BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/01/07 MinutesPage 1 of 9
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of January 7, 2015 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
January 7, 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 Charlie King and Board
members: Mike Bleck, Ted Notz, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman and Bruce
Grieve.
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman King
Chairman King 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 August 7, 2014, November 5, 2014 and
December 3, 2014 meetings of the Building Review Board.
The minutes of the August 7, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted.
The minutes of the November 5, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted.
The minutes of the December 3, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residence with an
attached garage on a vacant lot located at 101 Louis Avenue. Approval of the
overall site plan and a conceptual landscape is also requested. No variances are
requested.
Owner: Glattly Development, Lori Glattly
Representatives: Robert Gebelhoff/Ken Hite
Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Hite introduced the returning petition. He presented the front elevation of house
as presented to the Board initially in October, 2014 and the modified elevation as
presented in December, 2014. He reviewed the elevations as now proposed and the
changes made since the December meeting. He presented revised streetscape
renderings. He explained that the gable at the front of the house was replaced with
a hip. He noted that the mass above the garage was the major concern raised by
the Board noting that the dormers originally proposed were replaced with eyebrow
dormers. He noted that a new dormer was added on the west elevation of the
garage to meet egress requirements. He pointed out that the siding on the center
element on the front elevation was changed from stone to cedar shakes. He noted
that the windows are better aligned and sized more consistently in the current plan.
He noted that the pitch of the roof over the garage matches the pitch of the main
roof. He reviewed the changes made to the conceptual landscape plan noting the
trees proposed along the south and west property lines. He stated that a board on
board fence is proposed along the south property line, running the length of the
house. He concluded stating that he likes the aesthetics of the eyebrow windows
but stated that the current design is not as desirable as the earlier plans.
Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the Board previously acknowledged that this is a difficult
lot given the long narrow configuration, the corner location and the fact that it is
larger than some of the other lots in the neighborhood. She stated that in the
previous meetings, concerns were expressed that the proposed house is larger than
adjacent homes. She noted that at previous meetings, it was also acknowledged
that as sited on the lot, the rear of the new house will abut the front yard of the
neighboring home. She stated that as proposed in earlier plans, the trees and
vegetation are proposed to remain on the west side of the lot near the corner. She
noted that at previous meetings, the Board commented that the one story element
on the east side of the house is a very successful part of the proposed plan. She
noted that element remains as part of the plan. She stated that the modification
and alignment of the windows on the rear elevation is improved over the earlier
plans. She stated that in response to a suggestion from the Board, a change in
material is proposed; the stone on a portion of the front elevation was replaced with
cedar shakes. She stated that the raised roof above the garage remains to
accommodate a bonus room. She stated that this element was modified by
replacing the dormers on the north and south elevations with eyebrow windows. She
noted however, to meet egress requirements for the future bonus room; a new
dormer was added to the west elevation. She stated that the way to address the
concern about the mass of the garage element is to eliminate the opportunity for a
bonus room and design the garage as a one story element. She commented that
the board on board fence now proposed along the south property line will provide
fence with some shadowing and texture to help screen the exposed rear elevation
from the neighbor to the south and the Buena Road streetscape.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Hite stated his preference for
stone on the front elevation. He stated that the change to shingles or shakes was
offered in response to previous comments from the Board.
Page 3 of 9
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hite provided samples of the
proposed colors and samples of the shingles and siding. He noted that the stone
work will be greyish and the trim and gutters white.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hite stated that the proposed 7’
fence was discussed with the neighbor to the south. He confirmed that the
landscaping will be on the north side of the fence, near the new house. He
commented on the drainage swale noting that the project engineer advised that
wood chips are the best treatment for the swale. He explained the reason for the
extra column at the corner of the garage explaining that with the removal of the
double hip roof, the column supports the soffit that extends over the bay consistent
with the east side of the house.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment.
Eric Lohmueller, the property owner to the south, stated that it is helpful to see the
perspective drawing to better understand how the house is sited. He stated that
after reviewing the most recent materials, his position has not changed. He stated
that the house appears too large and out of scale with the neighboring homes. He
stated that barring a complete redesign, some issues need to be addressed such as
removing the bonus room. He stated that a front loading, two car garage should be
considered noting that it could be set back from the front plane of house and would
preserve trees and improve drainage. He stated that the driveway appears difficult
to navigate and noted that in reality, a larger turn around near the garage may be
necessary. He stated that he would like to see a full color rendering noting that this
project will have a significant impact on this property. He clarified that he was not
consulted about the fence height.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Hite stated that he was told by Ms. Glattly that
the fence was discussed with the neighbor. He stated that he would not build a
house without a three car garage noting the many homes that have a parking pad
because they do not have a third garage bay. He stated that removing the
potential for a bonus room over the garage is a non-starter and explained that there
will be a roof over the garage regardless. He stated that the dormers on the garage
add interest. He stated that the driveway was studied and confirmed that a
Suburban can pull out of the garage in the area provided.
Chairman King noted that the staff recommendation is to eliminate the bonus room
to reduce the mass of the garage.
Mr. Hite stated that he will not proceed with the project without the bonus room.
Chairman King invited final questions and comments from the Board.
Board member Grieve stated that the Board puts a lot of thought into each petition
just as the petitioner does. He reviewed that the projects that come to the Board are
generally projects that require some degree of compromise. He said that the Board
is looking for the right balance of the various interests. He noted that the Board must
follow clear standards while at the same time, consider the interests of neighbors and
the petitioner. He observed that the size of the property appears to be an exception
to the neighborhood. He noted that what is proposed is something new in the
neighborhood. He noted however that aesthetics do have an impact on how the
massing is perceived. He stated that the plan now presented to the Board is an
improvement over where the project started. He stated that much of the discussions
have centered on a desire to have a softened perspective of the property from all
directions. He acknowledged the efforts made on the west side of the house noting
that the height was brought down, but then raised again to meet Code
requirements for head room for a future bonus room. He stated that in his opinion,
the eyebrow dormer works well. He stated that as the landscaping grows in, the
house may become less of a distraction on the streetscape. He stated that in
looking at the house from east to west, there appears to be a good balance to the
structure. He stated that overall; the petitioners have made some good adjustments.
Board member Friedman reiterated that this is a difficult site, but acknowledged that
the owners have a right to build a home on the site that meets the Code
requirements. He noted that in reviewing projects, the Board is charged with being
sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. He agreed with the neighbor’s comment
that the house still reflects a massing that is overwhelming and lacks an organic feel.
He stated his preference that the house be designed to work within the flow and
character of the site. He noted that the grade of the property falls off to the east
side and commented that locating a garage on that side would have naturally
lowered the garage and it would appear less massive. He stated that the petitioners
did a good job of responding to the previous comments, but noted that the changes
are Band-Aids when something more was needed. He agreed that the garage
would benefit from an offset from the front elevation. He stated that he understands
the desire for a three car garage to meet the market demand, but questioned
whether that desire is the Board’s concern.
Board member Notz stated that the home is beautiful but noted that he has wrestled
with the proposed three car garage and the difficult driveway since the start of the
project. He cautioned that a buyer may not find the driveway workable and
questioned what would happen then. He stated that the changes made to the
elevations of the garage are attractive but noted that the interior space will not be
very useable with the lowered roof and narrow space. He stated that consideration
should be given to a forward facing garage and elimination of the bonus room.
Page 5 of 9
Board member Bleck agreed that this is not an easy lot to develop. He
acknowledged that there has been some progress, but stated that the house is large
and the west side of the house is still problematic.
Board member Moyer acknowledged that the review process for this project has
been a long and difficult road. He stated that although progress has been made,
there are still some issues. He noted that the fence does not feel integrated into the
site. He suggested that the fence could turn the corner, near the garage. He stated
that the fence as presented appears repetitive and mundane. He stated that the
eyebrow dormer is a good change, but noted the importance of how the details are
developed. He questioned the scale of the eyebrow dormer noting that it is at a
height that would not offer a view from the inside. He stated that the columns are a
nice idea, but are out of scale and too small to be convincing. He stated that
appropriate details are essential to a good outcome. He reiterated that this is a
difficult petition noting that all of the concerns that were previously expressed
continue to be of concern.
Chairman King acknowledged that the petitioner has made efforts to address the
issues raised. He commended the work done to align the windows on the south
elevation. He stated that the proposed fence and landscaping give a nod to the
concerns raised in that area. He stated however that the house would by far
appear as the largest house on the streetscape, the longest and the widest. He
stated that it will be out of character with the neighboring homes. He stated that
reducing the size of the garage, to a two car garage, and eliminating the bonus
room above the garage, would help to reduce the appearance of mass. He stated
that without some movement in that area, he cannot support the project.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak, offered that based on the
comments from the Board members, removing the bonus room seems to be a key in
reducing the massing on the west side of the house. She stated for that reason, the
staff recommended a condition requiring that change. She reviewed the options
available to the Board at this point in the process including continuing the matter,
approving the petition with conditions requiring the removal of the bonus room or
establishing a sub-committee to advise the petitioner.
Chairman King asked for Board input on the idea of a subcommittee and on the
elimination of the bonus room.
Board Member Grieve stated that in his opinion, the current plan is acceptable with
the revisions as presented.
The other Board members expressed continued concern about the garage mass
and the bonus room over the garage.
Chairman King questioned whether a subcommittee is worthwhile if the petitioner is
not interested in making further changes. Hearing no further comments from the
Board, he invited a motion.
Board member Friedman made a motion to continue the petition with direction to
the petitioner to modify the plan based on the comments from the Board and public
testimony.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved by the Board by a
vote of 6 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to a commercial building
located at 915 S. Waukegan Road, commonly known as Lovell’s Restaurant. The
building is proposed for adaptive reuse as a medical office building. Approval of
a revised landscape plan is also requested. No variances requested.
Owner: Lovell Family Limited Partnership, James A. Lovell, Trustee
Contract Purchaser: Northshore University HealthSystem, Gerald Gallagher, COO
Representatives: Peter Witmer, Architect
Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Witmer introduced the project team. He explained that Northshore University
HealthSystem originally considered demolishing the existing building and
constructing a new medical office building. He stated that recognizing the
importance of the building to the community, a small addition to the south end of
the building is proposed instead to allow adaptive reuse for medical offices. He
explained that the 1,000 square foot addition will increase the efficiency of the
building. He noted that the trash area will be relocated to the southwest corner of
the parking lot as part of this project and an appropriate brick enclosure will be built.
He reviewed the floor plan. He presented color renderings noting the intent to have
the addition be seamless and indistinguishable from the original building. He
explained that new mechanical units will be located in a well, on the roof of the
addition and will be screened with the building elements. He reviewed the
elevations noting the areas of change and the areas that will stay the same. He
noted that the patio will be removed and replaced with landscaping. He stated
that the patio doors will be removed and replaced with windows to match the
existing windows in the building. He reviewed the proposed landscape
enhancements pointing out that the ash trees in the public parkway will be replaced
with deciduous trees. He noted that the two maple trees on the Waukegan Road
streetscape will be protected by keeping the existing stone wall in the area of the
addition. He stated that the parking lot lights will be changed out to match the color
of the City streetlights in the area using a whiter light than currently exists. He stated
Page 7 of 9
that two new light fixtures are proposed, one in the center of the parking lot and the
other, near the entrance.
Ms. Czerniak stated that the Lovell’s restaurant has become somewhat of a
landmark so preserving the building is important. She stated that the proposed
addition is in keeping with the building. She noted that care has been taken to
screen the new roof top mechanicals but noted that sightline studies should be
required to verify that the units will be well screened. She summarized that Board
review and approval of the architectural design of the addition and approval of the
landscaping is requested. She stated that the exterior lighting is generally remaining
the same with only a change in the color of the light and the addition of two light
poles. She stated that findings in support of the petition are included in the staff
report.
In response to questions from Board member Bl eck, Mr. Witmer noted that windows
on the addition are limited due to exam rooms in the interior. He suggested that a
tree could be added to break up the solid wall on the east side of the addition. He
pointed out the entry on the east elevation and discussed options for window
placement on the first and second floor.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the
plan meets the setback requirements for the B-1 zoning district. He agreed that
windows could be added on east and south elevations and suggested that second
floor windows may make more sense than first floor windows. He explained the
reasons why the addition is located as proposed noting the limited options for
expansion on the site. He explained that the openings for the patio doors will be in
filled with panes of glass with the same muntin pattern as the existing windows.
In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Witmer confirmed that he
is collaborating with Interwork Architects on the project. He stated that they have
addressed the relocated drainage easement and sewer with the owner of the
property neighboring property.
Board member Friedman suggested that adding a window to the second floor of the
east elevation is important and agreed that that on the first floor, the wall can be
broken up with landscaping.
In response to questions from Board Grieve, Ms. Czerniak explained that this project is
also before the Plan Commission for approval of first floor medical offices as a special
use.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Witmer confirmed that no
special provisions for access to the building are necessary.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment.
Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Moyer stated that the addition is very sensitively developed and
blended well with the existing building. He congratulated the project team.
Board member Bleck stated with the addition of a window on the east façade he
can support the petition. He noted that the window will better integrate the addition
with the existing building.
Board member Notz stated he is disheartened that the community will lose the
restaurant. He stated however that he is pleased with the decision to work with the
existing building. He stated full support for the petition.
Board member Friedman stated that the project is a terrific adaptive reuse of the
structure. He agreed with the addition of a window on the east elevation and with
paying special attention to the landscaping, the species selected and the quantity
of plantings.
Board member Grieve stated that the upfront decision to maintain the existing
structure makes the decision easier for the Board. He stated support for the project.
Chairman King expressed appreciation for the efforts made to fit the use into the
existing building and the efforts to fit in with the character of the community. He
stated support for the addition of the window to break up the wall on the east
elevation of the addition. He suggested that any approval be conditioned on the
addition of the window. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a
motion.
Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of a 2-story
addition, the landscape enhancement plan and the modification to the parking lot
lighting as presented to the Board based on the findings in the staff report and
subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the
Board with the modifications as detailed below. If any other modifications
are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted and
will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as
appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the
Board and the approvals granted.
Page 9 of 9
a. A window(s) shall be added on the east elevation of the addition to
break up the large expanse of brick wall. Consideration shall be
given to the addition of a window(s) on the south elevation as well.
b. The plans submitted for permit shall include images that verify that
the new mechanicals will be fully screened from view from all points
on the ground.
c. The plans submitted for permit shall specify clearly that all detailing
and materials will match the existing building.
2. A detailed tree removal plan shall be submitted for review and will be
subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to any removal of
trees from the site.
3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and will be subject
to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to any removal of trees from
the site. The landscape plan shall, in particular, detail plantings on the east
and south side of the addition, around the trash enclosure, the plantings
that will replace the patio areas to be removed on the north and east sides
of the building, replacement plantings in the parking lot and the plantings
planned to enhance the Gloucester Crossing streetscape.
The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and approved by the Board by
a vote of 6-0.
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 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development