Loading...
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