BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/01/13 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 1 of 13
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of January 13, 2014 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Monday, January
13, 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, Ross Friedman, Monica Ruggles, Ted Notz and Robert Reda.
Building Review Board members absent: Fred Moyer
Staff members present: Megan Neuman, Planner and 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. Approval of the minutes of the December 4, 2013 meeting.
The minutes of the December 4, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence on vacant property and
the associated landscape plan located at 530 S. Ridge Road.
Owner: J.D. and Shelly Sun
Representative: John Anstadt, 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. Anstadt introduced the project and reviewed photos of the existing site and an aerial
photo of the larger area. He noted that the contours on the property move from the high
point at Ridge Road, west to the pond. He provided photos of existing homes in the
neighborhood and showed photos of residences in other areas that were used for
inspiration in designing the new residence. He stated that an Italianate, manor style
residence is proposed. He stated that the gardens will be inspired by Jens Jensen. He
presented the proposed residence noting that it has simple massing and a hierarchy of
design details. He reviewed each elevation, the exterior materials and the proposed color
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 2 of 13
palette. He provided drawings of the proposed residence from various perspectives. He
provided a streetscape view of the house noting the neighboring homes.
Ms. Heynssens, landscape architect, reviewed the existing trees on the site noting a
number of trees along the perimeter of the site. She pointed out the significant trees on
the site and stated that the intent is to preserve the natural character of the site. She
stated that the site plan minimizes tree removal noting that only three trees will be taken
down none of which are significant trees. She reviewed the location of the driveway
noting that the curb cut is located at the point where there is an existing opening in the
vegetation along Ridge Road. She stated that the gravel driveway will be centered on a
courtyard flanked by masonry piers and iron gates. She noted that garden walls will
define the edges of the courtyard. She reviewed the landscape plan pointing out the two
red maples that will anchor the courtyard and provide a foreground when approaching
the residence. She noted the proposed location of Boxwood hedge and spring plantings
in the courtyard. She noted that Boxwood hedge is also proposed for the rear yard along
with Bradford Pear trees and spring plantings. She noted the dryset bluestone terrace that
will function as an extension of the living spaces into the rear yard. She noted that the
landscape plan provides a transition from natural vegetation along the streetscape to the
more formal courtyard. She stated that the plantings along the perimeters of the property
will be enhanced with under plantings to provide a significant screen from neighboring
properties. She noted that the north property line will be planted with a continuous
evergreen screen and that evergreens mixed with other plantings will also be used to fill in
along the south property line. She stated that the pond will not be changed.
Ms. Neuman reviewed the request for approval of a new single family residence on a
vacant lot. She noted that the lot was subdivided off from the neighboring property to
the north many years ago but until recently, remained in common ownership with the lot
to the north. She explained that recently, both properties were sold. She noted that the
Board reviewed and approved a petition for modification to the existing house on the
property to the north a few months ago. She stated that the petitioner has worked
carefully to site the proposed new home in a manner that preserves the streetscape and
allows for adequate screening from existing homes to the north and south. She noted that
significant plantings are proposed along the north property line since that area is open
given the common ownership of the parcels in the past. She noted that the proposed
driveway alignment avoids impacts on significant trees on the property. She stated that
various siting options were considered and the location presented minimizes the amount
of grading required on the site. She stated that the staff report recommends approval of
the project subject to the conditions of approval.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Anstadt stated that at the
highest point, the house is 35 feet measured from the lowest point of existing adjacent
grade.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 3 of 13
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Anstadt stated that the roof
pitch is 16/12 and reviewed a section of the house noting the ceiling heights and
reviewing the configuration of the attic.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Anstadt stated that the garage doors will
be stained wood.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Heynssens stated that the court yard is a
square and will have a turning radius equal to the 60 foot radius of a cul-de-sac.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Perry, an associate of Mr.
Anstadt’s, described the windows and noted the manufacturer. He described the crown
and cornice noting where true stucco will be used.
Board member Reda expressed concern that the middle section of the front elevation
may appear large when viewed from streetscape. He questioned whether the house will
dwarf the existing houses to the north or to the south.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Perry explained that consistent
with the Italianate style, the roof height of the middle mass is higher than the other
elements of the house. He added that the elevations are designed to break up the
massing of the house and make it not feet too long and wide. He stated that from the
street, the house will be obscured with dense plantings. He pointed out that the driveway
is not located on an axis to the front door so it will be difficult to peek in and see much. He
added that the house is also set back quite far on the property. He commented that the
massing of the house to the south is far bigger than the proposed house. He noted that
the façade will be broken up and commented that the slate roof will make the house
appear narrower. He confirmed that significant plantings will be added to provide
screening and privacy and to anchor the house on the site.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Perry confirmed that
functional ice guards will be located over the front door noting that they will be copper to
match the gutters and downspouts.
Board member Ruggles expressed concern about the roof pitch noting that the inspiration
for the design appears to be a shallower pitch. She questioned whether the roof will
appear more like a mansard roof than a shallow hip roof.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Perry confirmed that a shallower
roof pitch was considered. He stated that as designed, the roof is not very high. He
commented that with a shallower pitch, the roof was almost non-existent when viewed
from the street. He noted that as someone approaches the house, the slate roof will
disappear. He stated that a tile roof was considered by determined to be too busy.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 4 of 13
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comments,
hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner and staff, hearing none, he
asked for final comments from the Board.
Board member Reda noted that his only concern was the massing however based on the
architect’s explanation; he now understands the reasons for the massing and
acknowledged the limited sightlines to the house.
Board member Bleck complimented the project noting that the house and driveway are
sited well and the house will be well screened by existing and proposed vegetation.
Board member Ruggles complimented the proposed project. She stated that all of the
elevations are consistent with the selected architectural style. She stated that the only
concern is the roof pitch. She noted that in elevation, the roof may not appear as it will
be perceived. She stated that a shallower roof may be more consistent with the intended
style. She complimented the detailing and the landscaping.
Board member Notz complimented the design of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Heynssens stated that no
quality trees will be removed. She explained that two of the trees are Dutch Elm trees and
the other is a Black Walnut. She confirmed that the pond will remain as it is noting that a
pastoral setting for the house is desired. She confirmed that the pond is aerated and in
good condition and will be left alone.
Board member Friedman complimented the massing and scale of the project noting that
it is well detailed. He stated support for the project.
Chairman King complimented the project and noted that outstanding materials are
proposed. He stated that the new residence will fit nicely into the Ridge Road streetscape
and the larger area.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the overall site plan,
new residence and the associated landscape plan based on the findings in the staff
report and incorporating the materials presented, the testimony and the Board’s
deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the
following conditions of approval.
1. 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.
2. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board, all modifications
shall be clearly noted and revised plans shall be submitted for review and a
determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 5 of 13
plans are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to
submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit.
a. In finalizing the plans, consideration shall be given to modifying the roof pitch for
consistency with the selected architectural style.’
3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval
by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the scheduling of a rough framing inspection.
The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that:
a. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected during construction
to the extent possible given the approved plan.
b. Screening is achieved between new structure and adjacent homes.
4. The proposed landscape plan shall be shown on the approved grading plan to
verify the plantings will not negatively impact the drainage on the property.
5. A construction material staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be
provided by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
a. Given the size of the property all parking and staging must occur on the
property. No parking is permitted on Ridge Road during construction.
6. Additional information determined to be necessary by the City Engineer shall be
provided to allow verification that the proposed drainage and grading plan
properly accommodates the amount of overland water that flows through the
property; this may include drainage calculations for the surrounding area showing
that additional stormwater runoff created from the increased impervious surface
area will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties or the roadway.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a
vote of 6 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of changes to the exterior façade materials
and modifications to the roof massing on the existing residence located at 255 Old
Mill Road.
Owners: Mr. and Ms. Arfsten
Representative: Jeff Letzter, Aspect Design and George Knorps, Natucket Homes
Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing
none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Letzter introduced the project noting the intention to make only exterior modifications
to the home which was built as a speculative house in 1969. He stated that the home is
well maintained, but the owners want to update the home and create a more natural
look. He provided various photos of the existing house.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 6 of 13
Mr. Knorps stated that the project includes improving the front entrance and adding light
to that area and modifying the dormers. He noted that several iterations of the plan were
presented to staff for input. He noted the large garage roof structure and explained that
dormers are proposed to add character to that area. He noted that the exterior of the
house currently is Masonite which is in poor condition. He stated that the Masonite will be
replaced with real stucco and thin veneer stone. He provided samples of the veneer
noting that it is real stone, but is considerably less expensive than traditional stone.
Mr. Letzter explained that the three small dormers on the house will be replaced with one
larger dormer and explained how the roof over the entrance will be opened up. He
pointed out the solid brick wall to the right of the bay window.
Mr. Knorps noted that the pine tree is overgrown and will be removed. He noted that a
box bay window will be added to match the existing bay window.
Mr. Letzter noted that a bay window will be added along with a cupola on the garage.
He reviewed the changes proposed for the exterior materials noting the use of stone and
stucco. He stated that roof returns will be added to break up the stone. He explained
that the changes to the front porch will open it up and allow more natural light in to the
home. He reviewed the side and rear elevations. He reviewed the site plan noting that
the garage is on an angle creating an unusual condition. He stated that the new exterior
materials will be wrapped around the house for consistency. He pointed out that other
homes in the neighborhood have been updated.
Mr. Knorps acknowledged that the character of the house is important stating that
presently, the house does not have an identify consistent with the neighborhood. He
stated that the proposed changes will be good modifications and will add interesting
detail.
Mr. Letzter explained that the intent of the modifications are to give the house a French
Country flair noting that the existing high pitched roof and massing will work well within
that style. He noted the timbering that will be added along with the modifications to the
front entrance will be consistent with that style. He stated that the dormers are intended
to have a whimsical feel with a radius to break up the large roof mass. He stated that the
roof is cedar shake and will be maintained.
Ms. Neuman explained that this is a request to update an existing residence with new
exterior materials, changes to the massing of the roof forms and the addition of some
architectural elements. She stated that the details will be important to achieve a
successful project. She noted that the placement of the new materials must make sense
so that they do not appear applied. She stated that the modifications should follow the
City’s Design Guidelines with attention to simplicity and hierarchy of massing. She
acknowledged that it may be difficult to achieve these goals given the existing massing
and some challenges with the existing house. She asked for Board input on how the
elements of the project might be simplified to better conform to the Design Guidelines.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 7 of 13
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Knorps presented samples of
the veneer stone and reviewed the materials that will be removed and the new materials
that will be applied. He confirmed that there will be no change to the building footprint.
He confirmed that the existing structure will be able to support the weight of the stone. He
stated that he has had success in the past with similar installations.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Letzter and Mr. Knorps provided samples
of some of the proposed materials and colors. The confirmed the areas where limestone
will be used.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the
attic space under both of the main roofs is not living space. He stated that lowering the
ridge line was not explored because the goal is to keep the project within the bounds of
the roof. He explained that the cupola was introduced to fill a void on the long portion of
the lower roof. He noted that the original plans for the house included a cupola but it was
never built. He stated that the cupola fits the Country French style of the house
acknowledging that it is proposed purely for aesthetic reasons.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Knorps confirmed that nothing
additional is needed from a structural perspective to support the stone veneer.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Letzter explained the areas where
stone is proposed. He noted that stone is intended to be added to the full height of the
front section and only on the first floor of the other elevations. He pointed out the
locations where the brick and siding mesh. He stated that the stone could be brought up
to the second floor, but stated that the intent is not to have stone wrap all around the
house. He confirmed that the space above the garage is unheated attic space.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter explained that a box
would be built beyond the window above the garage so there will not be views of rafters
or framing.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Knorps confirmed that all of the
windows in the garage will be new. He stated that the existing windows in the house will
remain. He confirmed that all of the timbers will be natural cedar.
Board member Ruggles stated support for the recommendations presented in the staff
report regarding massing. She stated that the front massing should be simplified and the
dormers should be consistent throughout the house.
Mr. Letzter acknowledged the comments in the staff report and explained that he was
rushed to get materials submitted for the Board packet. He stated that further work has
been done on the design since the materials were submitted. He showed some examples
of alternate concepts. He stated a willing to work with staff to get the details correct.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 8 of 13
Board member Ruggles stated that the most important issue is that the massing and
detailing should follow a consistent architectural style. She noted that the intent was
described as French Country but she noted that instead, the plans presented appear to
have a more neo-eclectic style, a mix of various styles. She stated that the details of the
stone veneer will be important noting for instance, if the existing windows are to remain,
how will the stone work around the windows. She noted that similar questions need to be
answered about other details. She commented that the front massing seems overly
complicated and observed that multiple exterior materials are proposed: stone, stucco
and the existing bricks.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Letzter clarified that the
chimney will remain brick but the brick will be painted to match the stucco. He noted
that stucco could be applied to the chimney. He stated that consideration was given to
covering the chimney in stone, but commented that the appearance would be too
heavy.
Board member Reda agreed with the comments made by Board member Ruggles. He
stated that the project needs to comply with the Design Guidelines. He noted that the
house is highly visible from the streetscape. He encouraged further work on the project
and encouraged consultation with City staff. He encouraged the petitioner to pay
attention to the consistency of the roof elements and dormers on all elevations. He
added that there should also be consistency to the exterior materials.
Chairman King invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from
the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he stated agreement with the comments of the
other Board members. He stated that he understood that the petitioner was under a time
constraint in getting materials in for the meeting and encouraged further work on the
project to address the issues raised by the Board and detailed in the staff report. He
stated that the elevations are busy and need simplification. He noted that some of the
individual elements need to be better defined questioning what is proposed between the
two bay windows. He suggested that a more detailed presentation reflecting the
proposed colors of the various materials would be helpful in understanding the vision for
the project.
Board member Friedman suggested that consideration be given to ways to simplify the
front elevation noting that there are lots of moving parts as currently designed.
Mr. Knorps stated that he understands construction and offered some preliminary ideas on
softening the elevations.
Board member Ruggles suggested that some images of the French Country architectural
style and appropriate roof forms could be part of the packet submitted to the Board
when this item comes back for review. She noted that the various elements need to
relate to each other.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 9 of 13
Board member Bleck made a motion to continue the petition to allow further
development of the project taking into account the comments offered by the Board and
presented in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Reda and was unanimously approved by a
vote of 6 to 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of a demolition of a single family residence
and construction of a replacement residence and landscaping at 350 Everett Road.
Owners: Fran and David Dorfman
Representative: Scott Renken
Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing
none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Renken provided an overview of the existing house noting that there are grading and
structural issues with the house. He noted that an engineering report was submitted in
support of the demolition. He noted that the foundation has sunken four to five inches.
He summarized the demolition criteria and stated that they are satisfied. He presented
the proposed replacement residence noting that it will fit in with the streetscape. He
reviewed the existing site plan noting that the house is setback 97 feet from front property
line. He noted that the proposed residence is in approximately the same footprint as the
existing house. He reviewed a map showing the of the surrounding neighborhood noting
that due to the significant grade changes, this project will not affect neighboring
properties. He noted that no re-grading is proposed near the property lines. He reviewed
the site plan noting the location of the existing curb cut and proposed new curb cut. He
pointed out the small trees that will be removed noting that they are not good quality
species. He stated that most of the existing trees will remain on the site. He stated that
the existing grades on the site will be maintained except in the location of the new house.
He stated that as proposed, one foot of fill will be added to the site because the house
currently sits in a hole. He read a statement from the project engineer and pointed out a
shallow drainage way east of the house. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting
that the owner does not want a symmetrical or formal residence. He stated that the
design is inspired by English Tudor and English County styles. He noted that the house is
similar to many in Conway Farms and is a story and a half with the main mass in the
center. He stated that the various elements of the residence are consistent with the
chosen style noting that bay windows and the use of casement windows in double and
triple configurations. He stated that the residence will be stucco, brick and wood siding.
He stated that a synthetic product, which will be painted, is proposed for the fascia, soffit
and frieze board. He noted that after 10 or 15 years, the product will still look new. He
acknowledged that those elements could be constructed of cedar but would require
more maintenance. He stated that wood clad casement windows in a taupe color are
proposed and prefinished aluminum gutters and downspouts. He provided photos of
homes used for inspiration. He noted that a lighter brick with a speckled texture is
proposed with warm color stucco. He provided a section through the property noting the
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 10 of 13
drastic change in elevation on the property from east to west. He pointed out the
elevations of the neighboring homes to the east and west and reiterated that drainage
from the proposed house will not adversely affect neighboring properties. He provided a
photo of the current home built in 1965. He provided a view of the house from the
streetscape noting that the streetscape is screened by heavy vegetation making it hard
to see the house on the property, even in the winter. He added that there is dense
vegetation on all sides of the property and provided photos of neighboring homes. He
presented perspective drawings of the proposed house.
Ms. Neuman explained that this is a request for approval of demolition of the existing
house and approval of a replacement residence, overall site plan and landscape plan.
She stated that based on the documentation submitted by the petitioner, staff finds that
the demolition meets the applicable criteria and recommends approval subject to
approval of a replacement residence. She stated that in general, the proposed
replacement residence is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. She
suggested refinement in various areas including the massing and rhythm of openings. She
thanked the petitioner for providing the three dimensional images noting that they are
helpful in understanding the plans. She reiterated that the perimeter of the site is well
screened with vegetation and noted that the petitioner has stated the intent to maintain
the density of the perimeter plantings. She suggested that a final landscape plan be
developed after the replacement residence is framed to allow a better understanding of
where additional plantings may be need to infill what exists today. She asked for Board
direction and input on opportunities for refining the plan to achieve greater compliance
with the Design Guidelines.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Renken stated that the house
is designed in the English Tudor or English Country style. He explained that the rooflines are
intended to add interest to the house. He noted the repetition of various elements. He
stated that the roof will be architectural shingles in a weathered wood color.
Board member Friedman observed that the garage bay is the most prominent feature of
the front elevation.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Renken noted that the placement of the
garage is driven by the interior floor plan and the need to articulate the front elevation.
He stated that the garage projects 10 to 12 feet in front of the house. He pointed out the
windows on the west elevation of the garage which break up the wall.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Renken confirmed that the
driveway will be asphalt.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Renken confirmed that alternative
roof forms were considered but stated a willingness to explore a hipped roof.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 11 of 13
Board member Reda reviewed the various roof elements on the front elevation and
suggested that pushing the garage back and reducing the gables may help to simplify
the elevation. He added that the long garage wall is a concern. He also noted concern
about the grade change proposed.
Board member Friedman noted a letter submitted by the neighboring property owner
stating concerns about drainage. He questioned how raising the site a foot will impact
the neighbors.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Renken reiterated that the
existing house sits in a hole. He stated that the grade change will not impact the
neighboring properties.
Board member Bleck suggested that the proposed grading plan be re-considered. He
noted that the there is a significant slope to the driveway apron and observed that a
retaining wall may be needed in that area.
Chairman King observed that a significant amount of impervious surface is being added
to the site with the horse shoe driveway that is proposed.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Quigley explained that four or five
different driveway layouts were considered and the one presented worked best,
impacted the fewest trees, and allowed the house to remain in the same location as the
existing house. He noted that a courtyard was considered but appeared too formal in a
natural setting.
Board member Friedman suggested that consideration be given to cladding the stoops.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Renken stated that the house is
about the same distance from the street as the existing house. He acknowledged that
the garage is closer to Everett Road than the existing house.
Mr. Renken explained that the siting of the house took into account the significant tree
located to the northwest of the house. He stated that if the house is pushed back on the
site, the tree will be impacted to a greater extent.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Renken reviewed the west elevation
pointing out that some windows were added to break up the wall. He noted that no one
will see the west elevation.
Mr. Quigley added that the landscaping will be adjusted to mitigate the appearance of
mass of the west wall.
Board member Friedman stated that the house overall needs to be softened.
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 12 of 13
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Quigley reviewed the
preliminary landscape plan noting that the client directed that the landscape be kept
simple and that existing vegetation be preserved. He stated that vertical landscape
elements will be minimized to avoid accentuating the mass of the house.
At the request of Chairman King, Mr. Renken provided samples of some of the exterior
materials and colors. He stated that a sample of the brick is not available.
In response to Chairman King, Ms. Neuman stated that she is not aware of the synthetic
product proposed for this project being approved for use elsewhere in the community.
Chairman King invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from
the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments and a motion from the
Board.
Board member Friedman stated that the demolition request meets the applicable criteria.
He suggested refinement of the design of the new house with attention paid to softening
the stark edges.
Board member Notz suggested that the plans for the garage be revised but stated that he
is not sure that it is necessary to push the garage back. He stated support for
consideration of an alternate roof line.
Board member Ruggl es observed that the proposed residence appears to be designed in
a neo-eclectic English design, taking bits and pieces from various traditional architectural
styles. She suggested that following a more traditional Country design with consistent
elements may be more successful. She noted that architectural style may offer resolutions
to some of the issues presented in the current design including the overlapping gables,
large roof area and large expanse of asphalt. She noted concern about the long garage
elevation presented. She noted that consistency and softening of the front elevation
would benefit the design.
Board member Bleck agreed with the concerns raised by other Board members noting
particular concern about the long east elevation.
Board member Reda mentioned the letter received from the neighboring property owner
raising concerns about the proposed re-grading of the property and drainage and stated
that issue needs more study. He said that he agrees with the comments voiced by the
other Board members. He stated support for consideration of alternate roof lines and a
design that is more consistent with the guidelines including the use of naturel materials. He
observed that if the vegetation along the streetscape gets cleared out in the future, the
garage will appear very large.
Chairman King summarized that as presented, the Board cannot support the petition. He
noted that the property is large and the project may benefit from further consideration of
Building Review Board Minutes – January 13, 2014 Meeting Page 13 of 13
the siting of the house. He stated that the design should be consistent with a single
architectural style. He stated appreciation for the petitioner’s willingness to consider the
comments offered by the Board. He noted that the materials proposed, with the
exception of the synthetic product, are consistent with the standards. He stated
confidence that further work will lead to a better end product. He invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow redesign of the
project taking into account the comments of the Board and the comments in the staff
report and in a manner consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines.
The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was unanimously approved by
the Board by a 6 to 0 vote.
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 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development