Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/12/02 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 1 of 17 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of December 2nd, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday December 2nd, 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: Mike Bleck, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond. Building Review Board members absent: none Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Notz Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. Chairman Notz informed the public that the City’s Public Service Award Commission is seeking nominations for the Lawrence R. Temple Distinguished Award. He noted that additional information is available on the City’s website. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the October 29th and November 4th, 2015 meetings of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the November 4th Building Review Board minutes were approved with a correction as requested by Chairman Notz. The minutes for the October 29th Building Review Board minutes were approved with a correction as requested by Chairman Notz. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a temporary marketing sign for a residential subdivision, the Spiel Subdivision, located at 270 E. Westleigh Road. Variances are requested due to the limited visibility of the site. Owner: Robert Spiel Jr, Trustee Representative: Chuck Byrum Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 2 of 17 Board member Bleck stated that he has worked with the Spiels in the past and recused himself from acting on the petition and left the Council Chambers. Hearing no other Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Chairman Notz invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Byrum stated that his clients are seeking approval for a marketing sign which is larger than permitted for this size parcel. He noted that the property is 10 acres and the subdivision will include 6 lots and one outlot. He stated that the site is tucked away and not visible from Westleigh Road and as a result, a larger sign is needed. He provided a mockup of the sign, a site plan and a color sample to the Board. Ms. Czerniak stated that the request is for approval of a temporary marketing sign. She noted that 2 variances are requested, one for a sign larger than permitted by the Code and the other for placement of the sign closer to the property line than permitted by the Code. She explained that the City Code allows two sizes of marketing signs, a 32 square foot sign for sites larger than 20 acres, and a 2 square foot sign for properties under 20 acres. She stated that this property is 10 acres and has limited visibility from the public street. She added that locating the sign to meet the 50 foot setback is not possible due to the vegetation. She stated is proposed at 24 square feet and will be located just outside of the line of the vegetation so that it is visible from the street. She stated that a condition of approval is recommended to allow the sign to be displayed no longer than 18 months without further approval from the Board. She stated that findings in support of the sign and the variances are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code does not dictate whether signs should be perpendicular or parallel to the street, only that signs should be set back 50 feet from the property line. She added that in this case, orienting the sign parallel to the street allows for the sign to more closely meet the set back. She stated that the Board could approve the sign to be oriented as desired by the property owner, set back from the property line to the extent allowed by the existing vegetation. Mr. Byrum stated that the property owners will consult with their real estate agent to determine the best orientation for the sign. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Byrum stated that no website planned to be listed on the sign to advertise the property, but acknowledged that would be a good idea. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Byrum stated that the owners are offering the entire site, with the exception of the existing house, for sale. He added Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 3 of 17 that the existing house will remain and the developer will be responsible for installing the infrastructure consistent with the approved engineering plans. In response to the Board’s comments, Mr. Byrum stated that the owners would like to keep the amount of text currently proposed on the sign. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing no public comment, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Diamond stated that he is supportive of the petition. Board member Grieve suggested that eliminating some of unnecessary text would improve the readability of the sign. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Byron clarified that two colors, dark green and white, are proposed for the sign. Board member Reda stated that visibility of the sign is important and stated support for changing the direction of sign. Board member Moyer stated that the largest letters on the sign appear to provide the least important information for passersby. He stated support for the overall appearance of the sign. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the lot number identification signs do not require separate Board approval. Chairman Notz reiterated th at reducing the amount of text could emphasize the main message, that the subdivision is approved and for sale. He added that the sign should not obstruct the sight lines for vehicles on the street or for vehicles entering or exiting the driveway. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Moyer made a motion to recommend approval the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The temporary sign shall be removed no later than 18 months from the date of approval unless an extension is recommended by the Board and approved by the City Council. 2. The sign shall not be illuminated. 3. The sign shall be setback from the front property line to the extent that the existing vegetation permits. Prior to installation, the proposed location shall be staked and will be subject to staff review and approval. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 4 of 17 4. Consideration shall be given to orienting the sign in a north-south direction for improved visibility, so long as the sign does not obstruct sight lines for vehicles in the area. 5. Consideration shall be given to reducing the amount of text on the sign. The motion was seconded by Board member Grieve and approved by a vote of 7-0. Board member Bleck returned to the Council Chambers. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of second floor and rear additions and an extension of the driveway at 45 Shawnee Lane. Owners: Thomas and Kelli Moorhead Representative: John Berta, 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. Berta stated that the petition consists of an addition at south end of the house and a 2nd story addition. He stated that the existing house is 2 stories with brick veneer, a cedar shake roof and cement board siding. He stated that the intent is to enlarge the family room and open up the kitchen. He noted that the existing 2 car garage will be modified and a 2 car garage, mudroom and screen porch will be added. He reviewed the 2nd floor addition and noted that the interior flow of the house will be improved. He stated that the existing exterior materials will be continued on the addition and the covered porch will be extended across the front façade. He noted that the screen porch will have columns to mimic the front porch and the gable roof on the rear elevation will match the existing. Ms. McManus stated that the additions appear to be consistent in materials and roof forms with the existing house and although there is an increase in the footprint as a result of the rear addition, there is dense landscaping along the south property line. She added that the City Arborist recommends that that the density of the vegetation be maintained. She added that staff received one letter from a neighbor stating that they are supportive of the project but concerned about existing drainage issues being worsened by the proposed project. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Berta stated that the entire roof will not be reroofed, but the roof on the addition will be blended with the existing roof to match the existing shingles. Board member Reda stated that his questions about drainage were addressed in staff’s comments. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 5 of 17 In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Berta stated that the existing vertical cement board will be continued on the façade. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Berta stated that the front stoop is bluestone and will be extended. He confirmed that the windows are true divided lights. In response to a question from Board Member Diamond, Mr. Berta stated that the window sills are brick. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Berta stated that the new windows will match the existing and confirmed that the double hung windows are true divided lites. He added that matching the materials of the addition to the existing house is important to the owners. He stated that the patio is brick and noted that there is a fireplace on the west elevation. He stated that the roof line on the rear elevation was difficult to work with noting that the owners chose to continue the roofline and mimic the existing roof. He stated that the existing standing seam metal roof will be repeated on the addition. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus clarified that a condition of approval is recommended to ensure that existing landscape screening along the property line will be maintained. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Berta stated that the owners are open to considering an alternative chimney pot. Board member Bleck stated that the additions are consistent with the architecture and detailing of the existing home and stated that he is supportive of the project. Board member Moyer stated concerns with the scale of the home with the proposed additions noting that it reads as a commercial structure. He suggested the use of landscaping to add character and to emphasize the entry. He suggested that the garage window should be more prominent as it has lost its context as a result of the changes. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 6 of 17 1. If modifications are made to the plans as the result of direction from the Board or 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 shall review the final plans to verify that are consistent with the Board’s direction. 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. The Engineer’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:  Detailed review of the drainage along the south property line in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property owner. 3. Upon receipt of the final grading plan by the City, City staff is directed to contact the neighbors who voiced concern about drainage impacts and make the plan available to them for review and comment. 4. 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. 5. The final landscape plan must be submitted on and be in alignment with the grading and drainage plans as approved by the City Engineer. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:  Verification that enhanced landscaping is provided along the south property line to maintain the existing landscape dominant character of the area and to screen the addition, garage doors, the garage wall and window that face the street and the expanded driveway. 6. A final lighting pl an, including specifications on 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 and sources of light shall be shielded. 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 shall be limited to avoid congestion on the street or impacts on neighboring properties. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 7 of 17 8. 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 7-0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of an existing residence located at 715 Green Briar Lane and approval of the design of the replacement residence, detached garage and approval of the overall site plan. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan is also requested. Owner: Albert and Elana Andrasz Representative: Ken Alberts, 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. Alberts reviewed the location of property and streetscape. He stated that trees will need to be removed from the site and replacement trees will be planted. He stated that demolition of the existing house and garage and construction of a replacement house and detached garage are proposed. He stated that the driveway will be reconfigured and noted that the existing house is non-conforming to zoning setbacks. He reviewed the details of the existing house noting that it was constructed in the 1950s. He stated that the replacement house is a one and a half story Tudor style home and is consistent with neighboring homes. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials and details which include brick, cut stone, simulated true divided lite aluminum clad windows, a cantilevered bay on the side elevation, cut stone hoods and stone tracery around the entrance. He stated that the windows will be black or dark bronze. He stated that the design features include decorative clay chimney pots, window caning on selected windows, corbeling, a slate roof and copper gutters and downspouts. He reviewed the garage elevations noting that it will have the same detailing as the residence. He showed 3D massing studies of the proposed house and streetscape. Ms. McManus stated that the petition meets the demolition criteria and the replacement residence is of high quality materials and consistent with the chosen style. She added that staff recommends some refinement of the east elevation to break of the expanse of wall. She noted that the City Arborist has reviewed the plans and noted that there is no room for landscape screening along the property line and recommends that a fence be installed for separation and screening. She added that a number of trees will be removed from the site and Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 8 of 17 replacement inches, or payment in lieu of onsite plantings will be required consistent with the Code requirements. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Alberts explained that the garage floor is 8 inch precast concrete that tapers down to drain water. He confirmed that the foundation is setback from the setback lines. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Alberts identified the oak trees that are proposed for removal and confirmed that inch for inch will be provided as directed by the City Arborist. He stated that the grading on the site will be minimally adjusted to improve drainage. He acknowledged that the window sills appear rectangular on the elevations, but will be scooped out and pitched. He stated that consideration can be given to breaking up the east elevation with a bay element, without a window. He explained that the kitchen is located behind the brick wall and suggested that a false window with closed shutters could be added. He confirmed that all of the window mullions will have the same thickness and color. He agreed that a different mullion pattern for the windows on the rear elevation can be considered. He confirmed that there a membrane will be used on the flat section of the roof. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. McManus clarified that the proposed residence is 11 feet over the allowable square footage, but a variance is not requested. She stated that as construction drawings are developed, the architect will make modifications to bring the residence within the square footage allowance. In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Alberts stated that the brick color may be slightly different from the sample provided; likely a darker brown. He clarified the size of the bricks and the details of the stonework on the fireplace. He explained that the overhang at the rear of the garage is for wood storage. He stated that no landscaping is proposed at the rear lot line. Mr. Andrasz stated that efforts will be made to preserve and protect the 2 large oaks behind the garage. He stated that landscaping will be limited in that area and a cedar fence will be installed the length of the property line. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Alberts stated that the garage basement will be used for storage and confirmed that the color palette is consistent with what is presented. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Andrasz stated that due to the fence and width of the driveway, there is little room for landscaping. He stated that pavers will be used at the edges of the driveway to break up the asphalt. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 9 of 17 In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would likely question a side yard variance for a new structure since the hardship is being created by the desire to demolish the existing house. She stated that as neighborhoods transition, there can be a change in the spacing of residences as newer construction is mixed with older homes. Board member Grieve stated that there should be some visual element to break up the side elevation. In response to a comment from Board member Diamond, Mr. Alberts stated that a different size for the chimney pot will be considered, as long as it is functional. Chairman Notz stated that consideration should be given to relocating the sink and stovetop in the kitchen to allow for a window to break up the solid wall. He agreed that as an alternative, a brick pattern could break up the expanse of the wall. He suggested using single doors in place of French doors on the rear elevation for consistency with the overall character of the house. In response to comments from Chairman Notz, Mr. Alberts explained that single doors on the rear elevation would swing further into the interior space creating some issues. He offered that the window girds could be custom made and simplified. He clarified that the garage stairway extends beyond the garage. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, be invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Moyer complimented the level of detail and recommended consideration of a bump out to bring the southwest gable roof down to relieve the expanse of wall. He observed that the west elevation has different planes and the bump out could be as small as 4 inches and still improve the overall design. He encouraged consideration of moving the sink to the rear elevation pointing out that location will offer a better view. He stated support for adding brick detailing. Board member Reda stated that the petition meets the demolition criteria. He noted that the corbeling around the home should be consistent. He stated support for a fence along the west and south property lines given the tightness of the site. He stated that the plans should conform to the allowable square footage noting that he is not supportive of a building scale variance. The Board complimented the design and level of detail provided in the presentation materials. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 10 of 17 Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Freidman and approved by a vote of 7 - 0. 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 1. Final design development should address the items detailed below. Any modifications made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to conditions of approval, Board direction, or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. The side elevations, particularly the right (east) elevation should be refined to provide greater consistency with respect to the placement, alignment and form of the windows. Large expanses of wall should be broken up. b. Corbelling on the door and fireplace shall be consistent and accurately reflected in the final plans. c. The color palette shall be consistent with the plans presented to the Board. d. Driveway paver accents shall be incorporated into the driveway design. 2. A final lighting plan, including specifications on 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 and sources of light shall be shielded. 3. The final landscape plan must be submitted on and be in alignment with the grading and drainage plans as approved by the City Engineer. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Verification that appropriate replacement inches are planted on the site to compensate for trees removed or, if on site plantings cannot be accommodated, a payment in lieu of onsite planting must be made to the City to support streetscape plantings in the immediate neighborhood. b. Verification that adequate screening, to the extent possible given the narrow lots, is provided along the north, west and east property lines. c. Verification that the oak trees at the rear of the site are protected during construction and preserved by maintaining existing grades. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 11 of 17 4. 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 and treat 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. 5. 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, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Street parking is only permitted directly in front of this property, two vehicles only, during construction activity due to the narrow width of the street. Off site parking and the shuttling of workers to the site will be necessary if adequate parking is not possible on the site. General 6. Prior to demolition of the existing residence, 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. 7. 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. 8. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be con tinuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 9. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 7-0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of the design of an additional model home for the Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes development located on Amberley Court, between Conway Farms Road and Saunders Road. Owner: K. Hovnanian Homes Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 12 of 17 Representatives: Daniel E. Bendixon, architect Robert Lisk, developer’s representative Mr. Bendixon passed out updated drawings to the Board. Ms. Czerniak noted that staff did not have an opportunity to see the latest plans prior to the meeting. Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Bleck stated that he is not involved in the project now presented to the Board, but noted, for the record; he worked on the original plans for the Amberley Woods development for another developer. He added that he his past involvement will not affect his ability to consider this petition objectively. Mr. Bendixon stated that the additional information provided to the Board is in response to the staff report. He stated that the Amberley Woods subdivision was approved in 2006 noting that no changes are proposed to the overall plan. He stated that architectural plans for the Courtyard Homes were previously drawn by architect Diana Melichar and were approved by the Board. He stated that the new design now presented is in addition to the designs already approved. He noted that the previously approved designs were used for reference in developing the additional alternative now presented. He reviewed the design evolution of the new home now proposed. He noted that in response to the staff report, the windows were simplified from the plans included in the Board’s packets. He compared the elevations included in the Board’s packets to the elevations just distributed to the Board. He stated that stucco was added to the garage in place of brick. He reviewed changes made to the high transom windows and noted that the dormers were eliminated. He stated that board and batten was added to all the gables for consistency. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus stated that the 2013 approval was for copper gutters and downspouts. She explained that the petitioner is proposing to allow aluminum gutters and downspouts as an option to buyers. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Bendixon clarified that approval of aluminum gutters and downspouts is also requested on the 3 previously approved units designed by Ms. Melichar. Mr. Lisk confirmed that no changes to the previously approved home designs are requested, only approval of changing the window manufacturer, brick colors and manufacturer and offering aluminum gutters and down spouts as an option for buyers. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 13 of 17 In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Lisk provided samples of brick noting that 3 options are provided for each; light brick, medium brick and dark brick. He also provided a window sample stating that it is similar to the window previously approved, but manufactured by a different company. He added that it has the same hardware, profile and details. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Lisk stated that the previous approvals had an option for a front or side loaded front garage. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Bendixon confirmed that the roofline was not extended on the front elevation due to square footage limitations. He added that the windows extend above the eave with transom windows. Board member Grieve stated that the extended roofline should not cut into the board and batten Element. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lisk stated that the intention is to offer 3 options for each brick shade to buyers. He stated that he is open to reducing the number of options. Board member Friedman stated that the original concept for the Amberley Woods development was to assure continuity throughout the development site. He stated that he is opposed to too many options and variations, noting that approach strays from the original intent. He recognized that copper gutters are a cost concern, but noted that allowing aluminum gutters and downspouts takes away from the consistency and quality of the development. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lisk stated that no changes are proposed to the landscape plans. He stated that the front stoop is a concrete paver material and the driveway is asphalt. He agreed to consider adding pavers to the driveway. Board member Friedman stated that landscaping is needed to soften the front elevations and bays. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Lisk stated that 3 homes are under construction and one of each unit type has been constructed so far. He confirmed that approval of a change to the anti-monotony provisions is requested to require only two of each home type to be constructed, rather than three. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Lisk clarified that the elevations labeled #1 are now proposed with revisions in response to the staff report. He noted the other elevations are provided for discussion. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak clarified that staff was not provided with the elevations now before the Board. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 14 of 17 In response to further questions from the Board, Mr. Lisk stated that the proposed change in rules would limit the units to no more than 5 of each type, and no fewer than two of each design. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Bendixon confirmed that he is responsible for designing only Unit D and intends for it to blend in with the previously approved homes. He added that both he and the previous architect will oversee the overall development. Board member Reda stated that he is unclear on exactly what is being presented for Board action noting that it appears that the petition as presented includes proposed changes to the anti-monotony guidelines, changes to the exterior materials as well as the introduction of a 4th design for the homes. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Lisk clarified that different windows and different brick options are proposed for all of the homes, as well as the option for aluminum for gutters and downspouts. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Lisk stated that the motivation for the changes stems from market demand for a master bedroom on the first floor. He said the changes to the brick and windows are the result of relationships with vendors and available supply. He added that the desire for the option for aluminum gutters and downspouts is cost driven. He explained that within each home design, there are preset options for owners to choose from and the options differentiate the appearance of each home slightly, all within the approved context. He added that the colors of the new windows and the proposed brick are slightly different from the original approvals. He stated that there is a precedent for aluminum gutters and downspouts because one of the first units constructed by a previous developer has aluminum gutters and downspouts. Mr. Bendixon added that there are options for the interior, but he does not anticipate that those options will affect the exterior. Chairman Notz asked for clarification on whether the plans presented differ from the plans in the Board’s packets. He stated that it is his understanding that the plans presented to the Board were modified to respond to the staff report. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak stated that at this point, staff is not entirely clear on which elevations and which details are presented for approval. She added that it appears that some modifications, with respect to exterior materials are being proposed for another architect’s work designs and it is not clear whether that architect was involved in the discussions to date. She stated staff support for the concept of offering an additional home design to buyers. She encouraged Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 15 of 17 communication with both architects throughout the buildout process to assure consistency with the design intent and consistency within the overall development. Chairman Notz commented that the Board action should be focused on the new unit that is proposed. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, be invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Diamond stated that further study and refinement of the roof forms is needed. He stated that copper should be used for the gutters and downspouts, as previously approved. He suggested that the petitioner use pavers in addition to the asphalt on the driveways and noted that there are too many brick choices to maintain overall consistency in the development. Board member Grieve stated that the change in window manufacturers is acceptable. He agreed that the brick options should be refined. He added that variety is important, but the options should be narrowed. He stated that elevation #3 appears to be the best design. He noted however that the roof lines are problematic. He stated that he is confused about the prior approvals and present request for the material for gutters and downspouts. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the original approval was for copper. She noted that based on the petitioner’s testimony, it appears that one home may have been constructed using aluminum downspouts and gutters, without proper approval. Board member Grieve stated that reducing the required minimum number of each unit type seems appropriate with the addition of another design option for the homes. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak stated that for projects that use model homes, rather than custom built homes, staff maintains a matrix as building permits are issues to record which models are built with the various options for alternate design features. She stated that the goal is to achieve the overall consistency within the development as anticipated when the subdivision was approved while still allowing some distinction and variation among the homes. Board member Friedman stated that he is concerned with modifying the master plan and further modifying the development by using a different architect. Board member Bleck stated that he is supportive of introducing a 4th model and modifying the anti-monotony guidelines. He stated that he is concerned with the roof forms and agreed that the brick options should be narrowed. He noted that he is comfortable with the changes to the windows, but not with providing aluminum as an option for gutters and downspouts. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 16 of 17 Board member Reda stated that the previous Board approved a comprehensive development and overall consistency with that vision should be maintained. He stated concern that new plans were presented to the Board at the meeting, without staff review. He added that modifying a prior Board approval sets a bad precedent. He asked for further information on how the architects will work together and requested a revised chart showing all the models and buyer’s options. He stated that the architects, not staff, should be responsible for assuring that the construction is consistent with the approved plans given the proposed changes and various alternatives that are possible. Board member Moyer concurred with the comments of the other Board members. Chairman Notz stated support for the brick alternatives as presented. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board approves the quality, size and color of bricks, but not the supplier. Chairman Notz stated that he does not object to the change in window manufacturer so long as the windows are consistent with the prior approvals. He stated that aluminum should not be approved as an alternative for the gutters and downspouts. He suggested that staff could work with the petitioner to refine plan #3 which was presented to the Board to achieve the refinements as requested by the Board. He stated his preference for moving the petition forward. 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 respond to the comments from the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 7- 0. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 8. Additional information from staff. Staff requested Board review of the proposed 2016 meeting schedule. Board member Bleck made a motion to approve the schedule. Building Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2015 Page 17 of 17 The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman. The Board voted 7 to 0 to approve the schedule. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner