BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/11/04 MinutesNovember 4, 2015 Page 1 of 14
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of November 4, 2015 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
November 4, 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E.
Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Acting Chairman Ross Friedman and Board
members: Mike Bleck, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond.
Building Review Board members absent: Chairman Ted Notz
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Acting Chairman Friedman.
Acting Chairman Friedman 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 7, 2015 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
Consideration of the minutes was postponed.
3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residence,
attached garage and accessory building (a boat house) at 347 Bluffs Edge
Drive. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested.
Owner: Thomas F. Fuller Trust, Thomas F. Fuller, trustee
Representative: Diana Melichar, architect
Acting Chairman Friedman asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest.
Board member Bleck stated that his firm is involved in the project and recused
himself from participating in the Board’s deliberations on this petition. He left the
Council Chambers.
Acting Chairman Friedman invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Melichar introduced the petition and presented updated drawings for the new
residence, boat house and overall site. She reviewed the conceptual floor plan
November 4, 2015 Page 2 of 14
presented to the Board in August pointing out the butterfly configuration of the plan.
She presented the floor plan as now refined noting that the general layout and
concepts were not changed. She noted that the second floor is set within the
home’s sculptural roof line making the two story house appear as a one and a half
story house. She reviewed the conceptual elevations and the elevations as now
refined and further developed. She stated that the detailing as reflected in concept
on the earlier plans remains. She reviewed the final building materials noting that
stone, clad wood windows, copper gutters and downspouts, and wood trim will be
used. She reviewed the overall land plan and landscape plan noting how the entry
gates, the house and the boat house are all integrated and connected through the
plan. She provided a birds eye sketch of the proposed house describing the style as
casual, but elegant. She noted the intent is to be consistent with the overall
streetscape. She described the low stone wall and entry gates noting the
transparency of the elements. She introduced the updated boat house design and
provided a photo of the beach. She provided a cross section of the property
showing the bluff and the boat house. She stated that the boat house will not be
visible from the street or from the home, but will be visible from the Lake. She
reviewed the floor plan of the boat house and described the intended uses of the
spaces. She reviewed the architecture of the boat house and presented the
elevations noting consistencies with elements of the house and a traditional boat
house. She stated that rusticated stone and other materials consistent with the
house are proposed for the boat house.
Ms. Czerniak reviewed the background of the petition noting that it is before the
Board for the 4th time. She acknowledged the petitioner’s effort and the significant
evolution of the design over the course of the Board’s consideration. She stated
that the standards appear to be met and noted that staff is recommending
approval subject to conditions as detailed in the staff report.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Melichar stated that the
exterior materials are the same as previously presented except that the gutters and
downspouts were changed from aluminum to copper. She added that the type of
stone was further refined. She clarified that the chimneys are stone, not stucco.
Board member Grieve stated that he was supportive of the project in August and
continues to be supportive.
In response to a question from Board member Grieve, Ms. Melichar acknowledged
that as the design details were finalized, some changes occurred. She confirmed
that the double gable dormer over the garage was adjusted.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Wright, project
landscaper, confirmed that the driveway is proposed as asphalt. He stated that
alternate materials were considered and may be integrated into the plan as the final
November 4, 2015 Page 3 of 14
details are worked out. He noted for instance that the driveway approach may be
an alternate material but noted that the materials will be complimentary to the
house, walls and gate.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. Melichar clarified the
basement plan noting that the lower level guest bedrooms do not have access to
the outside. She confirmed that an English basement is not proposed.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Freidman, Ms. Melichar confirmed
that the roof of the breakfast room is copper.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited
public comments, hearing none, he invited Board comments.
Board member Moyer complimented the plan noting that the details have
developed nicely. He noted that the materials, proportions and roof forms are
elegant.
Board member Reda stated that the petition meets the design standards and noted
that it has developed nicely over the course of the review.
Board members Grieve and Diamond expressed their support of the project.
Acting Chairman Friedman complimented the project noting that the new home will
be an asset to the community. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he
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. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Board. If
additional 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 existing grades on the site must be maintained to the extent possible with only
changes necessary to accommodate proper drainage and good engineering
practices.
November 4, 2015 Page 4 of 14
3. The final grading plan must reflect the grades extending beyond the property a
minimum distance of 50 feet in all directions. This information is necessary to provide
City engineering staff with the information needed to understand current drainage
patterns, assess the proposed drainage from the lot after development and assure
that increased drainage will not impact adjacent properties.
4. Given the location of the work at the top of the bluff, a plan for managing drainage
during construction shall also be submitted for review and will be subject to approval
by the City’s engineering staff. The plan shall detail how run off will be directed and
managed prior to final grading of the site. The plan shall detail how and where water
will be directed if at any time during construction it becomes necessary to pump
water from the site.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the boat house, all applicable
regulations for construction at the bottom of the bluff shall be met to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and any approvals from outside agencies, if required, shall be
obtained and submitted for review and will be subject to the acceptance of the City
Engineer.
6. Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the
approved grading plan, must be submitted for review prior to the framing inspection
and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape
plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Appropriate replacement inches planted on the site to account for trees
removed.
b. A landscape dominant streetscape.
c. Variety of understory plantings along the south property line.
d. Demonstration that sump pump and downspout terminations shall be directed
away from trees, the bluff and neighboring properties.
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 and the street. The street and all neighboring driveways must remain
unobstructed at all times unless approval for obstruction for a specific time period is
authorized by the Community Development Department.
Parking or staging of materials or equipment is not permitted in the parkway. Street
parking is permitted only directly in front of the property.
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
November 4, 2015 Page 5 of 14
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 provisions of
The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules,
and regulations.
10. A copy of the conditions as approved by the Board must be acknowledged by all
owners of the property. All owners will be required to sign a copy of the conditions
prior to the issuance of the building permit.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and was approved by a vote of
5 to 0.
Board member Bleck returned to the Council Chambers.
4. Continued 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
variance)
Owner: Erik and Elizabeth Lekberg
Representative: Shawn Purnell, architect
Acting Chairman Friedman asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. Hearing no conflicts or Ex Parte contacts, Acting Chairman Friedman invited
a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Purnell introduced the project noting that a zoning variance was granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the garage projection since the last Building Review
Board meeting. He stated that the petition was revised per the suggestions made by
the Board at the previous meeting. He stated that the Board suggested that the
cathedral ceiling could be preserved with some unique accommodations. He
stated that the modifications improved the side elevation and allowed the gables to
be balanced. He noted that in the earlier presentation, the roof forms were not
aligned and there was no hierarchy. He noted that the windows are better aligned
and more consistent than in the earlier plan. He noted that some trim band board
details were added to help break down the scale of the elevation. He noted that at
the last meeting, the Board had some suggestions about detailing the door; however
due to zoning setback restrictions, a roof overhang was not added.
Ms. Czerniak stated that the revised plans are responsive to the Board’s comments.
She noted the simplified roof forms and the improved side elevation. She confirmed
that a zoning setback variance was recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals
to allow the garage to step forward in alignment with the existing house. She stated
November 4, 2015 Page 6 of 14
that staff is recommending support of the project subject to the conditions as
detailed in the staff report.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell confirmed that the
existing house encroaches two feet into the side yard setback and note that the
garage extension will be in alignment with the existing house.
In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the
variance was approved to allow the extension of the garage forward in a way that
encroaches 2 feet into the side yard setback.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Purnell confirmed that the
siding is true natural cedar shingles.
In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Purnell stated that the
garage door is a white insulated steel door with simulated divided lite windows. He
added that the trim details are also white.
Board member Grieve stated that the changes made are responsive to the previous
comments of the Board.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Purnell stated that the
gutters and downspouts are white aluminum.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited
public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Moyer stated that the changes made demonstrate great
improvement and stated support for approving the petition knowing that the zoning
variance was supported.
Board members Reda, Bleck, Grieve and Diamond indicated their support of the
project.
Acting chairman Friedman stated that the symmetry of the house is much improved.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman 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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
November 4, 2015 Page 7 of 14
1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional
modifications are made to the plans to respond 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.
a. High quality, natural materials should be used consistently for the siding,
trim and windows; and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted
for permit.
b. Simulated divided lite windows are required with both interior and exterior
muntin bars.
c. Shutters should be appropriately sized and consistently installed on all
elevations, where appropriate.
2. 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.
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 6
to 0.
Acting Chairman Friedman suggested to the petitioner that it could be helpful
to present the following two agenda items together since they involve two new
homes proposed next to each other.
Mr. Letzter, project manager, agreed.
November 4, 2015 Page 8 of 14
5. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and a detached
garage at 743 E. Illinois Road. (This is the site of a previously approved
demolition.) Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also
requested.
Owner: Joan Budilovsky
Contractor Purchaser/Developer: PC Equities, LLC (Peter Childs)
Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager
and
6. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and a detached
garage located at 739 E. Illinois Road. (This is the site of a previously approved
demolition.) Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also
requested.
Owner: Joan Budilovskye
Contractor Purchaser/Developer: PC Equities, LLC (Peter Childs)
Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager
Acting Chairman Friedman asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts
of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Letzter introduced the petitions by reviewing other homes in the neighborhood
noting that the area has a mix of architectural styles and is in transition. He noted
that larger lots are located next to the smaller properties now proposed for
development. He noted that some of the homes nearby are higher style and some
are simpler. He noted that there is a unique blend of homes on the street. He stated
that the inspiration for the design of one of the proposed houses is the Tudor style
modified to work on an urban sized lot. He presented images of Tudor homes. He
noted that a Colonial Revival home is proposed on the adjacent lot to tie into the
larger homes nearby as well as the simpler homes down the streets. He stated that
the homes each have a detached two car garage. He stated that all Zoning Code
requirements are satisfied. He noted that no building scale variances are requested.
He reviewed the renderings for the 739 Illinois Road property noting the full front
porch. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials. He reviewed the design
inspiration for this home and discussed the appropriateness of the front facing
gables. He reviewed rendering of the Tudor homes. He stated that asphalt
driveways are proposed. He noted that in response to concerns raised in the staff
report, the driveway may be able to be reduced in width to move it off of the
property line. He noted that some trees are planned to be removed. He reviewed
the floor plans proposed.
Ms. Czerniak provided background on the petition noting that the current owners of
the properties came before the Board in 2012 to request approval to demolish the
two existing homes and approval of a single replacement residence on the two lots
November 4, 2015 Page 9 of 14
after consolidation of the properties. She explained that the project was never
pursued and that the City required demolition of the two homes for health and life
safety reasons. She verified that 2, adjacent, vacant lots exist today. She stated that
the area presents some challenges due to the transition of lot sizes on the street from
small to larger and due to the streetscape character resulting from various
architectural styles. She stated that the 5 standards in the Code which are the basis
for the Board’s review require that infill development should be generally consistent
with the neighborhood and nearby homes. She noted that as currently presented,
the plans lack consistency with the chosen style pointing out that the roof forms and
details are not consistent with the style of each house as described by the petitioner.
She stated that as presented, the petition does not meet all of the standards yet. She
again noted that transitional nature of the neighborhood and pointed out that the
residence previously approved for the property was reviewed and refined over the
course of several months. She stated that the final product was greatly improved as
a result of the Board’s review process. She stated that with this petition, the Board is
asked to review 2 adjacent homes and must consider how they work together as
well as how they fit with the rest of the streetscape. She requested direction from the
Board.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Letzter described the
materials for the 743 Illinois Road house noting that stucco and timbering are
proposed on the 2nd floor, an asphalt roof, wood trim, aluminum gutters and
downspouts, limestone sills and a copper roof over the bay window. He stated that
the materials for 739 Illinois Road consist of Hardie-board clapboard siding, wood
railings, columns, soffits and fascia. He stated that the shutters and trim are cedar.
He stated that the proposed colors for the two homes are represented in the
renderings and a light gray siding and bright white trim are proposed for 739 Illinois
and white stucco with dark brown timbering and a reddish brown brick are proposed
for 743 Illinois Road.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Childs stated that it is too
big of a financial risk to build one home instead of 2 homes.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Letzter stated that the
double gable over the entry is design driven and consistent with the Tudor style. He
noted that in the inspiration photos, the steeper roof is reflected. He confirmed that
the front elevation window is a bay with a shed over the bay connecting to the
entry. He added that the curb cuts are close to the location of the driveways that
previously existed on the sites and noted that there is parkway tree that could limit
the locations of the driveways.
In response to questions from Board m ember Bleck, Mr. Letzter stated that he did not
consider a shared driveway because they are problematic. He noted that currently,
there is some screening along the property line on the neighboring property to the
November 4, 2015 Page 10 of 14
north. He noted that the house to the nor th is sited in the center of the property and
noted the circular design elements which create challenges for the lots proposed for
development. He noted that Illinois Road begins to straighten out in front of the
properties proposed for development.
Board member Bleck noted that the north elevation of 743 Illinois Road is
overwhelming.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Childs stated that he is open to
providing additional landscape screening, but would like to avoid a shared
driveway.
In response to question from the Board, Mr. Letzter noted that the houses could be
flipped to allow space for additional landscape screening or the driveway may be
able to be shifted to the other side of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Letzter commented on the
roof forms and described other elements of the home as they relate to the Tudor
style. He stated that the goal was to keep a simple form with Tudor elements. He
noted that the chimney is on the rear elevation of the home and stated that the
prominence of that element could be increased. He noted that the windows follow
the form of the rooms in which they are located. He commented on the square bay
at the front of the house and noted that there is not enough width to accommodate
an angled bay. He stated that some further study could be done to refine the
various elements. He stated that in this style of home, there is free play with the
design.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Letzter stated that the gable
peak could be dropped a couple feet or eliminated. He stated that some gabling
on the side of the house is desired. He confirmed that the bay window roof connects
to the projected entry. He stated that consideration could be given to reducing the
width of the bay.
Board member Reda noted that the Tudor roof should remain steep with consistent
pitches. He stated that seeing both homes together is important. He noted that
these homes, if well designed, will be an opportunity for the developer to showcase
his products.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Letzter acknowledged that
some elevations are mislabeled and provided clarification.
Board member Moyer suggested that the project may be more successful if the
simple homes down the street are used as inspiration. He noted that the Board‘s role
is to be sure projects adhere to the standards. He stated that the proposed homes
November 4, 2015 Page 11 of 14
should be shown in relationship to the existing homes on the street. He stated that
the homes as proposed are not compatible with the context of the area. He stated
that he is not pre-judging what would need to happen to make the projects
successful, but noted that the designs should have a form and mass in keeping with
the context of the surroundings.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that he
owns the firm, but is not an architect. He stated that he has architects on staff. He
stated that he would be open to flipping the homes and the driveways. He discussed
the layouts of the adjoining lots.
Acting Chairman Friedman stated that there are two legally platted lots that are
smaller than the immediately surrounding lots. He stated that the Board’s job is to
evaluate the compatibility of the proposed homes with the existing streetscape. He
noted that these two lots may require a more custom approach given the context of
the streetscape. He stated that the end result should be a benefit to all parties
because the new homes will add to the character of the streetscape.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited public testimony.
Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated that as a neighbor, he was notified about the
property. He added that he is the President of the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation. He noted that in similar contexts, a duplex was considered appropriate
instead of 2 smaller homes. He stated that he consulted other members of the
Preservation Foundation and received input that compatibility with each particular
streetscape is important. He noted that this block of Illinois Road is transitional and
has seen periodic redevelopment since the 1990’s. He acknowledged that the
transitional nature of the street makes it harder to read the streetscape. He provided
additional background on the area noting that it was the location of an African
American community. He noted that three homes from that era remain on the
street. He noted that six new houses were built on the street, on larger lots. He urged
that if the Board supports a single family house on each of the two lots, the styles and
compositions should have some similarity and consistency. He provided examples of
other similar lots including 787 Illinois Road, 383 N. Washington Road and 461 N.
Green Bay Road. He suggested that a mid-19th century vernacular style be
considered noting that it would have been typical of the period in Lake Forest when
the original cottages were built. He clarified that he originally suggested the idea of
a duplex like those on the Lake Forest College campus and on Deerpath across from
the Library as a creative way to develop the lots in the context of the streetscape.
Charles Adler, attorney for Child’s Development, pointed out that the purpose of the
Board’s guidelines is to establish minimum criteria for neighborhood compatibility. He
noted that good design is very subjective. He added that the public should
understand that the Board’s job is not to reach the maximum of what someone
November 4, 2015 Page 12 of 14
might achieve but to establish a minimum standard. He stated that the intent of the
guidelines is to continue architectural diversity and noted that if his client is deviating
from a particular architectural style, that is well within the guidelines. He stated that
compatibility is also subjective. He noted the goals and objectives highlighted in the
guidelines noting that they are not absolute, but instead, generalized goals. He
stated that as long as a project fits within those goals, it should be approved. He
reiterated that minimum standards are established and that there is not expectation
that the maximum of design be achieved. He noted that similarity to previous
designs should not be problematic as noted in the staff report. He stated that
similarities will occur when compatibility is desired. He added that there is no
perfection in design or detail. He stated his hope that the Board will support the
project. Acting Chairman Friedman invited staff response to public testimony.
Ms. Czerniak noted that the standards in the Code as well as the guidelines are
considered by the Board in reviewing petitions. She acknowledged that the Board is
not charged with seeking perfection in a design. She noted that as occurred with
the first agenda item, the Board offered input and direction through the process, the
design evolved and in the case of that petition, the project architect also evolved
through the process. She stated that in the cases of the two petitions now being
considered by the Board, staff has not yet had the opportunity to meet with the
architect for tis projects. She noted that meetings with staff throughout the process
can often be helpful in identifying issues. She stated that careful consideration of the
streetscape is important. She noted that although the neighborhood presents
challenges there are also opportunities to design houses that will fit within the
streetscape. She stated that the Board and public have provided some good
suggestions that should be considered as the petitions are refined. She clarified, in
response to public testimony that the City sends out notice of meetings to
surrounding neighbors and to the Preservation Foundation as a matter of standard
practice.
Board member Diamond stated that he needs more information and details on what
is proposed before taking action on the petition.
Board member Grieve noted that consideration of the neighborhood and the
streetscape is important and stated that there is no disagreement that the
neighborhood is in transition. He added that compatibility is often achieved through
appropriate scale even if the architectural styles differ. He stated that new homes for
the two sites could be designed drawing from the earlier homes built in the area to
appear as though they have been part of the neighborhood.
Board member Bleck stated that there is potential in the two projects but noted that
details need to be further developed and thought through. He added that it is not
unusual for infill projects to take more than one meeting. He stated that projects that
go through the process are better for it.
November 4, 2015 Page 13 of 14
Board member Reda stated that the lots are difficult and suggested study of flipping
the houses and further design development to achieve greater compatibility with
the streetscape.
Board member Moyer acknowledged that the petitioner’s attorney noted that the
Board’s role is to assure that minimum standards are met. He agreed commenting
that there is no limit on what might be accomplished and that the Board is charged
with considering whether the project meets the minimum standards. He pointed out
that the sides of the houses are more visible than the fronts of the houses adding that
the front elevations will be seen only from a short distance. He stated that the houses
are not designed to feature the side elevations. He stated that the basic problem is
that there is a lack of context with the established neighborhood. He also noted that
he is sensitive to the harm that is imposed on the adjacent owners and the potential
impact to their property value. He stated that there must be a balancing of financial
interests. He stated that “decorating” the elevations of the two small houses that are
proposed will not make the projects successful.
Acting Chairman Friedman stated that many constructive thoughts were offered
during the deliberations. He suggested the continuation may be appropriate to
allow the designs to evolve and respond to the comments offered.
In response to further Board comments, Mr. Letzter reminded the Board that the two
sites were previously developed with homes sited in approximately the same
locations as the homes now proposed.
Board member Moyer noted that since the earlier homes were removed, the context
has continued to change.
Mr. Letzter noted that the earlier homes that were demolished existed when
neighbors constructed their homes.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited a
motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the 743 Illinois Road petition to
allow the petitioner time to consider the comments from the Board and the public,
give further thought to the context of the neighborhood and to continue to develop
the design for the proposed new house.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 6
to 0.
November 4, 2015 Page 14 of 14
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the 739 and 741 Illinois Road
petitions to allow the petitioner time to consider the comments from the Board and
the public, give further thought to the context of the neighborhood and to continue
to develop the design for the proposed new houses.
The motion was seconded by Board member Grieve and was approved by a vote of
6 to 0.
OTHER ITEMS
4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
5. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner