Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/11/06 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 1 of 12 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of November 6, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, November 6, 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, Fred Moyer and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: None. Staff members present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman King Chairman King reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes from the September 4, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the September 4, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the residence located at 348 Scott Street and approval of a replacement residence, detached garage, site plan and landscaping. Owner and Representative: Joel Pickus, Highwood Capital, LLC Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts of conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Pickus presented the petition noting that the comments from the Board were incorporated into the revisions mode to the project. He reviewed the front elevation noting that the width of the columns near the front door was increased and the entry simplified with the removal of the side lites. He reviewed the side elevations noting that consistent and aligned windows are now proposed. He stated that the most significant changes were made to the rear elevation pointing out the addition of doors and windows to the rear elevation. He noted that the porch on the east side of the house was removed and access to the back yard is instead provided from doors on the rear elevation. He Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 2 of 12 noted that the windows near the neighbor’s motor court were raised to minimize impacts from headlights. He concluded noting that open eaves are now proposed. Ms. Neuman stated that this petition was continued by the Board at the last meeting and confirmed that the changes made respond to the Board’s previous comments and suggestions. She noted that the Board’s comments primarily focused on the rear elevation and the front porch both of which were modified as described by the petitioner. She noted that this petition also requests approval of a demolition noting that at the last meeting, there seemed to be a general consensus from the Board that the demolition criteria are satisfied. She stated staff support for the project as now presented noting that findings are included in the staff report along with recommended conditions of approval. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Pickus stated that the driveway will be asphalt up to and alongside the house and then pervious material will be used as the driveway extends beyond the house. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Pickus stated that fiber cement siding and trim will be used along with aluminum clad wood windows. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Pickus confirmed that a metal standing seam roof is proposed noting that it will have a galvanized look and that the pre- finished, metal standing seam gutter will be white to match the trim. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Pickus stated that the open eaves on the low porches make it impossible to install a gutter. He stated that only a suspended gutter could be used which would be out of character with the farmhouse style. He stated that the low roofs will not shed much water. He stated however that there is a need to collect water from the higher roofs. He stated that some farmhouses use the open eave element and commented that it is a nice detail. Board member Ruggles commented that the open eave is more of an Arts and Crafts element. She stated that it will be important to provide adequately detailed drawings of the porch and eave details at the time the project is submitted for permit. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Pickus acknowledged the inconsistencies between the trim shown on the elevations and those shown in the detail drawing s provided to the Board. He clarified that the “picture frame” trim will not be used and confirmed that the window trim will be consistent on all elevations. He confirmed that a small roof was added to the new porch at the back entry and confirmed that the porch Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 3 of 12 will be detailed in the same manner as the front porch. He confirmed that the ends of the gables will be open on both porches. He confirmed that the lite pattern of the garage windows will match the pattern used on the house. He stated that a flat panel, painted steel garage door is proposed. He stated that the garage man door will be a solid door and stated that detail could be added to the door. He stated that hardi-board with an 8” exposure is proposed for the siding on the house and garage. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Pickus explained that the stair is held off the wall and that the well that is created will be finished. He confirmed that the stairway will be visible through the windows on the west elevation. He confirmed that the canopy on the west elevation will have the same bracing as the front porch. Board member Moyer stated that he is intrigued by the finer scale of the 4” exposure of the siding. In response to Board member Moyer, Mr. Pickus stated that the 8” exposure of the siding is proposed to create less busy-ness given the simple farmhouse design. He stated a willingness to consider a smaller exposure. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Pickus stated that a streetscape drawing was included in the last packet. He confirmed that the heights of homes on the street are consistently about 30 feet tall. Chairman King invited public comment, hearing none; he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Friedman commended the petitioner for responding to the Board’s input at the last meeting. He stated that the proposed project will be an asset to the street and neighborhood. He agreed that the overall appearance of the house may be more successful with a smaller reveal on the siding. Board member Notz stated that the revised plan presents an attractive alternative to the original plan. He stated that the project will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Board Ruggles stated that she is most concerned about the inconsistencies of the materials presented to the Board. She stated that given the simple farmhouse style, the details of the windows, doors, trim, eave and porch should be traditional character. She stated that open rafters are not consistent with the farm house style. She stated that the open eave detail is more consistent with the Arts and Craft style. She stated that she was Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 4 of 12 interested in seeing a streetscape graphic because her sense is that the massing of the front of the house is a little wide in comparison to other homes on the street. She stated significant concern about the rear elevation stating appreciation for the addition of windows to the rear elevation but expressing continued concern about the cascading forms on the rear elevation. She added that the various pieces and attachments result in the elevation appearing very busy. She stated that a more simplistic mass would work on rear as well it does on the front. Board member Bleck stated that the revised plans are responsive to some of the earlier Board comments. He stated that the house will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Board member Reda stated agreement with the comments of Board member Ruggles regarding the need for consistent detailing of the windows, columns, trim and other elements of the house. He stated support for a reduced exposure on the siding. He stated that the petitioner can work through the details and consistency of elements around the house with City staff. He stated support for the project. Board member Moyer commended the petitioner for the progress made since the last presentation to the Board. Chairman King stated support for the points made by Board member Ruggles regarding consistency of the various elements on all elevations and on the garage. He stated that with respect to the exposure of the siding, he does not have a strong position, but encouraged consideration of the comments from the Board on this aspect of the project. He stated that careful consideration of the details is important on a simple structure. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion on the petition. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing house based on the findings as presented in the staff report and incorporating the comments of the Board and the testimony presented to the Board as additional findings. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was unanimously approved by the Board. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the replacement residence, garage, overall site plan and replacement landscaping. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and incorporates the testimony presented to the Board and the Board’s comments as additional findings in support of the Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 5 of 12 motion. He stated that the recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 2. Any modifications to the plan, either to respond to direction from the Board or changes made for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that the plans are in conformance with the approvals granted and the conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. a. Permeable pavers shall be used, at a minimum, for the patio and portion of the driveway by the garage. b. Window details including consistent lite patterns, frame, header and sill design will be applied to all windows on the house and garage. c. Horizontal siding will have either a 4 inch or 6 inch exposure. d. The design of the 2nd story eave detail will be applied to the porch and first floor eaves. e. The plans shall reflect general consistency of elements on all elevations of the house and garage. 3. Detailed information on the proposed windows shall be provided with the application for building permit verifying that simulated divided lites are specified. 4. A detail of the proposed porch column and beam construction shall be provided with the application for building permit to allow verification that traditional detailing is applied to the design, consistent with the Board’s direction. 5. 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 during construction to the extent possible given the approved plan. b. To the extent possible, the impact of the hardscape on the mature trees is minimized. c. The landscape plan shall be shown on the approved grading plan to allow verification that no conflicts exist between the proposed plantings and the drainage plan. 6. A pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted along with the landscape plan outlining the steps that will be taken, prior to, during and after construction, to protect the mature trees in proximity to the proposed construction including the large trees to the northeast of the replacement Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 6 of 12 structure. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. 7. A construction material s staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall be provided for 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 only two cars that may be parking in front of 348 Scott Street. No other on street parking is permitted. 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, in front of other properties in the neighborhood impacted by construction vehicles 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. 8. 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 in clude 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 unanimously approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a demolition of the residence located at 29 Washington Circle and approval of a replacement residence, detached garage, site plan and landscaping. Owner: Nora McKinley Representative: Paul Psenka, architect Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts of conflicts of interest. Board member Bleck stated that his company is involved in the project and recused himself from hearing the petition. He left the Council chambers. Mr. Psenka introduced the petition stating appreciation for the City’s process. He stated that this presentation is intended to get the Board’s input on the concept developed to date. He reviewed the existing house on the property noting that it is located within the front yard setback. He stated that the property owner is requesting approval to demolish the existing house. He stated that working with the existing house would require one or more zoning variances and he stated that the house is in very poor condition. He stated Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 7 of 12 that a structural report was presented to the Board identifying problems with the house. He stated that the house has been neglected for many years and noted areas of water damage. He stated that the house, as it exists today, is not a healthy environment and stated that the owner proposes to start over with a new house rather than try to salvage any part of the existing structure. He stated that the detached garage is ready to fall over. He noted an oak tree and a maple tree on the site identified for removal due to disease and poor condition. He reviewed the proposed massing and floor plan for the replacement house and compared it to the existing residence. He noted that the proposed siting of the replacement house is further from the street than the existing house. He reviewed the preliminary drainage plan noting that water will be directed into swales on both sides of the property. He noted that the proposed house is narrow to preserve a landscape buffer along the property lines. He provided photos of other homes in the neighborhood and noted the relationship of the side elevations to the neighboring homes. He stated that the detailing of other homes in the neighborhood was used as a reference for the proposed house. He stated the intent to generally stay true to the farmhouse style. He discussed the double gable that is proposed noting other homes with double gables in the neighborhood. He noted that the double gable accentuates the entrance. He provided an overlay of the proposed elevation with an elevation of the existing residence and provided a streetscape graphic depicting the general appearance of the proposed residence. He reviewed the roof forms and proposed exterior materials including the synthetic products proposed for the trim and detailing around the windows. He stated that cedar shingles are proposed for the roof and copper will be used over the bay window. He stated that a traditional door is proposed, a stone chimney and simulated true divided lites in the windows. He stated that half round aluminum gutters are proposed and noted that the eaves will match those on the existing house. He stated that the garage will be constructed using the same exterior materials as the house. He reviewed the elevations of the house and commented on the fenestration and massing. He commented on the dormers proposed on the house and garage and acknowledged the comments in the staff report regarding those elements. He stated that as proposed, the gable dormers call less attention to the house than another form. He noted that the owner and builder are available to answer questions. At the request of Chairman King, Mr. Psenka passed around a sample of the proposed Meritek product. Ms. Neuman reviewed that this petition requests approval of the demolition of the existing house and garage, and approval of a replacement residence, overall site plan, detached garage and landscape plan. She stated that the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the demolition meets the applicable Code criteria. She stated that staff recommends approval of the demolition. She stated that the conceptual plans for the replacement house are presented at this time for Board review, comment and direction to guide further refinement of the plans. She pointed out that the detailing is important on projects like this where a replacement house is proposed in an established neighborhood, a neighborhood in which the streetscape is dominated by the front elevations of the houses given the small lots and the visibility of the houses from the Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 8 of 12 street. She noted that the scale, proportion and detailing are important adding that embellishments directly impact the streetscape. She stated that the Design Guidelines, adopted as part of the City Code, require that new construction in established neighborhoods be based on traditional design principles, be well balanced and proportioned and have a sense of simplicity. She stated that the use of overlapping gables has historically occurred as an embellishment for a front door. She noted that the double gable is discussed in the staff report and noted that the petitioner presented some alternative studies in response to the staff comments. She also called the Board’s attention to the alternative of using shed dormers instead of dormers with a gable to create better relationships to other building elements and to achieve improved proportions. She noted concern about the door to the side balcony in relation to the wall face. She reviewed that the Design Guidelines speak to the use of natural materials; she stated that with this petition, synthetic materials are proposed for the trim and porch. She stated that the Board has approved limited use of non-natural products in cases where it has been demonstrated that over time, the materials retain a look, texture and feel of natural materials. She stated that in this pedestrian oriented neighborhood, careful consideration of the appearance of non-natural materials is important given the prominent views of the front elevation from the street. She reviewed the site plan noting that the proposed siting of the house is thoughtful and preserves space for a landscape buffer at the perimeter of the property. She asked for Board comments specifically on the scale of the proposed house in relation to the neighborhood and the detailing and materials in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with the Design Guidelines. In response to questions form Board member Moyer, Mr. Psenka stated that the gable on the side elevation projects 2 feet from the wall. Board member Moyer observed that based on the shadowing shown in the packet materials, the projection appears to be less. He stated that a larger projection is better. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Psenka stated that the garage conforms to the zoning setbacks and no variance is needed. Board member Reda stated support for the overall design of the house but commented that the front elevation, both the house and garage, appear too busy. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Psenka explained that as a result of keeping the roof low, the dormers pop through the roof. He stated that if the roof is brought up, the mass of the house will increase. He noted that more dormers could be added, but noted that the effort was to keep the house simple. He explained that the double front gable is intended to accentuate front door. He reviewed the front porch as proposed. Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 9 of 12 In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Psenka stated that synthetic materials are proposed to simplify maintenance in the future. He stated that once the synthetic material is painted, it is almost indiscernible from wood. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Psenka stated that he has been working with staff in response to the issues identified in the staff report. He stated that the owner is open to considering the removal of the garage dormer and open to discussing the possibility of changing the dormer on the side elevation to a shed dormer. He stated that the intent is to keep the house true to a traditional style. He stated that the owner is willing to consider alternate materials. He stated that the front double gable is intended to simplify the structure, call attention to the front door and to differentiate the house from other houses of a similar style. Board member Notz stated two concerns, the first, the double gable on the front of the house. He noted that the elevation is small and that the second gable does not serve a function. He stated that the front door appears to have sufficient emphasis without the second gable. He stated that the gable element should be removed. He added that unless the dormer above the garage door serves a purpose, that dormer should be removed. He stated that other than those items, he supports the proposed design of the house. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Psenka stated that the chimney will be constructed of cut stone with l imestone shoulders and a cap. Board member Friedman stated agreement with other Board members that the double gable on the front elevation adds busy-ness and is unsuccessful. He stated that he is not as concerned about the dormer on the front elevation of the garage. He suggested consideration of a pervious material for the drive court in front of the garage. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman explained the comments in the staff report regarding the balcony door on the side elevation. She noted that the door appears awkward as it relates to the wall and overall elevation. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Psenka explained that the door provides access to the small balcony. He stated that the roof would need to be raised to change the relationship of the door to the wall. Chairman King invited public comment. Ms. Ann Morman, 25 Washington Circle, stated support for the design of the house. She stated that she lives next door and that over the years; she doubled the size of her house, replaced the foundation and gutted and rebuilt the interior. She stated that she is looking forward to the new house. Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 10 of 12 Ms. McK inley, the property owner, stated that she recently purchased the property commenting that moving into town, from Bradley Road, would be beneficial to her. She stated that this is her fifth construction project and commented that the plan presented is a wonderful plan. She thanked the Board of its consideration of the project. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman King invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing no further comments, he asked the Board for comments on the proposed demolition. Board member Reda stated support for the proposed demolition. The other Board members stated agreement with Board member Reda. Chairman King asked the Board for further comments and direction to the petitioner and staff on the proposed replacement residence and garage. Board member Friedman stated overall support for the proposed replacement residence stating that it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He noted that no variances are requested and stated that there appears to be good attention to detail. He stated support for improving the overall proportions including the removal of the double gable on the front elevation. He noted concern about the bay window stating that it appears inconsistent with the other elements on the front elevation. He added support for removal of the dormer on the garage and the use of pervious material for the driveway in the rear yard. He stated that overall, the project is successful. Board member Notz commented that he is comfortable with the roof line and bay window on the front elevation as proposed. He stated that he has no experience with the proposed synthetic building materials but stated that they appear to be a suitable alternative to wood. Board member Ruggles stated agreement with the points raised in the staff report. She stated that overlapping gables on the front elevation are typically not approved noting that as proposed, the front elevation is not in conformance with the Design Guidelines. She suggested that the front elevation be revised to achieve a more simple form noting that with that change, the project will be more successful. She noted that some of the alternatives to the double gable presented by the petitioner seem workable. She stated agreement with Board member Friedman’s comments about the bay window on the front of the house noting that it competes with the porch element and that something about the roof of the bay does not work well with the rest of the front elevation. She suggested that a simpler roof be explored for the bay. She stated that the petition should strive for simple elegance. She stated that overall; the massing is good noting that the simple gables on the rear elevation work well. She expressed concern about the dormer on the side elevation noting that the alternative of a shed dormer sounded good, but the alternative explored by the petitioner, did not work well. She stated however that as presented, the gable appears too tall and the proportions are not quite right. She Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 11 of 12 suggested that consideration be given to lowering the eave line. She stated that overall, the side elevations appear to be well balanced. She stated that the Design Guidelines do not support the use of synthetic materials. She stated that hardi-board is a proven product unlike the others proposed. Chairman King cautioned the Board that moving away from the Design Guidelines to allow the use of synthetic materials broadly is a big leap forward and a departure from previous Board decisions. Board member Friedman stated that technology has advanced with respect to synthetic materials. He stated that these materials stand the test of time better than wood and do not check, split or warp. He stated that the materials can be painted. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Neuman stated that unlike hardi-board which is a wood based product, the Asek material proposed for the trim and railing is a plastic based, engineered product. She noted that the product appears to have a plastic-like sheen. She stated that the Meritek product appears similar to hardi-board, but noted that hardi-board is a more commonly used product. She stated that hardi-board siding and trim has been approved by the Board. She noted that the hardi-board shake product has not been approved by the Board because the product does not replicate the dimensions of cedar shingles. She acknowledged that technology is continually changing with respect to these types of products. Board member Ruggles commented that the garage dormer is not necessary and adds to the bulk of the garage. She stated that the garage is just as good without it. Board member Reda noted that his initial reaction was that the front elevation was too busy. He acknowledged that his fellow Board members articulated the reasons for that appearance including the double gable and other elements. He stated that he is not comfortable moving away from the Design Guidelines and allowing the use of non-natural materials. Board member Moyer stated that the proposed replacement house has many appealing features. He stated agreement with other Board members’ discomfort with some of the features and stated that the house will benefit from some improvements to the proportions and some simplification in keeping with the small scale of the house. He commented on some of the alternatives presented noting support for the verticality of the double gable and questioned whether there is a dimension that would allow the concept to be carried out successfully. Chairman King stated that the project is off to a good start noting that it is sensitive to the neighboring properties. He stated that is it nice to hear that a neighbor is excited about having a new house next door. He stated that he is not comfortable with the proposed use of synthetic materials. He encouraged the petitioner to make some revisions in response to the comments and direction offered by the Board. Building Review Board Minutes – November 6, 2013 Meeting Page 12 of 12 Ms. McKinley explained that the reason for the bay window is to create a space in the house for her grand piano. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow revisions and refinements based on the comments, suggestions and issues identified by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was unanimously approved by the Board. 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 Chairman King asked for a motion to approve the 2014 meeting schedule for the Building Review Board. He noted that the early January meeting may be a problem for the Board and suggested that staff poll the Board members about that date. Board member Reda made a motion to approve the 2014 meeting schedule with direction to staff to poll the Board on the early January meeting date and if appropriate, re-schedule that meeting. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was unanimously approved by the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development