historic residential developments. Mr. Bergmann stated that the landscape plan consists of low maintenance plantings and an evergreen hedge. He stated that there is more separation of the 2 yards and more interplay with shadows between the buildings. He added that there are parkway trees along McKinley Road and secondary shoulder height plantings are proposed between properties. He stated that the units have been moved 5 feet further from the alley and evergreen screening is proposed on the east side of the property. Mr. DePree stated that a park-like setting and green space are important components of the project. He stated that other changes include the shifting of an existing curb cut along McKinley further north, and the widening of the balconies to 8 feet in depth. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition was refined from the previous proposal and reduced in size to comply with building scale regulations. She added that the buildings will be softened by the proposed landscaping and noted that the design is true to the chosen architectural style. She stated that the project sets a high bar for future multi-unit developments and recommended approval. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. DePree stated that the owner is willing to reduce the density in order for the project to be successful and that the owner is committed to the project and will make the reduced density work. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. DePree stated that the single car garage is a 3rd garage for the single family residence explaining that a 2-car garage is attached to the unit. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. DePree stated that the concept of the single car garage is to take advantage of the design allowance and is beneficial to site because it connects the development to the surrounding neighborhood and creates a sense of nostalgia. He added that no variances are Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 5 of 15 needed for the garage. He stated that the materials of the garage are clapboard style siding, a carriage style garage door and an asphalt driveway with no seal to gray out more quickly. He stated that the allowable square footage is maxed out in the proposed design and the garage is not intended to stand out. He noted that the colors of the buildings will be subdued with a zinc colored roof and reclaimed brick adding that metal detailing will be painted to look like zinc. He stated that the standing seam roof on the buildings has 14 inch panels and confirmed that the compressors are located on the roof. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. DePree stated that the screened porch is located on the south side of the residence because it seems like a more natural place for the element, away from the driveway on the north side. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. DePree stated that the height has not changed at 35 feet high and 39 feet at the chimney. He stated that there is a landscaping buffer along the east side and lighting consists of lanterns flanking the coach house doors. He stated that garages and utility spaces are located west of the alley and the triangular lot to the east is intended as overflow parking and open space to benefit the entire community. He stated that there are flower boxes on the 2nd story and the materials are reclaimed clinker brick, synthetic trim and moldings and aluminum clad windows with a historic profile. He added that metal elements will be painted steel to match the color of zinc. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. DePree stated that the garage materials are Hardieboard siding, cedar shingle roof and wood-like coach house doors. He added that low maintenance materials are intended. He stated that the flower boxes are composite and the balconies are usable spaces. He stated that the added depth of the balconies was achieved by shifting the buildings 5 feet to the west. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the proposed change to the setback will be addressed in the final plat of subdivision. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Moyer complimented the design noting that the structures will provide a nice transition from the residential areas to the commercial area. He suggested that consideration be given to using the same material on the dormers as on the rest of the roof. He stated that the rendering depicts the windows as lit very bright noting that they will not likely appear that way. He observed that the revised design combines an urban building type with suburban elements, such as the enclosed porch. He added that he is supportive of downplaying the detached Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 6 of 15 garage. He stated that the 2nd story outdoor spaces are very visible from the public way. Board member Friedman complimented the revisions and stated that the buildings fit in well with the character of the neighborhood. He requested that the landscaping along McKinley Road be further developed. In response to comments from Board member Friedman, Mr. Bergmann stated that plantings along McKinley will range from 8 inches to 6 -8 feet. Mr. DePree added that he had not considered a wainscot on the enclosed porch to add privacy, but would consider a check rail or lattice panel. Board member Grieve encouraged a better transition between the house and the garage and expressed concern about the style of the garage as proposed. He suggested further refinements to the garage and added that the revised balconies on the residences are an improvement. He stated that the ironwork on the balconies is very basic and suggested a more ornamental design should be considered. He stated that the entrances appear semi hidden and asked that consideration be given to making the entrances more prominent either by doubling the columns or widening the entries. Board member Diamond agreed that the buildings will provide a nice transi tion to the commercial area. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. DePree stated the iron rail is intended to emulate a widow’s walk on the north and south facades and added that roof decks were not considered because the condensers are located on the roof as well as for safety and cost concerns. Chairman Notz stated that he initially had some concerns about the garage, but now appreciates it. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff is recommending approval and suggested that the Board’s approval could include a condition that the Board’s comments and suggestions be considered. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval 1. All modifications to the plans, including changes made to respond to Board comments, changes in exterior materials from the plans and documents presented in the Board’s packet and changes resulting from further design development; shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. A Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 7 of 15 copy of the plan presented to the Board on August 10, 2015 shall accompany the plans submitted for permit 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 conditions approved by the Board and with the Board’s direction prior to the issuance of any permits. a. The development shall comply with square footage and height requirements in accordance with the building scale provisions in the Code as calculated by City staff. b. The dormer roof material shall be standing seam metal, consistent with the main roof. c. Consideration shall be given to adding more prominence to the entry porticos either by adding additional columns or widening the porticos. d. Consideration shall be given to using ornamental ironwork for the rear balconies to maintain consistent with the chosen style. e. Further study of the detached garage is encouraged to provide a stronger association or reference to the main structures. 2. The existing grades on the site must be maintained to the ex tent possible with only changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering practices. 3. Plans shall be submitted to demonstrate that adequate turning radii are provided to allow safe entrance into and exiting from the garages and to verify that no element of the proposed development encroaches into the public right-of-way or impedes use of the alley for the general public. 4. Final Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. In particular, the City Arborist is directed to verify that the plantings provide for softening of the buildings from the streetscapes and from the adjacent single family home to the north. 5. A separate permit must be obtained for fencing, gates, pillars and hardscape and plans detailing these elements must be submitted and will be subject to review to verify that they are generally consistent with the concepts for these elements as presented to the Board. 6. A final lighting plan, including illustrations of all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. The dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with particularly given the location of the property near the side and rear elevations of nearby single family homes. Fixtures should be selected to direct light downward. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 8 of 15 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 neighboring properties, public streets and the alley. The streets and alleys must remain unobstructed at all times unless approval for obstruction for a specific time period is authorized by the Community Development Department. Street parking for construction vehicles is not permitted. Permits can be obtained for parking in the public parking lot on the west side of McKinley Road, near the development. 8. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 9. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisi ons 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 approved by a vote of 6-0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition and alterations to an existing residence located at 598 Rockefeller Road. No variances are requested. Owners: Andrew and Nicole Mazur Representative: Victor Lew, architect Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. He stated that his parents are neighbors of the petitioner, but noted that he is able to review the petition without bias. Hearing no other declarations from the Board, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Lew stated that an addition is proposed along with renovations to the existing home and showed images of the streetscape and neighborhood. He noted that the residence sits on an acre and is a one story ranch house with exterior materials consisting of stone, brick, siding and a cedar shake roof. He stated that the house was built in 1971 and later alterations include the painted brick exterior and a replacement roof. He noted that neighboring homes are generally one and a half stories and that there are no neighbors to the rear of the lot. He stated that the existing porch is not functional and the owners desire a visual connection from the Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 9 of 15 kitchen to the front yard and driveway. He stated that there is 10-12 feet of attic space with a staircase leading to the attic. He added that the goal of the project is to expand the attic and includes the demolition of the garage and part of the kitchen resulting in removal of about 25 percent of the exterior. He showed renderings of the proposed elevations stating that the 2nd floor is centered over the entry, stone is introduced at the base, and siding is proposed above the stone. He added that standing seam metal is proposed for the roof material and some of the existing brick will be preserved. He stated that the shed roof dormer on the rear elevation is needed for the 2nd floor space. He noted that the owners wish to renovate the exterior in a Craftsman style noting that the existing roof echoes that style. He showed images of the style noting that the bay window has historic precedent. He stated that the existing roof lines were maintained to the extent possible and 3 feet in height has been added over the garage. He stated that green materials are proposed including the metal roof which is designed to capture and retain water. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed changes include a 2nd story addition, a garage expansion and modified porch adding that the changes meet all zoning and bulk regulations. She added that the proposed alterations to the exterior result in somewhat complicated roof forms and appear inconsistent with the chosen Craftsman style. She stated that staff has outlined some areas of consideration in the staff report and is recommending the petition be continued to allow more time to refine the massing and design elements to ensure consistency with the chosen style. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lew stated that many trees on the property have recently been removed. He explained that the material proposed for the gable ends is an eco-clad siding material. He stated that the windows are fiberglass, the siding is composite, and the stone is a natural stone. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lew stated that the existing home is 23 feet to the ridge and the neighboring home to the north is approximately 20 feet to the ridge. He added that the home to the south is about 27 feet. He stated that neighboring homes have dormers to achieve livable space on the second floor. He noted that a landscape plan is not presented at this time, but noted that landscaping is proposed as a 2nd phase of the project. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that information provided to staff and the Board on the proposed materials differs greatly from what is currently presented. She stated that to her knowledge, the eco-clad siding has not been previously approved by the Board. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Lew stated that the eco-clad siding is installed with a flat finish, with options for different grain patterns. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 10 of 15 In response to questions from Board Member Reda, Mr. Lew stated that the Craftsman style was not carried out on the rear elevation due to price. He also noted that the intent is to preserve the existing masonry to the extent possible. Board member Reda stated that the standards require that the style should be consistent on all elevations. He added that the roof appears large not only because of the chosen material, but because the roofline is not broken up and there is no discernable hierarchy. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Lew confirmed that there is an existing stair from the attic to the basement, a full basement and a crawl space on the south end. He reviewed the functions of the existing basement and stated that the new 2nd floor has a large recreation area. Board member Moyer pointed out that the existing basement already has 2 recreation areas and suggested that the functions may be rearranged to improve the form of the 2nd floor space. He added that the existing house is charming and has a hierarchy of form and consistency of style. He noted that the new design should have an equivalent level of quality. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment, hearing none; he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Moyer stated that more work needs to be done to achieve a consistent design and appropriate massing. Board member Reda stated that the Craftsman style should be consistent on all elevations and the roof lines should be simplified. Board member Friedman stated that more study on the consistency of massing compared to neighboring homes should be completed and more information is needed to understand the proposed materials better adding that the eco-clad siding must be vetted thoroughly. He requested that a landscape plan be introduced during the next review process. He expressed concern about the roof massing and materials. Board member Grieve noted that the proposed color scheme is dark and neighboring homes generally have more contrast. He encouraged the petitioner to further study the color palette to be more consistent with the Craftsman style. He added that the roof line should be stepped and lowered over the garage. He expressed concern about the southwest elevation being all brick and suggested adding stone to the rear elevation and possibly a different material under the gable. He also expressed concern that there is no lip on the siding. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 11 of 15 In response to Board member Grieve’s comment, Mr. Lew stated that there are spacer bars between the siding boards. Board member Diamond requested more continuity in style and natural materials. He received confirmation that the windows are fiberglass and requested a mockup of the proposed materials. Chairman Notz stated that there has been an attempt to apply the Craftsman style to the front elevation, but not on any other elevations. He added that there is no problem with the existing style and expressed concern about the multitude of materials which appear to not be appropriate for the Craftsman style. He stated that the garage roof is too massive, but that other elements of the front elevation have a nice balance. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to take into consideration the input from the Board. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence and approval of a replacement residence located at 1474 Edgewood Road. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner: Shane and Gina Koonce Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Mr. Streightiff stated that the existing residence was constructed in 1963 by a developer who constructed other homes in the area. He noted that alternatives to demolition were explored and that the current structure is non-conforming to zoning regulations. He stated that the home has a shallow basement and a compromised foundation. He explained that the petitioners have owned the property since 2009 and desire a home in a traditional style. He stated that the lot is challenging due to its form noting that is abuts two streets. He stated that the layout of the new residence is similar to the existing as it has an attached garage located at the front. He stated that the replacement house has white clapboard siding, aluminum clad windows, wood shutters, stone or brick terraces, alumi num gutters and downspouts and is comparable in style to other houses in the neighborhood. He added that diseased trees on the site will be removed. Ms. McManus stated that the existing residence was constructed in 1963 and is not architecturally or historically significant. She noted that the replacement residence is traditional in design and overall consistent in materials and massing with neighboring homes. She explained that the replacement house, as presented, currently exceeds the allowable square footage by 25 feet, but that a Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 12 of 15 building scale variance is not requested and through final design the intention is to reduce the square footage to meet regulations. She stated that staff has some concerns about the proposed cupola due to potential light spillover and visibility from neighboring homes and if the element fits in with the context of the neighborhood. She added that the removal of this element would also bring the residence to the allowable square footage. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the demolition and replacement residence and looking for the Board’s input on the cupola element. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Streightiff stated that the cupola serves a function to bring light into the stair hall and is not intended to cast light out to the neighborhood. He added that the owners feel strongly about the cupola and are willing to give up square footage to keep the cupola. He stated that the square footage can be reduced by taking away approximately 3 inches on each floor. Board member Reda stated that the south elevation is long and should be broken up. Board member Friedman expressed concern about the massing of the south elevation. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Streightiff stated that the cupola roof is standing seam copper, and noted that the owners intend to hire a landscape architect for a formal landscape plan. He stated that the garage doors are wood in a coach house style, with lanterns on either side of the door. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Streightiff stated that there was concern about maintaining symmetry on the façade, but that he would consider ways to break up the south elevation. Board member Grieve stated that he has no concerns with the proposed cupola and suggested that appropriate glass be chosen to reduce light impacts. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Streightiff stated that there is a 3’ by 9’ decorative balcony over the front door and it is not accessible. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Streightiff clarified that there is a study off the front entry and he attempted to count that as a design element. He explained that the windows differ on the south elevation because of the kitchen counter. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 13 of 15 Karl Lichtenberger, 1473 Edgewood Road, stated that he is a long time resident of the neighborhood and has seen many new developments with structural problems. He added that he thinks the proposed design will be a great improvement to the neighborhood. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Diamond stated that the residence will be a nice addition to the area and added that he has no concerns about the cupola. Board member Friedman noted that the south elevation massing needs to be addressed, but stated support for the character of the cupola. He added that the square footage should be reduced to meet the bulk requirements. Board member Reda expressed concern about the south elevation and the excess of square footage. He suggested that the petition be continued to allow time to make the adjustments. Board member Moyer stated that he has a solution for the square footage overage and suggested reducing the extension on the west side of house and shifting the fireplace further outside the family room . He added that he had some concerns with the way the garage turns at the southeast corner. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the fireplace is not included in the building scale calculation. Chairman Notz suggested that the floor plan be adjusted to refine the niche near the garage and suggested that the size and height of the windows on the south elevation be refined to be more consistent. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan 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. Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 14 of 15 a. The house must be in full compliance with the Building Scale provisions of the Code. b. The south façade shall be broken up to minimize the perceived mass of the residence from the south. 2. Plans submitted for permit should detail how light impacts from the cupola will be mitigated through one or more of the following measures: limited fixtures shall be located in the interior space below the cupola, fixtures shall be directed downward, and windows in the cupola shall be shielded to minimize visibility of light. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage and that the overall height of the residence is consistent with the information presented to the Board with respect to the height of the residence. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 4. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following: a. Adequate landscaping along the south property line to provide screening to and from the neighboring patio. b. Additional screening along the north property line. c. Clarification on the proposed impacts to the existing landscaping south of the garage. d. Identification of all species, sizes, locations and quantities of all proposed plantings. 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. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, Building Review Board Minutes – August 10, 2015 Page 15 of 15 City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Due to the narrow street and proximity to the schools, on street parking is not permitted. Off-site parking may be necessary with workers shuttled to the property. General 7. Prior to demolition, two copies of 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. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code, 9. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 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. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 9. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner