Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/12/03 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of December 3, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, December 3, 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, Fred Moyer and Bruce Grieve. Building Review Board members absent: Ross Friedman 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 of the October 1, 2014 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the October 1, 2014 Building Review Board were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence with a detached garage on a vacant lot located at 636 Northmoor Road. Approval of the overall site plan and a conceptual landscape plan is also requested. No variances requested. Owner: Frederic Stripe Contract Purchaser/Developer: PC Equities, LLC, Peter Childs Representative: Jeff Letzter, Project Manager Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Letzter introduced the project noting that a new residence and detached garage are proposed on a vacant lot. He stated that the developer recently purchased the vacant lot along with the property to the west which is developed with an existing residence. He stated that initially, the developer planned to demolish the existing residence and construct two new houses; but instead, the developer now plans to renovate the existing house and only construct a new house on the vacant property. He reviewed the site noting the locations of trees and explained that some of the trees on the property will need to be removed to allow construction of the house. He stated that the four trees on the front of the property will be preserved. He noted that the driveway for the new house is proposed on the west side of the property. He reviewed the siting and elevations of the proposed house. He stated a simple two-story Georgian home is proposed. He noted that the property is only 50’ wide leaving only about a 30-foot wide building area. He reviewed other houses on the streetscape noting that there is a variety of architectural styles, but most use simple forms. He noted the larger homes to the east and stated that the proposed Georgian style is generally consistent with the neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed architectural details around the house and the floor plans. He clarified that the driveway is 9’ wide and that there is about 3’ between the edge of the driveway and the house. He reviewed the roof plan. He provided a streetscape graphic showing the proposed house. He reviewed the elevations of the garage and presented the proposed grading and landscape plans along with a rendering reflecting the proposed finished product. He reviewed the exterior materials and commented on some other architectural styles that were considered, but not pursued. He asked for Board approval of the new house. Ms. Czerniak stated that it is rare to find a vacant lot in this neighborhood and explained that this parcel was in common ownership with the property to the west for many years. She stated that this is a neighborhood of small lots and agreed that there is a variety of architectural styles present in the area. She confirmed that the proposed house is under the allowable square footage adding that the massing is simple and in general, the detailing is consistent around the house. She stated that a detached garage is generally consistent with the neighborhood and appropriate for the lot. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Letzter stated that the improvements planned to the existing house next door will likely include the addition of dormers, but not a significant change to the roof form. Board member Notz complimented the overall design. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Letzter reviewed the window placement on the east and west elevations. He noted the desire to have a window near the landing of the stairway. He agreed that some refinement could be considered to achieve a greater symmetry with the window placement around the house including consideration of reorienting the closet to avoid dividing the window. In response to questions from Board Member Bleck, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the exterior materials on the garage will be consistent with the house. He confirmed that as the final grading plans are developed, consideration will be given to connecting to the storm sewer, if available and subject to City approval. In response to questions from Board Member Moyer, Mr. Letzter discussed the placement of the window on the front elevation in relation to the two bedrooms and the closet. He agreed that further consideration could be given to those elements. In response to questions form Chairman King, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the driveway is 9’ wide and is located 1 foot from property line. He confirmed that the driveway is located 3 feet from the house. He pointed out the side entry door near the 3 foot green space buffer. He noted that hardy plantings will be located in the buffer area. He agreed that consideration can be given to a curb along the west side of the driveway to eliminate the potential for drainage from the driveway on to the neighboring property. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Letzter reviewed the exterior materials presenting a photo of the proposed clapboard siding and stating that the shutters and door will be black, and the roof, charcoal grey. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comment. Mr. Ganun, 650 Northmoor Road, stated that the proposed design is aesthetically appropriate for the neighborhood. He expressed concern that the public notice sent to neighboring property owners did not include all of the elevations, only the front elevation and the site plans. He stated that it is important for neighbors to understand all of the elevations. He also expressed concern about the windows on the side elevation noting that they may create an undesirable “window to window” relationship with the neighboring homes. He commented that the property lines shown on the air photos produced by the City are not properly aligned and noted that should be corrected. In response to public testimony and questions from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that all elevations are available to neighbors upon request noting that often they are sent electronically if requested. At the direction of Chairman King, she agreed that all elevations can be included in the mailed notice going forward. In response to public testimony, Mr. Letzter reviewed the pattern of windows on the side elevations noting that some of the windows are necessary to meet Code requirements. He agreed that consideration can be given to some refinement of the window size and placement. He stated that on the west elevation, windows can be added to break up the expanse of solid wall. Board member Moyer stated that his initial reaction to the random window was negative. He noted however that with further consideration, the window pattern gives the appearance of an older home that was developed over time. He stated support for the project. Board member Reda stated that the project complies with the applicable standards. He suggested conditions requiring that a curb be installed along the driveway to direct runoff away from the neighboring property, the window size and placement be refined and the addition of windows on the west elevation. Board member Bleck agreed with the comments of the other Board members and complimented the project noting that the new house will fit nicely into the neighborhood. Board member Notz stated support for the size of the windows on the first floor as proposed acknowledging the relationship to the neighboring homes. He noted that the side elevations are viewed from the streetscape and the windows are visually important. He suggested that appropriately placed year round vegetation could provide some screening and offer privacy. He stated that the final landscape plan should detail the plantings proposed near the perimeter of the property. He asked that the architect revisit the second floor closet as it relates to the placement and size of the window. He stated overall support for the project. Board member Grieve stated support for the project and commented that the siting and design give consideration to the surrounding properties and massing and to the constraints of the site. He asked that consideration be given to the windows on the east elevation. He noted that privacy will be as important to the owner of the new house as it is to the neighbors. He suggested considering where shutters are appropriate, and where they are not. He observed that on the rear elevation, the window grouping appears to be very close to the door and suggested further refinement of that area. Chairman King complimented the design noting the simple massing of the house and the general consistency with the character of the neighborhood. He stated support for the project. He complimented the materials noting that they have an understated elegance. He stated that he is pleased they are working to save the trees. He asked that refinement of the windows be considered consistent with the comments from the other Board members. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Board with the following modifications. a. A curb shall be constructed along the west side of the driveway to prevent runoff on to the neighboring property. b. The window size and placement on the east elevation shall be refined. c. Window(s) shall be added on the west elevation to break up the large, unbroken expanse of wall. d. Shutters shall be wood and properly sized for the windows and operable. Consideration shall be given to where shutters are appropriate, and where they are not appropriate. e. The window grouping on the rear elevation, near the door, shall be refined to improve the spacing and avoid the appearance of overcrowding. f. Plans clearly identifying any areas of change from the plans that were submitted for Board review must be submitted and 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 reflect the grades extending beyond the property a minimum distance of 50 feet in all directions. This information is necessary 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 impact adjacent properties. 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 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. 4. 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 the trees identified for removal on the approved tree removal plan. It is acknowledged that on additional tree, located in the front yard, near the driveway, may need to be removed if it is determined by the City Arborist that it has been compromised by construction. b. Trees worthy of and able to be preserved are aggressively 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 that 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 include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Assure that perimeter landscaping is provided to buffer the neighboring properties from the new development including the driveway and garage to the extent possible in the limited space available. 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. Street parking is limited to only in front of 636 Northmoor Road. Given the tightness of the site, contractors may need to park off site and be shuttled to the site. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be pl anted 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 7-0. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a new residence with an attached garage on a vacant lot located at 101 Louis Avenue. Approval of the overall site plan and a conceptual landscape is also requested. No variances are requested. Owner: Glattly Development, Lori Glattly Representatives: Robert Gebelhoff/Ken Hite Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Glattl y introduced the revised petition noting that at the last meeting, the massing of the house appeared to be the issue of most concern. She stated that the roof was changed, the front facing gables were removed and a hipped roof is now proposed. She said that the stone knee wall was also removed and stone was added on the front elevation replacing the clapboard siding to the east of the entrance door. She stated that there are other long houses on corner lots in the neighborhood and a few houses in the neighborhood that are larger than the house as proposed. She stated that the Board asked that consideration be given to flipping the house but noted that keeping the back yard on the east side for privacy is desired. She added that flipping the house would eliminate the opportunity for natural light into main living areas. She stated that instead, the house was shifted a short distance to the east. She reviewed the changes made to each elevation. She stated that a fence is proposed along the south property line and trees will also be planted in that area to screen the house and garage. She stated that detailed architectural plans were provided in the Board’s packet as requested. She stated that no exterior lighting is proposed, only lighting at the entrance doors. She reviewed the landscape concepts. She stated that the three car garage remains and commented that there are a few other three car garages in the neighborhood. She stated that it is more aesthetically pleasing to park a third car in a garage than to have it parked in the driveway. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the massing changes made since the last meeting. She noted that changes were made to the one-story element on the east side of the house which was an element in the original plan that the Board complimented. She noted that the “back out” apron south of the garage was removed to provide space for enhanced landscaping but noted that maneuvering out of the garage may be difficult. She noted that a fence is now proposed along the south property line and commented that any landscaping in that area will need to be limited to avoid planting in the drainage swale that will be located in this area. She stated that the City’s Certified Arborist looked at the large oak tree located to the southeast of the house on or near the property line. She explained that it is possible that the tree may be compromised by construction activity and suggested that it be carefully monitored during construction and if it becomes hazardous, be removed by the petitioners. She asked for Board input into the modifications made in an effort to address the concerns about massing and neighborhood compatibility. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Hite stated that by replacing the gable roof with a hipped roof, the appearance of mass is reduced. He stated that he likes the one-story element on the east side of the house as originally designed and the mix of stone and cedar. He stated that the current building scale overage is a technicality resulting from the way the square footage is calculated by the City which does not necessarily align with the useable spaces. He stated that the fence will give both the owners of the new house and the neighbors to the south privacy. He explained that if the house was flipped, the patio area would be immediately adjacent to the neighbor’s driveway creating an undesirable situation. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Hite stated that the roof pitch cannot be brought down further without eliminating livable space. He explained that the house is long because of the configuration of the lot and noted that the house as proposed is not out of character with the length of similarly situated houses in the neighborhood. He stated that the fire place is a nice feature in the interior space. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hite reviewed the changes made to the south elevation since the earlier plan and explained how the interior spaces dictate the window placement. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hite commented on the City’s method for calculating the square footage. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the building scale provisions were purposefully developed to reflect the appearance of mass, bulk and height on the streetscape and not to reflect interior living space. Board member Reda stated that the three car garage element as presently configured does not meet the standards in the Code. He suggested consideration of configuring the element on the west side consistent with the element on the east side. He noted that the desire to have space for a fifth bedroom is causing the inconsistency. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hite confirmed that to reduce the mass of the west side, the roof of the garage could be brought down but the desired living space above would be eliminated. He stated that he does not believe that a barrel window will work on the garage because it will not meet Code requirements for light, vent and egress. Ms. Glattl y stated there are many homes in the neighborhood that have two or three car garages with space above under the roof. She stated that if the roof over the garage is lowered, the livable space will be lost. She stated that this house is in keeping with the ratio of square footage to lot size of other houses in the neighborhood. In response to questions form Board member Moyer, Mr. Hite acknowledged that the elevations in the presentation are not accurate and referred the Board to the materials in the packet rather than to the images on the screen. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hite stated that the dormer on the garage is specifically designed to meet egress requirements. Board member Moyer suggested that there may be a different way to achieve th at goal. He acknowledged that the use of the hipped roof reduces the appearance of mass from the original design, but stated that the design is not yet satisfactory. He noted that more than half of the south side of the house, the rear elevation, with no attractive features, abuts the front yard of the property to the south. He stated that not only will the neighbors to the south have this as part of their front yard, but it will be viewed from the streetscape. He stated that this will be a focal elevation and could be improved through the use of a featured element. He stated that currently, the south elevation is not designed to be seen. He suggested consideration of some type of focal element such as a low slung dormer which could be an attractive feature designed to be seen. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hite stated that columnar pear trees will be planted to screen views of the south elevation. He noted that the trees will be 24’ tall and will screen views from the second floor and will soften views of the house from Buena Road. He stated that an eyebrow dormer will not meet the egress requirements. Board member Moyer stated that pear trees are nice, but will not begin to cover the house. He asked for more information on where the fence will be located noting that it may be beneficial to allow views of the house as it turns the corner. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hite pointed out that the driveway is 2 feet lower than the Buena Road streetscape. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hite explained the reason the style of the house was changed noting that as currently presented, the house appears to be more Colonial in design. He reviewed the changes made to the windows and roof. He confirmed that a two story window is typical of the selected style. He stated that the length of the house was reduced by two feet noting that further reduction would compromise the livable spaces. He stated that to soften the south elevation, the hipped roof was added along with a fence on the south property line. He added that the doors from the kitchen were eliminated. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comments. Kate Loebbler, 979 Buena Road, stated that she is the neighbor to the south, adjacent to the rear of the proposed house. She acknowledged that there may be other long and larger homes in the neighborhood, but noted that the way they are sited makes the mass less visible than what is proposed here. She stated that this house will appear as the largest house in the neighborhood. She stated there are two other three car garages in the neighborhood but noted that they are front loading and incorporated into the house, not added on to the end to elongate the residence. She stated that she is very concerned about the south elevation which will abut her property. She stated appreciation for the efforts to soften the south elevation with a fence and plantings but noted that she will look up at a 30-foot wall. She stated that the plantings and fence along the south property line may not get regular attention since they will be at the back of the house. She stated that the house will be very visible from the south side and very imposing. She commented that a smaller house may offer a better profit margin and asked that the developer consider that approach. She stated that there is a market for smaller homes, at a lower price point. She stated that she respects the process and the work that has gone into the project to date. She concluded stating that the house is too large for the property and out of character with the neighborhood. A resident at 980 Buena Road stated that he lives across the street from the lot proposed for development. He stated that his house is about 3,700 square feet, about the same size as the proposed house. He stated that he is excited about the project noting that it will be an investment in the neighborhood. He stated that he does not want to see a small house on the property. He stated that the concerns about the south elevation are legitimate and stated that he hopes that a design solution can be found. He stated that he would like to see higher priced homes in the neighborhood. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak asked for direction from the Board noting that various concepts for different elements have been discussed. In response to public testimony, Mr. Hite stated that the house is not overly large and is on a relatively large lot. He stated that the neighboring house to the south is on a smaller lot. He stated that as proposed, the house generally has about the same livable square footage as the neighboring house. He stated that every buyer would rather have a three car garage than a two car garage. Chairman King invited any final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Grieve agreed that this is a challenging site and stated appreciation for the work on the project to date. He commented that the way some of the comments were addressed was to change the style of the house. He cautioned that it would be a mistake to take pieces from the various plans rather than remaining true to the style desired. He stated that overall; the direction now presented works better that the initial plan. He suggested that consideration be given to returning the knee wall to the design noting that it could soften the appearance. He noted that that visually pulling the roof line down will be beneficial. He discussed the front elevation noting that the use of stone to the left of the entry may not work well with the style now proposed. He stated that the landscaping will be important noting that the west end of the house, the garage will need to be well screened. He commented that tucking the garage into the natural plantings could soften views of the garage from the streetscape. He commented that the dormer on the garage draws attention to that element. He stated that it will help to soften the appearance of the elements at the east and west ends of the house if they appear somewhat detached from the main mass. He suggested that consideration could be given to changing the siding materials on those elements. He stated that with appropriate plantings, the house may read more favorably. He asked that a detailed final landscape plan be submitted for review. Board member Notz stated that further work is needed but noted that the revised plans are an improvement over the initial plans. He stated that the hipped roof helps to reduce the scale of the house. He noted that it appears that the plan is trying to achieve everything including a three car garage, a room over the garage and a study. He suggested reducing the size of the garage and the roof area over the garage. He urged careful consideration to select which of the many elements are necessary and workable given the limitations of the site. Board member Bleck stated continued concern about the south elevation . He noted the inconsistency of the windows on that elevation. He stated that additional information about the fence proposed along the south property line and details on the plantings proposed in that area will be helpful in understanding the impact on the adjacent property and on the streetscape. He stated that the dormer on the garage is too large. Board member Reda reiterated that the garage, with the expanded second floor area to potentially accommodate additional living space, is the element that does not meet the standards. He stated that the rest of the house appears to generally meet the criteria. Board member Moyer reiterated and summarized that the main issue is the south elevation. He noted that the dormer on the south elevation is a problem but noted that element could become a positive focal point if it is refined. He stated that in its existing form, it is too big and blocky. He noted that the proposed house is more complex than the house to the south and is overly complex for its size. He commented that the house wants to be larger due to its complexity. He stated that simplifying and reducing the size of the dormers is a way to address the issue. He reiterated that the dormers could contribute positively to the aesthetics of the house, rather than be a negative. He stated that overall; the project has improved from the initial presentation. Chairman King stated appreciation for the petitioner’s efforts. He acknowledged that this is a difficult lot. He agreed with the comments of the other Board members that the primary issue is the south elevation. He suggested that the front elevation could be softened by removing some or all of the stone. He asked that if a fence is part of the plan, details of the fence should be provided for Board review. He added that providing the Board with some of the options that are considered to address the issues raised could be helpful to the process. Board member Bleck made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the developer to refine the design in response to the Board’s comments and suggestions. The motion was seconded by Board member Reda and the Board voted 6 to 0 to approve the motion. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 5. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development