Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/05/06 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of May 6th, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, May 6th, 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, and Ross Friedman. Building Review Board members absent: Bruce Grieve Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development and Kate McManus, Assistant Planner 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. This agenda item was postponed. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing house and garage and approval of a replacement residence and detached garage at 660 Northcroft Court. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape, hardscape and lighting plans and pillars and gates is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner: Patrick and Anne Allin Representative: Gary Frank, 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. Frank stated that he has worked to further develop the plans for the proposed home as a follow up to the direction from the Board at the last meeting. He explained that the site plan was adjusted to preserve several heritage trees. He showed elevations of the proposed gates and garden fencing. He noted that in response to comments from staff regarding the amount of lighting, the lighting plan was revised and approval of 8 additional lights over the maximum allowed is requested. He stated that these additional lights are needed because the site is very large, for safety reasons, and to direct visitors around the site. He noted that the additional lighting will light trees, the main entrance, and the side entrance. He clarified the proposed materials, reviewed the adjustments made to the front entrance to align on an axis in 2 directions, identified mullion details, and he noted that ne met with the City Arborist to discuss impacts to the heritage trees on the site. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition was before the Board in March and received general support and confirmation that it appears to be moving in a direction consistent with the guidelines. She noted that the replacement residence is designed consistent with the selected architectural style and high quality, natural materials are proposed. She added that the petitioner provided plans with additional details and studied the Board’s suggestion with respect to the garages. She stated that from the staff’s perspective, the project meets the applicable standards. She noted however that concerns remain about the amount of exterior lighting proposed on the site. She noted that the lighting plan indicates double the number of lights permitted in the front yard. She added that the site is adjacent to preserved open lands noting the potential with extensive exterior lighting and the preserved natural area. She acknowledged that the amount of lighting proposed in the front yard could be mitigated in part by the fact that the site has limited visibility from the street. She suggested a condition of approval to assure that lights are limited and that fixtures fully shield the source of the light from view. She stated that the lighting guidelines do not permit up lighting on the house and added that an inspection should be conducted after installation of the lights to assess the lighting intensity and require reducing the intensity is determined to be appropriate. She noted that exterior lighting must be electronically controlled and be on a timer to turn off no later than 11pm. In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Frank explained that the lot slopes from the front door to the back and the new house is lower than the existing house by a foot. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the total allowable square footage of the lot is 11,821 square feet and the proposed house is 83 feet under the maximum allowable square footage. In response to questions from Board Member Notz, Mr. Frank stated that the two gates are of same design, but different heights. He explained that the rationale for the 2nd gate is to create a sense of separation of spaces. He noted that the front gate is automatic and the other gate is decorative and operated by hand. He stated there is a back yard retaining wall ; and explained that the difference between the existing and proposed grade is about 6 inches. In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Frank stated that the proposed lights are low voltage down lights. In response to questions from Board Member Reda, Mr. Frank reviewed the proposed light fixtures and noted that the pathway lights are shielded and all lights are on a timer. In response to questions from Ms. Czerniak, Mr. Frank clarified there will be small uplights lighting the plantings, but not the structure. He added that there are uplights on the entry pillars to the courtyard and that all lights will have dimmers to allow the lighting level to be lowered. In response to questions from Board Member Moyer, Mr. Frank stated that the proposed basement will be 10 or 11 feet in height. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Frank clarified that the circular element on the west elevation is a window for the master closet. He stated that he would be open to changing the window shape to an oval or rectangle, to be more in keeping with the other windows. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Friedman complimented the design of the home and noted that it is in keeping with the scale and massing of the streetscape. He expressed concern about the amount of lighting on the site and the gray color palette. Board Member Notz, complimented the design of the home. Board Member Bleck complimented the proposed materials and landscaping. Board Member Reda stated that he was initially concerned with the demolition, but complimented the design of the new structure. He stated that the petitioner should work with Staff to resolve the lighting concerns. Board Member Moyer expressed support for using an oval window in place of a circular window as previously discussed. Chairman King stated that the proposed structure is good a fit for the area and that a condition of approval should be added requiring further reduction in the amount of lighting. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King 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. 1. All modifications to the plans, including changes made to respond to Board comments, and changes resulting from further design development; shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. A copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached to the plans submitted for permit for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the conditions approved by the Board and with the Board’s direction prior to the issuance of any permits. 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. 3. Final Landscape Plan – Prior to a framing inspection, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 4. A separate permit must be obtained for fencing, gates, pillars and exterior lighting and submittal of detailed plans for each element is required. a. The final lighting plan shall be in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. The dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with particularly given the location of the property adjacent to preserved open land. Light spillover from the cupola shall be minimized. 6. 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 driveways must remain unobstructed at all times unless approval for obstruction for a specific time period is authorized by the Community Development Department. Street parking is not permitted. 7. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be planted consistent with the approved final landscape plan. If, due to the time of year, planting is not possible, a bond in the amount of 110% of materials and labor must be posted with the City to assure that the plantings are completed within 30 days after the start of the next planting season as determined by the City. 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and attached garage located at 347 Bluffs Edge Drive. Approval of the overall site plan and a conceptual landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner: Thomas F. Fuller Trust, Thomas F. Fuller, trustee Representatives: Fred Polito Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Board Member Bleck recused himself as his company is involved in this project and left the Council Chambers and did not return for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Polito introduced the project and noted that minor revisions were made to the plans since the last meeting and details of the design were clarified. He noted that the previous shed dormers were changed to gable dormers. He stated that the property consists of 2 acres and that the owner wants a boat house and garage, leaving 7,000 square feet for the house. He explained that the floor plan maximizes the views to the Lake from the rear of house and a complex design was desired by the owner to create interesting roof lines. He noted that the garage doors do not directly face the street limiting visibility. He stated that the Fuller’s own a home in Lake Geneva with a similar layout and design as the proposed home and wish to replicate it here. He noted that the proposed residence is similar to the Shingle Style, but was not designed to replicate it. He noted that the shed roof dormers were changed to gable dormers. In response to comments about the complex roof forms, he indicated that roof forms on the rear elevation were adjusted so that elements on the 1st and 2nd floors are more consistent with each other. He explained that the owner does not want to change the breakfast room and the boat house will follow the design of the house. Ms. Czerniak noted that the petition was before the Board at l ast month’s meeting and the Board raised concerns with the complexity of the proposed house and lack of consistency with its chosen style. She stated that the renderings provided in the presentation were very hel pful noting that to date, staff was not provided with that information. She expressed concern from staff that the gable dormers on the front elevation seem to be oversized. She requested the Board’s input on whether the minor changes made to date fully address the Board’s concerns. She noted that the City received comments from a neighbor stating general support for the project but noting concern about the lack of detail on the south elevation. Board member Reda noted that the changes made since the previous meeting are not significant. He expressed concern about the size of the dormers, the height of roof, and the general massing of the house. He suggested that if may be helpful to study the dormers further and explore reducing the scale. He stated that a massing model would be helpful. Board Member Notz complimented the overall design and stated that in his opinion, the dormers are acceptable. He requested that attention be paid to the south elevation to break up the wall plane. In response to questions from Board Member Notz, Mr. Polito clarified the details on the southeast corner and explained that the porch and master bath have angled corners and that the breakfast clerestory windows are actual windows to provide light to the space. Board Member Friedman stated that he appreciated the changes made and stated that he shares the concerns regarding the south elevation. He questioned whether the use of aluminum for the gutters and downspouts is appropriate given the other exterior materials and the architectural style of the hosue. In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Polito stated that the soffit material is cedar plywood and the width of the overhang is 16 inches. He explained that the proposed home is a contemporary take on the Shingle Style. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Polito stated that the chimney is river rock and the decorative cap is masonry. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Moyer agreed with the Board and the architect that the changes made to date are minor. He stated that the project does not differ significantly from the initial petition. He noted that the examples of other homes of the intended style were helpful. He stated that the shed dormers are not successful as proposed. Board Member Reda stated that he is encouraged by the revisions made to date. He stated that a massing model is needed to better explain the intended roof lines. He noted that the rear elevation of the home is largely visible from Lake Michigan. Board Member Notz stated his general support of the project and noted that the massing is broken up by the angles of the home. He requested further work on the southeast corner of the home to add detail. Board Member Friedman stated that the roof massing needs further work noting that it is not harmonious with the selected style and is not internally consistent. He expressed concern about the turret element on the rear elevation due to the visibility from the Lake. He requested that a different material, other than plywood, be used for the soffits. Chairman King stated that the changes made are an improvement over the original plan presented to the Board and complimented the height of the house, below the allowable height. He stated that he is in general support of the petition, but noted that further refinements to the southeast façade and further study of the size of the dormers are needed. He stated that with appropriate changes overall, he could accept the gazebo element. He stated that based on the Board’s mixed comments, he is inclined to continue the petition. He invited a motion. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to continue to refine the design taking into account the comments of the Board. He encouraged the petitioner to provide a massing model to better explain the complicated roof forms proposed. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for a wall sign and projecting sign for Forever Om Yoga, an existing Lake Forest business relocated to 828 N. Western Avenue. Owner: Ryan Stoll, GoPre LLC Representative: Kevin Christensen, Right Way Signs LLC, project manager Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Christensen provided samples of the letters and hardware proposed for the sign. He showed images of the sign from the previous business and the proposed signage. He explained that the proposed projecting sign will be fixed to the column on south side of the storefront and the attached letters are fixed to the center of the façade above the storefront. He noted that the letters will be mounted flush with 2 inch metal studs and adhesive. He stated that the letters will be attached to mortar joints. He reviewed the dimensions, framing, and bracket details of the projecting sign. He stated that the letters are painted aluminum and the projecting sign is stained hardwood. Ms. McManus stated that the petition includes 2 components, the wall sign and the projecting sign. She noted that the wall sign is consistent with the Code but because the projecting sign contains a graphic, Board review is required. She stated that the graphic appears to meet the requirements in the Code and that no signage is proposed for the windows. She requested the Board’s input regarding the installation of the projecting sign over a decorative element of the storefront pier noting that there are limited alternative locations to attach the sign to the storefront. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Christensen stated that the projecting sign will be stained and appear as presented. In response to questions from Board Member Notz, Mr. Christensen explained that “om” is a phrase in yoga. He stated that the lettering and logo are proposed as aluminum. He stated that they considered raising the projecting sign, but were concerned that it would obstruct the flush mounted letters. In response to questions from Board Member Moyer, Mr. Christensen explained that the font was heavier on the “Forever Om” to make the business name more prominent while “yoga” was done in thinner letters because it is a more generic phrase. He added that the blade sign frame is not intended to be a Prairie Style design. In response to a question from Chairman King, Mr. Christensen stated that he did not know whether the flooring of interior is wood to match the projecting sign. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board Member Moyer, Mr. Christensen stated that no lighting is proposed on the signs. Board Member Notz noted that stained hardwood will require maintenance. Board member Friedman stated support for the petition and added that the maintenance will be the responsibly of the owners. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King 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. 1. 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. Architectural Design 2. Any modifications to the plan, either to respond to direction from the Board or changes made for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the approvals granted and the conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. 3. The projecting sign and wall sign must be mounted to the mortar joints rather than the brick face. The projecting sign shall be located consistent with Board direction. The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of a demolition and replacement residence located at 845 Oak Knoll Drive. Approval of the overall site plan and a landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owners: Brandon and Anne Thomas Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Melichar provided background on the existing home which was purchased by the current owners in 2008. She showed a model of the home and noted the several later additions. She explained that the owners want to reorient the driveway entry from Lakewood Drive to Oak Knoll Drive adding that the current site layout is confusing. She stated that due to the piecemeal nature of the existing home, it is a challenge to renovate and would require the removal of walls and an increase in ceiling height. She noted various structural issues including spalling brick, over framed roof construction of the garage, rotted windows, and undersized mechanical systems. She presented the concept for the replacement residence stating that i t consists of a symmetrical building mass with appendages and is designed in the Colonial Revival style. She showed precedent images of the historic style and added that the home is under the allowable square footage. She explained that the hip roof on the garage diminishes its size and noted that the new home is more compact than the existing home significantly reducing the impervious surface area. She stated that the landscape design follows the style of the proposed home. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed house meets all zoning and building scale requirements and has frontage on two streetscapes which differ in character. She requested the Board’s input regarding the siting and massing of the home in the neighborhood noting that the area is in transition. She added that the petitioner submitted a revised site plan since the packet was distributed which adjusts the driveway on the north side to allow for more landscape screening. She stated that the City Arborist directed that the final landscape plan avoid a monoculture of planting by replacing some of the Norway Spruces with other varieties. The City Engineer noted that the landscaper and engineer will need to work closely together to ensure the proposed planting beds located along the north and east property lines do not obstruct drainage. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Melichar stated that the combination of a hip and gambrel roof have historic precedent. She noted that the proposed house will have white clapboard siding, white windows and cedar shingles, all traditional details. In response to Board Member Notz, Ms. Melichar confirmed that the bay windows on the east elevation are supported by the foundation and the bay roofs are bent copper. She stated that angled siding on the dormers is a common element. She explained that the service door on the north elevation is recessed and the same height as the garage doors. In response to questions from Board Member Reda, Ms. Melichar stated that the garage doors are overhead doors but look as though they are hinged. She explained that this element is a visual trick and the doors are not actually arched. Chairman King observed that the house appears to be inconsistent with the character of Oak Knoll Drive. Ms. Melichar stated that the owners briefly considered orienting the house on Lakewood Drive, but wanted to keep the large backyard. She added that the chimney materials will be brick in a darker color. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Friedman stated that he understands the need for a demolition and complimented the design of the replacement residence. He expressed concern about the siting noting that the home would be more appropriate fronting on Lakewood Drive. He stated that as proposed, the new house will change the character of Oak Knoll. Board Member Notz complimented the design and acknowledged that Oak Knoll is in transition. He stated that siting the home on Lakewood would result in no backyard for the owners. Board Member Reda stated that the proposed demolition is consistent with the demolition criteria. He stated that intuitively, it seems that the home should face Lakewood, but he stated that he understands the need for a backyard. Board Member Moyer complimented the design and added that this home will direct future construction in the neighborhood. Chairman King stated that the house is a nice addition to the community and noted that the proposed garage is across from the neighbor’s garage. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Condition of Demolition 1. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, overall property and streetscape must be provided in a digital form, subject to City approval, to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and Historical Society archives. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 2. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 4. A final landscape plan, drawn on the drainage plan, shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist and City Engineer. The final landscape plan shall demonstrate adequate screening on the west and south edges of the lot to minimize the visual impact of the new house and motor court on the existing streetscapes. Landscape screening shall also be provided along the north property line. Furthermore, the plan shall minimize the monoculture of the proposed landscaping by replacing some of the Norway Spruces with other tree varieties such as Pine, Fir, Juniper, Hemlock, or Cypress. 5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 6. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. General 7. 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of a demolition and replacement residence located at 162 Foster Place. Approval of the overall site plan and a landscape plan is also requested. No variances are requested. Owners: Jonathan and Daniela Pure Representative: Scott Streightiff, 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. Streightiff introduced the petition stating that the neighborhood is in transition and noting that the existing home is not significant. He noted that alternatives to demolition were explored, but noted that substantial upgrades to the home would be required. He stated that the existing basement height is 8 feet. He stated that the owners intend to recycle and donate materials as the house is demolished. He stated that the replacement home is proposed to be sited slightly further back on the property. He explained that the house works within the French architectural influence with balanced composition and asymmetrical massing. Ms. McManus stated that the proposed home complies with all zoning and building scale requirements. She noted that a revised site plan was submitted since the packet was distributed which rotates the home to minimize the need for a retaining wall on the west side of the house. She added that given the overall high quality of the proposed house, the Board’s input is requested regarding the use of aluminum for the gutters and downspouts. S he stated that the City Arborist recommended that adequate screening on the west side of the property be added to properly screen the driveway and garage. She added that the structure is under the maximum allowable height and once the final grading plan is received, staff will verify that the house remains under the 40 foot maximum when measured from the point of lowest existing grade. Board member Moyer complimented the hand drawn plans prepared by the architect. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Streightiff agreed to consider minimizing the impervious surface area and moving the house further back on the lot. In response to questions from Board Member Notz, Mr. Streightiff stated that the 3rd floor is an open craft room and he clarified the location of the skylight. In response to Board Member Friedman, Mr. Streightiff noted that there is a simple circular element in the center of each railing. He stated that the chimney pots are clay and the dormers are arched with a straight window and a copper roof. He confirmed that the dormers will match around building and now differ slightly from what was included in the Board’s packets. He stated that Lannonstone is the predominant exterior material and stucco is the secondary material. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Streightiff stated that the color scheme has not been determined, but noted that the stone will be traditional Lannonstone and the stucco will be a neutral off-white color. Board Member Friedman stated that knowing the color palette is important. In response to a question from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak stated that to her knowledge, the City has not received many calls regarding drainage concerns on Foster Place. She noted that the area has large lots with some grade change. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Streightiff stated that the 2nd story window element is a stairway next to the entry and the lower window portion provides light to the basement. He added that he agrees that using copper for the gutters is more fitting, but noted that they may be a cost concern. In response to a question from Board Member Notz, Mr. Streightiff stated that a pool is not proposed at this point but is in the long term plan. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board does not necessarily review pools unless there is a particular reason to do so such as a pool house that may require a building scale variance. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Moyer complimented the design. Board Member Reda pointed out that the dormers do not match and requested that the drawings be tidied up a bit to reflect the intended consistency. Board Member Notz stated that understanding the color palette is important and suggested that a computer model would be helpful. Board Member Friedman stated that the gutters and downspouts should be copper and noted that the driveway area is excessive. He requested that the petitioner consider using pavers or reduce the size of the proposed drive. Chairman King stated that the proposed residence fits the neighborhood and suggested adding a condition of approval requiring the use of copper for gutters and downspouts. Ms. Czerniak suggested that the Board may want to give staff latitude to work with the petitioner to address the concerns raised by the Board. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Condition of Demolition 1. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence and overall property and streetscape must be provided in a digital form, subject to City approval, to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and Historical Society archives. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 2. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Board with the following modifications.  Minimize the proposed driveway footprint in order to reduce the amount of impervious surface area. Consideration of using a pervious material should be given.  Further refine the color palette and design details, particularly regarding the consistency of window shapes.  Copper shall be used for gutters and downspouts. 3. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 4. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall demonstrate adequate screening for the parking courts in order to minimize the visual impact of the parking areas on neighbors and the existing streetscape. Landscaping and/or fencing should also be included to provide screening of utilities located on the north elevation. 6. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 7. 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. General 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged Chairman King and noted that this was his last meeting. She thanked him for his time on the Board and invited him to return to a future meeting for formal recognition. 9. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner