Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/07/09 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 1 of 14 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of July 9, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Tuesday, July 9, 2013, 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, Monica Ruggles, Ross Friedman and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: Ted Notz and 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 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 June 5, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the June 5, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. Residential Petitions 3. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing residence at 1500 N. Sheridan Road and approval of the replacement residence and associated site and landscape plans. Owners: Dan and Leigh Ann Bruhn Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Bleck recused himself from hearing this petition due to his firm’s involvement in the project. He left the Council Chambers. Mr. Streightiff presented the petition explaining that as a result of the change of the meeting date, the property owners are not present due to a previously scheduled vacation. He stated that this is a request for approval of the demolition of the existing residence and approval of a replacement house and three car garage. He stated that the project complies with all applicable Code requirements. He reviewed the existing streetscape noting the variety of architectural styles and home sizes in the neighborhood. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 2 of 14 He reviewed photos of the neighborhood, the neighboring homes and the existing house which is proposed for demolition. He stated that no information was found indicating that the existing house has any particular significance to the community. He stated that the petitioner learned from the previous owner that the house was built from a Sears kit and over the years, various additions were constructed. He stated that this house was not the first house built in this subdivision, is of no particular architectural style and does not meet quality design standards. He stated that the exterior of the home is clad in aluminum siding and noted the locations of the later additions to the original home. He stated that alternatives to demolition of the home were explored. He acknowledged that the structural members of the house are relatively intact, but explained that substantial changes would need to be made to make the house conform to the current building Code and to meet the family’s requirements. He stated that currently, the house has no basement, just a shallow crawl space which takes on water. He pointed out that due to the current grade of the property, this house sits lower than adjacent properties and stays damp. He explained that in exploring the potential for reuse of the existing structure, it was determined that a new, full foundation would be required along with other extensive work including replacement of all the fixtures and mechanicals. He stated that in the end, an attempt to reuse the structure would really be a demolition anyway. He stated that without changing the grade on the property and setting the house at an elevation that allows storm water to flow naturally around the house, the project would not be a sound investment. He stated that if the demolition is approved, the materials from the existing house will be donated and recycled to the extent possible. He stated that the property owners have lived in Lake Forest for many years and are sensitive to the character of Sheridan Road. He reviewed the proposed site plan and the footprint of the proposed replacement house. He pointed out that the new house will be sited very close to the footprint of the house that it will replace. He reviewed the proposed elevations and discussed the architectural style and detailing. He pointed out that the proposed design is understated and noted that high quality exterior materials will be used including brick, clapboard, wood trim and simulated true divided lites. He noted the human scale of the design. He reviewed the landscaping planned to provide screening of the new residence for the neighbor to the south. He reviewed a streetscape graphic noting that the proposed house is in keeping with the scale of the other homes on the street. He noted that final plans, including a tree removal plan and a grading and drainage plan are being prepared. He presented a color rendering of the proposed house noting that the plan achieves the objectives of the owners, adds to the streetscape and does not require any variances from the Code requirements. Ms. Neuman presented the staff report stating that this petition includes requests for approval of the demolition of the existing residence, approval of the siting, design and exterior materials of the replacement residence and approval of the accompanying landscape plan. She confirmed that the project is in compliance with the applicable Code requirements. She stated that the existing house sits in a bowl relative to other properties in the area and has experienced flooding in the past. She stated that the proposed replacement residence is designed and detailed in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood. She stated that due to the current drainage issue, City Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 3 of 14 engineering staff reviewed preliminary plans and if the petition is approved, engineering reviews will continue to assure that the proper grades are achieved to improve the drainage while at the same time, protecting the trees on the perimeter of the property. She stated that engineering staff will work with the petitioner to keep the amount of fill added to the site to only that necessary for technical reasons. She stated that if resolving the drainage issues result in any significant change to the design of the house or its impact on the streetscape, the project would be brought back to the Board. She concluded stating staff support for the project based on the findings detailed in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Streightiff stated that most of the house will be Chicago common brick. He stated that one of the garage bays is proposed with clapboard siding to distinguish it from the rest of the structure. He noted that the screen porch is an option being considered by the owners depending on the budget. He explained that the arched opening to the right of the garage door is a side entrance. He stated that the garage doors will be painted white and will have a herring bone pattern. He acknowledged comments in the staff report about additional landscape screening along the north and south property lines. He stated that inch for inch replacement of the trees lost will be provided on the site. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Streightiff reviewed the stormwater challenges on the site pointing out that the nearby school, neighboring properties and Sheridan Road sit higher than the middle of this property which is a bowl. He noted that a large number of trees on the property are diseased and need to be removed. He stated that redeveloping the property provides the opportunity to raise the grade and design the site so that it will drain properly. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Neuman confirmed that based on the staff review, the demolition criteria appear to be met. She stated that the staff report recommends consideration of additional landscape screening and refinement of the south elevation due to the length of the element and with respect to the window placement. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Streightiff acknowledged that the south elevation of the garage may be visible from the streetscape but noted that part of the garage will be screened by arborvitae and other plantings. He stated that consideration could be given to additional windows to break up the elevation and to allow light into the garage. Board member Friedman suggested that there is an opportunity to align additional windows with the dormers above. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that a conservatory window or skylight is planned in the kitchen and explained that to avoid blocking the sightlines from the upstairs windows; it is proposed as a pyramidal form. He explained that different siding materials are proposed for the last garage bay to set it apart from the Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 4 of 14 other two and reduce the appearance of mass. He stated that the railing on the balcony will be wood and will be painted white along with other wood trim. He confirmed that the existing chain link fence located in the rear yard will be removed. Chairman King invited public comment hearing none, he asked the petitioner for any final comments, hearing none; he asked the Board for any final questions. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Streightiff stated that the design rationale for the arch at the side door was simply to add variety to the house. Hearing no further questions, Chairman King invited final comments from the Board. Board member Ruggles stated that a strong case has been made in support of the demolition. Other Board members agreed with Board member Ruggles. Board member Reda stated that with some refinement to the windows on the south elevation, the proposed replacement residence meets the design criteria. Board member Ruggles stated that overall; the replacement structure is designed consistent with the Georgian style with appropriate detailing and exterior materials. She expressed concern about the length of the garage. She stated that the south elevation of the garage will be visible from the street to those driving north. She observed that the dormers on this elevation are not evenly spaced. She stated that there is room for improvement on this elevation and she stated support for additional landscape screening. She commented that the arch at the secondary door calls it out as a side entrance. Board member Friedman agreed that the massing of the garage and its exposure to Sheridan Road is a concern and needs refinement. He stated support for the addition of year round plant materials. He stated an understanding of the reason for the arched doorway but noted that it adds to the length and bulk of the elevation. He suggested that consideration be given to locating that entrance elsewhere. Mr. Streightiff offered that the location of the back stairway is driving the location of the side entrance. He noted that the back stairway is important to the circulation of the second floor. He stated a willingness to work on refinement of the south elevation to mitigate the appearance of mass of that area. Chairman King agreed that the replacement project generally meets the design standards noting the quality exterior materials. He commended the project. He also agreed that the massing of the south elevation needs improvement and asked the Board for input on the appropriate process for achieving the desired refinement to the south elevation. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 5 of 14 Board Ruggles suggested that the refinements to the south elevation could be resolved by staff working with the petitioner to address the concerns raised by the Board. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence and approval of the replacement residence and the associated landscaping based on the findings presented 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, consistent with the direction of the Board, shall be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the Board’s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. i. Alternative massing designs for the garage wing shall be developed for the purpose of reducing the overall length of the garage wing and the appearance of mass viewed from the street. ii. The garage wing shall be modified to allow a more regular window pattern on the south elevation. iii. The eave details shall reflect details established in traditional Georgian architecture. 3. A final building scale calculation shall be submitted at the time the plans are submitted for building permit to confirm compliance with building scale and height requirements in the Code. 4. The final grading and drainage plan shall be reviewed by engineering staff to confirm that any grading and 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. 5. 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: a. The plantings shown are compatible with neighboring properties and the streetscape. b. Replacement inches are provided to restore, over time, the high canopy that will be lost. c. Adequate screening is achieved to the north and south to screen the garage wing, mass of the replacement structure and outdoor living space from neighboring properties and the street. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 6 of 14 d. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. e. The proposed plantings will not negatively affect approved drainage patterns or conflict with utilities. 6. Inch for inch replacement of trees removed is required consistent with the Code. Payment in lieu of on site tree replacement may be accepted if it is determined by the City Arborist that planting the total required inches on the property would be inconsistent with good forestry practices. Any payment in lieu of plantings shall be used to enhance street trees in the neighborhood as determined to be appropriate by the City’s Certified Arborist. 7. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit and will be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the structure. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition of the existing residence located at 500 Ridge Road and approval of additions and alterations to the residence. Owners: Joon and Heerim Park Representative: David Poulton, architect Chairman King asked the Board members for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioners’ architect. Mr. Poulton introduced the project and the new property owners. He described the configuration of the property noting that there is a vacant parcel to the south which is in separate ownership. He described the existing house noting that various additions were constructed over the years and pointing out that they were not designed or constructed in harmony with the original residence. He stated that the new owners intend to consolidate and clean up the earlier additions to create a floor plan that works for their family and to bring greater architectural consistency to the house. He reviewed photos of the house noting the symmetrical layout and central axis established by the front door. He presented an original drawing of the house noting that it was a small scale, quaint, nicely detailed building. He noted that as a result of the original plans, the interior spaces are small. He pointed out that there is not really a front entrance and noted that the stairway to the second floor is right inside the front door. He stated that the house has no closet space and has various other limitations. He reviewed the various alterations and additions that occurred over time noting that a porch was removed, a bay window and sun porch were added, a mud room was added and in 1988, there was an addition that transformed the look of the building. He noted that at that time, the garage was converted to a family room and a three car garage was added involving the addition of a third gable to the north and the extension of the gambrel roof. He continued noting that in 1997, the sun porch was removed and a larger addition was constructed in its place. He noted that despite the various changes, the original small spaces inside the house remain and the circulation patterns are not consistent with those desired by families Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 7 of 14 today. He continued noting that the earlier additions cut off sunlight to some of the main rooms of the house. He summarized that much has changed from the original house, the original integrity has been lost and the result is an inconsistent exterior appearance. He noted that the third gable that was added to the house adds length to the building and overpowers the original house. He stated that the petitioners intend to remove the large one story sunroom in the rear and add two projections to the west. He explained that the main gables will be carried through the building. He reviewed the proposed interior floor plan noting the improvements to room sizes, layout and traffic patterns over what exists today. He stated that the kitchen, family room and garage all need remodeling. He noted that on the second floor, the ceilings are 6 and 7 feet and the rooms are small, configured as servant type rooms. He noted that to get to the rooms over the garage, it is necessary to cut through other bedrooms. He explained that on the first floor, the plan is to remove the center stairway and to allow access through the house to rear courtyard. He pointed out that a gallery at the back of the house would connect the first and second floors. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting that the original strong central access is preserved. He explained that the roof will be raised, but the dormer windows will be maintained. He noted that the gambrel roof will become an extension of the brick wall. He explained that this solution addresses the low ceiling heights and small rooms and establishes a better order of massing. He stated with this plan, the addition becomes subordinate to the main house. He stated that no changes are proposed on north elevation. He provided overlays comparing the massing and roof lines of the existing house with the proposed plans. He concluded stating that the project complies with all applicable Code requirements, respects the original design of the house, carries the original detailing through the project, cleans up the earlier additions, unifies the house, restores a hierarchy of massing, defines a central access through the house and improves the interior floor plan. He asked for Board approval of the project. Ms. Neuman explained that this project is before the Board for review and recommendation based on the large scope of the work proposed, the partial demolition of elements of the existing structure including removal of the main roof mass, and for review of the proposed additions. She stated that Stanley Anderson designed the original house commenting that he was a noted architect in the community. She confirmed that the project complies with applicable Code requirements with respect to zoning and building scale. She stated that the Board’s role is to review the proposed changes for consistency with the design standards in the Code. She acknowledged that the petitioners’ architect provided a thorough review of the changes that have occurred on the property owner time and an analysis of how some of those changes have compromised the architectural integrity of the original house. She stated that overall; the changes now proposed are consistent with classical architectural principles. She noted that some correspondence was received and was provided to the Board. She noted that the correspondence expressed concern that the proposed changes are not consistent with the original Stanley Anderson design. She stated that findings in support of the project are presented in the staff report. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 8 of 14 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Neuman explained that based on the extent of removal of existing material that is proposed, as presented to staff, less than 50%, this project was determined to be a partial demolition. She confirmed that the demolition criteria should be applied to this request. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Poulton confirmed that the first floor ceiling height will remain the same and confirmed that the existing second floor ceiling height springs up from 6 or 7 feet to 8 feet in the center of the room. He stated that the proposed project will raise walls to allow a consistent ceiling height of 8-1/2 feet to 9 feet. He confirmed that the desire to increase the ceiling heights is the reason for the change to the roof form. He explained that consideration was given to using a gambrel roof across the main body of the house. He added that the modifications are not intended to change the character of the house. He noted that there is a need to widen the roof as a result of the gallery that is being added to the rear of the house. He explained that creating a clean hip roof over the main house seems to be the most efficient and cost effective approach. He explained that the changes proposed will bring the main house more in line with the earlier addition at the north end of the house. He stated that allowing the brick wall to continue higher presents a simpler, cleaner solution than a gambrel roof. He explained that the height of the flanking gables will be increased two feet. He commented on the existing interior staircase noting that it would be more appropriate for a cottage and noted that it is about 3-1/2 feet from the front door creating an obstacle. He confirmed that the brick will match the existing, common brick, whitewashed, with the same finish. Board member Friedman acknowledged that the proposed project accomplishes a great deal inside the house but noted that the exterior of the house is changed significantly with the project. He commented that he understands the idea of increasing the massing of the main house, but stated that by doing so, it becomes a different house. He stated that the house is historic. He questioned whether enough study has gone into other alternatives such as increasing the height of the gambrel roof, instead of changing the roof form. He suggested that alternative concepts be presented to the Board to allow an understanding of why the present plan was selected. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Poulton confirmed that alternatives were studied and explained that using a hip roof presented a cleaner, more cost effective solution. He stated that he met with Paul Bergman, the keeper of Stanley Anderson’s drawings, and discussed the fact that Stanley Anderson made his living in part by making changes to buildings. He stated that Mr. Bergman seemed to understand and support the proposed changes to the house. He reiterated that the new owners do not want to change the character of the house and as a result, are carrying many of the original details forward as part of the alterations. He stated that many of the original elements will be maintained although the house will have a different look. Chairman King commented that although the house is not in the historic district, it is historically significant. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 9 of 14 In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman confirmed that although the house is historic, since it is not in a local historic district and has not been designated as a local landmark, the proposed project is under the purview of the Building Review Board. She confirmed that the project should be evaluated on the criteria for demolition and using the design standards. Board member Reda stated that as presented, he is having difficulty finding that the project is in conformance with the standards. He suggested that consideration be given to trying to preserve more of the original Stanley Anderson design. He stated that as proposed, the project will result in the house no longer bearing any relation to the original design. Board member Ross observed that the landscape plan appears to show a lack of plantings in the area of the front courtyard. He noted that this adds to the concern about the increased massing of the house that is proposed. Board member Bleck commented that with the proposed plan, every elevation is changed from the original design. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Poulton stated that the house as proposed would be about 29 feet tall, 7 to 7-1/2 feet taller than the existing house. He commented that in comparing the original drawings for the house with the proposed plan, the proposed plan retains more of the original character of the house than the existing house reflects today. Board member Ruggles suggested that a gambrel roof could be used, set at the same height as proposed in the new plan, with a portion of the roof being flat. She stated that she struggles with losing the only remaining part of the Stanley Anderson house. She stated that a Georgian house is created with the new plan, but it is not tied back to the original Stanley Anderson design. In response to comments from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Poulton explained that a gambrel roof was considered as part of the changes did not seem to be the right solution. Chairman King noted that the Board received a letter from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation which echoes the concerns expressed by the Board. He invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited final comments from the petitioner. Mr. Poulton stated an understanding of the concerns expressed and explained that the change of the roof form is an attempt to re-establish an appropriate hierarchy of massing. He agreed however that further study could be done of alternative solutions. Chairman King asked for final Board comments. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 10 of 14 Board member Reda stated that he is struggling with making a determination that the demolition criteria are met with this petition. He questioned whether there is a solution that better maintains the original Stanley Anderson appearance of the house. He acknowledged that the existing house needs to be modified and upgraded but questioned whether all realistic alternatives have been thoroughly studied. Board member Friedman agreed stating that it will be helpful for the Board to see the alternatives that were studied. Board member Ruggles stated support for cleaning up the floor plan but expressed concern that the last remaining elements of the original design will be lost with the project as proposed. She suggested consideration of options that allow clipped ceilings on the second floor. She stated that Stanley Anderson is an important architect and stated that she would feel more comfortable seeing options explored. She stated that she is not able to support the project as currently presented. She noted that the best part of the house is changed with this project. Chairman King agreed that efforts should be made to retain the remaining Stanley Anderson design elements. In response to final questions from Chairman King, Mr. Poulton explained that the plan does not work with the existing interior stairway. He stated that opening up the central axis is a key to the plan and the space desired. Board members Bleck and Reda agreed that the petition should be continued to allow time for more alternatives to be explored. Chairman King commended the project noting that the issues are well documented. He stated that the proposed changes to the rear of the house are reasonable. He stated that further review of the front façade is needed and asked that the petitioners consider options to the plan presented. Board member Friedman made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to further explore options for the massing of the roof and the front elevation that would minimize changes to the original house and still accomplish the petitioners’ goals. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a vote of 5 to 0. Landscape Plan 5. Consideration of a request for approval of the landscape plan associated with Moore Hall at Lake Forest College, located at 555 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: Lake Forest College Representatives: David Siebert, Director of Facilities Lake Forest College Cliff Miller, Landscape Architect Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 11 of 14 Chairman King asked the Board members for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Siebert introduced the petition noting that this is the final piece of the new student residence hall project. He noted that construction of the residence hall is nearing completion. He introduced Cliff Miller noting that the College has worked with Mr. Miller since shortly after 1993 when the first tree survey of the campus was completed by Morton Arboretum. He noted that Mr. Miller was involved in the development of the Master Plan for the campus about 10 years ago which established a native planting theme on the campus going forward. He noted that Mr. Miller has been involved in planting over 400 trees on the campus and involved in extensive landscaping on campus associated with the various projects that have occurred on the campus over the last 20 years. Mr. Miller reviewed the campus plan pointing out south campus, the area of this project. He noted that the historic setting and character of the campus makes the college special. He pointed out that the College has defined this neighborhood since the beginning since it pre-dated development in this area. He noted that the campus today still has a naturalistic character with scattered groves of oaks and hickories. He noted that south campus, unlike north and middle campus, does not have a heavy tree canopy because over the years, there has been more disturbance on south campus than in other areas. He commented that the College has taken steps over the last 20 years to bring the oak forest back to this part of the campus by plantings hundreds of trees. He directed focus to the residence hall project noting that the project presents some landscaping challenges due to the size of the building and the athletic field directly adjacent to the new building. He added that the project also presents opportunities including the chance to create a sense of entrance to the student residence hall area and to create a greater connection with middle and north campus. He noted that the landscape plan focuses on highlighting the pedestrian spine that extends throughout the campus and noting that the spine was one of the major outcomes of the previously approved campus Master Plan. He noted that the plan proposed a grove of birch trees as a point of interest near the pedestrian spine explaining that birch trees are a native species, but a different type of tree than is found on the campus. He noted that 10 to 15 trees are proposed in the area near the athletic fields he pointed out however that the proximity of the building to the athletic field limits the landscaping that can be planted in this area. He pointed out the existing shrub and tree border along Sheridan Road commenting that currently, there is not much of a view into south campus from the road. He added that as a result of the siting of the new residence hall which the Board played a role in, views of the full elevation of the building do not occur from points along Sheridan Road. He stated that despite the size of the building, it is presented in a way that minimizes its size. He discussed landscaping at the building noting that most buildings on the campus do not have foundation plantings. He stated that more plantings near the building are proposed in this case because of the desire to create entrances to the student quad area by taking advantage of the corridors created by the new residence hall. He provided an overview of the proposed rain garden noting that a dry depressional area will be created and will be designed to hold water after storm events. He stated that the area will be landscaped with islands and Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 12 of 14 borders. He noted that a single family house was previously located in the area proposed for the rain garden. He commented that the rain garden will be a point of interest at the entrance to south campus explaining that it will have a curvilinear shape and will feature progressive use of plant materials. He stated that the area will have a subsurface of engineered soil and will be able to hold water for a 48 hour period after heavy storms. He noted that on the other hand, the area will be dry in August and noted that plants will need to be carefully selected to withstand the range from wet to dry. He stated that the rain garden approach is used to avoid a more corporate detention pond appearance and to better fit with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He stated that the College will work closely with the City to monitor what works and what does not work to benefit future projects of this type. He stated that this project is consistent with the College’s goal of utilizing native plants and with the creative land forms, will reduce the scale of the project visually. Ms. Czerniak stated that this project is the final piece of the residence hall project but is also a continuation of the implementation of the Campus Master Plan. She noted that the Master Plan established a theme of native plantings and natural character throughout the campus and added that the Plan supported work on an ongoing basis to retain and where necessary, re-establish the wooded character of the campus. She stated that the plan now presented has three main components noting that the first is the creation, through landscaping, of a gateway into the residence hall quad on south campus. She stated that the Board carefully considered the siting of the residence hall in relation to the other residence halls and the existing pedestrian spine that extends to this area from middle campus. She stated that the combination of the siting of the building, the retaining wall, pedestrian spine and the proposed landscaping creates a significant new feature on campus as part of this project. She stated that the second component of the plan is the rain garden noting that early in the project, the City encouraged this approach and considers this to be a pilot project which will be studied to evaluate how these types of features might be used elsewhere to address drainage issues. She stated that the third area of focus in the plan is the vegetation along the perimeter of Sheridan Road. She stated that due to the siting of the new residence hall, there is no point along Sheridan Road where a passerby gets a view of the full building elevation. She noted that the landscape plan works to maintain and enhance the vegetation along the Sheridan Road streetscape. She stated that all three components are covered well in the plan. She added that this plan does not represent an end of the discussions between the College and the City about landscaping noting that it is a continuous discussion. She stated that findings in support of the plan are included in the staff report along with one condition of approval which acknowledges that some change in species or shifting of vegetation may be necessary in the field and can be accomplished with the approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. In response to questions from Board member Ross, Mr. Miller explained that studies have shown that planting a smaller tree often results, in a short time, in a tree that surpasses the size of trees that were larger at the time of planting. He stated that he has had greater success with planting smaller caliper trees, especially when planting oaks. He stated there Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 13 of 14 is not an exact tree diameter at which trees thrive better after planting, but noted that as the diameter at the time of planting increases, the slower growth is more evident. He noted that in this plan, a variety of tree species are planned all of which grow at different rates. He stated that the variety of trees was carefully thought out to provide a mix of sizes and growth rates as well as an appropriate mix of species. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Miller stated that typically on the campus, there are very few foundation type plantings. He stated in the case of this building, more plantings were added near the building to strengthen the entrance ways to south campus as previously discussed. He acknowledged that at the northern face of the building, adjacent to the athletic field, there is very little room for landscaping noting that in particular, a tree canopy would interfere with the field. He agreed that some smaller vegetation could be used in this area, but acknowledged that it will not mitigate the 4-story mass of the building from that perspective. He pointed out that there is landscape screening further to the north, along Sheridan Road, that serves to mitigate the appearance of mass from the streetscape. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Miller confirmed that vegetation can be added to the areas along Sheridan Road where gaps exist. He noted the existing continuous hedge in this area. He confirmed that the distance between the building corner and athletic field is about 15 to 20 feet. He agreed that some smaller vegetation could be considered for this area but stated that columnar trees that are not consistent with other plantings on the campus could attract more attention to the area. Ms. Czerniak offered that if the Board desires, a condition could be added requiring enhancement of the landscaping at the north edge of the building, near the athletic field. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that separate from the landscape plan now in front of the Board, the City works with the College on an ongoing basis to implement the Master Plan. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Miller reviewed the limiting factors for vegetation in and near the rain garden. He confirmed that as plantings roll over the berm, the plant types will change. He stated that the College has done lots of research on the appropriate mix of plants for this setting which has various soil and moisture conditions. He described what will be seen from Sheridan Road noting that mostly turf will be visible consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. He stated that the intent is to minimize the views of what might appear as a detention basin. He discussed the existing construction parking lot that will be retained as a parking lot after the project noting that the area is screened from views from Sheridan Road, but not from the south, within the campus. He noted that there are some mature trees in this area. He stated that the College has a significant interest in improving this area since it serves as a public entrance to south campus. Building Review Board Minutes – July 9, 2013 Meeting Page 14 of 14 Chairman King invited public comment; hearing none, he invited final questions or comments from the Board. He stated that he expects the end product to be great. He stated appreciation for the College’s effort and the cooperation with the City to establish the rain garden. Board member Reda stated appreciation for the efforts of the College and the willingness to work with the City on this project. Board member Friedman suggested that the additional condition offered by staff to enhance the landscaping at the north end of the new residence hall be incorporated into the Board’s action. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the landscape plan associated with the new Moore Hall based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The College shall coordinate with the City’s Certified Arborist throughout the tree and plant tagging and planting processes. Any modifications in species, size at time of planting or location will be subject to review and approval by the Arborist to assure that the intent of the plan is achieved. For a period of three years following completion of the plantings, the City’s Certified Arborist shall conduct twice a year inspections to identify any trees or plantings that are failing to thrive and any gaps in plantings that need to be in filled. 2. Enhance the landscaping at the north edge of the building, near the athletic field, from what is currently shown on the plan subject to final approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was approved by the Board in a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development