Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2015/07/28 Minutes City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of July 28th, 2015 Special Meeting A special meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Tuesday, July 28th, 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: Robert Reda, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond. Building Review Board members absent: Mike Bleck and Fred Moyer Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Notz Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the July 1st, 2015 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the July 1st, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to the rear of a residence, modifications to the front porch and demolition and construction of a replacement detached garage located at 1256 Edgewood Road. Owner: Jeff Pinderski Representative: Adam Lyons, 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. Lyons stated that the current owners recently purchased the property and provided background on the home’s architectural style and existing materials. He reviewed the current floor plan stating that the sun room functions as the family room and was enclosed in 1987. He explained that the 1987 alteration was done in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the Building Review Board Minutes, Page 2 home. He stated that the 2nd floor consists of 4 bedrooms and only one bath. He noted that the intention of the project is to provide more square footage and to replace an existing one car detached garage, with a two car garage. He stated that the existing garage was constructed in 1949 and is a common prototype in the neighborhood. He showed an aerial image of properties in the neighborhood with detached garages. He stated that the intention is to add a new structure that is respectful to the existing home. He noted that attention was paid to the building scale, massing, window locations, privacy and the use of consistent materials. He added that the owners propose to replace the existing cedar shingle roof with asphalt shingles. He stated that the existing windows are single pane wood sashes and the new windows are proposed as aluminum clad without storm windows. He added that aluminum clad windows have been approved for other residential projects. He stated that the existing deck is proposed to be replaced with a raised patio 2 risers above grade. He noted that an at-grade patio was considered, but the owners prefer a deck at the height of the residence. He stated that neighbors were informed of the project and have no objections to the deck replacement. He stated that the existing front porch is correct to the style of the residence, but has an awkward side entry to the porch. He explained that the stairs are to be relocated to the center of home with added landscaping and walkway elements. He stated that the replacement garage is designed in a colonial revival style and will be sited at the existing garage’s location. He noted that there is a cosmetic gable dormer and noted that a window is now proposed under the gable in place of a louvered vent. He noted that textured siding in Hardieboard or vinyl and composite trim are proposed for the garage. Ms. McManus reviewed the components of the request including a 2 story rear addition, modifications to the front porch, demolition of the existing garage and construction of a replacement garage. She stated that the residence is located in an older, established neighborhood with small lots and the rear addition will require the removal of a single story enclosed porch. She noted that the addition matches the height of the existing house and has a similar depth to the neighboring home to the south. She stated that staff has some concerns that the stairs do not align with the front door, but noted that the petitioner has provided examples of similar instances in the neighborhood with a similar condition. She added that staff recommends consideration be given to lowering the deck at the rear of the property due to concerns about its perceived mass from neighboring properties together with the addition. She stated that staff is recommending some refinements to the proposed garage including using 2 single garage Building Review Board Minutes, Page 3 doors in place of one large door and making some adjustments to the dormer on the street façade. She added that the proposed garage is non- conforming to zoning regulations and will need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of side and rear yard variances. She added that an email was received from a neighbor in support of the project. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Lyons stated that the roof line of the garage was dictated by the pitch of the residence noting that the plate line was kept as low as possible. He stated that he would be willing to work with staff to refine the roof height and pitch and the window and dormer compositions. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lyons stated that the exterior light fixtures will be downlights and will limit light intrusion. In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Lyons stated that the existing porch will remain and a section of the railing will be relocated to the rear deck. He added that new steps will be added down to grade and noted that the rails proposed are wood. He noted that the current decking is wood with 3 inch boards and the intention is to tie into existing gutters and downspouts where needed. He stated that composite siding or vinyl siding is proposed for the garage and the proposed landscaping is placed around the property, but not specifically around the new deck. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Lyons agreed to consider narrowing the porch stairs so as not to accentuate the asymmetry of the façade. He added that the spacing of the columns is wider in the center, but agreed to consider keeping more railing to narrow the stairs. He stated that the garage roof pitch matches the house and stated concern that by retaining the front gable, the garage may compete with the home. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Lyons explained that the existing grade is higher on the west side of the property and that a patio at the level of the residence is needed because the homeowners have elderly parents. He added that there is a full foundation under the addition. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Lyons stated that in order to install 2 single car doors, the garage may need to be widened. He Building Review Board Minutes, Page 4 stated that the same asphalt shingles are proposed for the garage and house. He clarified that there is wood siding on the existing house and the proposed addition. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. Pinderski stated that he would consider cedar or Hardieboard siding for the garage. Board member Grieve stated that the demolition of the garage and porch is justified, but suggested that the petitioner take the Board’s comments into consideration. Board member Friedman stated that consideration should be given to using cedar siding for the garage. He stated that a single garage door could be installed with a center false post to give the appearance of two doors. He added that the Board’s comments regarding the dormer are appropriate and consideration should be given to reducing the roof pitch to pull the ridge down a bit. He added that there are alternatives to an at-grade level terrace, including stepping the patio down from the residence by one step and down to grade with another step. Board member Diamond stated his overall support of the project and suggested that wood be used in place of Hardieboard on the garage for consistency with the house. Board member Reda stated that the garage demolition meets the demolition criteria. Chairman Notz emphasized the importance of matching the garage materials to the materials on the residence. He added that the dormer scale and massing should be revisited. 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 Grieve and was approved by the Board by a 5 to 0 vote. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the addition to the rear of the residence, modifications to the front porch, demolition of the garage and construction of a replacement detached garage based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Building Review Board Minutes, Page 5 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. a. High quality, natural materials should be used consistently on both the addition and garage and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit. Hardieboard is acceptable on the garage, in lieu of a natural material, for lap siding only. b. The roof line of the garage shall be adjusted to minimize the height of the structure and dormer shall be reduced in size. 2. The height of the rear deck shall be mitigated by adding a series of steps to avoid the exposed edges of the deck or by landscape around the deck to screen any exposed edges of the deck. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, to properly direct drainage. 4. 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. The landscape plan shall show all species, size, quantities and locations of existing and proposed landscaping. a. Landscaping shall be shown on the plan to screen any exposed edges of the rear deck. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 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 neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts Building Review Board Minutes, Page 6 on trees intended for preservation. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. 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 Grieve and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of architectural design, building massing, detailing and exterior materials for a new residential development proposed on a 10 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Laurel and Western Avenues. Consideration of landscape, hardscape and lighting plans are also part of this request. No Board action is requested on this item at this time, Board input, direction and questions are requested. Owner: The City of Lake Forest Contract Purchaser: Focus Development, Inc. Representatives: Tim Anderson, CEO and Christine Kolb, Development Manager Larry Booth, Architect Mariani Landscape Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Chairman Notz disclosed that his company has done work with Focus Development in the past, and may in the future but has no financial interest in this project. He added that he has consul ted with the City’s legal staff and stated that he believes that he has no conflict of interest and will be able to impartially review the petition. He asked for a motion from the Board with respect to the appropriateness of his participation in reviewing this petition. Board member Reda made a motion supporting Chairman Notz participation in the review of the petition. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by the Board by a vote of 4 to 0. Building Review Board Minutes, Page 7 Chairman Notz invited a presentation and requested that the petitioner particularly highlight the changes that have occurred from the previous presentation. Ms. Kolb stated that an introductory presentation was given to the Board in March and at that time, a site plan and general building designs were presented. She stated that the concerns expressed by the Board and members of the public centered on the proposed 4 story building height, the lack of architectural detail, the perceived monolithic character of the buildings, the quality of building materials and lack of consistency with the chosen style. She stated that since that meeting, the building has been reduced to 3 stories, the swimming pool was eliminated, the internal street was changed, and a boulevard expression was added for the street. She stated that City Council approved the preliminary site plan and tentative plat; and the design has continued to evolve. Mr. Booth stated that public input and comments from the Board have improved the overall project. He stated that the selected style is Arts and Crafts and high quality, solid materials are proposed. He noted that the revised design focuses on the rhythm of fenestration emphasizing simplicity. He stated that the window sizes were reduced and chimneys are used as accents. He stated that the materials are brick and cast stone and the windows have simulated divided lites. He noted features of the 3 story apartment building including: Juliette balconies, a central living room, French doors to a patio, 10 foot ceilings on the 2nd floor, and cathedral ceilings on the top floor. He added that there are variations between units. He stated that cement plaster walls are utilized to complement the brick and to provide variety to the buildings. He stated that the balconies create a less institutional look and help to give the facade the appearance of individual houses. He stated that the exterior of the apartment buildings are brick with stone window surrounds. He explained that the entry porch to the amenity room faces onto Franklin Park and the long elevation faces Western Avenue. He reiterated that the cement plaster is intended to break up the façade. He stated that the original landscape plan included a large, central open lawn, but in response to public input, the landscape plan has been adjusted noting that the landscaping now frames each building section. He noted that other changes include a scaled down character and entry porches to call attention to the building entrances. He stated that the roof is proposed as standing seam metal and the building height is 36 feet to the pediments, with roof masses extending to 48 feet. He added that the proposed building height is similar to the Deerpath Inn. He stated that the building is setback significantly from Western Avenue. He stated that the single family homes were initially shown as brick, but there were concerns that there was too much brick. He stated that the revised Building Review Board Minutes, Page 8 plan for the single family houses includes white or neutral cement stucco walls with shingle roofs. Ms. Kolb stated that the landscape design is simple and is the main feature of the development. She noted that 85 percent of Franklin Park will be retained and wide setbacks from the street are provided. She stated that each building essentially has its own backyard and the design intends to highlight the pedestrian experience and provide tree canopy cover. She noted that by eliminating the 4th floor from the apartment building, the building height is 48 feet, 6 inches. She noted that there is 9 feet of grade change over the site. She showed a site plan of the existing and proposed grades. She explained that the site will be graded level but noted that the street grades will be maintained at the perimeter of the site. She added that a refined grading plan will be provided at the next meeting. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that since December of 2014, the Plan Commission has considered this project at five public meetings to date. She added that recently, the City Council approved the preliminary site plan that is not before the Commission for review of design aspects of the buildings, exterior materials, landscape, hardscape and exterior lighting. She stated that the Building Review Board was introduced to the project in March, and in response to comments received at that meeting and since then, various revisions were made to the plans including: the 4-story building was eliminated, the number of apartments was reduced, the ramps to the underground garage were relocated off of Laurel Avenue and Franklin Place, an east-west road was added, the north-south road connection to Franklin Place was eliminated, the northernmost apartment building was shifted west to retain more of Franklin Park, Franklin Place is no longer proposed for widening and the existing parkway trees are preserved, and medians were added to the north/south road and to the entrances off of Western Avenue. She stated that the berms along the north and west property lines were originally constructed to screen the neighbors from trucks, noise and activity at the City’s Municipal Service site. She explained that the existing berms will be impacted by the demolition of the existing buildings and will ultimately be removed. She noted that some slight berming is proposed along portions of the north and west property lines as part of the landscape plan. She noted that the large central lawn proposed in the earlier plans was reduced in size to create a pedestrian oriented, less institutional feel. She added that the building entries and walkways were reconfigured, the pool was eliminated and the amount of guest parking on the site was increased. She added that areas for additional on site parking are identified in the plan if additional parking is determined to be needed on the site in the future. She pointed out that the duplex units were eliminated from the plan. She stated that on site Building Review Board Minutes, Page 9 provisions were made for loading and service vehicles on the site at the project has continued to evolve. She stated that the Board’s role is to focus on the architectural detail, style, scale, building massing, roof elements, landscaping and lighting. She asked that at this meeting, the Board offer comments, questions and direction all of which will be considered as refinement of the plans continues in preparation for a further Board review. She reviewed some design related concerns that were raised during the Plan Commission reviews to date including the need for variety in the buildings to create a “neighborhood” rather than a development. She added that some concerns were raised about the roof forms, consistency with the selected architectural style and ensuring a residential feel to the development through careful attention to the scale of the entries and balconies. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Ms. Kolb clarified the materials proposed for the single family residences stating that it is still a work in progress. She explained that the materials were previously stucco and brick with the intention to work with home buyers to determine the finish of each home. She stated that painted cedar shakes and stucco are used in the most recent plans. Mr. Booth stated that comments received to date have been helpful. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Kolb stated that the roofs on the single family houses are cedar shake. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Booth stated that they are looking into integrating the gutters and downspouts. He added that there will not be downspouts and gutters on the apartment buildings, water will be contained in the parapets. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Kolb stated that there are 2 brick colors, the lighter color for accents and the darker brick for the walls. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Booth stated that they are contemplating Norman size brick which is longer than a standard brick and added that they have not considered reclaimed or textured brick. He added that the intention is not to make the buildings appear old or contrived. He stated that the standing seam roof has 16 inch panels and is aluminum painted in a dark gray. He noted that the proposed stone is cast stone and the windows will be simulated divided lights with painted wood on the inside and aluminum clad on the exterior. He added that fiberglass windows are proposed on the apartment building and the noted that the elevators are embedded in the building. Building Review Board Minutes, Page 10 In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Mead stated that the landscape plan includes over100 different trees including new varieties of el m, maples and oaks to create an upper canopy. She noted that the streets are asphalt with concrete curbs and pavers at the entry points. She stated that stained curbs are note proposed noting that they would cause long term maintenance issues. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Kolb stated that the dumpsters will be underground and noted the trash collection areas at the loading ramp on the north end of the site. She stated that the AC compressors are on the roof and noted that the maximum height of 48 feet 6 inches only occurs on about 10 percent of building. She added that skylights are not proposed on the apartment or condos, but may be used on the single family residences. Board member Friedman stated that working with the existing grades may provide some visual relief on the site. In response to questions from Board Member Diamond, Mr. Booth stated that the height of the doors on the multi-unit buildings are 8 feet and noted the variations of window surrounds and sills to create variety. He noted that the parapet roofs are tall enough to cover the compressors and that the compressors are tucked behind the pitch of roof. He added that the garage ramps will be heated. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Kolb stated that the exterior lighting has not been finalized but will comply with the City’s guidelines. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Booth stated that the chimneys serve to mask some venting. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Kolb stated there will be fireplaces in the single family residences and some of the condos. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Mead agreed that the landscaping on the single family residences needs refinement. She stated that there are concerns about existing landscaping along the property line on the west side of the single family homes and noted that steps will be taken to protect trees on neighboring properties or provide additional plantings. In response to questions from the Board Ms. Kolb stated that an overall signage plan will be presented to the Board at a later time. She stated that Building Review Board Minutes, Page 11 grade changes are not proposed near the heritage oak tree. She added that construction will be set back an additional 3 to 4 feet beyond the existing building’s footprint. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Ms. Kolb stated that the rooflines were revised after the March meeting. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Booth confirmed that the roof peaks are the same throughout the development. He noted that the view presented is a perspective, not an elevation. Board member Reda stated that the roof lines are complicated and do not follow the design guidelines. He noted that there may be opportunities to reduce the appearance of mass further by refining the abrupt nature of the roof. He asked that more consideration be given to the placement of the chimneys noting that relocation to the sides of the gables may be appropriate. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Kolb explained that regrading is necessary to level the site and to allow the underground garage to be at a single level . She stated a willingness to consider more variation in the single family home styles. She stated that initially, a cluster home concept was considered, but rejected. She explained that the goal is to provide a simple design with subtle variations. Mr. Booth added stated that the small lots do not allow for great variation and that it is important to retain some relationship and harmony between the houses. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Booth stated that the vaulted ceilings are in the condos only and that the roof heights can be brought down, but noted that the quality of architecture would be compromised. He noted that historic examples of the style show vigorous roof lines and forms. He stated that a flat roof was initially proposed, but the gable roofs seemed more appropriate and distinguished. Mr. Anderson added that other roof alternatives were explored including reducing the scale of the dormers but the quality of the design was impacted. He agreed to provide the alternative roof studies to the Board in a future packet. Ms. Kolb added that early on studies were completed on the placement and alignment of buildings and explained that the concept is to push the Building Review Board Minutes, Page 12 buildings back from the street to reduce the perceived height and mass of the buildings. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Booth stated that siting the apartment building parallel to Western Avenue would not work as well. In response to Board questions, Ms. Kolb stated that the arrangement of the single family residences shields the garages from the street side. She stated that the arrangement is flexible and confirmed that there will be a process to avoid repetition of house styles and assure variety of materials during the sales process. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Stephen Bruhn, 1261 Burr Oak Road, requested that the Board focus on breaking up the monolithic appearance of buildings and ensuring the highest quality of natural exterior materials. He suggested that the Board provide clear and concise direction to Focus Development. He added that the process has lasted longer than it should have because to date, clear direction was not provided. He noted that each individual building in the development deserves focused consideration. He commented that the most recent plans are an improvement over the initial submittal . Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that natural materials are important to help make the structures appear more residential. He noted that apartment buildings on Sheridan Road from the 1920s have flat roofs with variations on the facades and asked that more study be done on the roof design. Harry Lamberson, 1024 N. Western Avenue, stated that the City Code limitation on building height should be followed. He stated that neither building elevations nor information on building height were provided at the recent City Council and Plan Commission meetings. He acknowledged that the apartment building was reduced from 4 stories to 3 stories, but noted that the overall height has not been significantly reduced from the previous plans. He noted that regrading the site will cause the buildings to appear even taller. He noted that adjacent developments have all compl ied with the height regulations. He stated that the proposed plan does not meet Code requirements for onsite parking and suggested the Board consider requiring additional parking on the site. Jan Gibson, 59 E Franklin Place, stated that historically, architects brought their “A game” when designing in Lake Forest. She stated that the current Building Review Board Minutes, Page 13 design does not meet the high standards of Lake Forest. She added that natural materials should be used and that metal roofs should not be used. She stated that the design should be compatible in height and style with the surrounding buildings. She noted that the apartment building is 1.5 times the height of Crystal Point. She stated that true divided lites should be used to give character and a residential feel to the buildings. She provided examples of the architect’s work in Wheaton showing buildings with similar roof lines and lack of details. She stated that the gables are artificial looking and the windows are not detailed. She requested more clarification on the mullions and provided an example of new row houses in Alexandria, Virginia that should be used as inspiration. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, requested that renderings showing streetscape views of the buildings be provided. He stated that adding a berm does not seem appropriate to separate residential developments on the east side of the city. He questions the spacing of the single family homes and suggested exploring the cluster home concept. He added that each apartment unit feels narrow and commented that the architecture should complement the downtown. He expressed concern that the design elements cast too many shadows and the windows appear too heavy and vertical. Richard Cottrell, 119 E. Laurel, stated that the proposed buildings look like inexpensive brick veneer construction and lack detail. He stated that the Board should not allow another brick veneer steel frame structure in Lake Forest. He stated that he is concerned about the costs driving the architecture. He noted that the façade appears to be a flat plane of brick and added that the project in no way compares to the Deerpath Inn. Philip Davis, 105 E. Laurel, stated that Laurel Avenue has a special character with landmark homes nearby. He added that the neighborhood does not seem to be respected by the proposed development and that an Arts and Crafts building should not appear institutional looking. He requested that the Board consider the proposed colors of the various materials. Jean R., resident of Crystal Point, stated that the design is a very modern design attempting to be in the Arts and Crafts style. She stated that the neighborhood to the west consists of traditional homes and the new single family residences are not complimentary to the surroundings. Jim Opsitnik, 971 Verda Lane, stated that the proposed 2 dead end streets are uninteresting and stated concerns about the heritage oak tree. He stated that the root structure of the tree extends much farther than the drip Building Review Board Minutes, Page 14 line. He added that he prefers to see cluster homes in order to create more space around the tree. Linda VanEckHout, 1230 N. Western Avenue, stated that Lake Forest is known for having the toughest codes in the area and that the proposed height is a major concern. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz asked for a staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak stated that the proposed height has been the subject of much discussion. She explained that building elevations and information on building height were presented at the recent Plan Commission and City Council meetings because, at the time, the consideration was focused on the preliminary site plan. She noted that the Development Parameters approved by the City Council for the site provided for a building height beyond current Code limitations if the additional height supports a high quality design. She noted that some height variances have been granted by the City Council in the past. She stated that the adequacy of parking is under the purview of the Plan Commission. She noted that the approved preliminary site plan provides some areas for additional parking if the City determines that additional on site parking is needed. She stated that the City Council recognizes the importance of the heritage tree. She noted that the preliminary site plan creates a protected area around the tree and that maintenance and protection requirements will be specified as part of any final approval. Chairman Notz invited rebuttal or response to public testimony from the petitioner. Ms. Kolb encouraged the public to look at the sample boards and elevations for additional information after the meeting. Chairman Notz invited final comments and direction from the Board. Board member stated Reda stated that the project is on the right track but noted that the Western Avenue façade needs further refinement. He expressed concern that the buildings all look pretty much the same. He stated that Market Square and Deerpath Inn are unique and the proposed buildings are common looking and could be found anywhere. He complimented the landscaping concepts described to date. Board member Diamond requested that a model of the individual buildings be presented to the Board and renderings of streetscape views providing different perspectives of the buildings. Building Review Board Minutes, Page 15 Board member Friedman stated that natural materials are true to the Arts and Crafts style and should be used. He stated that the revised design is less institutional than the initial design, but added that more relief and variation are needed to break up the massing. He suggested considering using cluster homes in lieu of the proposed arrangement for the single family homes. Board member Grieve stated appreciation for the public comments. He noted however that the Board’s role is not to design the project, but instead to identify areas of concern and areas needing further refinement and study. He explained that it is the Board’s responsibility to enforce the guidelines, but not give specifics on how to design the buildings. He stated that progress has been made and agreed that landscaping will be critical. He requested renderings reflecting how the landscaping will appear at planting, in 5 years, and over the longer term. He stated that visuals of the access points and sight lines from the streetscape in the context of the larger area would be helpful . He stated that the style is identified as Arts and Crafts, but typically, that style of structure is smaller than the buildings proposed. He encouraged the petitioner to bring more of the chosen style into the design and to make the buildings less monolithic. He added that the design should be complimentary to the neighborhood and stated his support of having more options of prototypes for the single family homes to create more variation. Chairman Notz stated that the petitioner has made tremendous improvements from what was presented at the March meeting. He agreed that perspectives with pedestrian sight lines would be helpful. He requested alternatives of roof lines be provided to better understand the current proposal. He suggested that more architectural detailing be added to make the buildings appear less institutional. He also requested that staff provide examples of other building heights in the surrounding areas. He added that it is important to be mindful of the western edge of the single family home development and stated his support of adding more restrictions to the single family house designs to prevent repetition and suggested reducing the amount of stucco. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to address the Board’s comments. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. Building Review Board Minutes, Page 16 There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner