Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/10/07 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 1 of 13 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of October 7, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, October 7th, 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: Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond. Building Review Board members absent: Mike Bleck and Robert Reda 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 September 2nd, 2015 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the September 2nd, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of additions and modifications to the exterior materials and roof massing on the existing residence located at 598 Rockefeller Road. Owners: Andrew and Nicole Mazar Representative: Victor Lew, 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. Lew thanked the Board and staff for their input and comments and noted that the design has improved greatl y as a result of the input. He stated that the scope of the project has not changed, but adjustments have been made to the garage roof line. He stated that the office space was shifted to the rear and a trellis was added to the rear. He explained that the recreation area at the 2nd floor was shifted toward the rear of the house reducing the size and as a result, the roof forms are simplified. He stated that the columns were changed and are more true to the craftsman style. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 13 He stated that the shed dormers have been removed. He stated that the center gabled dormer is now similar in appearance to 1st floor gables creating more symmetry. He stated that the rear elevation previously had a long shed dormer and the dormer has been broken up. He added that the stone has been consistently applied to all elevations. He presented a model to the Board and showed colored renderings of the revised house. Ms. McManus stated that the Board voted to continue the petition at the July meeting with direction to simplify and break up the roof forms, apply the chosen style consistently to all elevations and to use high quality natural materials. She noted that the project has come a long way and the revised design is more in keeping with the chosen style. She stated that the proposed Hardieboard material is inconsistent with the design guidelines and recommended eliminating the shingles as a wall material to simplify the elevations. She also noted that clay tile is now proposed for the roof material in place of the previously proposed standing seam metal. She noted that staff has added a recommendation that the tiles not be treated to appear as wood, as the design guidelines call for true materials. She stated that staff is recommending additional tree plantings in the front yard to soften the front elevation and in part replace the trees that were recently removed on the site. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus stated that the window material has not changed from the previous petition, but that a different manufacturer is now proposed. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Lew stated that the windows are wood, clad with fiberglass. He also clarified that a metal roof was previously proposed. He stated that the owner is interested in using sustainable materials. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Lew stated that the roof line on the northeast elevation continues to the end of gable and the gutters will continue over the sloping eave. He stated that the tile roof was selected because it is low maintenance. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lew confirmed that standing seam metal was previously proposed for the roof and stated that clay tile and K style copper gutters are now proposed. He provided samples of the roof tiles. He stated that the owners are very committed to carrying out the landscaping plan and noted that the front walk will be permeable pavers. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Lew provided samples of the stone noting that it is a different texture and larger pieces than what was previously proposed. He stated that the sample is an accurate color representation noting that the rendering is the best representation of the proposed landscaping. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 13 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 Diamond stated that the project has progressed nicely. He expressed concerns about the proposed window material. Board member Grieve stated that the landscaping will be important given the linear expanse of the house and suggested that the type of tile should be reconsidered. He added that the tile company has numerous options for clay tile. Board member Friedman cautioned against the use of Hardieboard noting that it is not compatible with the other proposed materials. Board member Moyer stated that the design has improved and is much simpler. He stated that the renderings are helpful and noted that it will be important that the project achieve what is presented in the rendering. Chairman Notz stated that the house will benefit the streetscape and advised the owners to reconsider the use of Hardiebaord. He added that it would be useful to review a mockup of the materials in the field. Mr. Lew stated that the process has benefitted the design and the owners are very happy with the result. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 1. If modifications are made to the plans 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. 2. The plans submitted for permit shall be consistent with the renderings presented to the Board which are attached to the approving Ordinance as an Exhibit. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 13 3. Consideration should be given to the use wood, rather than Hardieboard for a consistency of high quality, natural materials on the house. 4. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, to properly direct drainage 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 6. Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall provide trees to replace, to some extent, trees recently removed from the property and to help screen and mitigate the increased mass resulting from the additions from the streetscape. The Board directed that the City Arborist assure that the landscaping is sufficient noting that landscaping is critical to the success of the project. A planting schedule shall accompany the landscape plan to assure completion of the plantings in the first available planting season. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and approved by a vote of 5 - 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a replacement attached garage and an addition to the rear of the residence located at 825 Highview Terrace. Owners: Gregory and Emily O’Brien Representative: Mark J. Downey, 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. Downey stated that the home was constructed in the 1950s and has simple massing and a detached garage in poor condition. He stated that the home does not meet the owner’s needs and the detached garage is a challenge. He noted the large oak trees in the front yard and stated that the lot slopes toward the south. He stated that the street has a variety of homes styles. He explained that the Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 13 modifications include a new two car attached garage and a rear addition. He stated that a new secondary entry is recessed so not to compete with the main entrance. He noted that the roof of the addition aligns with the existing roof and noted that the pitch will match the pitch of the existing roof. He stated that the materials on the addition will match the existing and the shutters will be removed. He stated that the garage doors will be wood. He noted that there will be a slight change in the grade in the area of the garage. He added that other houses along the street have attached garages. Ms. McManus stated that the petition includes a request for demolition of the existing detached garage and replacement of an attached garage. She noted that the current garage is non-conforming with respect to zoning setbacks and the attached garage will conform to zoning setbacks. She stated that the house is a split level ranch constructed in 1955, so an attached garage is appropriate for the style and date of construction. She added that a new driveway and curb cut will be required but trees are not expected to be impacted by the project. She stated that the City Arborist recommends special care for the oaks in the front yard. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the project and 3 letters of support from neighbors have been provided. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Downey stated that the new roof will be asphalt shingle to match the existing roof. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Downey agreed that the new roof could be extended over the house if there is difficulty in matching the shingles. He stated that he did not consider adding a feature, such as a dormer, to break up the length of the roof noting that it would add to the appearance of mass. Board member Grieve stated that as presented, the addition should look seamless. He suggested that consideration be given to accenting the entry more. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Downey stated that the site does not have drainage issues and naturally slopes toward the south. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Downey stated that the shutters will be removed entirely. 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 suggested breaking up the length of the roof with some type of element. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 6 of 13 Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing garage based on the findings in the staff report. Board member Grieve made a motion to approve the additions and modifications based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 1. If modifications are made to the plans in response to direction from the Board, 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. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, to properly direct drainage 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. a. Root pruning and root treatment by a certified arborist is required for the White Oak located in front of the residence. b. Replacement inches for any landscaping proposed for removal is required as determined by the City Arborist. 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 neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 5. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 - 0. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 7 of 13 5. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to the rear of the residence and modifications to the existing exterior materials at 1319 Edgewood Road. Owner: Vernon R. Loucks, Jr. Representative: Shawn Purnell, 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. Purnell stated that the proposed rear addition is sensitive to the streetscape and will have limited visibility from Edgewood Road. He noted that the house has simple massing, aluminum siding, and different window styles and sizes. He stated that as part of the proposed project, the house will be re-clad in cedar. He noted that the proposed rear addition will result in the house being similar in size to homes on neighboring properties. He stated that the addition continues the existing roofline and explained that the projection on the south elevation is necessary to accommodate the desired interior spaces. He stated that minor interior work is proposed and a rear balcony is proposed. He noted that the roof has a shallow pitch and acknowledged that the projection on the south elevation will be somewhat visible from the street. He stated that there is very little room for plantings due to the size of the lot but noted that the existing trees will remain with the exception of one small tree at the rear. He noted that there will be a reverse hip roof over the projection. Ms. McManus stated that approval of a 2 story addition is requested and added that the Board has recently seen several similar projects on Edgewood Road. She noted that the petitioner also proposes to upgrade the existing exterior materials and replace the siding, trim and windows with high quality natural materials. She stated that there is an existing elm tree at the rear of the house that will be removed as part of the project noting that the removal was approved by the City’s arborist. She stated that a 2 story deck is proposed at the rear of the residence. She stated that staff recommends that an at-grade patio or deck be considered instead given the potential impacts to neighbors and the inconsistency of a two-story deck with the neighborhood. She stated that a variety of window types are proposed on the addition and recommended limiting the number of window types to maintain consistency around the house. She noted the expanse of unbroken wall on the south elevation of the addition and suggested that consideration be given to breaking up that area. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell confirmed that there is an arch transition between the kitchen and family room. He added that the neighbors are supportive of the project, including the deck design. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 8 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Purnell stated that as proposed, the wainscoting is concrete. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Purnell stated that the window types and sizes on the addition are dictated by the interior spaces. 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 the deck railing is concerning and noted that it reads as a duplex, rather than a single family home. He added that he believes there is a way to design the deck and balcony possibly by adding a planter box to the 2nd floor. Board member Friedman stated that he is supportive of the project with changes to the deck. Board member Grieve encouraged that further though be given to the deck posts noting that they could benefit from being less repetitive. He suggested consideration of stepping back the balcony and modifying the supporting elements. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit 1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. Alternative studies for the second floor rear deck shall be submitted. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, to properly direct drainage Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 9 of 13 3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. Replacement inches for trees proposed for removal as determined to be required by the City Arborist. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 6. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5- 0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of revisions to previously approved plans for a new residence at 101 E. Louis Avenue. Changes to the approved exterior materials and windows are requested. Owner and Representative: Lori Glattly, Glattly Development, Inc. Contract Purchaser: Mike and Keely Bosau Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Glattly introduced the project stating that the proposed revisions consist of 3 cosmetic changes. She stated that the potential buyers of the home desire a change in siding color from light gray to dark gray. She noted that the dark gray will help to minimize the appearance of the size of the house. She stated that the buyers also desire a darker color of the windows noting that a darker color is in keeping with the Adams Colonial style. She stated that the proposed darker color blends better and softens the appearance of the windows. She stated that a stone knee wall is proposed only on the front elevation. She stated that this element was discussed at previous Board meetings but was removed. She stated that the stone base adds to the aesthetic value of the house and is in keeping with style. She stated that the staff report recommends more landscaping to soften the stone base, but stated that she does not think this is necessary. She added tha t there is a precedent in Lake Forest Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 10 of 13 for architectural details applied only to the front of residences and does not think applying it to all elevations is necessary. Ms. McManus stated that the original petition for this new house was before the Board a number of times and was ultimately approved in March of 2015. She stated that in response to preferences of a potential buyer, the developer is proposing 3 changes to the approved plans. She noted that prior to final approval; the knee wall was eliminated from previous plans. She noted that for consistency, the stone base should be used consistently around the house if it is re-introduced. She noted that staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the color palette. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Ms. Glattley stated that there are many trees on the property which will remain. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Glattley stated that she will discuss the possibility of using a more muted trim color with the owners in order to reduce the color contrast. 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 concurred with the suggestion that a muted color be used for the trim noting that as proposed, there is too much contrast. He also suggested that consideration be given to painting the door a lighter color. Board member Friedman agreed that as proposed, the color contrast is too great. He suggested that taller plantings should be added along the front of the house. He agreed that is the stone base is added, it should be wrapped around the house. Board member Grieve stated support for the white trim noting that the existing trees should provide sufficient screening. He stated support for the knee wall as a façade treatment. Board member Diamond stated that as proposed, the trim around the windows takes away from the front door. He agreed that the stone base should be applied to all elevations. Chairman Notz agreed that a more subdued trim color would benefit the project. He also agreed that the stone base should be applied around the house noting that the rear garage elevation will be visible from the streetscape, particularly in the winter. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The stone knee wall shall be consistently applied to all elevations. 2. Consideration shall be given to using a more muted color for the exterior trim. 3. An application for revisions shall be submitted if the building permit has been issued and applicable fees paid or, if the building permit has not yet been issued, modified construction plans shall be submitted reflecting the approved modifications. The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and approved by a vote of 5 - 0. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to the front of the garage, a second floor addition over the garage, a rear addition and overall exterior alterations to the residence located at 347 Cherokee Road. (Setback variances are required.) Owners: Erik and Elizabeth Lekberg Representative: Shawn Purnell, 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. Purnell stated that the owners desire more living space and the proposed additions provide living space over the garage and a sunroom at the rear of the residence. He noted that the house today has no mudroom. He stated that after discussions with staff, the sunroom and 2nd floor addition were adjusted to comply with setbacks. He added that the existing home is non-conforming and encroaches into the side yard setback. He noted that bringing the garage into conformance with the zoning setbacks makes the garage difficult to use. He stated that the sunroom was shifted over and the 2nd floor addition no longer extends to the edge of the garage. He stated that the addition is subordinate in mass to the main mass of the house. He stated that the existing front porch is asymmetrical and will be replaced with a symmetrical covered entry. He stated that the existing painted brick exterior will be replaced with cedar shake style siding and shutters will be added to the front façade windows. He added that the shutters could be applied to all elevations where appropriate. He noted that the porch improves the balance of the front elevation. He noted that after further consideration, the sun room windows were enlarged. He stated that the 2nd floor addition requires an egress window which is complicated by the existing roof lines. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 12 of 13 Ms. McManus noted that the components of the request consist of a garage expansion at the front of the residence, a 2nd floor addition above the garage and a sun room addition at the rear of the residence as well as modifications to the brick exterior, front porch and windows. She noted that the existing house encroaches in the side yard setbacks and the proposed addition on the garage will require a zoning variance. She stated that vinyl windows with interior muntin bars only are proposed and are inconsistent with the City’s design guidelines. She stated that staff recommends that wood or aluminum clad windows with interior and exterior muntin bars be used. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to conditions as detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Purnell stated that he mistakenly indicated vinyl as the window material and clarified that the owner intends to use aluminum clad windows with interior and exterior muntin bars. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Purnell clarified the proposed rear elevation. Board member Moyer stated that the right elevation is problematic and awkward and suggested reducing the garage width and adjusting the 2nd floor addition to simplify the elevation. He added that stepping down the 2nd floor addition provides an appropriate transition. In response to Chairman Notz, Mr. Purnell stated that he would discuss with the owner the possibility of expanding the 2nd floor addition to create a more balanced look and maintain the cathedral ceiling in the home. He stated that the chimney is brick and is not atypical for the style of home. 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 Grieve suggested adding an overhang over the utility door. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition will require a zoning variance and noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider whether a hardship supports the need for a variance. She stated that a door overhang that encroaches into the required setback will need to be found to meet the variance criteria. In response to Ms. Czerniak’s comments, Board member Grieve suggested that decorative framing for the door could be considered instead of an overhang. Building Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2015 Page 13 of 13 In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Purnell stated that the windows on the interior elevations of the sunroom were enlarged, but due to privacy concerns, the size of the windows was reduced on the side elevations. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to take into consideration the input from the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 - 0. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 9. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted that a special Building Review Board meeting is scheduled for October 29th for consideration of the Laurel and Western redevelopment project. She stated that Focus Development will hold an open information session at 5:45 p.m., prior to the meeting to allow the public to see the models, materials and presentation boards close up. She added that plans submitted to the City by Focus Development will be available on the City’s website by October 20th. The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner