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