BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/09/04 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 1 of 7
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of September 4, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
September 4, 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, Monica Ruggles, Ted Notz and Robert Reda.
Building Review Board members absent: 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 Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board.
2. Approval of the minutes.
Approval of the minutes was postponed.
3. Continued 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 to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts,
hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Poulton recapped the information presented to the Board on this petition at the July
meeting. He presented an image of the front of the building from 1937 noting that it was
designed by Stanley Anderson. He noted the siting of the house almost 200 feet back
from the street which limits its visibility. He presented the original floor plan noting that the
house was originally simple and small scale. He showed slides of changes to the house
over time noting that additions and alterations took place in 1988 and 1997 and more
recently, an entry vestibule was added. He noted that each change increased the size of
the house beyond the original design. He noted the rear addition from 1987 noting that
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 2 of 7
the current proposal removes that addition. He stated that in July, the Board seemed
generally in support of the removal and the new additions proposed for the rear of the
house that will reduce the footprint from the earlier addition and allow more light into the
house from the rear. He reviewed the existing floor plan of the house reviewing the various
deficiencies due to the piecemeal additions that occurred in the past. He noted that at
the July meeting, he did not spend much time reviewing the many areas of the house that
are deteriorating and in need of repair. He noted various elements of the entry that are in
poor condition. He noted the snow melt cables hanging off the roof pointing out that
those cables indicate past problems with ice damming at the point where the two roof
planes intersect and inadequate insulation. He noted the poor condition of the wood
shingle roof and the thin and cupped shingles. He noted failing paint on the dormers and
shutters that are falling off the house. He showed typical views of the interior noting that it
is worn and dated and in need of repair. He noted the many dark narrow hallways and
rooms. He stated that the owners are in a holding pattern because they do not want to
repair elements of the interior that will later be replaced. He reviewed the floor plans
presented to the Board at the last meeting. He noted that the Board seemed to agree
that the proposed changes to the floor plan were reasonable. He reviewed the elevation
presented at the last meeting noting that this is the area where the Board questioned
whether the proposed changes to the Stanley Anderson architecture were appropriate.
He noted that the proposed elevations changed the gambrel roof to a hip roof. He noted
that the Board questioned whether the gambrel roof could be retained. He stated that as
a follow up to the meeting, the project was taken back to the drawing board and various
alternative floor plans were developed for the owners’ consideration. He stated that in
the owners’ view, none of the alternative plans functioned as well as the plan previously
presented. He presented an elevation that works with the previously proposed floor plan
but reintroduces a gambrel roof. He noted that this elevation is closer to the original
design than the elevations presented at the last meeting. He noted that the roof is two
feet taller than the original design, but allows for a one foot increase in the second floor
ceiling height and space for adequate insulation. He stated that while this is a good
solution, and responds to the Board’s concerns at the last meeting, the owners still prefer
the elevations presented at the last meeting. He noted however, that they are willing to
move forward with the design that the Board finds best meets the applicable criteria. He
reviewed the elevations as modified since the last meeting. He reviewed the rear
elevation noting changes in the roof form since the las t meeting. He stated that this
elevation works, but requires some compromise and adds some complexity to the
rooflines. He reviewed the south elevation as previously proposed and as revised noting
that the roofline is lowered somewhat. He provided a graphic showing the house as
originally designed, as it exists today and as now proposed. He noted that the original
design by Stanley Anderson had a clear hierarchy of massing which over time, was
diminished due to the various additions. He stated that the elevation now proposed
returns the house to a design closer to the original Stanley Anderson design in comparison
to what exists today. He noted that the proposed design returns the house to its original
character, respects the original architecture and re-establishes a dominate central
massing with a subordinate wing to the north. He reviewed the proposed landscape plan
which was prepared in response to questions from the Board at the last meeting. He
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 3 of 7
stated that the plan respects the original design of the drive court. He stated that the
overgrown trees in the center of the driveway and the arborvitae will be removed. He
stated that the large honey locust will be pruned and will be preserved to separate the
formal entry court from the service court. He concluded stating his hope that the study
completed and alternatives presented adequately address the Board’s concerns. He
stated that today, the house is far different from the original design and is in need of
significant repair. He stated that the proposed plan restores a hierarchy of massing and is
aligned with the original design. He stated that the proposed plan complies with all
applicable regulations and the project satisfies the criteria for a partial demolition.
Ms. Neuman commented that the presentation was thorough and provided a detailed
review of the modifications explored since the last meeting. She stated that when this
project was reviewed by the Board at the last meeting, the Board expressed concern
about the proposed partial demolition of the residence given the significant change to
the character that would occur with the proposed additions and alterations. She noted
the Board’s concern that the association with S tanley Anderson would be lost. She stated
that in response to the Board’s concerns, the petitioner studied alternative floor plans and
elevations and ultimately was able to find a way to make the desired floor plan work
within an elevation that generally retains the character of the original house. She stated
that staff finds that the revised plan meets the applicable standards and criteria adding
that findings in support of the petition and recommended conditions of approval are
provided in the staff report.
Board member Friedman commended the petitioner for addressing the concerns
previously raised by the Board. He stated that retaining the gambrel roof form reduces
the massing.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Poulton reviewed the
landscape plan explaining the locations where boxwood would be added to replace the
crab trees that will be lost. He stated that the boxwoods will be sculptural and will flank
the corners of the court yard. He noted that there is not much space for plantings
between the entry court and the service court. He stated the intent to retain the original
driveway design and simply replace materials that are overgrown. He noted that due to
the low placement of the windows, there is limited opportunity for plantings at the base of
the house.
Board member Notz stated support for the elevations presented at the last meeting.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Poulton reviewed the elevations
explaining the changes to the roof forms and noting the portions of the roof that will be
visible. He stated that if the gambrel roof is maintained, the design, with no
ornamentation is appropriate.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Poulton confirmed that the
dormers as proposed are larger than the original dormers by a few inches. He explained
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 4 of 7
that the increase in size is necessary to get the framing right while accommodating the
required insulation life safety egress requirements. He acknowledged that some of the
finesse will be lost. He noted however that proportionally, the slight increase in dormer size
is in proportion with the larger roof. He confirmed that the flat roof, over the front entry,
will be metal. He stated that the eave and trim details will be slightly enhanced with the
new construction. He noted that the original building was very sparse commenting that
the detail on the new area will be enhanced slightly, but will maintain a good relationship
with the original design. He reviewed the connection piece on the rear elevation and
stated that the muntin pattern proposed for the windows on the rear elevation is desired
by the owners to open up the back of the house.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Poulton confirmed that the height of the
house as now proposed is lower than the plan previously proposed. He reviewed the
heights of the various elements of the house.
Board member Reda stated that the project as presented meets the criteria for partial
demolition and the additions and alterations meet the design standards. He expressed his
appreciation for the modifications made in response to previous Board comments.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Poulton stated that the
proposed modifications will increase the height of the house by two feet over the original
house. He confirmed that the railing that is currently located on the flat roof over the front
entrance will be removed. He stated that removing the railing moves the design of the
house closer to the original design. He noted that the thin columns at the entrance will be
replaced with wider columns. He stated that the owners are considering options for the
front door including a lite pattern that ties back to the original design. He stated that the
entry as it exists today is not consistent with the original design. He commented that the
original Stanley Anderson design appears to have some French influence and is a very
straight forward design with painted white brick and quoins.
Chairman King invited public comment, hearing none; he invited final comments from the
petitioner and staff; hearing none, he invited final questions or comments from the Board.
Board member Notz questioned whether, now that the Board has seen both elevations,
the members feel strongly that the gambrel roof should be incorporated into the design.
Board member Reda stated support for the revised design with the gambrel roof. He
stated that the project as now presented satisfies the design criteria.
Board member Bleck agreed that the revised design does a better job of retaining the
character of the house as originally designed.
Chairman King and Board member Ruggles also agreed that the gambrel roof is
important to maintain a relationship to the original design.
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 5 of 7
Board member Friedman agreed with the comments of the other Board members noting
that the revised design is more consistent with the original design and the massing is less
severe than the plan presented at the last meeting. He stated that the petitioners
responded to the Board’s direction.
Chairman King summarized that the Commission appears to support the plan as revised
with the gambrel roof. He asked the Board for input on the proposed demolition and the
overall replacement residence.
Board member Ruggles stated support for the demolition. She commented on the revised
plans for the additions and alterations stating that the revised plans are a great
improvement over the plans presented at the last meeting. She acknowledged that
certain aspects of the house need to change due to Code requirements. She
commended the proposed changes to the front entrance porch again noting that the
project will improve upon what exists today. She stated that this project removes some
bad architecture from the house and will restore and replace appropriate detail ing. She
stated that based on her evaluation, the only negative aspect is the inconsistent muntin
patterns proposed for the windows on the rear of the house.
Board member Notz, agreed with Board member Ruggles’ point about the inconsistency
of the rear windows. He noted that the inconsistency will be particularly evident if the lite
pattern in the French doors is not changing. He stated that going with a consistent muntin
pattern is not likely to sacrifice much light. He stated that the house clearly needs care
and stated that the proposed project will bring new life to the house.
In response to comments from Board Notz, Mr. Poulton clarified that the windows in the
French doors are proposed for replacement with a muntin pattern consistent with the
pattern proposed for the windows on the rear elevation.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Poulton stated that the
property is about 2-1/2 acres in size and the rear yard is private. He stated that the rear
elevation will not be visible from any public street and only minimally visible from any
neighboring properties.
Board member Friedman stated agreement with the comments made by the previous
Board members but stated that given the privacy of the area, he is less concerned about
the inconsistency of the windows on the rear elevation with the rest of the house.
Board member Ruggles pointed out that the Board is charged with evaluating the entire
structure, all elevations, regardless of visibility. She stated that an architectural style should
be used consistently on all aspects of the structure.
Board member Notz commented that the Board recently approved a project with some
inconsistencies in the windows because the existing windows were not being changed out
as part of the project.
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 6 of 7
Board member Bleck thanked the owner and architect for responding to the Board’s
comments at the last meeting and for presenting a good plan. He agreed with the
various comments regarding the windows on the rear elevation and stated agreement
with both sides of the issue.
Board member Reda deferred to other Board members on the importance of the
consistency of the windows.
Chairman King thanked the petitioners for responding to the Board comments made at
the last meeting. He stated that he is still uncomfortable with the inconsistency of the
windows on the rear elevation.
With the approval of Chairman King, Mr. Poulton responded to a final question from Board
member Friedman explaining that the property owners love the backyard and want to
bring it into the house by opening up views to the back yard and minimizing any
obstructions to the views. He stated that there was a desire to create larger windows
throughout the house however, by minimizing the muntin pattern and maintaining the
existing window pattern on the front of the house, the historic character of the house is
maintained and the owners’ desire is achieved.
Board member Notz stated that since the windows are being replaced, the windows
should match.
Board Reda reviewed the design criteria and noted that consistency is important.
However, he recognized the desire of the petitioner for unobstructed views to the back
yard. He stated that he can support the petition as presented.
Board member Bleck also stated support for the project.
Board member Friedman stated that from a strict architectural perspective, the windows
throughout the house should be consistent. He acknowledged that the windows on the
rear elevation are not seen from off of the site. He suggested that the petitioner be
directed to work with staff to address the consistency issue related to the windows as a
condition of approval. He made a motion to recommend approval of the plans for the
partial demolition, additions and alterations. He stated that the motion to approve the
project is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and noted that the
presentations and deliberations of the Board are incorporated as additional findings. He
stated that 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 and modifications to the plans, consistent with the direction of the Board,
shall be completed and submitted to City staff for review and a determination by staff,
Building Review Board Minutes – September 4, 2013 Meeting Page 7 of 7
in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance
with the plans presented to the Board and with the Board’s direction. The review
should occur prior to submitting a final set of plans for permit.
The windows on the rear elevation shall be refined to achieve some level of
consistency with the windows on the other elevations.
The motion was seconded by Board Reda and was approved by the Board in a vote of 6
to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition and alterations to an existing
residence located at 303 Bluffs Edge Drive.
Owner: William Walsh, Chicago Title Land Trust
Representative: Fred Wilson, Morgante Wilson Architects, architect
This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner.
OTHER ITEMS
5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
6. Additional information from staff
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development