Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/08/08 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 1 of 21 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of August 8, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 8, 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, Ross Friedman, Ted Notz and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: Fred Moyer and Monica Ruggles Staff members present: Megan Neuman, Planner, Ariel Stouder, Planning Intern 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 noted that at the request of the petitioner, consideration of agenda item #6 will not be heard tonight and will be scheduled for a future meeting. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the July 9, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the July 9, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. Modifications to Previously Approved Petition 3. Consideration of a request for approval of new elevations and exterior materials for the previously approved Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes. No changes are proposed to the number or configuration of the lots. Owner: Servco, Inc. Contract Purchaser: K. Hovnanian Homes Representative: Diana Melichar, architect Chairman King asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Bleck stated that due to his firm’s involvement in various stages of this development, he will not participate in review of this agenda item. He left the Council Chambers. Chairman King invited a presentation from the petitioner. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 2 of 21 Ms. Melichar introduced the contract purchaser and other members of the project team and provided background on the approach that was used to develop revised plans for the previously approved single family homes. She reviewed the site and the overall Amberley Woods development noting the entry bridge, the wooded outlots and the meandering road. She explained that the development concept is one of new homes nestled in a wooded setting. She noted that design cues were taken from the nearby historic manor home and described the specific design elements used. She stated that the revised designs for the courtyard homes refer to and re-interpret early English cottage designs and explained the intent to create a cohesive neighborhood. She noted that the design of the condominium building in the Amberley Woods development was also influenced by the manor home on the site. She reviewed other references that were used and explained the intent to use a consistent architectural language and apply it to a variety of building forms to create a unified composition. She stated that three home designs were developed for the site each with articulated building masses and generally consistent designs that offer some variety. She reviewed each of the designs noting that all elevations on each design are appropriately detailed and present appropriate proportions and rhythm. She noted the different massings, treatments and combinations and noted that landscap ing will also be used to distinguish the homes from each other. She added that to provide variety within a consistent design context, each façade is available in different material; stucco, brick and timbering. She stated that buyers will have some choices within pre-determined color schemes. She noted that the new homes will harmonize with the two existing homes built by the original developer. She stated that there are safe guards built into the process to assure that there is diversity, but cohesiveness. She noted that anti-monotony standards were developed and included in the Commission’s packet. She explained that the intent of the standards is to avoid a single design, massing, material or color from dominating the development. She reviewed the color palettes that will be available noting opportunities for distinction through different, although limited, trim colors. She noted that the roof will be a dominate feature of the homes due to the cottage style and explained that wood shingles on the roofs will give character to the homes as they age. She discussed the garage orientation options, front and side loaded and explained that as a result of the curve in the street, in some cases, a front loaded garage may be less obtrusive than a side loaded garage. She stated that the location of the lot along the road, the shape of the lot and the trees on the site will influence the garage orientation selected for each lot. She noted that each home will be landscaped to create vistas. She provided a sampling of plant materials that will be used to achieve year round interest. She concluded noting that the revised designs will blend with the existing homes to create a diverse development with distinct character. She requested approval of the revised architectural designs, materials and landscape concepts. Ms. Neuman explained that like the Willow Lake development which was recently reviewed by the Board, this project is different from those normally seen by the Board involving approval of a specific house on a specific lot. She explained that this project was previously approved by the City Council as an overall development. She stated that no change is proposed to the number of houses or the overall layout of the development. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 3 of 21 She explained that the Board is asked to consider changes proposed to the massing, architectural design, exterior materials and landscape concepts for the courtyard home portion of the project. She stated that the proposed designs have a more compact footprint than the homes originally approved for this part of the development. She noted that the revised plans result in less impervious surface on the site than those previously approved. She stated that the proposed revisions use a vocabulary similar to the architecture of existing buildings on the site. She noted that variety is added through materials and specific design elements. She noted that the designs presented are consistent with the concept of this development fitting into a wooded site. She noted the anti-monotony matrix presented by the petitioners and explained that during buildout of the site, City staff will track the specific designs, materials and colors to assure some level of diversity on the site. She noted that some correspondence was received in support of the revised design and some concerns were raised about drainage impacts from the development on neighboring properties. She stated that the overall site has been engineered to support the previously approved development and added that grading and drainage plans will be required and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits for construction on each lot. She stated staff support for the revisions as presented. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Melichar discussed the English Revival style noting that not every element must be in an ordered pattern but instead, explained that the goal is to achieve a balanced and well-proportioned façade. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the infrastructure is in place throughout the Amberley Woods development and was inspected by City engineering staff. She stated that there are no fundamental issues or concerns with the development. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak explained that there is a Master Owners’ Association that is responsible for the maintenance of the entire privately owned infrastructure and systems that support the Amberley Woods development. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Melichar confirmed that the options for development of each parcel are intended to be flexible to preserve healthy and significant trees to the extent possible. She confirmed that the siting of the homes, and whether a front or side loaded garage is used, will be determined in the context of healthy trees on each site. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Melichar discussed the orientation of the garages and reviewed the street configuration and its impact on views of the garages. She stated that she understands that ordinarily front loaded garages are discouraged, but explained that the unique conditions of this site make a more flexible approach, with a commitment for a minimum percentage of side loaded garages, the best approach. She Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 4 of 21 stated that in every case, the garage will be orientated to mitigate views of the garage doors to the extent possible. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman confirmed that there was a limitation on the number of front facing garages in the previously approved plan. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Neuman confirmed that in an effort to create large outlots where trees are preserved, the individual building lots are very small, with minimal setbacks. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Melichar confirmed that depending on the configuration of the lot and the model selected, different landscape treatments will be used. She reviewed the treatments that might be used on different lots. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Melichar discussed the relationship between the re-designed homes and the two existing homes. She reviewed drawings of the existing homes and commented on the scale and size in comparison to the revised designs. She noted consistent use of quality materials. She stated that although the revised design does not mimic the existing homes, they fit well together. She noted that the revised design has a shortened footprint and lower eaves, but is harmonious. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the architectural details will be reviewed at the time plans are submitted for permit. Chairman King invited public comment. Mr. Ewert, 225 Saunders Road, stated that his house is adjacent to the Amberley Woods development to the south. He stated concern about the loss of trees noting the loss that occurred on the Opus property to the west. He stated that the historic tree canopy that existed in this area is being lost. He questioned whether re-plantings have occurred consistent with the earlier approvals. He also asked that drainage be carefully reviewed to assure that his property is not adversely impacted. Mr. Schoeller, 260 Saunders Road, stated that he has lived in this area for 20 years. He agreed that as a result of the construction of the Opus office buildings, a dozen 100 year old oak trees were lost. He stated that he is very concerned about what happens to the east of his property since his property is a wetland and an area of overland stormwater flows to the west. He stated that by changing the water flows, more trees will be lost. In response to a request from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak responded to the public testimony noting that as part of the previous approvals for the Amberley Woods development, the construction of detention points, overland flow routes and preservation of an existing wetland area were all required and have been completed. She stated that as plans for development on the individual lots are submitted to the City, engineering staff Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 5 of 21 will review each plan to assure that stormwater flows are being directed consistent with the previously approved plan. She confirmed that the tree replacement on the property is still an open item and that based on twice a year inspections of the site by City staff, replacement is required for trees that are failing to thrive. Chairman King asked for further comments from the Board. Board member Reda stated that the revised plans appear to meet the design guidelines and the applicable criteria. He noted that previous approvals of tree removal and tree replacement and drainage improvements are not before the Board for review. Board member Friedman noted that the revised plans for the homes result in a reduction in the overall mass by 10 to 20 percent which benefits the overall neighborhood. He added that the architectural detail s are well developed and consistent with the context of the overall development. He noted that the significant tree loss that has occurred in the area has already been accepted and that the drainage plans for the development were previously approved by City engineering staff. He stated support for the design approach presented for the single family homes. Board member Notz stated support for the revised designs stating that the homes will be in keeping with neighborhood. He stated that the community will welcome the successful completion of this development. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King stated support for the revisions to the original design noting that the materials are high quality and in keeping with the other development on the site. He asked that when the plans are submitted for permit, staff carefully evaluate the architectural details to affirm that the plans are consistent with the design intent presented to the Board. He acknowledged that the Board does not have the details for each specific lot as would normally occur with single lot petitions. He stated that the reduction in the size of the footprint will be beneficial to the neighbors and will mitigate further impact on trees and drainage issues. He stated support for the project subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report and invited a motion from the Board. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the testimony presented at the meeting and the Board’s discussion as additional findings. He stated that the approval is recommended 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. Refinements made during the development of construction drawings consistent with the direction of the Board and shall be submitted for a review of final massing Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 6 of 21 and architectural detailing by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to confirm that the plans are in conformance with the plans presented to the Board and Board’s direction prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. i. The aluminum clad windows are simulated divided lite windows with interior and exterior muntin bars. ii. The architectural style and detailing is appropriately applied to all elevations. iii. The materials proposed are of a high quality and consistent with the Board approval. 3. During build-out of the development, staff shall maintain a matrix that describes the alternative design elements, detailing, and materials that will be used and shall require a diversity of building design, footprint, color and material pallet throughout the development. 4. Landscape plans for each single family home shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building. The plans shall be drawn on the approved grading plan and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. The plan shall reflect species and size at the time of planting. 5. The City Arborist shall monitor the plantings and approve minor modifications to the plan “in the field” as appropriate. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the Board in a 4 to 0 vote. Board member Bleck rejoined the Board. Single Family Residential Petitions – Variances Requested 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and associated site and landscape plans for property at 296 Mills Court. Owner: Ken Marsch Contract Purchaser: Adam Grabowski, I G Construction Representative: Richard Swanson, architect Chairman King asked the Board members to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Sw anson introduced the project and the contract purchaser. He reviewed the lot proposed for development with a new single family home and explained that the previous home on this parcel was demolished because it presented a safety hazard due to a partial collapse. He stated that the house and garage are sited in a way that requires zoning variances from the fron t and rear yard setbacks. He explained that the house is sited to be consistent with other homes on the street. He stated that the Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 7 of 21 proposed house is 60 square feet under the allowable square footage. He reviewed the neighborhood stating that it is made up of smaller traditional homes. He stated that the proposed house will be a fitting addition to the street. He noted that the lot is located at the end of Mills Court, adjacent to a larger plot of land to the east that fronts on Edgewood Road. He provided photos of the end of Mills Court where the lot proposed for development is located. He noted the simple detailing on the homes in this area and noted how close the homes are to the street. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the alignment of the house with other homes on the street. He reviewed the proposed location of the detached garage, close to the rear property yard line. He presented a rendering of the proposed home noting that a simple Colonial Reviv al style is proposed. He reviewed the exterior materials stating that clapboard, hardi-board siding in a warm grey, Tuscan columns, simulated true divided lite windows and a bay window are proposed. He reviewed each elevation noting the consistency with the chosen style on each. He reviewed the garage elevations noting the consistency in design and materials with the house. He presented a streetscape view noting the consistency of the proposed house with others in the neighborhood and noting that the height to the peak of the roof will be 29 feet. He requested Board approval. Ms. Stouder provided staff comments and confirm ed that in 2009 the house previously located on this property was demolished by order of the City due to the collapse of roof. She noted that prior to the roof collapse; the home was unoccupied for some time. She noted that an evaluation of the architectural design and siting of the proposed new house is provided in the staff report. She stated staff support for aligning the new home with others on the street, within the front yard setback. She stated that although the request for a zoning variance is under the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals, any comments from the Building Review Board pertaining the to the design and streetscape impacts of the proposed siting of the home will be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed siting; design; materials and landscape plan and reviewed the conditions of approval presented in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Neuman explained that subdivision of this area occurred prior to the establishment of the current zoning requirements. She pointed out that requiring the new house to be sited 40 feet back from the street would be inconsistent with the streetscape and would cause a gap in the alignment of homes along the street. She stated that the previous home on this lot was sited approximately the same distance from the street as currently proposed for the new house. She explained that the yard to the east is the backyard of a home that fronts on Edgewood. In response to Chairman King, Mr. Swanson confirmed that wood shingles are being considered. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 8 of 21 Chairman King stated that slate or simulated slate would not be appropriate for the roof. He stated that either wood shingles or dimensional asphalt shingles would be consistent with the architectural style and the overall neighborhood. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the garage doors will be wood carriage doors. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Swanson stated that he is confident that the drainage plan will properly handle drainage noting that it will be reviewed by City staff. He added that as proposed, the back motor court is proposed as a pervious surface. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Neuman explained that the eastern edge of the property is encumbered by a storm sewer pipe that runs near the property line. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Swanson reviewed the overall height of the proposed house and the roof pitch noting that they are generally consistent with other homes in the area. He pointed out the similarity to the house across the street. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Swanson clarified that the window on the east elevation is proposed as shown on rendering, not as shown on the elevation. He explained that the window is in a stairway which dictated its placement. He agreed to work with staff on appropriate species of trees for the rear yard. Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he asked for any further comment from the petitioner or staff, hearing none, he asked for final questions or comments from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the house is being constructed on a speculative basis and will be sold, not occupied by the current property owner. Board member Notz stated support for the design noting that the materials appear to be of good quality. He stated support for the use of either a dimensional asphalt shingle or cedar shingles. Board member Friedman stated that the proposed house is in keeping with the character of the street. He stated that the proposed house is also consistent with others in the neighborhood with respect to mass, setbacks and architectural style. He commented that since this is proposed as a speculative house, there could be some uncertainty about whether the finished product and landscaping will achieve the quality presented to the Board. He stated that overall; the project appears to be in keeping with the neighborhood. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 9 of 21 Chairman King complimented the design and stated that in his opinion, the siting of the house with respect to the front yard setback is appropriate. He stated support for cedar or architectural shingles for the roof material. Board member Bleck stated that the house is nicely designed and fits in with the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed siting of the house is in keeping with the streetscape. Board member Reda commented that the project is generally consistent with the character of the neighborhood and meets the applicable criteria. He made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and discussion that occurred at the meeting as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 2. Any modifications to the plans, 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. In particular the following must be addressed: a. Simulated divided lites with interior and exterior muntin bars and a spacer bar to replicate the look of true divided lite windows should be reflected on the plan. b. The roof material shall be reflected as wood or asphalt shingles. c. The final location of the garage shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer after detailed information is obtained regarding the location of the road drain along the east property line. 3. Given the proximity of homes in this neighborhood and the significant portion of the lot proposed for coverage with impervious surfaces, careful attention should be paid to preventing drainage impacts on neighboring properties during construction and over the long term, after construction. a. Additional information determined to be necessary by the City Engineer shall be provided to allow verification that the proposed drainage and grading plan properly accommodates the amount of overland water that flows through the property; this may include, but shall not be limited to, drainage calculations for the surrounding area showing that additional stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface area will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties or the roadway. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 10 of 21 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to final review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the scheduling of a rough framing inspection. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: a. Foundation plantings are installed around the entire structure. b. Plantings are shown along the west property line to provide a buffer between structures. c. An Oak or other high quality tree with a diameter of 2.5 to 3 inches in size at the time of planting is shown in the rear yard. 5. A plan for the staging and storage of construction materials and equipment reflecting the proposed access to the site and any on-site or street parking of construction vehicles shall be submitted and reviewed by staff to confirm that access to other properties in the neighborhood is maintained, that congestion on streets is minimized and that trees and vegetation are protected. Due to the size of the property, parking and staging will need to be accommodated off-site. On street parking of construction related vehicles shall not exceed two vehicles at any one time. The street must remain passable at all times. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of additions to the residence located at 1418 N. Green Bay Road. A building scale variance is requested. Owners: Ralph and Mary Gesulado Representative: Greg Howe, architect Chairman King asked the Board members to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Howe introduced the property owner and the petition. He noted that the lot is 4 acres in size and provided photographs of the property. He explained that the proposed project consists of seven small elements: expansion of the master suite, reworking of an existing stairwell, the addition of second floor office space, the addition of first floor office space, the construction of a detached conservatory in southeast corner of the lot and the addition of a garage. He explained that the mixture of elements meet the needs and desires of the owners who built the house 20 years ago and now want the house to evolve to meet their needs for the next 20 years. He pointed out that the various components meet not only the programmatic needs of the owners, but also provide the opportunity to improve upon existing design elements. He reviewed the various elements of the project. He described the approach to the house, showing a series of images. He noted that the first impression of the house is the garage. He showed renderings of the proposed conservatory noting that it is designed with a series of hipped roof elements that engage the landscape to build upon the existing character of the house. He provided renderings of the overall property reflecting the proposed additions and alterations. He stated that the owners want to add presence, scale, detail and richness to various areas of the house, Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 11 of 21 bringing all elevations up to a similar level. He noted that in particular, there is interest in giving the entrance a greater presence and re-balancing the house. He reviewed the existing and proposed footprints and elevations of the house. He stated that the exterior materials will be consistent with the existing materials. He referred to the house as “a pared down country house” to better explain the variety of elements. He reviewed the building scale variance request and pointed out that the visible impact of the square footage will be minimal given the large property and the existing vegetation. He noted that currently, there appears to be too much building on one side of the property. He explained that the additions help to balance the appearance of mass on the site. He noted that various options for accommodating the desired additions were considered including adding second floor space. He stated that the best options are incorporated into the project as presented to the Board noting that the changes will allow the owners to “age in place” and remain in the home for many years. Ms. Neuman provided some background on the intent of the building scale provisions in the Code explaining that the intent is to assure that structures do not become disproportionate in size with neighboring properties or the overall neighborhood. She stated that this house is isolated, located at the end of long private drive and surrounded by perimeter landscaping. She added that the adjacent property to the west is preserved open space. She stated that based on the unique aspects of this property, the project appears to satisfy the necessary criteria for a building scale variance including meeting the design standards. She stated that the house is screened by landscaping, is not viewed in the context of surrounding homes and is adjacent to preserved open space. She stated staff support for the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the conditions of approval offered in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Howe agreed that adding mullions to the windows is worth considering but commented that he would not expect to add mullions in all areas of the house. He acknowledged that the house is a mix of elements but noted that the house is intended to engage with the landscaping, rather than be seen as a stand-alone structure. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Neuman reviewed the building scale calculation noting that the house with the proposed improvements will be 9.5 percent over the allowable square footage. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Howe stated that the amount of impervious surface on the property will be reduced with this project. He stated that the basketball court will be removed and replaced with a smaller green house. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Howe acknowledged the comment in the staff report regarding the window placement in the master suit and office and agreed that further study and refinement of that area is appropriate. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 12 of 21 In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Howe acknowledged that there is great variety to the elements of the house, but pointed out that there are also unifying elements. He reviewed the material choices noting areas where a purposeful departure from the existing materials is proposed. He reviewed the new element proposed for the garage in the context of the existing eave line. He discussed the proposed study space acknowledging that it is a tall element but noting that it will be lighted so that it does not appear to be a lantern and will not have off site impacts. He reiterated that the intent is to engage the house with the site and to do so, considerable glass is used. He stated that any glare or light intrusion issues will be mitigated. He stated that the footprint of the driveway is no t changing noting that the driveway is intended to have a quiet presence on the site. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Howe confirmed that any exterior lighting will be carefully done and will not create a beacon of light. He stated that the entire site will remain consistent with the current landscape dominate character of the property. He stated that the nearest structures include a new garage about 165 feet to the east and a structure about 200 feet to the south. He reiterated that the land to the west is preserved open land. He stated that any exterior light will be fully mitigated by the distance from other structures and the vegetation. He noted that there is an interesting collection of houses on the private road that provides access to this house. He stated that this house is not a traditional design and commented that the contemporary design gives license to pursue the same contemporary approach with the planned improvements. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Howe confirmed that the project will build upon the existing character without compromising key features of the existing house. He reiterated that the site is heavily landscaped and that the landscaping will be enhanced to the extent that some elements of the structures will be invisible. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Howe stated that the proposed additions will not substantially impact any vegetation noting that keeping the landscape dominance character is a goal of the project. Chairman King invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final comments from staff and the petitioner, hearing none, he asked for final Board questions or comments. Board member Friedman commented that this property is extraordinarily isolated. He stated that the house does not have a close relationship to any neighboring homes. He stated that if the house was not as secluded as it is, the discussion would be much different. He stated that in his opinion, the proposed project is successful due to the unique aspects of the site. Chairman King commented that the property is interesting due to its isolation and the unique architectural style of the house. He observed that not all of the building elements and proposed additions and changes are in keeping with a single style. He agreed however that the seclusion is unique. He stated that it will be important that the tower Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 13 of 21 element not become a light beacon causing off site impacts. He stated that in general, the proposed changes appear to be consistent with the standards given the location of the property. Board member Bleck agreed that the uniqueness of the site, the isolation from other homes and the adjacency to preserved open lands all help to justify a building scale variance. Board member Reda agreed with the comments of other Board members noting that the isolation of the property helps this request meet the applicable criteria. He stated that in his opinion, the design standards are also satisfied. Chairman King explained that the Board does not take requests for variances from the Building Scale Ordinance lightly. He noted that the Board evaluates each request carefully based on the variance criteria. He noted that for all the reasons mentioned, this petition appears to meet the criteria for a variance. Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and Board’s discussion as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions. 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. In particular, the large blocks of windows on the west and south elevations shall be refined to improve the proportions. The refinement shall occur through a reduction in the size of the windows as opposed to increasing the height or width of the hip roof or increasing the overall mass. 3. An interior lighting plan and fixtures shall be provided with the application for permit to allow for verification that the tower element and 2nd story addition are not illuminated in a manner that negatively impacts neighboring properties or is inconsistent with the character of the overall neighborhood. Specifically, no element of the house shall appear as a lantern or beacon of light. 4. A final fully detailed landscape shall be submitted with the application for building permits. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 14 of 21 The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Single Family Residential Petitioner – No Variances Requested 6. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the residence located at 1313 E. Westleigh Road and approval of a replacement structure, site plan and landscape plan. Owner: Chicago Title Land Trust Representative: Diana Melichar, architect This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the residence located at 41 June Terrace and approval of a replacement structure, site plan and landscape plan. Owners: Brian and Rita Germain Representative: Jeff Lynch, contractor and Michael Malloy, designer Chairman King asked the Board members to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Malloy introduced the petition. He reviewed existing conditions on the site noting the grade of the site which results in dirt up against the walls of the house. He stated that the existing house is decayed and the walls are bowing. He pointed out the location of the existing house close to the property line. He noted that it appears that the house is the result of the combination of two structures at some time in the past. He noted that to address drainage issues on the site, a comprehensive drainage study was completed and a plan developed. He noted that a swale is proposed for the property along with other associated drainage improvements. He stated that the existing house is located far back on the site but the replacement house is proposed in alignment with the other homes on the street and is more centered on the lot. He noted that the replacement house will be about the same size as the existing house but will be better suited to the site and neighborhood. He reviewed the architectural references used for the house noting that it is designed in the American vernacular style. He reviewed the elevations pointing out that based on a suggestion from staff; a chimney was added to the house. He noted the simple, clean lines of the design. He reviewed the garage noting the wood door and soffit details to match the house. He reviewed the proposed landscape plan. He asked for Board approval of the project. Ms. Neuman reviewed the information submitted by the petitioner in support of the demolition of the existing residence. She noted that the existing structure is in poor shape and does not have any particular architectural significance. She stated staff support for the demolition. She stated that the proposed replacement residence will improve the streetscape and will be consistent with the zoning setbacks. She stated that the proposed design and materials meet the standards in the Code. She stated that the project overall is consistent with the character of the older homes on the street. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 15 of 21 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Neuman confirmed that City engineering staff has reviewed a preliminary drainage plan and determined that the improvements proposed are workable and will allow redevelopment of the site without drainage impacts on neighboring properties. She noted that it is possible that a curb will be extended along the driveway to direct water runoff to the street. In response to questions from Board members Reda and Notz, Mr. Malloy confirmed that originally, the chimney was removed from the design to reduce costs, but it was added back for architectural reasons. He confirmed that the fireplace will be functional. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Malloy reviewed the height of the replacement house in relation to others in the neighborhood noting the there is a mix of one and two story homes along the street. He confirmed that the replacement house will be set back a similar distance as other homes on the street. He stated that the replacement house is designed in the American Vernacular syle; a farmhouse style with some Colonial influences. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Malloy explained that the windows in the primary living spaces are large and acknowledged that windows in secondary first and second floor spaces are smaller and will limit light. He stated that all of the windows in the bedrooms exceed the egress requirements of the Code. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Malloy stated that the diameter of the columns is in keeping with the architectural style. In response to questions from Board members Friedman and Chairman King, Mr. Malloy stated that the house will be sided with a hardi-board product and that asphalt shingles will be used for the roof. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Malloy reviewed the landscape plan noting the number and species of trees proposed along the property lines. He pointed out the existing trees that will remain. Chairman King invited public comment. Hearing none, he asked for final staff comments. Ms. Neuman stated that a letter was received from a neighboring property owner in support of the project. Chairman King invited final comments from the petitioner, hearing none; he invited final comments and questions from the Board. Board member Friedman stated that the existing house meets the standards for demolition. He added that the replacement residence is generally consistent with the streetscape and the massing, design and exterior materials of other homes in the Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 16 of 21 neighborhood. He added that some of the trees on the property will be preserved. He stated that the project will have a positive impact on the streetscape. Board member Bleck agreed with the comments of Board member Friedman. Board member Reda stated that today, there is a “hole” in the streetscape due to the placement of the existing house. He stated that the replacement house meets the applicable criteria and stated that the proposed demolition also satisfies the criteria. Board member Notz commented that today, the tree in the front yard appear over grown. He agreed with the comments of the other Board members that the replacement house will be an improvement to the streetscape. Chairman King agreed with the comments of the Board members and stated support for the petition. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and Board discussion as additional findings. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and the motion was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed replacement house including the site plan, design, exterior materials and landscape plan based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and Board discussion as additional findings. He stated that recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 2. 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. a. A masonry chimney shall be added to the design. 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the scheduling of a rough framing inspection. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: a. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 17 of 21 4. The proposed landscape plan shall be shown on the approved grading plan to verify the plantings will not negatively impact the drainage on the property. 5. A construction material staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. Given the size of the property and narrow streets in this area, on-street parking shall be limited to two cars in front of the 41 June Terrace property. Tree protection fencing may be required by the City Arborist to protect trees from vehicles parked on the street. b. Workers may need to park off-site and be shuttled to the property. c. On an ongoing basis, any damage or rutting of the parkway in front of the property, on neighboring lots and across the street shall be repaired during construction and after completion of construction; City inspectors shall verify that the parkway is restored prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Additional information determined to be necessary by the City Engineer shall be provided to allow verification that the proposed drainage and grading plan properly accommodates the amount of overland water that flows through the property; this may include drainage calculations for the surrounding area showing that additional stormwater runoff created from the increased impervious surface area will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties or the roadway. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a vote of 5 to 0. 8. Consideration of a request for approval of a major addition and alteration to the residence located at 893 Beverly Place. Owners: Thomas Carribine and Nicole Altounian Representative: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman King asked the Board members to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Fischer stated that he is speaking on behalf of Peter Witmer. He stated that the project is driven by the functional needs of the petitioner. He stated that various alternative were considered including pushin g the garage forward and changing the roof line but instead, a design is presented that retains as much of the existing house as possible and is appropriate for the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed addition will include a basement to provide additional space without increasing the appearance of mass. He reviewed the floor plans and elevations. He stated that the proposed windows will be more consistent with those on other homes in the neighborhood than the existing windows. He reviewed photos of the existing house and other houses in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed addition will not impact the Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 18 of 21 streetscape views of the house. He stated that the materials on the addition will match the existing materials. He stated that all of the heritage trees on the property will remain and new trees will be added to provide additional screening for the neighbor to the south. He stated that after reviewing the staff comments, refinements were made to the plan including dropping the rear dormer to match the existing dormer and dropping the eave. He added that the detailing of the eave was modified to achieve greater consistency with the existing details. He asked for Board approval of the project. Ms. Neuman stated that given the fairly large scope of the project which includes partial demolition and a large addition, the project is presented for Board review. She added that several large trees are proposed for removal in the area of the addition. She stated that as proposed, most of the second floor living space is accommodated in the long shed dormers. She acknowledged that the proposed modification s presented to the Board by Mr. Fischer may mitigate the appearance of the length of the dormers. She added that additional and replacement landscap ing is proposed to help mitigate views of the large addition from neighboring properties. She stated that a final, detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted as the project moves forward. She stated that plantings of adequate size will be important to assure screening of the addition in the near term from the neighboring property. She noted that the proposed addition is taller than the existing house but added that from the streetscape perspective, the addition does not appear excessively tall. She stated staff support for the project subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Fischer explained that the existing windows on the house will remain but noted that the owners hope to change out the windows, making the windows consistent throughout the house, at some future date. He acknowledged that a more detailed landscape plan is needed. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Fischer clarified that the windows on the front of the house will be changed out, but the existing windows on the side elevations will remain and be changed out at a later date. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Fischer provided photos of the neighboring houses on either side. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Fischer stated that the proposed addition is about two and a half feet taller than the existing house. He stated that the house next door is a bit taller. He provided streetscape photos. He pointed out that the addition does not cause a significant change in the appearance of the front elevation. He reviewed the south elevation noting the changes made in respond to the staff recommendations. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Fischer confirmed that simulated true divided lite windows are proposed. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 19 of 21 Board member Bleck observed that with the modifications made to the dormers in response to the staff report, the scale of the dormers is reduced and is a positive step. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman stated that the amount of impervious surface on the site increases by just under 6 percent with the addition. She confirmed that City engineering staff will revie w drainage and grading plans prior to the issuance of a building permit to confirm that drainage is properly directed to avoid negative impact on the neighboring properties. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the square footage of the house with the addition is right at the allowable building scale. She confirmed that no variances are requested. Chairman KIng invited public comment, hearing none, he asked for any final comments from staff. Ms. Neuman noted that a letter was received from the neighboring property owner regarding the height of the proposed addition asking the Board to carefully consider the height in the context of the surrounding homes. She stated that the letter stated support for the architectural design of the addition. She noted that the letter also raised concerns about congestion on the street during construction. Chairman King invited final comments from the petitioner. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Reda stated that the criteria are met to support the partial demolition which is required to allow construction of the addition. He noted that the addition will hardly be seen from the streetscape. He stated that the project would be improved if all of the existing windows were changed out, however he stated an understanding that the change will be made over time. Board member Bleck stated that the proposed exterior materials are consistent with those on the existing house. Chairman King stated general support for the project but noted that it is unfortunate that the addition is so high, but stated an understanding of the need to gain more living space. Board member Friedman noted that the home will be larger than others on the street but stated that the project appears to meet the proposed criteria noting that the additional massing is to the rear of the house and not visible from the streetscape. He stated that he has a remaining concern that the house will be the largest on the block. Board member Notz observed that the neighbor to the south is most impacted but voiced no concerns about the project. He stated that the plan appears well thought out and stated his support for the project. Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 20 of 21 Board member Bleck made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the presentation and the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 2. 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. a. The eave of the rear shed dormer shall be lowered to align with the existing shed dormer. b. Detail drawings of the proposed eaves, windows and shutters shall be submitted with an application for building permit to verify consistency with the Board’s direction. 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to the scheduling of a rough framing inspection. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: a. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. b. The plan shall reflect locations of proposed plantings of new trees to meet the inch for inch replanting requirements or, if plantings cannot occur on the property in a manner that is consistent with good forestry practices, the City’s Certified Arborist may allow a payment in lieu of on site planting as provided for in the Code. 4. The proposed landscape plan shall be shown on the approved grading plan to verify the plantings will not negatively impact the drainage on the property. 5. A construction material staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided by the petitioner subject to review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. On an ongoing basis, any damage or rutting of the parkway in front of the property, on neighboring lots and across the street shall be repaired during construction and after completion of construction; City inspectors shall verify that the parkway is restored prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Additional information determined to be necessary by the City Engineer shall be provided to allow verification that the proposed drainage and grading plan properly accommodates the amount of overland water that flows through the Building Review Board Minutes – August 8, 2013 Meeting Page 21 of 21 property; this may include drainage calculations for the surrounding area showing that additional stormwater runoff created from the increased impervious surface area will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties or the roadway. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the Board in a 5-0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 9. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 10. Additional information from staff There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development