BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/07/01 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of July 1st, 2015 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
July 1st, 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 King
Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to
introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes of the May 6th, 2015 meeting of the Building Review
Board.
The minutes of the June 3rd, 2015 meeting were approved with two corrections as
requested by Board Member Bleck.
3. Recognition of past Board Chairman Charlie King. (Postponed)
4. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to the rear of a residence
located at 395 Spruce Avenue. A building scale variance is also requested.
Owners: Andrew and Megan Andress
Representative: Shawn Purnell, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Purnell explained that the homeowners are requesting a building scale variance
of just under 5 percent to expand the kitchen and breakfast area and to add a
bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. He noted that the wrap around front
porch extends the length of the façade and contributes to the excess of square
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 2
footage of the home. He stated that the home consists of a simple mass with gable
roofs and shake siding. He added that the various roof heights complicate the rear
gable. He explained that it is important to retain the character and scale of the
home. He stated that the proposed projecting bay on the addition extends further
into the rear yard and the addition will bump out the rear elevation. He stated that
the project keeps the simple massing and gable roof and the addition is not visible
from street. He noted that the neighbors to both sides of the home have been
notified and had no objections to the project. He stated that the addition will be an
11 foot extension from the existing side wall and noted that the bay is enlarged and
cantilevered for the breakfast area.
Ms. McManus reviewed the petition stating that a building scale variance of just
under 5 percent is requested. She noted that the roof line is consistent in height and
roof pitch and the proposed materials and window types match the existing
residence. She added that an existing Hickory tree will be removed as part of this
project and noted that the removal is accepted by the City’s Arborist and that staff
is recommending support of the proposed addition as well the building scale
variance.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell clarified that the
addition will extend at same height as the existing roof line and the materials are
consistent with the house. He added that the materials will be easily duplicated.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Czerniak stated that the
building scale calculation completed in 1994 for the house did not incorporate an
allowance for design elements noting that provision in the Code was added since
then.
In response to questions from Board Member Reda, Mr. Purnell stated that the
adjacent neighbors are supportive of the project. He added that they were unable
to contact the rear neighbor. He stated that due to the limited scope of the
addition, landscape screening was not considered.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Purnell clarified that the
façade material color is natural stain.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Purnell stated that there is a full
basement under the addition to allow for upgraded mechanicals and a larger family
room.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board.
The Board members stated their overall support of the project.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 3
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz 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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. 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.
2. 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. Due to the narrow street
and proximity to schools, on street parking for construction vehicles is not
permitted. Off-site parking may be necessary and workers may need to be
shuttled to the site.
General
3. 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 Friedman and approved by a vote of 7
to 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence
and approval of a replacement residence located at 366 Bluff’s Edge Drive.
Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No
variances are requested.
Owners: Dan and Julie Loeger
Representative: John Krasnodebski, 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. Krasnodebski stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of the demolition of
an existing one story home in constructed in 1966. He noted that an addition was
constructed in 1988. He stated that the site is heavily wooded and the intention is to
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 4
maintain the existing curb cuts and preserve most of the trees and screening. He
stated that the historic brick wall located at the rear of the lot, is a remnant from an
estate and the intention is to repair the wall as part of the project. He showed
images of the existing streetscape noting that the area consists of a mix of
architectural styles with homes set back from street. He noted that new construction
is occurring across Westleigh Road. He explained that the site plan differs slightly from
what was included in the Board’s packet and reiterated that the curb cuts will be
maintained. He stated that the home is set back a little further on the lot than the
existing house and that 2 trees will be removed. He stated that the pool is in
alignment with the existing fountain and the fountain feature is not historic, but it will
be retained as a fire pit feature. He stated that the roof line on the new residence is
low with very low slung eaves and the chosen architectural style is English County. He
reviewed the proposed materials, roof lines and architectural details. He noted that
the gutters and downspouts are copper, and noted that Lannonstone is used at the
base of the house and on the chimney. He reviewed the color palette. He showed
images of architectural examples with sweeping roof lines and the Cottage style. He
noted that the master bedroom wing is a one story element and noted the carriage
doors on garage. He requested approval of the demolition and replacement
residence.
Ms. McManus stated that a condition of approval is recommended requiring
detailed information on the restoration of the historic estate wall and the City Arborist
has identified trees worthy of preservation. She stated that staff is recommending
support of the demolition and construction of the replacement residence.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that
the estate wall is reinforced with concrete and to repair it, the wall will need to be
dismantled and rebuilt. He added that the porch columns are proposed to be
constructed of a composite material which look like wood, but will hold up longer
than true wood.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he
did not locate the original plans for the estate.
Board member Grieve added that often old estates have drain tiles and to be
mindful when removing the wall to avoid water issues.
In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed
the materials which include composite front porch columns, bluestone pavers, a
bead board ceiling, slate roof, paver brick entry court, asphalt drive, and bluestone
terraces. He stated that 2 trees at the south and southwest will be lost, but the
footprint of the new structure is a bit smaller than the existing house. He added that
the arborvitae will be removed to make room for the pool.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 5
In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Krasnodebski clarified the
rear chimney and walk out balcony. He noted that the dormer window will be 15
feet away at the chimney. He stated that the railing is wood and the passageway at
the north side of the house will lead to a stepper stone path to the rear patio. He
noted that the entry is a design element that stops at end of driveway and provides
an entrance into the garden.
Board Member Reda stated that the Board has previously set a precedent to
approve composite material for columns, but that trim and railings must be true
wood.
Board Member Moyer noted that the chimney height may impact drafts and smoke
may go back down the chimney. He stated that generally a taller chimney is more
functional.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that the
dormer roof material is slate and the chimneys on east side are fairly well aligned
with only a 1.5 foot offset.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak added that staff is not
aware of specific problems with a membrane roof.
Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he has used this type of roof on a few homes and it is
pitched for drainage and has a 20 year life. He added that the roof is not visible and
feels it is the right choice.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation, stated that entry doors are usually signaled by a dormer and that the
proposed plan does not clearly indicate where the front door is located. He
suggested flipping the oval window feature to emphasize the entry.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Krasnodebski stated that he prefers the
projecting hip roof over the entry and the oval window will help to call out the entry.
He added that the paver entry court will also guide visitors to the front entry.
Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board.
Board member Moyer suggested changing the roofline over the porch to call out the
entry.
Mr. Krasnodebski agreed that he would consider a gable over the entry.
The Board Members concurred that the petition meets the demolition criteria.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 6
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the demolition based on the
findings in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the
Board by a 7 to 0 vote.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the replacement residence and
preliminary landscape plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to
the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the
Commission. 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.
The plans must include the following:
a. High quality, natural materials should be used consistently and should be
clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit.
b. Detailed plans for restoration of the historic wall along the west property
line must be submitted along with plans for the new residence.
2. 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.
3. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and
drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following:
a. A tree survey for any existing trees that are proposed for removal or that
may be impacted by the construction. A condition report should be
included.
b. The plan shall reflect the trees to be preserved including healthy Oak trees
flanking the driveway, the Cottonwood tree near the driveway and the
Spruce trees in the southeast corner of the property.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 7
c. Replacement inches for trees proposed for removal as determined to be
required by the Code by the City Arborist. Replacement trees shall be
located to maintain the dense planting buffer along the perimeter of the
lot.
d. Adequate screening along the north, south, and west property lines to
retain the wooded character of the lot and minimize views of the new
residence from neighboring properties.
4. 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.
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. Only on site parking or
parking immediately in front of the property on Bluff’s Edge Drive is permitted.
No parking of construction vehicles is permitted on Westleigh Road.
General
6. Prior to demolition, 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, in a manner consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood and 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 continuously
pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. Fines
and penalties may be assessed for delay in proceeding with the demolition
once work is underway.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 8
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 Friedman and approved by a vote of 7
to 0.
6. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence
and approval of a replacement pool house located at property addressed as 21
Ahwahnee Road. This property is being consolidated into the property at 41
Ahwahnee Road. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan for the
pool house is also requested. No variances are requested.
Owner: Brian and Karen Uihlein
Representative: Dave Poulton, 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. Poulton stated that the owners of 41 S. Ahwahnee Road recently purchased the
neighboring property at 21 S. Ahwahnee Road to combine the two properties with
the intent of converting the existing house to a pool house. He added that initially
they did not intend to demolish the existing house but, after looking at the property
more closely, realized that demolition was the best solution. He noted the existing
structure was poorly aligned with 41 S. Ahwahnee and was constructed in a
piecemeal manner. He stated that the 1958 home had nice features but several
later additions comprised its character. He showed images of the house at 41 S.
Ahwahnee noting that existing arborvitae and a fence obstruct a visual connection
between the 2 properties. He stated that the later additions are lower quality and
the garage is in a poor location. He noted that the existing pool is in the middle of
the site and the design intent is to create an axis for the new structures, to orient the
building toward the views with doors opening at the rear and to connect the interior
and exterior. He stated that the pool house consists of 3 main gables with
connections and will be obscured by landscaping. He added that the details and
materials are consistent with the house, noting the material of the chimney is stone
which relates to the pavilion. He showed images of the proposed streetscape
demonstrating the smaller massing of the pool house.
Ms. McManus provided background on the project noting that is an unusual petition
and will create 1 large lot. She stated that the new structure is under the allowable
square footage and well under the height requirement. She added that there is a
large reduction in impervious surface area. She stated that the pool house is
compatible in style and materials to the neighboring property of which it become a
part of and staff is recommending approval of the demolition and replacement
structure.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 9
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Czerniak explained that the
zoning code does not allow an accessory structure as a stand-alone building on a
lot. She added that this petition does not need to go through a plat of consolidation,
but would simply be considered a single zoning lot by definition and the property
would retain the ability to be separated if desired in the future if the accessory
structure and pool are removed. She stated that the pool house as proposed meets
the setbacks for an accessory structure.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Johnson, landscape
architect, stated that the siting was determined by playing off the existing
landscaping and to preserve the trees.
In response to questions from Board Member Grieve, Mr. Poulton stated that straight
columns with no fluting were chosen because he did not want to duplicate exactly
what is on the main residence. He stated that he was concerned that the same
column motif would be repetitive.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Poulton stated that there is partial
basement with a wine cellar and mechanicals in the pool house.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation, stated that the pool house on Mayflower Road was required to be built
so that could serve as a stand-alone residence. He stated that the original 1958
house may have been a Ralph Milman design and should be documented prior to
demolition.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code does not stipulate
that an accessory structure be built to meet all the requirements of a single family
house; but stated that if in the future, the owners desire to sell the lot separately, all
applicable Code requirements would need to be met.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Poulton added that the building could be easily
converted to a house.
Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board.
Board members Diamond and Grieve complimented the design.
Board member Friedman added that the existing house is discreet and pleasing and
could be remodeled, but noted that the positives outweigh preserving the existing
house. He complimented the design stating that is was well thought out.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 10
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the demolition of the residence
based on the findings in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the
Board in a 7 to 0 vote.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the pool house as an accessory
structure to the main house on the neighboring lot based on the findings in the staff
report and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. If 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.
2. 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.
3. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and
drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist.
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 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. Parking on the street is
not permitted due to the narrow street and nearby intersection.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 11
General
6. Prior to demolition, 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 continuously
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 Friedman and approved in a 7 to 0
vote.
7. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence
and approval of a replacement residence located at 421 Spruce Avenue.
Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested. No
variances are requested.
Owners: PC Equities, LLC (Peter Childs)
Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Letzter stated that the existing house was built in 1910 and was later remodeled.
He noted that the house is currently used as a duplex and there is a side door entry
to the 2nd level. He stated that the petitioner looked at renovating the building, but
the 1910 construction created some hurdles including a low basement height and
would require the floor joist systems and roof to be demolished. He noted that the
current home encroaches in the front yard setback. He stated that a structural
evaluation was provided to the Board. He discussed the design inspiration for the
new home stating that the Georgian style would complement the streetscape. He
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 12
stated that the home consists of a simple hip roof, balanced windows, a covered
porch, brick chimney and porch steps, rear porch, and detached garage. He
showed floor plans and noted that the house is located in a manner similar to the
existing, but will meet zoning requirements. He added that green space will be
located between the 2 drives and the detached garage will match the house. He
noted that white Hardieboard siding is proposed, 2 trees are to be removed and
new landscaping will be added to the front and back.
Ms. McManus stated that although the existing residence is reflective of homes that
originally characterized this small lot neighborhood, it was modified over time and no
longer retains architectural integrity. She explained that the existing driveway abuts
the neighboring drive and that staff received correspondence from the neighbor to
the west about the driveway requesting that the driveway be relocated to the east
side of the lot. She stated that given the pattern of driveways along Spruce and input
from the neighbor, staff is recommending that the driveway be relocated to the east
of the house. She added that the City Arborist noted that most of the trees on the site
are in poor condition, but the Hackberry Tree within the parkway and the Sugar
Maple located at the northeast corner of the lot warrant preservation. She requested
Board input regarding the front porch columns and stated that staff is
recommending support of the demolition and construction of the replacement
residence.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. McManus clarified that the 2
significant trees on the lot may need to be removed to make room for the new
driveway, but that inch for inch replacement would be required.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Letzter stated that he is open
to downplaying the columns and possibly reducing the scale and number of
columns.
In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Childs noted that there is a
streetlamp in the parkway that may be impacted by the new driveway location. He
stated that there are existing trees on the east edge of the property, but
acknowledged that the current driveway condition is poor. He stated that a one foot
green space was created to separate the drives on the proposed plan and
expressed concern about flipping the driveway to the east.
Ms. Czerniak added that there have been ongoing problems with shared driveways
and this may be an opportunity to improve upon the current conditions if there is
space to do so.
In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Letzter acknowledged that
the window on the rear elevation does not align with the window below and stated
that he was open to adjusting the window placement to improve consistency. He
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 13
also agreed that the French doors could be more consistent with the windows and
the rear door could be centered rather than offset.
Board Member Friedman expressed concern that Hardieboard will be used instead
of wood, noting that Hardieboard does not have the same character as true wood.
He reviewed the side yard setbacks and suggested shifting the drive and reducing its
width to the extent possible.
In response to questions from Board Member Grieve, Mr. Letzter explained that the
front entry has 2 columns on each side and flat columns on the wall.
Mr. Childs added that he is open to changing the driveway location noting that the
property to the east is a wider lot.
In response to Board Member Diamond, Mr. Letzter stated that dentil molding is
proposed on the house, but not the garage. He agreed that the columns could be
simplified, reduced to 2 columns or reduced in width.
Chairman Notz added that he is supportive of the demolition. Hearing no further
questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation, stated that there is a very similar new house being built on Northmoor
Road by the same developer. He expressed concern that the details as presented
to the Board are not being carried out in the construction. He noted that the dentil
feature was removed, wide siding was used instead of narrow siding, and the
dormers have 2 horizontal windows. He expressed concern that the house now
presented to the Board will not match the plans approved by the Board. He added
that the Foundation has worked to preserve the historic gaslights and that there are
other examples of shared driveways in the community.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that on some recent
projects deviations from the approved plans have been discovered by the City
inspectors. She stated that staff will be more vigilant in requiring that areas where
the detail or materials reflected in the approved plans are not followed are re-
constructed in accordance with the plan. She added that staff will also encourage
that more details be provided on the plans provided to the Board for review.
In response to a question from Board Member Reda, Ms. Czerniak explained that
after a permit is issued, the City’s building inspectors call attention to differentiations
in quality and details. She added that because of this, final plans should be very
detailed.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 14
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will
investigate whether the gas light would need to be moved if the driveway is
relocated and whether that could be accomplished.
Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board. Hearing no
further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz 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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Board
with the following modifications.
a. The site plan shall reflect the relocation of the driveway to the east side of
the residence and shall relocate the residence and garage in full
conformance with zoning regulations.
b. Windows shall be properly aligned as directed by the Board.
c. The French doors on the rear elevation shall be adjusted to maintain
consistent character and style of the windows on the residence.
d. The single door entry on the rear elevation shall be centered under the
gable.
e. Consideration shall be given to reducing the height of the projecting
gable entry on the rear elevation to maintain appropriate proportions and
minimize it’s the visual impact.
f. The front porch shall be simplified by reducing the number of columns
from 4 to 2.
2. Final plans shall clearly specify all exterior materials, window type and
architectural details and accurately reflect the drawings and renderings
presented to the Board with the modifications as noted in #1 above.
3. If any modifications are made to the plans approved by the Board beyond
the changes directed by the Board as detailed above, 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 and that the overall height of the residence is consistent with the
information presented to the Board with respect to the height of the
residence. 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.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 15
a. A section shall be included in the plans submitted for permit detailing the
existing and any proposed grading on the site and demonstrating that the
replacement house, when measured from the point of lowest to the
highest peak, is consistent with the plans submitted to the Board and in
compliance with the Code.
5. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and
drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following:
a. Adequate screening between the driveway and neighboring property at
the rear of the lot.
b. Identification of all dead trees and trees in failing condition and any other
trees proposed for removal.
c. Replacement inches for trees removed from the site as required by the
City Arborist in accordance with the Code.
d. A curb along the east edge of the driveway.
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. Due to the narrow street
and proximity to the schools, on street parking is not permitted. Off-site
parking may be necessary with workers shuttled to the property.
General
8. Prior to demolition, 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.
9. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition
activity is diligently being pursued, the house, property and yard must be
maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code,
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 16
10. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction
and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously
pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood.
11. 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 Friedman and approved in a 7 to 0
vote.
8. Consideration of a request for approval of new townhomes on the site of five
previously demolished structures at the northeast corner of McKinley Road and
Wisconsin Avenue. Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also
requested. A building scale variance is also requested.
Owners: Taris Partners 2, LLC
Representative: Austin DePree, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Board Member Bleck recused himself as his company is involved with the project and
left the Council Chambers.
Mr. DePree provided background on project and noted that several alternatives
were considered. He referred to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this is
an opportunity to set an architectural standard for new construction. He noted that
the site was previously occupied by 9 dwelling units which were demolished a
number of years ago. He explained that his team looked at past infill projects in
established neighborhoods and received support from the City’s Plan Commission for
a resubdivision of the property to consolidate the five parcels into one lot. He
reviewed the density of the area and noted that the intent was to focus on open
space and gardens infusing the landscape into the design. He reviewed the site plan
noting that 4 dwelling units are proposed with open green space and surface guest
parking on the triangular parcel across the alley. He showed images of the
streetscape and added that the proposed structures conform to the maximum
building height regulations and the 25 foot special setback approved by the Plan
Commission. He showed images of architectural precedents and Federal style
influences. He reviewed the materials and added that the G2 general residential
district is a transitional district between residential and commercial uses.
Craig Bergmann, of Craig Bergmann Landscape Design, stated that this project will
be a poster child for future projects. He reviewed the landscape design noting the
garden aspect, iron fencing, high quality materials, ornamental trees, evergreen
screening, and the preservation of the parkway trees.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 17
Ms. Czerniak stated that the site was developed years ago with 5 structures, 4
cottages and 1 apartment building. She noted that in 2010 the City had safety
concerns about the structures and required the buildings be removed. She explained
that the Plan Commission recently approved the consolidation of the 5 parcels into 1
parcel . She stated that the yard area and surface parking would be common area,
and would be maintained by a homeowner’s’ association. She stated that this is a
unique project due to the building forms and unit sizes proposed. She stated that the
basis for the building scale calculation was based on the 5 existing parcels lots
allowing more building square footage to the benefit of the developer. She noted
that despite the favorable calculation method, the project proposes a very
significant building scale overage in the range of 25-32 percent. She stated that the
Board has not previously approved any building scale variances for new
construction. She added that the proposed plan reaches the maximum allowable
building height and the maximum allowable lot coverage. She stated that staff
could not make findings that the standards for a building scale variance are met.
She suggested that the Board could offer support for the design approach and the
exterior materials, and provide direction to reduce the overage.
Board member Moyer stated that the property is an extension of the downtown area
and he advocated for updating the Code to allow more intense development in this
area.
Board member Reda noted that the proposed plan differs from Regents Row in that
the Regents Row breaks up the brick facades with design elements. He added that
as proposed, the plan does not meet the standards for a building scale variance or
the design standards. He stated however that with refinement, he could likely
support the project.
In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. DePree stated that the
width of the standing seam roof panels is 14-16 inches. He added that the units are
very compact and give the appearance of 2.5 stories instead of 3. He explained that
the buttress walls extend past the façade to create shadow lines, the window boxes
help to break up façade, and the garage doors are carriage style. He reviewed the
exterior materials including aluminum downspouts to match the roof, wood demising
walls with brick veneer and clinker brick, and double hung windows with simulated
lites with a spacer bar to closely mimic true divided lites. He stated that alternatives
to the window repetitions were explored and that the intent was to create a strong
uniform character without too much embellishment.
Board Member Friedman added that it would be difficult to approve the project
when the building scale variance standards have not been met.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 18
Board Member Grieve expressed concern that the 2 brick structures are identical in
nature and suggested breaking up the mass. He added that the rear porches feel
industrial and could have more substance to them.
In response to questions from Board Member Diamond, Mr. DePree stated that there
is a landscape buffer for the neighbor to the north and the neighbor to the east is
separated from the development by an alley and parking area.
In response to questions from Board Member Grieve, Mr. DePree noted that historic
examples of the Federal style have changed over time and suggested that
intentionally adding differences may appear too forced.
Chairman Notz stated that the petitioner has a unique challenge because this is the
first new development on the east side of McKinley Road. He added that his main
concern is the building scale overage.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. DePree stated that in order to
reduce the bulk, the 3rd floor would need to be removed. He explained that the
garage bays have already been absorbed into the massing of the building. He
added that there is an elevator in each unit and the need for senior housing was
called out in Comprehensive Plan.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation, stated that McKinley Road was moved in 1923 and suggested that the
corridor along the train tracks is an area where people will want to live and more
density may be appropriate. He added that the proposed design resembles the old
hotel which was once located west of the property. He stated that the simplicity of
the style has historic precedent in Lake Forest and is appropriate. He complimented
the project and stated his support.
In response to public comment, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the permitted density and
the building scale ordinance are two different concerns. She stated that zoning
regulations allow for 4 units and the building scale ordinance regulates building size.
She noted that the size of the units or the number of units could be reduced to
comply with the various regulations. She stated that some work is needed to
mitigate the overall building mass and noted that the balconies would be not be
permitted to encroach over the public right-of-way.
Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board.
In response to comments from Chairman Notz, Mr. DePree stated that the balconies
are a private space and should not be moved to the front façade. He commented
that he would be in favor of shifting the buildings closer to McKinley Road.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 19
Board member Moyer stated that the design is consistent in its vocabulary and
architectural style and said he views the units as one building. He added that the
project will soften the transition from residential to commercial areas.
Board Member Reda suggested that the façade be broken up and that the
standards for a building scale variance must be met. He added that he is not averse
to approving a variance, but the overage would need to be significantly reduced.
Board Member Friedman stated his support of the overall concept.
Board Member Grieve stated that the petitioner should explore more options to
reduce the overage and meet the standards for a variance.
Board Member Diamond stated his support of the project and expressed concern for
the size of the structures and setting a precedent for approving a variance.
Chairman Notz stated that he is generally supportive of the project, but the massing
needs to be addressed.
In response to questions from Mr. DePree, the Board summarized that a variance
may be possible if the square footage is significantly reduced and design
refinements are made.
Board Member Friedman noted that the design details are important and
complimented the general direction of the project.
Board Member Grieve added that approving a variance will set a precedent and
that he is prepared to move in that direction in the future.
Board Member Diamond stated that he still has some concerns about the potential
impacts to neighbors.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow modifications
to address the Board’s comments regarding design and overall square footage.
OTHER ITEMS
9. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
10. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
Building Review Board Minutes, Page 20
The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner