BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/05/07 Minutes
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 1 of 15
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of May 7, 2014 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, May
7, 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 (arrived at 6:50), Ross Friedman, Monica Ruggles, Ted Notz, Fred Moyer and
Robert Reda.
Building Review Board members absent: None
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. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition to the residence located at 382
Cherokee Road.
Owners: 382 Cherokee LLC, Poon Soo Lee and Bobby Kim
Representative: Shawn Purnell, 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. Purnell introduced the petition noting that the project has been modified since last
presented to the Board. He pointed out the proposed addition at the west end of the
house noting that it is the only location on the site which allows construction of an addition
without a zoning variance. He noted that the modification was made in response to
comments heard at the last meeting. He stated that the addition as now proposed is 23’
wide to mimic the garage element. He explained that the previous, longer addition was
eliminated based on comments that it did not appear residential in scale. He
commented that every aspect of the project has been consolidated and simplified to
make the changes as unobtrusive as possible. He reviewed the preliminary landscape
plan noting that landscaping, proposed and existing, will mitigate the appearance of
length. He pointed out that the existing section of stone floating between the second
story windows will be removed to minimize the number of exterior materials. He stated
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 2 of 15
that the stone, as well as some existing siding will be replaced with simple, white or off
white stucco. He stated that the addition will be brick, to match the house. He noted the
simple massing of the addition pointing out that it falls in line with the existing house and is
not visible from Green Bay Road. He reviewed how the house reduces in massing as it
moves to the west. He concluded reiterating that the scope of the project was reduced
in response to Board comments.
Ms. Neuman stated that the project was previously before the Board on two occasions.
She commented that as now presented, the petition is substantially different than the
previous proposals. She noted that the scale was brought down and a one story addition,
rather than a two story addition, is proposed. She stated that the project was modified to
respond to comments from the Board about length and character of the addition as
viewed from the streetscape. She stated that in addition to the landscaping proposed,
the City Arborist recommends the addition of some high canopy and ornamental trees to
further break up the mass of the house, with the addition. She noted that in response to
the Board’s direction to reconsider the archi tectural detailing, some of the brick and stone
on the house will be removed and replaced with stucco to soften the elevation. She
stated that the project as now presented is consistent with the Board’s direction noting
that staff recommends approval of the petition subject to conditions as detailed in the
staff report.
Chairman King invited questions from the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Purnell reviewed the rear
elevation noting that the brick will be removed from the existing second story and
replaced with stucco for consistency around the house. He stated that the intent is to not
reinvent the style of the existing house noting the wide eaves, simple materials and
minimal detailing which are carried through on the addition. He confirmed that the
garage door will be a white, wood panel door. He reviewed the front entry noting that it
will be modified to add a sidelight and minimize the amount of stone. He confirmed that
a landscape architect was consulted and prepared the landscape plan. He stated that
due to the siting of the existing house, locating the addition anywhere else on the site
would require a zoning variance. He confirmed that the stucco will be white or off white.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Purnell reviewed the landscape
plan noting that most of the proposed plantings occur near the house to add color and to
break up the mass and height of the addition.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Purnell reviewed the existing
conditions and explained that a stone sill is proposed at the addition and garage to vary
the detail , but acknowledged that detail does not appear consistently around the entire
house. He confirmed that the roof of the addition will be asphalt shingles to match the
house.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 3 of 15
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell stated that every effort
was made to minimize the addition and its visibility and to respond to the scale of the
street. He stated that the City Arborist confirmed that the trees proposed for removal are
not significant.
Chairman King invited public testimony, hearing none; he noted that the modifications
responded well to the previous concerns about the length of the house and the mix of
materials. He stated that the use of stucco softens the appearance. He thanked the
petitioner for the changes that were made.
Board member Friedman agreed with the comments of Chairman King. He stated that
the current plan is consistent with the character of the site. He stated that proper
execution of the landscaping will be critical to the success of the project.
Board member Notz complimented the homeowner and the architect and thanked them
for their patience in working with the Board to achieve a project that is consistent with the
context of the neighborhood. He suggested that if the length of the addition does not
meet the needs of the homeowner, consideration could be given to extending it further.
Board member Ruggles agreed with the comments of the other Board members. She
noted that the addition is simple and conforms to the style of the existing house. She
added that removing the brick infill improves the appearance of the house.
Board members Reda and Moyer agreed with the comments of the other Board
members.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed addition,
related alterations and the landscaping consistent with the plans presented to the Board
based on the findings detailed in the staff report and 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. Any modifications to the plan, either to respond to direction from the Board or changes
made for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in
consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with
the approvals granted and the conditions prior to submitting a complete application
and plans for a building permit.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 4 of 15
3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the
City’s Certified Arborist prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City’s Arborist
shall evaluate the plan to confirm that:
i. The plantings shown are compatible with neighboring properties and the
streetscape.
ii. The required replacement inches for the trees removed are provided on the
property to soften the increased length of the structure. If replacement in full
cannot be accommodated on the site, a payment in lieu of on site plantings may
be accepted to support street tree plantings in the neighborhood.
iii. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible
given the approved plan.
iv. Adequately sized shrubs are installed along the north property line to screen and
soften views of the structure from the neighboring property.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the Board
in a 6 to 0 vote.
Board member Bleck joined the Board.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the existing resident located at
172 N. Ridge Road and approval of a replacement residence, the associated site plan
and landscaping plan.
Owner: Stelios and Helen Logarakis
Representatives: John Swierk, 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. Swierk stated that several options were studied based on the input at the last meeting.
He explained that flipping the site plan to even out the spacing along the side yards
caused problems including impacting two large maple trees and negatively impacting
the driveway and drainage. He stated that as a result, the original site plan is presented
with the house shifted away from the north property l ine to achieve a more balanced
placement on the site. He compared the current plan with the previous site plan. He
stated that the site plan as currently proposed preserves the maple trees and provides
more privacy at the garage. He stated that the present plan also improves upon the
drainage conditions. He reviewed modifications made to the massing of the front entry,
the column brackets and the detail s. He pointed out that the size of the window above
the garage was increased. He reviewed the detail ing proposed on the porch. He stated
that the changes made result in more consistency with the shingle style. He reviewed the
other elevations and the detailing of the chimneys. He provided images of a massing
model. He noted that letters were received from adjacent neighbors and Greengard
Engineering in support of the project. He noted that photos of neighboring homes were
included in the Board’s packet.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 5 of 15
Ms. Neuman commented that the Board previously reviewed this petition and indicated
general support for the proposed demolition and directed further work on the
replacement residence proposed for the site. She stated that in the earlier meetings, the
Board offered direction with respect to siting, massing, streetscape character and
architectural detailing. She stated that as now presented, the project is substantially the
same as presented at the last meeting. She noted that the petitioner presented studies of
alternative site plans and explained the basis of his decision to retain the siting as
proposed with a slight shift to better balance the house between the two adjacent
homes. She stated that pushing the house back on the site could help to mitigate the
impact of the new home on the streetscape. She acknowledged that the proposed siting
preserves as many trees as possible on the site. She stated that the replacement
residence is a two story structure and noted that the images of the massing model helps
to visualize the massing as proposed. She stated that the architectural detailing has been
enhanced since the last meeting. She suggested Board discussion on the type of windows
proposed noting that simulated true divided lite windows would be more consistent with
the design guidelines than the windows currently proposed. She stated that development
of a detailed landscaping plan will be important to assure that the garage doors are
screened and the streetscape character preserved. She stated that the staff report
includes findings to support the demolition and replacement resid ence subject to
conditions.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Swierk stated that the homeowner
is not comfortable with true divided lite windows from a cost and maintenance
standpoints.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Swierk stated that additional
detailing on the porch will be reflected on future plans. He clarified that the modifications
made to the plan were made based on the plan last presented to the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Swierk acknowledged that the
massing model does not reflect the change made to extend the gable on the front
elevation at the front entrance and garage. He clarified the intentions with respect to the
two flanking windows near the porch. He stated that the window is an extension of the
eave and is projected out in a small bay. He confirmed that the window will sit on top of
the roof with about 4 to 5 inches of flashing. He reviewed the details of the transition
between the wall and the stone base.
Board member Ruggles stated that the detail of the transition of the wall to the stone base
is not consistent with the shingle architectural style. She stated that the siding should be
closer to flush with the stone. She stated that for consistency with traditional detailing,
there should not be a setback between the siding and the stone base.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Swierk stated that the home was
moved 10 feet to the north. He stated that there is 30 feet of area near the garage for
maneuvering.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 6 of 15
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Logarakis stated that pushing the
house back would require removal of a 20 inch maple tree and would impact drainage.
He added that the house is aligned with the other houses on the street.
Board member Notz observed that there appears to be some space to move the house
back about 10 feet further without impacting additional trees or drainage.
Board member Friedman observed that is it likely that the two neighboring homes will be
replaced in the future. He noted however that the proposed house is distinct on the
streetscape given the two story massing which differs from other houses. He stated that it
appears there is room to shift the house back without impacting the maple trees. He
stated that the shift away from the front of the lot will benefit the streetscape and provide
additional privacy for the new house. He noted that the flashing on top of the porch roof
is a technical concern and could result in snow mounding.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Logarakis stated that the front
columns will be 8” x 8” and will be cedar.
Board member Friedman stated that the plans do not appear to accurately reflect the
scale of the columns.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Logarakis confirmed that the two
maple trees are located to the north of the proposed house. He acknowledged that the
various plans show the trees differently in relation to the proposed house. He noted that
the discrepancies resulted from the changes to the plans over time. He stated that the
36”tree located close to the street will not be saved because it is destroying the existing
house and causing drainage problems.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Swierk stated that inch for inch replacement
plantings will be provided on the site to account for the trees that will be lost.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Logarakis stated that shingle style
homes have various styles of windows. He stated that windows with a single pane under
divided lites will be considered.
Chairman King invited public testimony.
Pamela Engle, 187 N. Ridge Road, stated that she lives across the street from the site. She
questioned why the developer wants to build a home this large in an area surrounded by
ranch homes. She agreed that the existing house should be demolished noting that it is
not livable. She stated that the site has not been taken care of and noted that water
drains into the street. She stated that she has reviewed the plans three times and each
time, they were different. She stated objection to the circular drive noting that it is not
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 7 of 15
consistent with the neighborhood and will look like a parking lot. She expressed concern
that the house as proposed will stick out like a sore thumb on the street. She noted that
the owner is a builder and will not likely live in the home. She stated that she has lived in
the neighborhood for 26 years and questioned whether a home as large as the one
proposed will sell since it will be inconsistent with the neighborhood. She stated that she is
uncertain which pl an is currently proposed. She asked the Board to give the project
further consideration and at a minimum, require that the house be moved back on the
lot.
The resident at 175 N. Ridge Road stated that he lives directly across the street from the
proposed development. He stated that he submitted a letter that outlines his concerns.
He noted that his biggest concern is the proposed two story house in the midst of a
neighborhood of ranch homes. He acknowledged that there are two story homes further
down the street, but not in this neighborhood. He noted that the two story homes down
the street are screened by significant landscaping to assure that they are not prominent
on the streetscape. He stated that the house will be an eyesore.
Chairman King invited staff and petitioner response to public testimony.
Ms. Neuman reviewed that a project for this property was considered in 2007. She noted
that the project proposed demolition of the existing house and construction of a new
house with one curb cut. She noted that the plans now presented differ from the previous
plans. She stated that a final landscape plan will need to be drawn on the approved
drainage plan to allow verification that the two will work together. She stated that a tree
protection plan will also be required. She stated that the plans for a circular driveway
show the removal of the maple tree in front of the house and preservation of the two trees
in the rear of the house. She stated that plans will need to be submitted to demonstrate
that the trees identified for preservation will be protected.
Mr. Logarakis stated that he will live in the house. He noted that his house in Middlefork
Farm is for sale. He stated that he bought the property because he liked the location and
size noting that he has owned the property for over 12 years. He noted that the neighbor
at 200 N. Ridge Road is in support of the project.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the
City’s Certified Arborist looked at the large maple and would require inch for inch
replacement if the tree is lost. He stated that additional information is needed to confirm
that the trees intended for preservation will be protected.
Board member Reda commented that in his opinion, moving the house back on the site
will benefit the entire street. He noted that as proposed, the driveway adds significant
asphalt to the site. He stated support for a single driveway cut to reduce the amount of
asphalt.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 8 of 15
Board member Bleck stated support for one curb cut. He commented that the landscape
plan lacks consistency and would benefit from being overlaid on the grading plan. He
stated that a more detailed landscape plan is needed. He stated that if there is an
opportunity to shift the house to the west; that would be beneficial. He commented that
attention should be paid to the details including on the windows.
Board member Ruggles stated that her main concern is the streetscape. She stated that
the residence is too large for this portion of the street. She suggested that elements could
be brought into the design to reduce the scale of the project. She stated that the house is
a two story Colonial design with pseudo Shingle style elements. She reviewed some of the
architectural elements and noted that in some areas, there are large blank walls. She
stated that as currently proposed, the replacement residence does not meet the Design
Guidelines.
Board member Notz stated that the mass of the house is overwhelming. He pointed out
that it could be another 50 years before other changes occur on the streetscape. He
stated that the house is too big. He acknowledged that pushing the house to the west
would help to mitigate the appearance of mass on the streetscape. He stated that the
house could be pushed back and the trees possibly saved too. He stated agreement with
the comments of the other Board members. He stated that one curb cut should be
eliminated.
Board member Friedman agreed that a single curb cut is appropriate for the site and that
the house should be set back further from the street. He stated that the drainage and
grading plans will be reviewed by City staff. He stated confidence that given the size of
the site, an appropriate drainage plan can be developed. He stated support for the staff
recommendation regarding the windows and for Board member Ruggles’ suggestions
about the use of more historic detailing consistent with a Shingle style residence. He
stated that with additional focus on the detailing, the end product will be improved. He
agreed with Board member Ruggles that the columns should be refined.
Chairman King stated appreciation for the progress made on the project to date. He
acknowledged that the petitioner has to balance siting and design issues with trying to
save significant trees. He stated that he is not concerned with the proposal for two curb
cuts.
Board member Moyer reiterated that a detailed landscape plan is needed.
Board member Reda asked that the petitioner come back to the Board with a single,
clear plan and with a detailed landscape plan.
Chairman King suggested that the house be shifted back on the property to the extent
possible while at the same time, considering which trees should be saved.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 9 of 15
Board member Notz suggested that a massing model showing the relationship of the
proposed house to the houses to the north and south would be helpful.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the
petitioner to refine the design to more fully comply with the selected architectural style,
refine the detailing, create a massing model, give further thought to the need for two curb
cuts, provide a landscape plan and a prepare a streetscape graphic.
The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and was approved by the Board in a
6 to 0 vote.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing residence and
construction of a replacement residence at 1020 Walden Lane.
Property Owners: Murphy Developers, Thomas and Michael Murphy
Contract Purchaser: Chris Brennan and Diane Krapf
Project Representative: Michael Fitzgerald, architect
Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts.
Board member Moyer recused himself noting that he is a neighboring property owner.
Mr. Fitzgerald introduced the project and explained that the contract purchasers regret
that they are not able to be present at the meeting. He noted that the owners recently
contacted all of the neighbors on Walden Lane and shared the plans and invited their
comments. He noted that the property was originally part of the McCormick Estate which
was subdivided years ago. He noted that not all of the homes in the area are historic, but
stated that they do justice to the history of the area. He talked about the American
Shingle style noting that it is reflective of the spaces within a house. He described the land
proposed for redevelopment noting that it is located on the north side of Walden Lane
and about half of the property is non-table land since the ravine angles through the
property. He stated that demolition of the existing house is requested and noted that
supporting documentation was provided in the materials presented in the Board’s packet.
He stated that the existing house has significant flaws and is decaying. He stated that the
existing house is not architecturally significant and has been vacant for many years. He
stated that neighboring residents are anxious for the house to be removed. He noted that
in designing the house, the native vegetation and character of the area were studied. He
provided an overlay plan showing the foot print of the current house, nestled up against
the ravine, and the foot print of the new house. He stated that the petitioners recently
bought the property and desire one story living space and a home that engages with the
natural site. He noted several goals: creating a relationship between the house and the
street, respecting the neighboring properties and providing separation, and respecting
the existing vegetation. He noted that the new house is close to the foot print of the
existing house and is sited to maximize views, while minimizing impacts on the site. He
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 10 of 15
stated that a U-shaped house is proposed. He noted that the house is pulled away from
the west setback to provide additional space for the neighboring house. He described
the siting of the wings of the house noting that they respect the existing topography and
the tree line. He reviewed the floor plan and noted the terraces that engage with the
land. He stated that no variances are requested. He stated that a walk out basement is
proposed, similar to the basement of the existing house. He stated that the basement will
be open to the ravine. He noted the small second floor area proposed along the eastern
edge of the property to accommodate guests. He stated that in designing the house,
consideration was given to the history of the area and what was appropriate for the site.
He noted that the home reads as one and a half stories and the exterior expresses the
spaces within. He noted that the walls will be wood shingles and a gambrel roof will
enclose the second floor space. He pointed out that the house will sit on a stone plinth
base and will be anchored by two stone chimneys. He stated that attention was paid to
how the new residence will fit with the streetscape. He reviewed the exterior materials
and offered samples noting that white cedar shingle is proposed for the walls and will
weather into a silvery grey. He stated that a red cedar shingle will be used on the roof
and the base will be Lannon stone from a Wisconsin quarry. He stated that the window
trim will be painted white and the shutters will be operable with appropriate hardware.
He stated that the front door will be stained wood. He reviewed a number of
architectural elements on the house noting the consistency with the selected
architectural style. He noted that the elements include punched windows with shutters,
ganged windows, dormers in the roofline, smaller windows which reflect smaller spaces,
round columns and small windows above. He noted that the scale and massing is
appropriate for the neighborhood. He reviewed various images of the elevations noting
that extensive glass is balanced with solid walls. He reviewed the roof elements.
The landscape architect noted that great care was taken in siting the residence. She
stated that one large oak tree will be removed at the northwest corner of the house along
with two smaller trees. She stated that replacement inches will be planted. She reviewed
the landscape plan noting that only the street side part of the property receives sun. She
stated that the area will be planted with a formal landscape up the driveway to the
motor court. She stated that a small area of lawn will be established along with
ornamental landscaping. She stated that in the rear of the property, the focus will be on
preserving and enhancing existing plant colonies. She stated that the landscape plan will
also focus on providing adequate screening from neighboring properties. She noted that
a solid fence is proposed along the front property line for privacy. She stated that the
fence is designed as an architectural element and is located 3’ off of the property line,
consistent with the zoning regulations. She acknowledged that the City’s Design
Guidelines do not necessarily support a solid fence along the front property line, but
reiterated that it is intended as an architectural element. She reviewed an image of the
intended board on board fence. She stated that stone columns are proposed to match
the architecture of the house. She noted that parkway trees are proposed to give the
property greater street presence.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 11 of 15
Ms. Neuman reviewed the request noting that approval of a demolition and the
replacement residence is requested. She noted that a project previously came before
the Commission for this property and although it was presented by different owners and a
different architect, that project also proposed a shingle style for the new residence. She
noted that the shingle style is appropriate for this site noting that the low massing,
attention to detail and high quality materials work with the neighborhood. She noted that
the design takes advantage of views to the ravine. She stated that the staff report
provides findings in support of the project and suggests conditions relating to addi tional
landscape screening along the property line, between the new house and the
neighboring house. She asked for Board input on the proposed solid fence along the front
property line noting that currently, the Walden Lane streetscape is dominated by
landscaping. She noted that there are some observations in the staff report about
massing and the proposed transom windows. She stated that the design overall is
consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Chairman King invited questions from the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he is not a
civil engineer, but noted that the siting of the existing house is closer to the ravine than
permitted by current Code regulations. He stated that today, a significant setback is
required due to concerns about erosion and slope failure. He noted that on this property,
the slopes are relatively flat above the ravine. He stated that this property has been
stable and there has been no shift in table land.
In response to questions from Board Notz, Ms. Neuman stated that a grading plan and, if
determined to be necessary, slope stability reports, will be reviewed and will be subject to
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a permit. She clarified that the
Zoning Code requires that fences be set back a minimum of 3’ from the front property line.
She noted that the City’s Design Guidelines however discourage fencing along the
streetscape.
Board Ruggles complimented the architect on the research completed and the selection
and execution of the Shingle style design.
In response to questions from Board Ruggles, Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the details of the
rake and trim. He confirmed that the round top windows are intended to be wood trim
noting that earlier, a stone option was considered. He confirmed that the louvers in the
gable are intended to be operable. He reviewed the dormers at the master bath and
explained that those dormers were given more vertical prominence but agreed to re-look
at whether aligning the dormers around the elevations would be more appropriate. He
reviewed the elevation without transom windows noting that his clients prefer the transom
windows noting that the element takes advantage of the volume space.
In response to questions from Board Reda, Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed that the fence is
desired primarily for privacy noting concern about people walking through the property to
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 12 of 15
get to the ravine. He stated that several properties on the street have fences that are
setback off the property lines with landscaping along the streetscape side. He stated that
various designs were considered for the fence noting that an open, wrought iron fence is
too formal. He stated that the board on board fence is more appropriate for the
streetscape. He stated that it may be possible to move the fence back a small distance
but noted that the fence would limit the front yard. He pointed out that on the north side
of Walden Lane; the streetscape is narrow and intimately scaled road. He stated that the
fence may be able to be pushed back a few feet.
In response to questions from Board Bleck, Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed that the fence extends
along the front property line about 100’. He confirmed that no fencing is proposed along
the sides of the property. He stated that the fence will stop short of the grade change
and stop at an appropriate spot. He confirmed that the fence will terminate at the east
and west ends with a wood post.
In response to questions from Chairman King, the landscape architect stated that
screening between the houses will need to be carefully selected to be consistent with the
woodland character. She noted that evergreens do not necessarily fit the character of
the area. She stated that ornamentals will likely be used and would be 8’ to 12’ at
planting with the potential to grow to 30’.
In response to questions from Board Notz, the landscape architect stated that the fence is
proposed at 6’ noting that is a standard height to screen pedestrians. She stated that the
grade of the property on which the fence will be located is fairly flat and not likely more
than a foot above the grade of the street.
In response to questions from Board Reda, Mr. Fitzgerald talked further about screening of
the neighboring property noting that his clients have had conversations about the
plantings desired in that area.
Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman King invited public testimony.
Ms. Govas, 999 Walden Lane, stated support for the demolition of the house. She stated
concern about the proposed solid fence along the front property line noting that there is
no fencing on the street. She stated that her house is the oldest house on the street and is
the closest to the street. She stated that privacy along the street is achieved with
shrubbery and arborvitae. She stated that the street is narrow, curving and has blind
spots. She stated that these conditions will be exacerbated by a fence close to the street.
She stated that people are very good about using the access path to the ravine located
directly across the street from her house. She noted that the vacant property on the street
was the location of a previous residence which was torn down. She stated the parcel will
ultimately be redeveloped. She suggested that given the character of the street, privacy
could more appropriately be achieved with landscaping, rather than fencing. She
complimented the project and stated that it will be a good addition to the neighborhood.
She stated that she is happy to see something happen on this property.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 13 of 15
Fred Moyer, 1044 Walden Lane, noted that he is a member of the Board and a
neighboring property owner. He agreed with Ms. Govas that people do not walk through
private properties to get to the ravine, but instead, take the path down to the ravine
which is located near this property. He agreed that the street is narrow and stated that
reinforcing the narrowness with either fencing or landscaping could be appropriate. He
agreed that a gaping hole on the streetscape is inappropriate. He stated that all of the
properties on the street are private because of the extensive landscaping. He stated that
there is no parking on the street except for special events. He noted that most o f the
residents put boulders along the street to protect their lawns from the vehicles. He noted
that this is not a high traffic street. He stated that he reacted favorably to the proposed
fence commenting that it is well designed however; he stated that a fence is not
necessary. He stated that the proposed project will have a good impact on this property
and stated that he is in favor of whatever means is chosen to close the front of the
property, a fence or landscaping. He noted that it is common for properties in Lake Forest
to establish a street edge. He stated that he supports the height of the fence because it
preserves the streetscape.
Hearing no further public comment, Chairman King asked the Board for final comments.
Board member Reda complimented the design.
Board member Bleck stated support for the design and suggested further consideration of
the fence based on the comments heard.
Board member Ruggles complimented the design and the choice of the shingle style for
the project. She stated that the residence is well proportioned and designed consistent
with the selected style. She stated openness to the fence along the front property line or
landscaping. She stated that if a fence is the solution desired by the property owners, it
should be set back further to provide additional space for landscaping.
Board member Notz agreed with the comments of the other Board members. He
suggested that a mock-up of the fence in the front yard could be helpful to give a sense
of the height in relation to the street. He stated support for the project.
Chairman King stated that the project is well done and fitting for the site and
neighborhood. He stated that he feels strongly that a solid fence is not appropriate and is
out of place with the streetscape. He suggested that consideration be given to
landscape screening.
Board member Bleck also stated a preference for landscaping as the means to achieve
the desired privacy.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 14 of 15
Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the fence be removed from consideration at this time. He
asked that the Board act on the petition and allow the property owners to work with the
neighbors and if appropriate, return to the Board for later discussion about the fence.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Neuman stated that it is not uncommon for
the Board to consider a landscape plan or a request for fencing at a later stage in the
project. She noted that if a fence is desired, Board member Notz’ suggestion of a mock
up would be helpful.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing house
based on the documentation submitted by the petitioner and the findings presented in
the staff report.
Board member Bleck seconded the motion and it was approved by the Board in a vote of
5 to 0.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the replacement residence based on
the findings in the staff report and subject to the following condition s of approval.
1. The landscape plan and fence, if desired, must be returned to the Board for review
and approval as the project progresses. If a fence is desired, a mock-up of the
fence should be put in place prior to Board consideration of the petition .
2. Any modifications made to the plan, either in response to comments or direction
from the Board, or for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a
determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the
plans are in conformance with the plans presented to the Board, the approvals
granted and any conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans
for a building permit.
3. The City Engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plan to confirm that
any grading or filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City
Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements
and to verify good engineering practices are followed.
4. A pre and post tree maintenance plan, prepared by a Certified Arborist, must be
submitted and should outline the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees
in close proximity to the replacement residence and site work to reconfigure the
rear walkout area. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the
City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify
completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of
permits, during construction and after completion of the project.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a 5
to 0 vote.
Building Review Board Minutes – May 7, 2014 Meeting Page 15 of 15
OTHER ITEMS
5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
6. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
Chairman King noted that this is Board member Ruggles’ and Ms. Neuman’s last meeting.
He stated appreciation for their contributions noting that they will be missed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development