Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/07/16 MinutesPage 1 of 9 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of July 16, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, 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 and Bruce Grieve. Building Review Board members absent: Ross Friedman and Fred Moyer Staff members present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman King Chairman King reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes from the May 7, 2014 meeting. The minutes of the May 7th Building Review Board meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Recognition of outgoing Board member Monica Artmann-Ruggles. Chairman King recognized past Board member Ruggles for her valuable contributions during her time on the Board. He noted that she brought insight and expertise to the Board’s review of petitions. He thanked her for her service and presented her with a plaque commemorating her service. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and a detached garage on a vacant property located at 1101 Griffith Road. Property Owner: U. S. Shelter LLC John M. Sorensen 100%, Elgin, IL Project Representative: R. Scott Javore & Associates Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Sorenson noted that since the last meeting, the project was revised consistent with the comments of the Board and in response to the public Page 2 of 9 testimony. He briefly reviewed the project which proposes a new house on a vacant lot at 1101 Griffith Road. He stated that as a result of the revisions, 2 square feet were added to the house which totals 2265 square feet. He stated that the house is within the allowable square footage. He noted that as requested by the Board, various elements of the house were simplified and refined. He stated that neither the height of the residence, nor the exterior materials have changed. He noted that at the last meeting, questions were raised about the distance between the new house and the existing neighboring homes. He stated that the new house will be about 30-1/2 feet away from the house to the north and just under 19 feet away from the house to the south. He presented a streetscape graphic of the new house in relation to the neighboring homes. Mr. Javore reviewed the modifications made to the front elevation in response to comments made at the last meeting. He pointed out that the bump out on the front elevation was eliminated along with the extension of the porch and the double columns. He noted that the chimney was stepped in as it rises above the second floor. He presented slides of the north elevation and pointed out the change due to the modifications made to the front elevation. He noted that the windows were aligned. He reviewed the rear elevation noting that the box bay and canopy were eliminated. He reviewed the south elevation noting that the panels over the windows were eliminated and the windows were reconfigured as three smaller windows, all consistent in size. He explained that the windows on the second floor were modified due to interior changes which resulted from the modification of the massing on the front elevation. Ms. Czerniak commented that the revisions directly respond to the various points that the Board raised at the last meeting. She highlighted key changes noting that the chimney modifications add detail and slightly reduce the massing of the chimney. She commented that the boarded up windows on the south side were eliminated and replaced with windows that are consistent in size and aligned. She noted that findings in support of the petition are provided in the staff report along with recommended conditions of approval. She stated that staff will pay particular attention to review of the drainage plans and to monitoring both drainage and parking during construction since this is a tight sight and neighborhood. Chairman King invited questions from the Board. Board member Reda commented that the plans as modified appear to meet all of the criteria. Board member Notz applauded the petition commenting that the developer has achieved the optimal design based on the limitations of the site. Page 3 of 9 In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Javore confirmed that the rear elevation was brought in slightly. Board member Grieve stated that he is impressed with the overall design noting that the proposed house will complement the neighborhood. He stated that the house as proposed has a nice presence, without being over bearing. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Javore confirmed that there is only one side lite at the front door because of the limited space available. Chairman King suggested that a window be added to the south elevation of the garage to break up the mass of the wall as it faces the neighboring property. Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited public comment. Hearing no requests to speak, he asked the Board for any final comments or a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition including the new house, detached garage and preliminary landscape plan. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the project complies with the applicable standards in the City Code. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Board and reflect any modifications directed by the Board. If the plans submitted for permit differ from those presented to the Board, any and all areas of change must be clearly identified and detailed. Any changes will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the plans are consistent with the intent and direction of the Commission and the approvals granted. 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. The final grading plans must document the grades extending beyond the property a minimum distance of 50 feet in all directions to provide City engineering staff with the information needed to understand current drainage patterns, assess the proposed drainage from the lot after development and assure that increased drainage will not increase water flows and negatively impact adjacent properties. 4. Given the tightness of the site, a plan for managing drainage during construction shall also be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s engineering staff. The plan shall detail how run off Page 4 of 9 will be directed and managed prior to final grading of the site. The plan shall detail how and where water will be directed if at any time during construction it becomes necessary to pump water from the site. 5. Tree Removal Plan, Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City’s Certified Arborist will review these materials and confirm the following: a. Tree removal is limited to that necessary for construction and to trees in poor condition as determined by the City Arborist. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are properly protected during construction and if appropriate, treated pre and post construction to increase the chances of survival. c. Replacement tree inches are properly calculated and the required replacement is provided on site or through a payment in lieu of on site plantings. 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 Arborist’s review of the plan shall confirm, but not be limited to, the following: a. Appropriate trees are re-established on the site to add to the tree canopy in the neighborhood over time. b. To the extent possible, landscape screening is planted in the driveway median and along the south property line. c. Replacement evergreens are planted in the rear yard to provide some replacement for the year round screening that will be lost with the removal of the Spruce trees. d. Plantings are located along the south elevation to break up and soften the mass of the wall in the area where small windows are used. 5. 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 narrow residential 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. Parking or staging of materials or equipment is not permitted in the parkway near the elm tree. Street parking is limited to only in front of 1011 Griffith Road. Given the tightness of the site, contractors may need to park off site and be shuttled to the site. Page 5 of 9 Excavated material shall not be stockpiled on the site but instead shall be removed in a reasonable time frame. 6. 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. 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 Bleck and was approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition, alterations, modification of the roof to accommodate second floor living space and a rear addition at 290 Hilldale Place Owner and Representative: Doug Pasma, 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. Pasma reviewed the changes made since the last meeting and noted that the floor plan remains the same. He presented a landscape plan and streetscape elevations noting that the neighboring homes to the east and west are two story structures with gable elements. He stated that to be distinct from the neighboring homes, a French inspired style is proposed with French doors and six dormers across the front elevation. He noted that in the previous plan, the dormers protruded into the second floor. He noted that the roof and dormers were modified to recapture the second floor living space. He stated that the landscaping will be enhanced and the drainage will be studied to assure that water is not directed to neighboring properties. He reviewed the front door noting that in response to previous Board comments; the more expansive limestone surround previously proposed is replaced with a simple limestone accent with side lights and a patio. He reviewed the side elevations noting the efforts made to make them more compatible with the character of other homes in the neighborhood. He reviewed the changes made to the windows on the garage elevation. He stated that questions were raised about the amount of demolition proposed and clarified that only minimal demolition is proposed on the first floor. Page 6 of 9 Ms. Czerniak commented that significant alterations to ranch houses can be difficult due to the limitations imposed by the existing structure. She noted however that there have been some successful projects of this type in this neighborhood. She noted that as proposed, the roof is complex and quite massive in appearance. She acknowledged the modifications made to the dormers but noted that the detailing on the proposed construction is not clear. She noted that the modifications to the front entry appear out of character with other elements on the house as proposed. She noted that at the previous meeting, the Board expressed concern about the functionality of the garage due to its proximity to the property line. She noted that landscaping has been added near the property line further tightening the garage apron area. She acknowledged however that the landscaping provides some screening of the garage. She stated that the staff recommendation is to continue the petition to allow continued refinement and additional detail of various elements of the project. Chairman King invited questions from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Pasma explained the intent to do something new with the front entrance to enhance the style of the house. He reviewed the widths of the dormers and explained why symmetry on the front elevation is not possible. Board member Reda commented that if the dormers are modified or if the garage door is moved back to the front elevation, the project may have more success in achieving the desired French style. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Pasma explained why the eaves are not consistent noting that they would not line up if they were extended. He stated that he is comfortable with the eaves as proposed. He explained that the planting strip along the property line was expanded to provide further screening of the garage and garage apron. He stated that he is comfortable with the limited turning radius. He reviewed the exterior materials and colors noting that the color palette is lighter than the previous proposal. He confirmed that the sides of the dormers are proposed as stucco with trim and asphalt shingles. Board member Bleck commented that a future owner of the property may not be comfortable with the limited area for maneuvering into the garage. Board member Notz stated that he appreciates the challenges of fitting a new plan into the framework of the existing home but noted that the proposed plan is trying to do quite a lot with the site. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Pasma stated that he is trying to comply with the City’s design guidelines by moving the garage door to Page 7 of 9 the side elevation. He acknowledged that the entry area to the garage is tight as proposed. He stated that he is trying to maximize the value of the property. He explained that the change to a gambrel roof eliminates the massive dormers, adds character and is not overwhelming. He explained that the large structure to the left of the rear elevation is an outdoor grill but noted that it is not part of the present plan. He reviewed the location of the limestone at the front entrance. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Pasma acknowledged that the spacing of the front dormers is inconsistent but commented that it does not impact the perceived symmetry of the elevation. He stated that the windows in the dormers are small and as a result, it makes sense to have the seven dormers as proposed. He stated that the intended style of the house is French Colonial noting the detail of the eaves, dormer fascia and simple window openings. He noted that the detailing proposed gives the long elevation of the house a sense of human scale. He acknowledged that the windows are more in line with the shingle style but noted that with the overall project, they make sense. He stated that the chimney will be a grey flagstone. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public testimony. Hearing none, he commented that this project presents some difficult challenges. He stated appreciation for the petitioner’s work so far and efforts to make modifications in response to the Board’s comments. He invited comments from other Board members. Board member Reda stated that the challenge is created by the desire to work off the old foundation. He questioned whether the fenestration meets the criteria but noted that with further work, the criteria could be satisfied. He stated that as presented, the project does not meet the design criteria and as a result, he is not able to support the project as presented. Board member Bleck stated that there are many issues that still raise concerns and need to be addressed. He stated that the architectural style is not clear and that there are many inconsistencies in the plan as presented. He stated that the project needs further study. Board member Notz stated that having a side loaded garage would be preferable, but noted that the property just does not support it. He stated that the complex roof structure is troubling and that there is no definable style. He stated that the plan is too complex and needs more refinement. Board member Grieve stated that he understands and appreciates the constraints that the architect is working around. He stated that the fact that the rear elevation is not true to the French Colonial style may be acceptable. He stated however that revisiting the size and number of dormers is worthwhile Page 8 of 9 noting that the dormers as now proposed create a busy appearance. He suggested that consideration be given to an alternative that locates the side dormers higher and the center dormer lower creating some movement in the roof line. He discussed the differing projections of the front masses and the cut out in the center. He stated that an appropriate design solution can be found. He commented on the driveway noting that in the winter, the area available for maneuvering a car will be even smaller. He cautioned that it would be unfortunate to build something that is difficult to live with over the long term. Chairman King agreed that the roof line is too complicated. He noted that the Board is charged with considering all elevations in the context of the design guidelines and in the context of a single style. He stated that an architectural style should be selected and the house designed consistent with that style. He stated that with respect to the driveway, the petitioner appears willing to live with a tight driveway. He stated that although he appreciates the downsizing of the dormers since last presented to the Board, there may be too many. He stated appreciation for the efforts so far in order to achieve a good design. In response to a question from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak suggested that given the comments of the Board at the last meeting and at this meeting, a subcommittee may be helpful to provide some further direction and get the project moving forward. She acknowledged that ordinarily, subcommittees are not used unless there are only one or two items to resolve however, she noted that this project may benefit from some further direction. Chairman King commented that the Board members have expressed their concerns already. He noted that the petitioner, not the Board, needs to develop the design solutions. Board member Notz encouraged the petitioner to seek input from others in his profession to get some different perspectives and ideas. Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to reconsider the various concerns and ideas expressed by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved in a 5 to 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non- agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. Page 9 of 9 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development