Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/10/01 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of October 1, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, October 1, 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, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer and Bruce Grieve. Building Review Board members absent: None 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. Consideration of the minutes was postponed. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new single family residence, garage and the associated landscape on a vacant lot located at 101 E. Louis Avenue. No variances are requested. Owner and Representative: Glattly Development, LLC, Lori Glattly Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Glattly introduced the petition. She stated that the project goals are to preserve some trees on the site and design a home that will be desired by buyers. She said that she has heard consistently from buyers that more thought should be given to design and functionality of houses. She added that her intent is to compliment and be sensitive to the neighborhood. She stated that the property has been vacant for many years while other lots around it have developed. She stated that the siting of the house saves as many trees as possible while still providing a private outdoor space for the occupants of the house. She stated that the house was sited to give the neighbors privacy, to preserve open vistas from the house and to provide light in the kitchen. She noted that if the house is moved to the east, the view from the kitchen window will be the neighbor’s garage. She noted that the driveway is located away from the corner about the same distance as the driveways on other properties that are located near the corner. She noted that due to the configuration of the lot, the house is narrow, but still incorporates elements that people want, an open kitchen, a butler’s pantry, a mud room and a 3-car garage. She noted that the living space is oriented to the east side of the house with a porch off the study. She stated that an architectural style was selected to meet her personal taste, to fit the neighborhood and to accommodate the wooded lot. She stated that the selected style, Eclectic Tudor, minimizes the massing. She noted that this neighborhood has many different styles of houses, with different roof heights. She noted that the design uses gable roof elements, an arched recessed doorway and stone on the front elevation. She noted that the second floor height is kept to 8 feet. She noted that placing the 3-car garage on the west side of the house minimizes the appearance of mass and keeps the garage off the front elevation. She noted that the majority of homes in the neighborhood do not have significant detailing. She noted that there is limited detailing on the rear elevation and that articulation of the rear elevation is limited to a 6” inch offset. She noted that a further step back will impact major rooms in the house. She stated that the proposed house does not reach the maximum allowable square footage but provides the opportunity for a future room above the garage. She stated that landscaping is planned that will be respectful of the neighbor noting that landscaping will be more aesthetically pleasing than a fence along the south property line. She reiterated that the lot configuration mandates a long, narrow home. Ms. Czerniak agreed that this is a difficult lot to develop and an infill lot in a developed neighborhood. She stated that this wooded property, has remained vacant for decades as the area around it has built up. She stated that a significant number of trees and vegetation will be lost on the site not only within the building pad, but also along the perimeter noting that in particular, the larger oak trees on the site may be impacted by the construction activity, soil compaction and change in hydrology. She confirmed that the City’s Arborist has consulted with the property owner and discussed ways to minimize impacts on the trees. She noted that if the driveway was extended out to Buena Road, with the current design, less impervious surface would be necessary. She agreed that the configuration of the lot dictates a narrow house. She stated that as proposed, the house is designed fronting on Louis Avenue with the rear of the house extending very close to the south property line. She noted that the preliminary grading plan indicates a swale along the south property line which will limit the opportunity for plantings in this area. She noted that under the current plan, there is approximately 11’ between house and the south property line making it difficult to provide for any screening from the neighboring property. She stated that the house and attached garage are sited as far to the west as possible extending up to the required front yard zoning setback near Buena Road. She suggested that consideration be given to shifting the house to the east 5 to 10 feet to provide some relief to the neighboring home. She asked for Board input on massing noting that the house is under the maximum allowable square footage, but presents a two story mass to Louis Avenue. She stated that further information is needed on the proposed massing and detailing of the house noting that there are some discrepancies in the materials provided in the packet. She stated that a conceptual landscape plan was provided by the petitioner. She noted the importance of understanding the treatment along the south property line noting that with a swale, there will be limited space for planting and it may be difficult to get vegetation to thrive in that area. She stated that if exterior lighting on the house or landscape lighting is proposed, the locations and type of lighting should be reflected on the plans given the proximity of the house to the south and the importance of avoiding off site impacts. She added that the plans should also clearly reflect the grades at various points on the site, any fences and the patio. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hite reviewed the exterior materials commonly found on Eclectic Tudor houses noting that some of the proposed treatments are intended to soften the appearance of the house. He explained that the curved window is intended to break up the rectilinear appearance of the house and achieve a better look. He explained that the front door is recessed and stated that the stonework is flat. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hite clarified the discrepancies on the site plans and confirmed that the renderings presented do not match the elevations. He explained that the Board should focus only on the plantings and not on the building forms reflected in the rendering. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Gebelhoff discussed the grade change on the property from west to east noting that there is a 1-1/2 foot drop which will be addressed by stepping the foundation. He stated that the patio will be three steps above grade. Board member Bleck asked that the grades be clarified that the more information, including a section, be presented to illustrate what is intended on the site. In response to questions from Board member Notz who noted that he lives on a corner lot, Mr. Gebelhoff commented on the grade change from Louis Avenue on to the property. He stated that the grading and cutting on the site will be minimized to the extent possible. He noted that the driveway was sited to meander through the yard and will necessitate some grading. Board member Notz commented that the meandering driveway will be difficult to maintain in the winter. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Hite explained that a side loading garage, rather than a front loading garage is proposed because the site is unique. He noted that Buena Road angles and stated that the goal is to keep the driveway away from the corner to the extent possible. He stated that by locating the garage at the side of the house, the appearance of mass is reduced. He explained that if the three car garage is turned to front on Louis Avenue, the house will need to be shifted 10’ to the east. He stated that if a two, rather than a three car garage is proposed, the difference in width would only be a reduction of 4 feet. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Glattly stated that pushing the house to the east will reduce the size of the back yard and limit the amount of natural light into the kitchen since the house would then be in line with the neighbor’s garage. She commented that as a real estate agent, she knows that there is a preference for three car garages. She stated that on a lot of this size, a three car garage is feasible and noted that the garage is located away from Buena Road, in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Board member Notz commented on the dormers on the garage noting that he understands the intent to allow light into the extra space above the garage. He commented that the two dormers, as configured on the front of the house, are more in keeping with the style of the house and commented that the wider dormer on the rear of the house appears utilitarian. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Glattly confirmed that the house is being constructed to put on the market. She reviewed the color palette noting that it will be neutral and confirmed that the stone veneer will be a natural stone. She stated that she is awaiting samples of the materials. She confirmed that limestone will be used and that the siding will be either hardi-board or cedar. She stated that the roof will be soft black, asphalt shingles. She stated that the gutters and windows will be off white to match the stone. Board member Grieve commented that aside from the discussion of the massing and complexity, the color scheme will have a significant impact on the appearance of mass and could serve to reduce the perceived mass. He noted that consideration should be given to the impact on the trees and how the loss or preservation of trees will affect the shading on the house. He added that the way the stone is used on the front elevation could also affect how the massing is perceived. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Gebelhoff stated that a two story arched window is typical of the selected architectural style. He noted that the large window will provide natural light in the stairway and serves as a focal point on the house. He noted that the arch is repeated at the entry, in the study and on the other large windows. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hite stated that the garage doors will be wood and will be stained like the front door. He stated that the garage doors will probably not have lites, but rather, panels. He stated that the garage will not be seen from Buena Road. He stated that there is no intent to remove the undergrowth or the trees along Buena Road. He stated however that the corner of the lot will be cleared to improve the sightlines. In response to questions from Board member Notz regarding the adequacy of the turning radius on the driveway, Mr. Hite explained that the driveway is not extended further to the west to provide a larger turning radius so that the trees and vegetation along Buena Road can be preserved. Board member Bleck noted that the site plan indicates a retaining wall on the south side of the driveway and as a result, there will be no opportunity for screening along the south property line. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Glattly stated that she would prefer to remove the driveway “back out” area near the south property line but noted that it would create a difficult situation for vehicles backing out of the garage. She stated that the driveway apron can be shifted away from the south property line. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Abe Goldsmith, 141 Louis Avenue, stated that the proposed plan does not provide the required open space. He stated that the Louis Avenue and Buena Road intersection is difficult because of the limited sightlines. He stated that the garage may be an impediment to sightlines as cars approach the intersection from the south. He stated that the house is attractive but is incompatible with the rest of the street. Eric Lohmueller, 979 Buena Road, stated that he is the neighbor immediately to the south of the property and stated that he will be the most impacted by the proposed development. He stated that he appreciates the petitioner stopping by and presenting the landscape plan and the opportunity to consider the plan over the past few days. He stated that his family recently moved into the house from the City and stated that they were aware that the neighboring lot would be developed, but thought it would be done in a manner that would enhance the neighborhood, not destroy it. He noted concern about the size of the house in relation to the neighboring houses and the impacts on the natural features of the site which contribute to the neighborhood character. He referred to the streetscape graphic noting that the proposed house is disproportionate to other houses in the neighborhood. He stated that his house is one of the wider houses in the neighborhood and pointed out that the proposed house is even wider from the streetscape. He noted that the three car garage will be entered from the Buena Road side expanding the impacts on the site. He stated that many trees will be destroyed noting that several of the trees are significant, old growth oaks which characterize the neighborhood. He discussed the proximity of the proposed house to the south property line noting that the 11’6” setback from the property line is a challenge noting that a drainage swale is required in that area. He noted that the house is pushed as far south as possible. He stated that the excavation and backfill will come very close to the property line and will likely impact significant vegetation including a significant tree located on the property line between his property and the vacant property. He noted that the house is only 3% under the allowable maximum size with a 3-car garage. He stated that the house is not consistent with the City’s design guidelines noting his expectation that the guidelines will be followed. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that it is appropriate to consider whether trees on the neighboring property, near the property line, will be impacted. In response to public testimony, Ms. Glattly stated that the property has been vacant for a long time likely because of the challenges it presents. She stated that many of the trees on the site will be preserved and noted that replacement trees will be planted for those that need to be removed. She noted that the house is within the allowable building area and noted that efforts were made to minimize impacts on the trees, especially those outside of the building envelope. She stated that she does not know how to address the impacts on the neighboring property to the south because the building area is located close to the property line. She stated that she is open to working with the neighbor, but stated that the building envelope is what it is and dictates the design of the house. She noted that the 34’ depth of the buildable area limits what can be built without losing the desired functionality of the living space. Chairman King invited Board discussion and comment. Board member Grieve recognized that this is a challenging property. He stated that he understands that some trees will be compromised. He observed that the project pushes close to the limits of what is allowed, but is within the allowable size. He suggested that there may be changes that could be made to allow the new house to fit in better with the neighborhood. He suggested considering simplifying the color scheme. He stated that he understands the intended style and noted that given the size of the house, there may be some softening elements that could be put in place noting opportunities for refinement of the windows and dormers. Board member Friedman concurred with Board member Grieve’s comments. He noted the importance of developing the site consistent with the rhythm of the neighborhood. He noted that it was known going into the project that the site is a challenge. He suggested that consideration be given to reducing the mass noting that the project as proposed presents a bulky façade for the property. He stated that the project would be well served to find a way to reduce the mass. He commented that a reduction in mass could negatively or positively impact marketability depending on how it is done. He recognized the right to develop the property and suggested that a more natural, organic structure may be more successful on the property. Board member Notz stated appreciation for the challenges of a corner lot. He noted that the Board often sees petitions trying to do too much. He suggested that there is value in stepping back and assessing whether less would be better. He noted that consideration should be given to how a three car garage fits the neighborhood. He added that considering how a future buyer will experience the house is important noting that the meandering driveway may be challenging. He agreed that a front loaded garage is not preferable in general but noted that in this case, a front loaded garage may be appropriate and he asked the petitioner to please reconsider the garage aspect of the petition. He noted that there are opportunities to reduce the overall scale of the house noting that will help the house blend into the neighborhood. Board member Bleck stated that he appreciates the challenges presented by this property and the efforts made to be sensitive to the trees and neighbors. He commented that he did not see other three car garages in the neighborhood and suggested that a two car garage could help to reduce the overall mass on this site. He stated that detail is needed on the grade changes on the property and how the building steps across the landscape. He noted that the patio appears to be 4 feet plus above the existing grade. He stated that more information is needed to fully understand what is proposed on the site. He added that clearer information on the landscape plan, what will remain and what will be planted, will be helpful as well. Board member Reda agreed that this is a difficult lot. He stated that the Board is required to consider the project in the context of the City’s Design Guidelines which speak to the overall site layout and consistency with the streetscape and neighborhood. He stated that the proposed house is large in comparison to the other houses in the neighborhood. He noted that stepping down the mass in relation to the neighbor to the south should be considered. He pointed out that because many trees will be removed, the new house will have even greater exposure. He stated that a dimensioned plan, showing clearly the relationship of the proposed home to the neighboring properties, would be helpful. He stated that more details should be provided on the proposed landscaping. He asked that the dormers at the west end of the house be reconsidered noting that they appear disproportionate to the house. He commented that the east elevation presents better massing and proportions and suggested that pattern be carried out on other parts of the house. He stated that overall; the proposed architectural style is workable on the property. Board member Moyer stated agreement with the comments of the other Board members. He stated that the house will be much larger than any of nearby homes. He stated that the house should be smaller. He noted that northbound traffic on Buena Road will view the least attractive portion of the house noting that the south west portion of the house and the garage will be exposed to the streetscape. He noted that the bulkiest part of the house is the garage. He suggested that putting the bulk, the garage, internal to the lot, on the east side, will minimize the exposure and would allow the driveway hardscape to be reduced. He stated that this approach will pull the house away from the corner and Buena Road. He noted that it will also make the most attractive part of the house more visible and will allow more natural light into the house. He noted that by flipping the house additional trees may be saved. He observed that the most vertical part of the house is proposed as stone and commented on the window over the doorway. He stated that the elevation needs more diversity. Chairman King acknowledged the thought and effort that went into the plan and the proposed high quality materials. He noted however that the overall massing of the 90 foot long house and the height are not in keeping with the neighborhood. He stated that the north and south elevations are too long. He stated that he cannot support the project as proposed. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with the following direction to the petitioner: 1. Consider flipping the house to locate the garage mass to the east, away from the streetscape. 2. Consider shifting the house to the east to provide additional distance from Buena Road. 3. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan to clearly show the building footprints and driveway locations of the existing houses to the east and south to allow a complete understanding of the relationship between the existing houses and the new development. 4. Simplify the north and west elevations. 5. Explore ways to break up the south elevation to avoid a long, flat presentation to the south. Consideration should be given to eliminating or reducing the scale of the dormer on the garage. Consideration should be given to the appropriateness and functionality of doors on the south elevation. If doors are proposed, pathways leading from the doors should be reflected on the landscape plan. 6. Provide detailed elevations to clearly represent intended architectural elements and use of materials. Assure that all plans and all aspects of the plans are consistent. 7. Provide sections through the house, garage, patio and other locations as needed to clarify the project. Provide clarification on where grade changes occur on the site, the extent of the grade changes and how the areas of change will be treated. 8. Given the relationship of the new residence to the existing residences and to the streetscape, an exterior lighting plan should be provided indicating the location of any proposed exterior lights, on the house and on the site. 9. A detailed tree removal plan and a landscape plan should be prepared and shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan. a. All trees on the property and on adjacent properties that may be impacted by the grading, excavation, over dig or drainage should be reflected on the tree removal plan. b. The drainage swale along the south property line should be clearly delineated and plantings kept out of the swale. c. Plantings should be selected and located to break up the long north and south elevations. d. Details of any plantings between the house, swale and south property line should be clearly indicated on the plan. e. Hardscape paths or surfaces should be reflected at all doors. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new sign for a new business located at 179 E. Deerpath. A variance is requested. Owner: Olivan, LLC Representative: Mark Siggelkow This item was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a new overall signage plan for The Private Bank located at 920 S. Waukegan Road. Owner: Lake Forest Partners, LLC Representative: Nora Tormey, H.M. Witt & Company Signs Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Tormey introduced the petition. She stated that the Private Bank, her client, would like to replace the existing signs throughout the bank property with new sign faces to reflect the updated corporate style and logo. She noted that she was not involved in the installation of the existing signs. She stated that a package of the intended changes was submitted to the Board. She stated that one new sign is proposed at the corner to help increase the visibility of the bank on Waukegan Road. Ms. Czerniak stated that an overall campus signage plan was originally approved for the bank several years ago. She acknowledged that over time, some additional directional signs have been added to the site. She stated that for the most part, the existing signs will remain and only the sign faces will be changed out. She stated that one new identification sign is proposed at the northeast corner of the bank, near the corner. She stated that as shown, it appears that the sign as proposed may be located within the right-of-way. She stated that signs must be located out of the right-of-way, on private property. She added that the corner is cluttered with the traffic light, utility boxes, pedestrians and cars. She questioned whether a sign at that location would be visible and added that with the addition of a new sign, there will be three signs for the bank along Waukegan Road. She suggested that only two signs be permitted on Waukegan Road noting that selecting more visible locations for the signs may address the bank’s concern. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Tormey confirmed that the new sign is intended to be seen by people stopped at the intersection. Board member Reda commented that the two existing signs on Waukegan Road are difficult to read. He agreed that relocation of those signs could increase visibility. Ms. Tormey agreed that two signs on Waukegan Road will work if they are visible. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Tormey described the intentions for the new sign stating that it will be aluminum with halo lit lettering. She stated that a brick base could be used to better fit with the site. Board member Notz commented that there appears to be redundancy on sign #1 noting that the name of the bank and logo are repeated. He suggested that the redundancy be eliminated and that the materials on thee sign relate to the bank building. He agreed that only two signs should be located on Waukegan Road. In response to questions form Board member Notz, Ms. Tormey confirmed that all of the other signs on the site will remain as they are and only the sign faces will change. Board member Grieve commented that the private bank is a destination so the signage should not be overdone. He suggested that thought be given to what needs to be accomplished with the new signage, he noted that for instance, the signage should let people know where to park and where the building entrance is located. In response to comments from Board member Grieve, Ms. Tormey stated that the new sign faces are intended to conform to the signs used at other Private Banks, in other communities. Board member Notz stated that the entrance and drive thru are confusing. He suggested that the directional signs be reviewed to help customers move through the site. Hearing no further comments, Chairman King suggested that the staff be authorized to approve a final signage plan consistent with the conditions in the staff report and with the Board’s comments. He invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings and recommendations in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Two signs are approved for the Waukegan Road streetscape. The locations of the two existing signs should be reconsidered to provide for greater visibility. 2. The logo shall be used on the regulatory signs, including sign #6. 3. The directional signs should be reconsidered to provide clear indications of the entrance and drive thru. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and the petition was approved in vote of 7 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. 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 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development