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