BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/12/04 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 1 of 11
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of December 4, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
December 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, 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 November 6, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the residence located at
29 Washington Circle and approval of a replacement residence, detached garage,
overall 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 recused himself from hearing the petition noting his firm’s
involvement in the project.
Chairman King invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Psenka presented the petition focusing on the changes made to the plans in response
to input from the Board at the last meeting. He noted that the front elevation was
simplified above the entrance and at the bay window. He stated that a darker gray color
is now proposed for the house stating that the previously proposed color was too similar to
the neighboring home. He provided a sample of the proposed color. He reviewed the
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 2 of 11
changes made to details of the fascia and soffit. He reviewed the windows noting that
they are now more consistent in size. He added that the dormers were reduced in size to
bring them more into scale with the overall elevation. He stated that the dormer on the
garage was removed and windows were added on the west elevation of the garage for
natural light. He reviewed the site plan pointing out that a patio was added and will be a
pervious surface. He stated that the walkway to the front door will be bluestone with the
stones spaced to allow water to penetrate the walkway. He noted that two oak trees are
proposed in the front yard to replace the trees that will be lost on the site. He stated that
no changes were made to the engineering plans but stated that as the plans are
finalized, the petitioner will work with City engineering staff to assure that stormwater runoff
is properly directed. He discussed the material proposed for the porch railing and in
response to questions raised at the last meeting, he provided samples of the material both
painted and unpainted. He noted that the painted sample has less of a sheen and has
the appearance of painted wood. He stated that the material is proposed to reduce the
need for maintenance.
Ms. Neuman summarized that at the last meeting; the Board heard this petition and
indicated general support for the proposed demolition based on the materials submitted
in support of the demolition. She acknowledged the refinements made to the
replacement house as presented by Mr. Psenka in response to Board comments at the
previous meeting. She pointed out that in particular, the overlapping gable at the front
entrance was removed and the bay window and garage were simplified. She noted that
at the last meeting, the Board had a discussion about the synthetic materials proposed
and the preference stated in the Design Guidelines for natural materials. She noted that
particularly in smaller lot neighborhoods in which the front facades of homes relate to
directly to the street and pedestrian activity on the street, natural materials add texture
and character to the overall neighborhood. She suggested that the Board may want to
discuss the pros and cons of allowing the use of synthetic materials at a separate time
since changes to the City Code may be required. She stated that for this petition,
consistent with the design standards, staff recommends the use of natural materials. She
noted that the landscape plan presented to the Board is modified from the plan last
reviewed by staff but stated that the review can occur as part of the review of the final
plans. She noted that the addition of trees is consistent with the previous
recommendations of the City Arborist.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the City
Arborist will review the final landscape plan to assure that appropriate replacement tree
inches are planted to account for the trees that will be removed from the site.
In response to a question from Chairman King, Mr. Psenka confirmed that the rendering
was not modified to show the removal of the dormer on the garage. He confirmed that
the dormer is no longer proposed.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Psenka pointed out that there is
very little space for landscaping on the west side of the house but agreed to consider
what type of plantings might work in that area. He reviewed the side elevations and
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 3 of 11
explained that the stairway inside the house will be setback from the wall. He confirmed
that the chimney will be stone and reviewed the details of the eave return.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Psenka reviewed the east elevation
and explained the changes made to the dormers to improve the scale.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Psenka described the changes made to the
bay window noting that it was simplified and lowered. He confirmed that the roof of the
bay will be copper.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Psenka stated that as proposed,
the front gable is a synthetic material, but could be wood.
Chairman King invited public comments, hearing none, he invited final comments from
the petitioner and staff, hearing none, he asked for final comments from the Board.
Board member Reda complimented the plan and the changes made in response to the
Board’s comments.
Board member Moyer agreed with the comments of Board member Reda. He stated that
with respect to the proposed use of synthetic materials, the recent action of the Historic
Preservation Commission has some relevance.
In response to a request from Board member Moyer, Ms. Neuman confirmed that at a
recent meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission required that a soffit replaced with
synthetic material be returned to wood.
Board member Notz pointed out that the property that was the subject of the
Commission’s decision was in the historic district.
Board member Ruggles stated that the Design Guidelines direct the use of natural
materials. She cautioned the Board that if the door is opened to the use of synthetic
materials, then every type of synthetic material may need to be accepted. She
suggested that if may be more appropriate for the Board to carefully consider which
synthetic materials may be acceptable and then modify the Design Guidelines
accordingly. She stated that the project is improved since the last meeting noting that
the removal of the double gables simplified the project. She asked that details of the
various architectural elements be provided in the plans submitted for permit.
Board member Notz stated general agreement with Board member Ruggles’ comments
noting that it would be beneficial for the Board to have further discussion about synthetic
materials. He stated that based on the samples presented, the proposed materials
appear to be acceptable. He agreed that the plans submitted for permit should provide
details on the various architectural elements.
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 4 of 11
Board member Ross stated that the changes made to the plan since the last meeting are
in keeping with the Board’s previous comments. He stated that some screening should be
considered for the west side to soften that elevation.
Chairman King recognized the property owner who wished to speak.
Ms. McKinley stated that a landscape plan will be completed but stated that she cannot
afford to plant the yard all at once. She stated that she will do some plantings along the
west property line. She explained that she would like to use synthetic materials because in
the past she lived in a rough sawn cedar house and it was a maintenance nightmare.
She noted that there are many houses in the community that are in need of repair. She
stated that in the past she has used inferior synthetic materials but noted that the synthetic
material she now proposes to use is an improvement over past materials.
Board member Friedman agreed that a discussion of the appropriateness of synthetic
materials in a broader sense would be worthwhile. He agreed that some consistency in
the materials permitted is important. He noted that a composite material is permitted for
use now for siding and is seen from the street. He stated that the same consideration
should be given to trim materials. He stated that painting the synthetic material is a good
solution.
Chairman King agreed that synthetic materials have improved, but noted that as currently
written, the Design Guidelines do not support the use of synthetic materials. He noted that
the staff is recommending that the Board approve the project in accordance with the
Guidelines. He stated that at this time, without further study, he is not willing to make an
exception.
Board member Ruggles emphasized that some synthetic products are of lesser quality as
noted by the petitioner. She stated that the Board needs to consider the various products
available and determine whether they are appropriate and if so, for which elements of a
building.
Chairman King stated appreciation for the modifications made to the project since the
last meeting and commented that the simplification will allow the house to fit well into the
Washington Circle neighborhood. He invited final comments from the Board and a
motion.
Board member Moyer stated support for the project and for acting consistently with the
Design Guidelines and action of the Historic Preservation Commission with respect to the
use of natural materials.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition based
on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the materials presented
and the deliberations of the Board as additional findings.
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 5 of 11
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was unanimously approved
by the Board in a vote of 6 to 0.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan,
replacement residence, detached garage and landscape plan based on the findings in
the staff report and incorporating the materials presented, the testimony and the Board’s
deliberations 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 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.
3. The front porch railing, columns and trim are approved as wood construction.
4. The windows are approved as simulated divided lites with interior and exterior
muntin bars and a spacer bar to replicate the look of true divided lites.
5. The plans submitted for permit must provide sufficient detail to allow verification by
City staff that the project is consistent with the information presented to the Building
Review Board.
6. Given the proximity of homes in this neighborhood, careful attention during staff
review of the plans shall be paid to preventing drainage impacts on neighboring
properties during construction and over the long term, after construction consistent
with all applicable requirements.
a. Pervious pavers shall be indicated on the plan, including a minimum installation
of pervious pavers for the rear patio.
b. The drainage plan must demonstrate that the pavers will be spaced to allow
gaps between them and that a pervious surface is maintained under the pavers.
7. 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. An Oak, or other high quality deciduous tree, is indicated in the rear yard.
c. Some landscape screening is provided on the west side of the home to buffer
the existing neighboring house.
8. 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.
9. A construction materials staging plan and construction vehicles parking plan shall
be submitted by the petitioner and will be subject to review and approval by staff
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 6 of 11
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 29 Washington Circle property
only. 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.
10. Additional information as may be 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 Notz 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 the existing
residence located at 1246 W. Deerpath.
Owners: Mark and Rebecca Oline
Representative: Michael Hershenson, architect
Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing
none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Hershenson introduced the petition. He reviewed photos of the existing house and
elevations and explained that most of the work proposed is on the rear of the house. He
noted that rear additions are proposed and as a result, the height of the roof as viewed
from the front of the house will increase. He pointed out that a decorative dormer is
proposed along with the addition of a gable element on the garage. He reviewed the
roof plan and noted the areas where changes are proposed including raising the ridge of
the roof and adding a dormer. He noted that a two foot expansion is proposed to the
garage along with a new family room and kitchen expansion. He noted that the existing
sunroom screens views of the proposed addition from the west. He pointed out that the
addition will not extend into the side yard beyond the footprint of the existing house. He
discussed the proposed second floor addition. He stated that the proposed additions will
match the architectural details of the existing house pointing out that in particular, the
eave returns will match the existing detail and the existing circular window and shutter
details will be repeated. He stated that the new chimney will be of the same material as
the existing chimney. He reviewed the rear elevation where most of the changes will
occur noting the location of the existing sunroom and the flat roof of the addition with a
railing which will be expanded over the breakfast room and entrance. He reviewed the
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 7 of 11
proposed family room noting the use of columns as decorative corners. He discussed the
intention to use aluminum siding for the addition to match the house. He noted that other
homes in the neighborhood have aluminum siding.
Ms. Neuman commented that this project is presented to the Board for review based on
the large scope of the project and the visibility of the changes from the street. She noted
that the project also is scheduled for review by the Zoning Board of Appeals since a
zoning variance is requested. She stated that based on the staff review, the proposed
additions and alterations appear to be consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. She
noted that there are some areas of the plans where the challenge of adding on to an
existing structure is evident. She noted that some refinement may be helpful to assure a
hierarchy of massing and consistency of details. She stated that several letters were
received in support of the project and a letter was received from the neighbor to the
northwest of the property expressing concerns about possible drainage impacts. She
stated that City engineering staff has preliminarily reviewed the drainage plan and found
it to be workable. She stated that prior to the issuance of a building permit; further review
of the drainage on the site will be completed.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Neuman provided a brief
history of the unusual R-5 zoning in this neighborhood. She confirmed that zoning
variances similar to the one requested for this project have been granted for properties in
this neighborhood in the past.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hershenson acknowledged the
letter from the neighbor regarding drainage from the property. He stated that at this time
the final grading and drainage plan has not been completed but stated confidence that
the drainage can be handled to avoid any additional impacts on neighboring properties.
In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hershenson confirmed that the owners
propose to use aluminum siding for the addition to match the existing house. He
described the garage doors noting that the post design will appear as two doors. He
stated that for functionality, the owners prefer a single, double wide garage door.
Mr. Oline, the property owner, commented that the turning radius into the garage is
difficult.
Chairman King asked that consideration be given to ways to soften the garage elevation
due to its visibility.
Board member Notz stated support for the use of aluminum siding for consistency with the
existing house. He stated that the visibility of the garage doors is limited and the single
door, in his opinion, is reasonable.
In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Hershenson commented on the
roof element as seen from the front elevation. He noted that if the second floor addition
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 8 of 11
was not incorporated into the roof and a wall was used, the impact on the front elevation
would be greater. He compared the proposed roof height and mass with the existing
roof. He acknowledged that the roof may be able to be lowered slightly as the final plans
are developed.
Board member Friedman commented that given the long view of the existing front
elevation, the changes proposed will improve the overall massing. He noted that the new
element will still be subordinate to the original, larger main mass.
Board member Ruggles complimented the roof pitch of the new addition noting that the
addition presents a nice transition from the main part of the house. She asked that
consideration be given to scaling down the dormer noting that it appears too wide.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Hershenson reviewed the
rationale for the placement of the shutters. He noted that all of the windows on the
existing front elevation have shutters, but the rear and west elevations do not.
Board member Ruggles suggested that retaining shutters on the front of the house is
reasonable from an historical perspective. She stated that shutters are not needed on the
side and rear elevations.
In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Hershenson discussed the use of
the flat roof on the element on the rear elevation and reviewed earlier concepts that
were studied for this element.
Board member Bleck commented that the proposed addition is modest noting that the
existing house is 3,000 square feet and the addition is about a third of that area with about
500 square feet on the first floor. He noted that the front of the property drains toward
Deerpath. He pointed out that the area of the patio does not change.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hershenson confirmed that a
landscape plan will be developed if necessary as the project progresses.
Ms. Neuman added that based on preliminary discussions, no changes to the existing
landscaping is proposed. She stated that there appears to be adequate landscaping on
the site.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hershenson discussed the detailing
on the rear elevation in comparison to the detailing on the side elevations. He noted that
the intent is for the rear elevation to be consistent within itself.
Board member Friedman agreed with the observation by Board member Reda about the
need for consistent detailing. He agreed that the detail of the railing for the flat roof jumps
out. He suggested that consideration be given to some consistency between the patterns
on the railing and windows.
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 9 of 11
Board member Moyer stated that his initial reaction was the balustrade was out of scale
but once he adjusted to the fact that it is not intended as a functional handrail, but
instead, as a decorative element, he found it to be attractive and inventive.
Board member Reda noted the letters received from the neighbors in support of the
project.
Chairman King invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from
the petition or staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments and a motion from the
Board.
Board member Friedman commented on the siding and stated that if the budget allows,
the best option would be to replace the existing siding with a natural material or a hardi-
board product and continue that on to the addition. He agreed with the comments of
the other Board members on the shutters. He stated that the garage doors will be visible
when approaching the house from the east and stated support for two 10 foot doors with
a center post. He stated that a two door configuration would be functional.
Board member Notz agreed with the comments of other Board members regarding the
proposed railing on the addition and existing first floor element. He stated support for the
element as presented.
Board member Ruggles asked that the design details overall be reviewed for consistency.
She stated that some softening of the garage elevation could improve the project. She
encouraged some further consideration of reducing the size of the front dormer. She
stated agreement that the best option would be to replace the siding on the existing
house if the budget would allow.
Board member Bleck agreed that the project should be reviewed and modified to
improve the overall consistency. He stated that in his opinion, the single garage door is
acceptable and would be best for the functionality of the garage. He noted that the
garage is being modified from a front loading garage to a side loaded garage. He
stated that the increase in height on the front façade improves upon the appearance of
the house. He stated support for some adjustment to the scale of the front dormer.
Board member Reda stated agreement with the comments of the other Board members.
Board member Moyer stated agreement with the previous comments and stated support
for some reduction in size of the front dormers.
Chairman King agreed that the revised massing on the front elevation will fit nicely into the
neighborhood. He also agreed that the dormer on the front of the house should be
reduced in size. He suggested that consideration be given to wood garage doors with
lites.
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 10 of 11
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on
the findings in the staff report and incorporating the testimony and the Board’s
deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation 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. The Board directed the
following modifications and considerations:
a. Consideration should be given to two garage doors and use of a wood panel
door with lites.
b. The dormer on the front elevation should be reduced in size to bring it more into
scale with the overall elevation.
c. The consistency of the detailing overall should be improved.
d. If the budget allows, consideration should be given to replacing the existing
siding with natural materials or a hardi-board product and carrying the same
material to the siding.
3. Digital photographic documentation of the four elevations shall be submitted and
be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the
structure.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was unanimously approved
by the Board by a 7 to 0 vote.
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,
Building Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2013 Meeting Page 11 of 11
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