Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2013/03/06 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 1 of 35 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of March 6, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, March 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 Peggy Vignocchi and Board members Jon Clair, Mike Bleck, Monica Ruggles, Charlie King and Madeleine Dugan. Building Review Board members absent: Steuart Tray Staff members present: Megan Neuman, Planner, Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Vignocchi Chairman Vignocchi asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. She reviewed the procedures followed by the Board. 2. Approval of the minutes of the July 5, 2012 and January 9, 2013 meetings. The minutes of the July 5, 2012 and January 9, 2013 meetings were approved as submitted. Returning Petition 3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of storefront alterations, canopies, landscaping and signage for two new businesses at 950 N. Western Avenue. Owner: Westwood Square LLC Proposed Businesses: Westwood Bistro and 9 Fifty Whiskey Bar Business Owners: Jeffrey Schnoll and Ted Boufis, the Lake Forest Restaurant Group, Inc. Representative: Rich Gordon, Interwork Architects Chairman Vignocchi asked the Board for any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Gordon presented the petition explaining that since the last meeting, he met with the Board subcommittee and reviewed the various comments from the Board’s last meeting. He reviewed the changes made to the plan since the last meeting starting with the outdoor patio near the Bistro. He explained that based on feedback from the Plan Commission and City Arborist, the patio was shifted to the south, away from the parking lot. He explained that originally, the trees in that area were going to remain, but after Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 35 review by the City Arborist, it was determined that the trees are not in good condition and should be removed allowing room for the shifting of the patio. He explained that shifting the patio provides a larger space for plantings along the north edge of the patio and the parking lot. He stated that a variety of plantings are planned in the area including ground cover and higher plantings, deciduous plants and evergreens. He stated that the plantings will be capped at about 5 feet to allow visibility of the Bistro sign. He noted that the plantings will extend out to the area between the patio and Western Avenue and pointed out that the two trees east of the patio will remain. He described the patio and noted that the south edge of the patio is now up against the ramp to the underground parking garage. He noted that to screen that area, a trellis structure is proposed with solid wood and open lattice panels. He stated that the trellis will provide the opportunity for vines and planter boxes and will provide a screen not only from the ramp, but also from the office windows on the second floor of the building. He reviewed other changes made noting that there was some concern about the proportions of the canopy, the corner entrance piece and the existing mansard roof on the Bistro. He explained that the mansard roof will remain in place but will be enclosed with a frame and stucco. He noted that the corner element was widened and made taller to achieve better proportions, accent the corner entrance and to serve as a back drop for the sign. He provided a rendering of the corner pointing out that the canopy will be open as discussed at the last meeting to avoid snow piling up on it and to provide and light and shadow on the building façade. He discussed the patio wall noting that it steps down as the ground slopes away. He stated that the foundation will not be exposed at any point more than about 6 inches. He stated that the wall height was not changed and remains at 3 feet with an 18” wrought iron railing on top. He stated that the wall and the landscaping will screen views into and out of the patio. He discussed the east elevation of the Whiskey Bar noting that at the suggestion of the subcommittee, the operable windows, which will replace the existing windows, will be gray to match the steel canopies instead of a bronze color to match the rest of the windows on the building. He stated that the sashes of the windows will be wood, painted gray to match the windows. He concluded by providing samples of various textures for the stucco finish. He pointed out the texture recommended by the stucco company based on the fact that a mix with more aggregate will minimize cracking of the stucco. He stated that the reveal will be a metal control joint finished with stuc co to match the fascia. Ms. Czerniak informed the Board that since the last meeting, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the request for Special Use Permits to authorize the two new restaurants. She stated that the Plan Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permits to the City Council and the Council granted final approval. She stated that the project is now back before the Board for final consideration of the design related elements. She recognized Mr. Gordon’s tho rough summary of the open issues and confirmed that several staff meetings and a meeting with the Board subcommittee, made up of Board members Ruggles and Dugan, were held. She stated that in the various discussions to date about the restaurants it was recognized that the restaurant owners are tenants in a larger building and as a result, the extent of changes proposed to the building are limited and work within the limits of what exists today. She stated staff support for moving this project forward with the refinements made since the last meeting. She noted that the Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 3 of 35 staff report recommends that the Board subcommittee remain in place to review a mock- up of the signage after the canopies are in place to offer input on letter size and placement. She added that further study is needed on the monument sign to determine whether lannon stone is the appropriate material or whether the sign should more directly reflect the materials on the exterior of the restaurant. She recommended that final approval of the signage be delegated to a subcommittee. Chairman Vignocchi invited preliminary comments and questions from the members of the Board subcommittee. Board member Dugan stated that a good meeting at the site was held with the petitioners and staff. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Gordon confirmed that a water feature, rather than a fire pit, is now proposed in the patio area. He stated that the depth of the open canopy has not changed since the last meeting. He confirmed that there will not be a stepping stone path from the patio to the parking lot due to the grade change. He reviewed the color samples for the windows. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Gordon stated that the shrubs planted along the patio wall will be 3 to 3-1/2 feet at the time of planting and will grow to a full height of 5 feet in a couple years. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Gordon discussed the grade change from the entrance to the Bistro to Western Avenue. He confirmed that the patio will be at the same elevation as the entrance to the Bistro and that the base of the shrubs will be planted at the same level as the patio. He acknowledged that some berming up of the area may be needed to plant the base of the shrub close to the elevation of the patio. He stated that no second means of egress from the patio is required due to its small size. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Ms. Czerniak explained that the staff recommendation is to approve the concept of the monument sign in the location proposed but leave the details of the sign to a subcommittee for final approval. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Gordon stated that the owners would like the opportunity to consider a wood or brick base for the monument sign. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Gordon discussed the reveals stating that they will be ¾ of an inch wide and 3/8 to 5/8 deep depending on the depth of the stucco. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Gordon discussed the rationale for the placement of the reveals and agreed that additional reveals could be added and others shifted to align with windows or other building elements. He confirmed that the wood tower element at the corner will project beyond the stucco the thickness of the Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 4 of 35 wood. He explained that a wood trellis is proposed instead of a metal trellis for simplicity. He agreed that panels with horizontal grooves, rather than vertical grooves, could be used on the trellis for consistency with the building. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Wood confirmed that a short pergola return extends off of the trellis over the patio. He confirmed that all elements of the patio trellis are wood as currently proposed. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Woods confirmed that all of the issues discussed by the Board subcommittee were addressed except a change to the depth of the steel canopy. He stated that a 3’ depth of the canopy is maintained on both restaurants for consistency and to avoid a stumpy appearance. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Gordon explained that the open ladder canopy extends out 3 feet beyond the solid mass of the existing canopy at the entrance to the Bistro. He confirmed that a solid mass is not being extended. Board member Ruggles pointed out that the distance from the brick column is doubled with the addition of a 3 foot open canopy beyond the existing solid canopy. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the signage for Westwood Square is considered under the regulations for “campus-type” signage given the multiple tenants in the building. She confirmed that the signage as presented is generally in conformance with other signage for commercial developments in the City. Chairman Vignocchi invited public comment, hearing none, she invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, she invited final comments from the Board. Board member Dugan stated that most of her questions have been answered. She stated that she was surprised to see the trellis proposed of wood rather than of brick or wrought iron consistent with the patio wall on the north side. She stated however that with the change to horizontal panels, she can support the trellis commenting that the wood will relate to the tower element at the Bistro entrance. She added that she is supportive of the stepping stones from the patio to the parking lot if a second egress is required. She stated support for the dark gray color as presented for the windows and canopy. She stated disappointment that the depth of the steel canopy was not reduced after discussion at the subcommittee level. She agreed that further work is needed on the monument sign and suggested that brick or wood be considered for the base of the sign. Board member Ruggles commented that the wood trellis is not consistent with the rest of the building. She noted that changing from the vertical panels to horizontal panels will help, but commented that the area appears busy. She stated that the depth of the canopy was discussed at length and in her opinion, the 3 foot depth is excessive and the proportions are troublesome. She asked that further work be done on the reveals to establish a rhythm. She stated support for the colors as proposed. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 5 of 35 In response to a question from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Gordon confirmed that the railing on top of the patio wall will be charcoal grey to match the canopy and windows. Board member Clair stated support for the overhang as presented noting that there is logic to the depth in relation to the new sign board. He also supported the openness of the canopy agreeing the play of light and shadow is appropriate. He noted that the trellis proposed on the south side of the patio has a human scale but agreed that in selecting the materials, there is an opportunity to relate back to the building. He noted that metal panels of lattice could be applied with horizontal detailing. He questioned whether the short gesture of a pergola is necessary acknowledging comments from other Board members about the busy-ness of the area. He stated that overall, the trellis concept provides a good back drop for the patio and appropriate screening from above and below. He discussed the reveals in the stucco noting that in the drawings, they appear quite substantial. He agreed that using metal strips for the reveals is an appropriate approach for creating a crisp detail. He commented that in his opinion, the reveals should be larger, rather than smaller. He commented that aligning the reveals with the windows might not be appropriate since when viewed, the lines will never appear aligned. He stated that creating a pattern that looks right is a more appropriate approach. He stated support for the shift of the patio to the south noting that the opportunity for more landscaping on the north side of the patio may have addressed some of the neighbors’ concerns about the outdoor dining area. He stated that the plantings need to be appropriately sized to provide a good screen of the patio from the beginning. He stated that overall the plan does a nice job of updating a building that by today’s design standards is troublesome. He acknowledged that this tenant is not responsible for fixing the entire building. He suggested that more thought be given to the monument sign with consideration as to whether it should list other tenants of the building. He thanked the petitioners for working with the Board and the other City bodies. Board member King stated appreciation for the improvements made to the plan since the last meeting. He acknowledged that given the building, there are limits to what can be done. He stated support for the overhang as presented. He agreed with comments of other Board members about the patio trellis appearing busy. He agreed that an alternative material may help that area. He agreed that additional work is needed on the monument sign stating that lannon stone is not appropriate. Board member Dugan observed that the brick wall on the south side of the patio will be visible through the lattice and stated concern about the appearance of that element. She expressed concern that there are too many materials proposed for the patio. She suggested consideration of brick and wrought iron to match the wall proposed on the north side of the patio. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Gordon, stated that the brick wall will be in shadow and will be screened by vines planted to grow on the trellis. He offered that a solid panel could be used up to the height of the wall. He stated concern that adding a wrought iron railing to the existing brick wall in that area may not be enough visually or from a safety perspective. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 6 of 35 Chairman Vignocchi stated support for plantings to soften the trellis and commented that in general, the Board seems supportive of the trellis concept with additional study of the materials and design. Board member Clair commented that louvered lights or ground lights could be installed to shine from behind the trellis. He stated that the trellis provides an opportunity to tie the patio back to the building. He stated that the wood provides a softer surrounding than metal for this pedestrian area and could be painted charcoal grey to match the trellis. He commented that the trellis will be a significant feature viewed from the entrance and street. In response to a question from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Gordon explained that the purpose of the pergola is to provide an end to the trellis. He stated that the pergola will extend 1 to 1 -1/2 feet in both directions from the trellis. He stated that a metal trellis could be considered. Chairman Vignocchi commented that the use of wood in the seating area may be appropriate to soften this area. Board member Ruggles agreed that some consistency between the trellis and the building is needed. Board member Bleck stated that the shift of the patio is a significant improvement to the project noting that the new location will be more inviting to customers. He stated that the plantings on the north side of the patio should be appropriately sized to provide screening at the outset of the project. He stated support for the canopy as presented and agreed that further refinement to the pattern of the reveals in the stucco is needed. He stated that either wood or metal for the trellis is workable as long as the design relates back to the building. He agreed that simplification of the trellis area is important. Chairman Vignocchi acknowledged that the project is much improved since the last meeting. She stated that based on the Board’s discussion; there appear to be several details that still need further study and refinement. Board member Clair stated support for the project with conditions requiring further study of the patio area, the pattern of the reveals in the stucco, the monument sign and with oversight by the City Arborist to assure that the plantings along the north patio wall are appropriately sized at the time of planting to provide some screening. He stated that he is comfortable with the remaining issues being resolved at either the staff level or by a subcommittee of the Board. Board member Bleck and King stated support for the approach suggested by Board member Clair. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 7 of 35 Chairman Vignocchi commented that the subcommittee met and made suggestions all of which were not resolved in the revised drawings. She stated that she would be most comfortable with the petition coming back to the full Board for resolution of the issues identified in the Board’s discussion. She agreed that if the Board provides very clear direction on the open items, the final resolution could occur at the staff level. Board member Ruggles stated that more detail is needed on some items. She stated that not all items were addressed as a follow up to the subcommittee meeting and she is not confident all items raised by the Board will be addressed. She stated her preference that the petition be continued and returned to the full Board for final approval. Board member Clair stated that there does not appear to be Board consensus on the need to reduce the depth of the overhang noting that this is the issue that was raised by the subcommittee, but not addressed. He stated that the next significant issues are the design of the trellis and the pattern of the reveals in the stucco. Board member Bleck suggested that the Board could approve the proposed alterations with the exception of the trellis and the monument sign noting that those two issues could come back to the full Board. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that at the Board’s discretion, the petition could be approved in part as suggested by Board member Bleck. She stated that there is some urgency to allowing the petitioner to get a sense of whether or not the project is moving forward to allow work on the interior construction drawings to get underway. She offered that the remaining issues could be resolved at the full Board level, by a subcommittee of the Board, or by staff, whichever the Board decides is appropriate. Chairman Vignocchi stated support for approval of the project with the exception of the trellis and monument sign commenting that those elements should come back to full Board. She stated this approach will give the petitioner the ability to move forward on some aspects of the project. Board member Dugan made a motion to recommend approval of the storefront alterations, signage and landscaping as presented to the Board with the exception of the trellis on the patio and the monument signage. She stated that those items will need to return to the Board for final consideration after further study and refinement. She stated that her motion is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The final landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist with particular attention paid to the areas that will be visible from the public street and sidewalk. Planting should include evergreen plantings to provide some screening year round and should have a variety in heights to provide screening and sound buffering. The City Arborist is directed to carefully consider the size of plantings at the time of planting to assure that some screening is provided Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 8 of 35 immediately and that the plant types selected will grow quickly to provide significant screening in a short period of time. 2. Once the canopies are in place, a mock-up of the lettering shall be installed subject to final approval of the proposed width, height, spacing and intensity of the lighting of the lettering size by staff. Staff shall direct refinement in width, height, spacing or the intensity of the lighting as deemed necessary. 3. Any additional exterior lighting including parking lots lights, bollards and lighting on the building that is proposed shall be brought back to the Board with a comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval. 4. Final designs for the monument sign and patio trellis shall be presented to the full Board for final consideration. The refinement of these elements should consider the comments and direction offered by the Board as detailed in the minutes of the March 6, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded by Board member King and was approved in a vote of 5 to 1 with Board member Ruggles voting nay for reasons outlined during the meeting. New Petitions 4. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing home and construction of a replacement structure at 886 Morningside Drive. Owners: William and Maria Edmiston Representative: James G. Chambers, architect Chairman Vignocchi asked the Board for any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts. Board member Bleck recused himself from participating in this petition due to his firm’s involvement in the project. Mr. Chambers introduced the project noting that the presentation will have three parts with the property owner presenting the request for demolition and John Mariani presenting the landscape plan. He stated that he will present the proposed replacement house after Mr. Edmiston speaks. Mr. Edmiston stated that he and his wife purchased this home in 1999 and moved into the home in 2002. He stated that they have lived in the home for 11 years and raised their family in the home. He noted that his children attended local schools and that he and his wife are active in the community. He explained that they bought the home because they liked the neighborhood and schools. He stated that the neighborhood has limited traffic and is near the train station and bike trails. He stated that they learned from the preservation report prepared by a consultant that the home is a contemporary home designed by Humrich. He stated that as is typical in Humrich homes, the home has living Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 9 of 35 and dining rooms with a view, floor to ceiling windows, a large fire place, low ceilings and a flat roof. He stated that many Humrich homes have radiant floor heat and solar systems but this house does not. He stated that the home has no garage, basement or attic. He stated that in the past, owners have kept the home for only 2 to 4 years before selling it. He stated that having owned the property since 1999, they are one of the longest owners of the property. He reviewed various problems with the house noting that it is less than 2,000 square feet in size, has very low ceilings, two of the three bedrooms are very small and there are only two small bathrooms. He stated that the quality of life in the house is not good. He stated that the floor is a concrete un-insultated slab which is cold in the winter. He noted that as a result, the living and dining rooms are not used much in the winter. He noted that noise from the train and road can be heard in the house. He explained that they have spent over $20,000 on the roof but it still leaks due to structural problems. He noted that the Board received an engineer’s report detailing the issues with the roof and carport. He noted that there are elevated levels of mold and radon in the house and that mold is embedded in the wood in some areas. He noted that the house has no insulation and that there is extensive condensation in some areas. He reviewed photos showing some of the damage in the home due to leaks. He noted that a commercial company was hired in an effort to fix the roof and that the company has returned several times in an effort to stop the leaking. He explained that the ongoing issues led them to search for an architect to explore adapting or replacing the home. He stated that after 13 years of owning the home, they are asking for the Board’s support to demolish the house and build a replacement home. Mr. Chambers stated that considerable work has been done to make the project a good fit for the street and for Lake Forest in general. He reviewed the character of the neighborhood noting that the existing house is a clear break in the rhythm of the streetscape because it is setback quite a bit further than the other homes and is rotated in an odd fashion. He noted that the orientation of the house results in the majority of the windows facing on to the back yards of the neighboring properties. He commented that the parcel was once part of a larger parcel that was subdivided resulting in the unique layout in relation to the surrounding properties. He noted that a number of the homes on the street have front court yards and projecting garages. He stated that there are a variety of arch styles, roof forms and materials used along the street. He stated that on most properties, there is a strong formality expressed. He noted that most of the roofs are asphalt or cedar shingles. He described the adjacent homes on either side of the property. He stated that after studying the streetscape, the proposed house is located further back from the street than the average setback along the street. He presented a graphic of the streetscape showing the siting of the proposed in relation to the other homes. He stated that in considering architectural styles, the owners’ first choice was a Mediterranean style with terra cotta tiles however, after studying the streetscape, a French Electic style house is presented. He described the owners’ program requirements including a first floor master bedroom, a three car garage and practical spaces filled with daylight. He reviewed the first floor plan noting the location of the three car garage at the front of the house. He stated that the massing strategy was to locate one story volumes around the perimeter to lessen the appearance of mass and height from the streetscape and neighboring homes. He added that the main body of the house and Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 10 of 35 eave are kept low and arched dormers penetrate the roof. He noted that 9 foot, rather than 10 foot, ceilings are used. He pointed out that the hipped roof and flared eave also serve to lessen the perceived height of the house. He reviewed the alternatives considered for the garage noting that both a port cochere and a side load garage were considered. He explained that the courtyard configuration was selected to lessen the impact of the garage. He noted that the garage is broken into two pieces with a two car garage and a one car garage. He noted that an additional one story piece is used as a counter point to the garage and to lessen its effect. He commented on the octagonal element noting that is it intended to ease the entrance to the garage and offer a conservatory effect. He stated that all of the elevations were designed to be consistent in massing and design. He noted that the octagonal shape is repeated on the rear elevation along with some arches to tie back to the front of the house. He discussed the exterior materials noting that they are kept simple and monochromatic recognizing the number of architectural design elements used on the house. He stated that stone is an important part of the project noting the owners’ involvement in picking out the stone. He stated that the owners have a negative history with cedar shingles and selected synthetic slate instead in a grey, monochromatic tone. He stated that the slate is a premium product and has a 50 year warranty. He noted that the slate is used in 6 other locations in Lake Forest. Chairman Vignocchi asked that to keep with the agenda, comments from the landscape consultant be heard during the question portion of the agenda. She asked for the staff report. Ms. Neuman reviewed that the petition has two parts , the proposed demolition of the existing house and the proposed replacement house. She noted that the existing house does not have a strong presence on the street. She confirmed that the house was designed by Edward Humrich who is known for work in Lake Forest and other nearby communities. She commented that there are several Humrich houses in Lake Forest, some believed to have more significance than others. She stated that in this case, the owners have made repeated repairs to the house, over a number of years, in an effort to address ongoing problems with the house. She added that due to the uniqueness of the house, adding to the home or making structural changes to address problems could diminish its integrity due to distinctive elements that would be lost. She noted that the Board must evaluate whether the demolition is consistent with the Code criteria for demolitions. She noted that information was provided by the petitioners in support of the demolition and was included in the Boards’ packet. She stated that based on a staff evaluation of the material submitted, the documentation makes a good case that the request meets the demolition criteria. She noted that the second part of the petition is a request for approval of a replacement house and landscape plan. She requested Board input on various aspects of the proposed replacement plan including the compatibility of the proposed repl acement structure with the neighborhood and the design guidelines and the proposed massing as it relates to the neighboring homes and the streetscape. She noted that the street has a mix of one and two story homes and added that there is a significant grade change along the street. She pointed out that the one story home to the east is significantly lower than the subject property. She noted that the massing, siting Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 11 of 35 and grade change all factor into determining whether a project is consistent or inconsistent with the streetscape. She requested Board input on the proposed exterior materials particularly on the proposed use of synthetic slate and the use and type of stone. She commented on the landscape plan noting the suggestion of the City Arborist that additional high canopy trees be planted in front of the replacement house to help soften the height and mass of the proposed replacement house. Board member King suggested that due to the historic nature of the existing house, the request for demolition should be addressed before discussion of the replacement house. He stated that given the historical significance of the house, demolition may not be appropriate. He noted that any older house will have problems. He noted concern that this house is one of only a few Humrich houses remaining in Lake Forest. He stated that based on the information available to him, he believes the house should be preserved. Board member Dugan stated that she supports preservation but noted the poor condition of this home and inability of the owners to make successful repairs. She stated that given the uniqueness of the home, repairs or additions will diminish its significance. She noted the ongoing problems with the roof and cold. She stated that in this case, the problems appear to outweigh preservation in her mind. Chairman Vignocchi commented that modifying the roof shape to address the leaking would impact a key design element of the house. Board member Clair commented that ongoing problems with a house may warrant its demolition regardless of the architect. He commented that on the other hand, there was an initial attraction to this house and its distinguishing features by the owners and comfort alone is not enough to support demolition of a house. He stated that interesting homes should be treasured and not demolished. He suggested that since the house has historic significance, perhaps it should be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. Board member Ruggles questioned whether referral to the Historic Preservation Commission would be appropriate. She stated that she too appreciates historic structures but also understands that a structure can become impractical. She noted that the current owners have lived in the house for 11 years, about 3 times as long as previous owners. She stated that from the material submitted, the house is difficult to maintain. She acknowledged that the house could be purchased by someone who would restore it and that would be admirable, but would take considerable work. She stated appreciation for the effort made to consider a number of different alternatives for adding on to the house. She commented that this was a fantastic looking house at one time and stated disappointment that it will be demolished, but stated that she can support the demolition based on the information provided to the Board. In response to questions from Board member King, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that each of the demolition criteria do not need to be met or met fully. She explained that it is the Board’s Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 12 of 35 charge to balance the factors for each petition and to determine, on balance, whether the petition overall meets the criteria to a sufficient level. She noted that the submittal requirements include documentation to assist the Board in this decision. She clarified that the Historic Preservation Commission does not have jurisdiction over this property since it is neither in the historic district, nor designated as a Local Landmark. She noted that in the past, Boards and Commissions have requested informal input from another Board or Commission, but the decision remains with the Board or Commission having jurisdiction. Board member Clair suggested that this matter be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation on the value of the house. He added that he would like more time to take a good, close look at the property. Board member King agreed with Board member Clair’s suggestions. Board member Ruggles commented that before discussing the replacement structure, the Board should decide if demolition would be appropriate. Board members Clair and King stated agreement with Board member Ruggles. Board member Clair made a motion to continue the petition and refer it to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation on the value of the historic house and the appropriateness of demolition. The motion was seconded by Board member King. The motion failed in a 2 to 3 vote with Board members Ruggles and Dugan, and Chairman Vignocchi voting nay. Based on the outcome of the vote, Chairman Vignocchi asked for questions and discussion of the proposed replacement residence. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Mariani stated that it is difficult to say whether a front load garage would save trees on the site since a different foot print would result from that change. He suggested that in either approach approximately the same number of trees would likely be impacted. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Chambers confirmed that the existing house has single pane glass and stated that as a result, some rooms are unusable in the winter. He confirmed that there is condensation as a result of the single pane glass. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Chambers confirmed that a full basement is proposed under the replacement residence. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Chambers discussed the stone samples presented noting that the exact stone has not yet been selected. He stated that the stone will be in a light buff or gray tone. He discussed the difference in elevation between this property and the neighboring property stating that there is an existing retaining wall that will remain and be extended. He stated that lowering the grade was Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 13 of 35 considered, but instead, a decision was made to mitigate the height along the entire perimeter of the house with a one story eave. He stated that the height is driven by the owners’ program and commented that further mitigation of the two story structure would be difficult. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Chambers stated that the floor height in the new residence will be a foot at the most above the floor height of the existing structure. He noted that the additional height is needed to utilize conventional construction over a basement. Chairman Vignocchi invited public comment. Richard Chapman, resident next door, stated that he has never met his neighbor until this meeting. He stated that he has lived in his home for 22 years. He discussed the character of the neighborhood and the proposed demolition. He commented that the neighborhood is unique and noted that what attracted him to the neighborhood was the serene and quiet nature, the fact that it was alive with children and near transportation. He noted that no two homes in the neighborhood look exactly alike, but they all fit the neighborhood character. He stated that the nature of the demolition criteria are important in this case because the discussion pertains not to just this house, but to other houses in the same area. He stated that the City Council put the criteria in place to regulate whether teardowns should be allowed. He commented that all property owners are stewards of the public trust noting that it takes a cooperative effort to preserve the character of the community. He reviewed the demolition criteria noting that the report received by the Board recognizes that the property has architectural significance. He stated that the Humrich house is special and questioned if this house does not meet that criteria, what house will. He noted that before he purchased his house, it underwent significant renovation in the 80’s, at some cost, but the character was maintained. He commented that the work done fit in with the existing topography. He discussed the criteria regarding the suitability of the existing house for habitation noting that his neighbors have lived in the house and raised their children there so clearly, it is habitable. He commented that there has been no fire or other casualty noting that the report submitted states that the house could benefit from some structural redesign, but does not state that it is required. He stated that he does not know how the proposed project will affect his property value noting that because his house will appear smaller by comparison, his property value may be negatively affected. He stated that the new structure will dramatically affect the character of the neighborhood noting that the existing house fits in with the neighborhood. He stated that from a legal and policy perspective, the demolition criteria are important. He stated that he did not move here to have the house next to him destroyed and to endure a year or more of disturbance due to construction. He noted that part of the last criteria speaks to impact on the neighbors pointing out that the proposed demolition will have an impact on the neighbors. He concluded stating that the City’s policy and the criteria dictate that this request for demolition be denied. Stewart Allen, resident of the house directly across the street, noted that his sons are friends with the owners’ sons and as a result, he has been inside the house numerous times. He stated that he is not thrilled with the style of the house and stated that Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 14 of 35 sometimes architects do not get it right. He noted that the house has functional problems with condensation, cold and mold. He questioned whether the problems can be fixed and whether spending the money to do so would be worth it. He stated that the owners are trapped in the house and the situation is not fair. He suggested that if anyone wanted to buy the house, the owners would sell it. He suggested that the Board put themselves in the owners’ place. He stated that in his opinion, there is not much that can be done to make the home livable. He stated support for demolition of the existing house and construction of a new home. Maria Allen, resident directly across the street, stated that she looks at the house every day and stated that it should be torn down. She stated that there is no garage and she looks at cars. She noted that the house has a strong odor and noted that she has seen condensation in the house. She stated that the house is not user friendly commenting that everyone has the right to improve their house. She noted that others on the street have done construction and commented that not wanting to deal with construction traffic is not a reason to object to the project. She stated support for the demolition and urged the Board members to walk the property. A resident who lives across the street and diagonal to the property stated that he has lived in his house since 1988 and raised his children in the neighborhood. He observed that these types of conversations can divide a neighborhood but commented that he has watched the house decline during his time on the street. He stated that at the present time, it is an unfortunate blight on the neighborhood. He stated that he did not know whether it could be repaired or whether it could have been better maintained in the past. He noted however that he is not in favor of the massive replacement house presented. He suggested that the Board consider the demolition less carefully and the replacement structure more thoroughly. He stated that this may be a choice between the lesser of two evils commenting that money put into the house at this point may not be recovered. He asked the Board to focus on the new house that is proposed. Laura Flynn, resident of the neighboring house to the west, stated support for all of the points made by the other neighbors. She stated that if the house is torn down, she would like to see some further work on the west elevation. She noted that the plan proposes to locate air conditioner units outside of her master bedroom, kitchen and patio. She added that the elevation of the three car garage will impact views from her home. She stated that she looks forward to the opportunity to review revised plans. Chairman Vignocchi noted that two additional letters, beyond those included in the Board’s packet, were received by the Board at the meeting. She invited rebuttal to the public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Chambers stated that the topography on the property will not change. He noted that the first floor ceiling heights are only 9 feet, instead of the standard 10 feet. He noted that the front garage element pushes the two story mass of the house back to the center of the property, away from the street frontage. He commented that from the photos, the proposed replacement home is less massive than the house to the west. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 15 of 35 In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Chambers stated that he does not have the overall heights of the neighboring homes. Board member Clair noted that the materials provided to the Board indicate that the actual height of the proposed residence is 31’8”. In response to questions from Board member King, Mr. Chambers stated that a special niche was designed to accommodate the air conditioning units which are located near the garage on the property to the west. He stated that the proposed location appears to do the least harm compared to other locations that were considered. He noted that the landscape plan proposes vegetation to mitigate the impacts on the neighboring property. He stated that a low noise unit will be installed. He commented that locating the air conditioning unit on the east side of the house would impact the other neighbor. He stated that shifting the unit to the south is not beneficial. At the request of Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Mariani reviewed the proposed landscape plan noting that the grade change was taken into consideration in developing the plan. He noted that on one side of the property, a 12’ arbor vitae staggered hedge is proposed. He confirmed that the plants will be 12’ at planting and will be an extra heavy stock. He noted that on the other side, seven 20’ tall columnar maples are planned with a staggered hedge of a fast growing, dense shrub at a lower level . He noted that the plantings will provide a tall screen immediately in the summer and in the winter will remain fairly dense, while still allowing sunlight through to the neighboring home. He discussed the street scape noting that two red oaks are proposed for planting in the parkway. He noted that the driveway was shifted over to soften the views of the house from the street. He added that 12 to 15 foot wide crab apple trees are also proposed for the front yard to screen the court yard and further soften the effect of the house on the streetscape. He stated that the majority of the plantings on the site are proposed for the three areas discussed, the two side yards and the front yard. He noted that the palette of plant materials will work with the architecture of the home and provide the screening required. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Mariani explained that there is a stand of oak trees in front of the house that will remain. He noted that the parkway trees will be down the hill from the house, closer to eye level and will assist with the screening. He stated that with the proposed plantings, there will appear to be more trees on thee site than currently exist. He noted that by shifting the driveway, more trees are saved, the yard is opened up and there is better circulation on the site. He stated that there is room in the front yard if additional plantings are found to be needed. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Mariani discussed the grade change clarifying that the retaining wall is inside the property line and noting that vines will be planted on the wall. He added that the flowering shrubs will hang over the wall. He explained that attention has also been paid to addressing stormwater on the property noting that the downspouts as proposed will be tied into the storm sewer and a swale will be constructed to direct water to appropriate areas. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 16 of 35 Chairman Vignocchi invited final Board comments and deliberation. She noted that helpful comments were received from the public. Board member Dugan agreed with some comments from neighbors that architects who have worked in this community have built wonderful houses but some have also built homes that were of lesser quality and as a result, those homes have unfortunately deteriorated over time. She stated that in her opinion, that is the case with this house, she stated that this house appears to be beyond saving. She stated support for the demolition. She stated continuing concern about the height of the proposed house noting that the change in topography further aggravates the situation. She asked that the roof line be reduced to soften the appearance of height and impact of the grade change. Chairman Vignocchi stated agreement with Board member Dugan’s comments regarding the demolition. She stated support for the replacement structure. Board member Ruggles stated that the existing house is a beautiful example of the contemporary style but unfortunately, the house has deteriorated to such an extent that the case has been made for demolition. She pointed out that the petitioners presented comprehensive reports prepared by consultants to support their request. She noted that the structure is not designated as an historic property. She noted that there are other Humrich houses that have been substantially altered. She noted that the current owners have lived in the house longer than any other owners in recent history and have a right to move on and build something suitable for their family. She stated that the replacement house is consistent with the French Electic style with low massing elements and the higher mass in the center. She acknowledged that the topography is a challenge but noted that a full two story mass is not proposed in an effort to mitigate the appearance of mass. She stated that the proposed colors and materials are appropriate. She noted that synthetic stucco has been used on other projects in the community. Board member King pointed out that the Board has four requests for demolition on its agenda noting that the Board will need to take a stand with respect to applying the criteria. He stated that in the case of this petition, the first criterion is not met. He added that the owners have lived in the home for 11 years, so it is livable. He expressed concern that the Board is making a short sighted decision and wasting an opportunity to get input on this request from the Historic Preservation Commission given the significance of the structure. Board member Clair stated agreement with Board member King that the decision not to seek input from the Historic Preservation Commission on this petition is a mistake. He noted however that he makes his living as a developer and is not opposed to finding a structure that is unlivable, has out lived its usefulness or is structurally deficient and replacing it with something new. He noted that this discussion brings to the forefront issues that face the Board as neighborhoods are faced with change as a result of demolitions. He noted areas that are different today as a result of new construction and have lost the original Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 17 of 35 character. He noted ”Grace’s Cottage” on Washington Road as an important representation of an historic neighborhood. He stated that his concern is whether or not this house is a historic gem and balancing that with the owners’ difficulty in living in the home. He commented that he would probably not have purchased the home recognizing the low ceilings, flat roof and single pane glass. He stated his hope that the Board considers demolition requests contextually and is conscious about what fits in a neighborhood. He noted that soon this neighborhood, like many others, will have French Electic and other styles that are the current trends. He commented that he can support the demolition reluctantly noting that he is less comfortable with the demolition than he might have been with input from the Historic Preservation Commission. He commented on the proposed replacement house noting that the architect did a good job of anchoring and stepping down the mass. He observed that this house will likely have less appearance of mass than the house to the west. He stated support for the orientation of the driveway and garage. He commented that he is not convinced that the selected architectural style is the right style for this site but noted that it neither thrills nor offends. He expressed concern about the proposed pattern of stone commenting that there are more exciting and natural appearing options. He commented that the plastic roof proposed usually results in an awkward hip detail but stated that it is acceptable. Chairman Vignocchi stated that the extensive report from the Historic Preservation Consultant gave her comfort with respect to the demolition noting that it states that the architect in some periods was not designing homes for the usefulness of those living in them. She stated that the documentation provided confirmed that this house is a difficult living environment. Board member King noted that the report states that the house is an exemplary style of Humrich’s work. Board member Dugan made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing house based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was approved by a vote of 3 to 2 with Board members King and Clair voting nay for reasons expressed earlier in the meeting. Board member Dugan made a motion to approve the replacement residence and the landscape plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Architectural Design and Site Plan 1. 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. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 18 of 35  Alternative locations for the AC units shall be submitted for review in an effort to find an option that minimizes the impact of the mechanicals on the neighboring properties. Landscaping 2. 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. The plantings provide filtered screening of the new residence from the neighboring properties and from the streetscape. b. The overall wooded character of the property and streetscape is retained. c. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. 3. 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 to protect mature trees in proximity to the proposed construction including the large Oaks along the south property line and the Pine tree at the northeast corner of the proposed house. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. 4. Inch for inch replacement of all trees removed is required consistent with the Tree Preservation and Landscape provisions in the Code. Given the small size of the property, payment in lieu of tree replacement may be accepted if it is determined by the City Arborist that planting the total required inches on the property would be inconsistent with good forestry practices. Any payment in lieu of plantings shall be used to enhance street trees in the neighborhood as determined to be appropriate by the City’s Certified Arborist. Other 5. Comprehensive digital photographic documentation of the existing home and site shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit and be subject to a determination by staff that the photos adequately document the structure. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was approved by a vote of 4 to 1 with Board member King voting nay for the reasons previously stated. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing home and construction of a replacement structure at 409 Illinois Road. Owner: Judith Koukol Representatives: Karl Strassburger, designer Chairman Vignocchi asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Bleck recused himself from hearing this petition due to his firm’s involvement in the project. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 19 of 35 Chairman Vignocchi invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Strassburger stated that the request is for approval of the demolition of an existing one story house and construction of a two story replacement house. He described the surrounding area noting Gorton Community Center across the street and the curving nature of Illinois Road in this area. He noted that in response to the curve in the road, properties in this area have narrow street frontages while further south on Illinois Road, the street frontages get wider. He stated that this is an older neighborhood with predominately modest sized homes of vernacular styles, utilitarian, simple in form and details. He stated that the existing house does not contribute to the streetscape due to its siting. He noted that only the garage is visible from the street. He reviewed the siting of the homes in the area and provided photographs of the site. He noted that the house is located behind pine trees and pointed out that the pre-dominate massing is the garage which was a later addition to the house. He noted that the house itself steps back from the garage. He stated that the home is a simple ranch that is not historically or architecturally significant. He noted that the materials of the house are a mix of Chicago common brick, stucco and siding. He stated that structurally, the house has some cracks and some movement of the floor. He noted that the house does not conform to the current zoning setbacks on the property and as a resul t, alterations or additions to the home are difficult. He noted the intent to construct a new house in conformance with the zoning setbacks and in general alignment with the other homes in the neighborhood. He discussed the challenge of locating the garage for the new house due to the configuration of the lot and existing trees. He stated an interest in preserving the pine trees to the west and the large tree in the front yard. He stated that the proposed location of the garage allows a play area in back of the home and tucks out of view. He stated that the proposed plan adds just under 600 feet of impervious surface to the site. He provided a streetscape view of the house and pointed out a retaining wall proposed for the east side of the property. He provided an overlay of the existing house and the proposed house. He discussed the perceived height of the house noting the grade change on the lot. He noted the narrowness of the house which directed the floor plan. He reviewed the floor plan noting the front and back porches to soften the elevations. He noted that the house is simple, vernacular architecture with architectural shingles on the roof and a hardi-board shingle for the exterior. He added that wood details and a stone skirt foundation are proposed. He reviewed each elevation and noted the modest roof pitch and wood details. He noted that double hung windows and a stone chimney are proposed. He discussed the roof noting the gable forms and pointing out that the house steps down in the back and tapers in a symmetrical fashion. He reviewed the garage noting that it carries the same details as the house. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 20 of 35 Ms. Neuman reviewed the request for approval of demolition and construction of a replacement house and garage. She stated that the petitioner provided documentation of compliance with the demolition criteria. She noted that the replacement house has a more pronounced presence on the street. She noted that the existing house is not visible from the street and when it becomes visible, the garage element is what is viewed. She reviewed the replacement structure noting that it is sited more in line with other homes on the street. She commented that given the exposed stone foundation, plantings of some height should be required particularly in areas where the foundation is exposed to a greater extent due to the grade change. She noted that the staff report recommends approval of the petition and offers some recommended conditions of approval. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Strassburger discussed the siting of the home in relation to the flanking homes. He stated that the one story element of the proposed residence is forward of the neighboring homes but the two story element is in line with the adjacent homes. He acknowledged that due to the taper of the lot, the corners of the house are close to the property line but the back porch is recessed to meet the setbacks. He acknowl edged that a slight adjustment might be needed to assure that the eave overhangs are not in the setback. He explained that the home is vernacular, a simple two story Colonial /shingle style. He noted that consistent with a traditional style, the front porch has delicate details. He acknowledged that the detailing on the garage is minimized to avoid over design of that lesser structure. He described the lite patterns in the windows stating the intent to have consistency on the windows throughout the house. He stated an understanding of the point that the window pattern should be more vertical than horizontal or square. He stated that the first floor windows could be narrowed to be consistent with the second floor windows. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Strassburger presented samples of the proposed materials. He discussed the intended tone of the lannon stone noting that off white shingles, simulated divided lites and asphalt grey shingles for the roof are the proposed materials and colors. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Strassburger confirmed that shingles, not siding is proposed. He reiterated that the windows can be modified to achieve verticality. He discussed the porch detail with the stone carried up to the rail height acknowledging that instead, a solid column down to the floor could be used as a cost saving measure. He stated that he will discuss the detail with his client. He clarified that wood, or a composite material, will be used for the railings, not wrought iron. He discussed the front elevation agreeing that the windows could be shifted closer together and clarified that the element in the gable end will be round, not oval, and agreed that it could be added to the garage and that a cross, not an “X”, could be used as a detail. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 21 of 35 He stated that a landscape plan was included in the packet but is being revised. He stated that a concrete curb is being considered along the driveway to direct water to the street given the grade change on the site. He agreed that extending the brick used on the patio over the driveway apron could visually extend the patio. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Strassburger clarified that a hardi- board shingle is proposed noting that it comes in 8 foot lengths. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Ms. Neuman stated that hardi-board siding has been approved by the Board in the past, but she is not aware of approval of a hardi-shingle product. She suggested that a sample of the hardi-shingle be provided or presented as a mock-up on the site. She reminded the Board that the design guidelines encourage the use of natural materials. Mr. Strassburger stated that the owner is interested in the maintenance free aspect of the product and commented that these types of products have improved over the years. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Strassburger reviewed that wood or a composite material will be used for the railing. He stated that the first floor height is 9’- 6” and the second floor vertical walls are 8 feet. In response to questions from Board member King, Mr. Strassburger stated that a landscape plan was submitted but is being modified as a result of changes to the garage placement. He confirmed that foundation plantings are planned around the house as well as landscaping along the driveway and around the garage. He stated that a final landscape plan will be submitted to staff for review. He discussed drainage noting that an engineer has been consulted. He confirmed that if determined to be necessary, a curb will be installed along the driveway to direct water to the street. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Strassburger stated that the neighboring house is very close to the property line, 2 to 3 feet away. Chairman Vignocchi invited public comment. Mr. Joke, 405 Illinois Road, stated that he is excited about the proposed new home. He explained that the current house is four different buildings that were put together over time. He noted some concerns with the plan as presented. He questioned whether the front porch extends beyond the alignment of the neighboring homes. He stated that currently, stormwater runs off on to his property and stated his hope that with the new Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 22 of 35 construction, the situation will not be worsened, and may be improved. He asked that consideration be given to landscaping between the properties. Clay Kennedy, resident of the house to the east, explained that he recently finished a renovation that was designed to draw on the open space on this property and acknowledged that is his bad luck. He noted the impact of the proposed construction on key rooms in his house. He stated that the stand of conifers provide protection and privacy for his home up to the third floor and commented that there is no ability to execute this plan and preserve the trees. He stated that the proposed project will impact all aspects of his property on that side of the house. He asked questions about the placement and conformity of the garage with the required setbacks and noted the impact of the headlights on the back of his home. He asked that landscaping be required in an effort to mitigate the impacts of the construction as proposed. Chairman Vignocchi invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Strassburger stated that his client recognizes that the new home will have some impacts on the neighboring homes. He stated the intention to address drainage to the extent possible with proper grading and curbing. He acknowledged that the removal of the trees will also have a significant impact but noted that the grading necessitates the removal . He stated that the new landscaping will be planted to provide screening. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Strassburger stated that the house is setback from the street a greater distance than required by the zoning setback. He confirmed that the front porch extends in front of the neighboring homes. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Strassburger stated that if he had the option, he would not pull the house up toward the front of the lot. Judith Kouku, property owner, stated that pulling the house forward was considered because it would provide more space between the house and the property line. She noted however that the tree in the front yard was reviewed by her arborist who recommended that it be preserved. Board member Ruggles stated that the demolition appears to meet the criteria and is supported by the documentation submitted by the petitioner. Board members King and Clair also stated support for the demolition. Board member Ruggles stated that the siting of the house is appropriate for the streetsc ape noting that she would have concerns if the house was pulled up to the front Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 23 of 35 yard setback due to the impact on the streetscape. She acknowledged that by pushing the house back, the house is tight to the property lines. She acknowledged that the front porch extends beyond the other homes and stated that on balance, it appears to be acceptable. She complimented the vernacular style of the home. She asked that the mutin patterns in the windows be refined as discussed. She stated that the dentils appear to be heavy handed and suggested that they be removed. She stated concern about the use of the hardi- shingle product and recommended that traditional shingles be used. Board member Clair stated support for the project and support for the siting of the house. He commented that some of the details are not helping the design and encouraged some simplification. He noted that as mentioned, some refinement is needed to the window placement and window grill pattern. He again suggested that 8 foot columns, with no stone build-up, be considered. He commended the project and stated support for the demolition. He added that drainage issues should be carefully reviewed by City engineering staff. Chairman Vignocchi stated concern that the house will appear tall on the streetscape. She noted that the streetscape graphic provided is not to scale and the neighboring houses are very close. She noted that the existing grade change will exacerbate the appearance of height and the streetscape may appear cramped. Board member King stated that he does not get a sense that the house will be perceived as being too tall on the streetscape but agreed that the homes are tight. Board member Dugan stated support for the demolition. She noted that a landscape plan was provided in the Board’s packet and asked that the revised plan be reviewed by staff. She stated agreement that the dentils should be removed and agreed that attention should be paid to assuring proper drainage. She stated support for the location of the front porch given that it is a one story open porch. She stated support for wood railings and for the refinements to the windows as discussed by other Board members. She stated that she can support the project with conditions of approval. Chairman Vignocchi voiced concern about the use of the hardi-board shingles stating that a sample of the materials and information on locations where the product has been used are needed. Mr. Strassburger stated that consideration can be given to using true shingles noting again a concern about maintenance. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 24 of 35 Board member Clair commented that maintenance on a stained cedar shingle would not be required in our lifetime. He suggested that review of a mock-up and a sample of the shingles be delegated to staff. Board member King complimented the house and stated support for the front porch at the proposed location. He noted that the neighbors made good points noting that it will be important to assure that the drainage is properly addressed. He asked that the garage location be reconsidered. He observed that by shifting the garage to the location of the existing house some open space could be preserved on the property. He expressed concern about the impact of headlights on the neighboring home with the present garage location. Mr. Strassburger stated that alternative locations were considered for the garage and he explained that the proposed location allows a view of children playing in the back yard. Board member King made a motion to approve the demolition as requested based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Board member King made a motion to approve the replacement house, garage and landscape plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. General 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. Architectural Design and Site Plan 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. Natural cedar shingles shall be used. If a synthetic shingle is proposed, a mockup of the proposed material in relation to real cedar shingles must be provided for verification that the proposed material mimics the look and texture of natural cedar shingles. b. Alternative garage locations shall be considered to reduce the amount of impervious surface and mitigate the glare of headlights into neighboring properties. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 25 of 35 c. The 2nd story windows on the front elevation shall be moved closer together and a consistent muntin pattern shall be used, one that is vertical in nature. d. The dentils shall be removed from the cornice and a detail of the cornice shall be provided for verification that the final detail is consistent with the Board’s discussion. e. Consideration shall be given to elimination of the stone columns on the front porch and replacement with full height columns. A detail of the porch columns shall be provided to verify a traditional construction detail is achieved. Landscaping 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. The foundation plantings adequately screen the stone foundation wall. b. Existing trees and vegetation are retained and protected to the extent possible given the approved plan. c. The garage and driveway are screened from neighboring properties to block headlights and parked cars in the area around the garage. 4. A pre and post construction tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted along with the landscape plan outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees in proximity to the proposed construction including the large tree to the northeast of the replacement structure. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. 5. 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. Parking and Staging 6. No parking is permitted on Illinois Road. Off-site parking may be necessary to limit congestion on the street and maintain visibility along Illinois Road. Other 7. 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 Clair and was unanimously approved by the Board. Board member Dugan made a motion to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and it was unanimously approved by the Board. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 26 of 35 6. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing home and construction of a replacement structure at 104 Washington Circle. Owner and Representative: David Lidstrom, Victoria Development Chairman Vignocchi asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Lidstrom introduced the petition noting that the existing house is a small cottage that has been on the property for about 90 years. He noted that the house is very small and has never been updated. He stated that it suffers from severe deterioration and commented that it likely has only been occupied by renters. He stated that he was not able to find any information on the designer or builder. He stated that the house cannot be reused or altered. He stated that he plans to construct a new house for his family on the site. He provided an overview of the neighborhood pointing out that it is made up of some older homes and some newer ones. He reviewed the siting of the proposed house showing an air photo of the existing house and the neighboring homes. He stated his intent to build a modern Craftsman style home, provided a model and described the proposed materials and provided samples. He noted that the siding will be eastern white cedar, painted a teal color. He stated that the roof will be a standing seam roof. He provided a sample of the stone proposed for use on the columns. He noted that the existing house is low and is located between two taller homes. He stated that to avoid building a home that is too tall at this location, a low pitched roof is proposed. He stated that the home will be cedar shingles with a cedar band board. He noted that the columns will be consistent with the Craftsman style noting that they will be tapered, square columns with stone below. He stated that the house will have exposed rafter tails and a tapered chimney. He stated that the new house will be raised about six inches above the existing house because the site is very flat. He reviewed the landscape plan noting that the plan has already been revised to address some comments from the City Arborist. He stated that screening was added for the neighboring properties. He stated that a five toot fence with a one foot detail on top is proposed along the driveway and wrapping around the property. He stated that a board on board cedar fence is proposed to carry on the Craftsman style. He provided a section of the driveway noting that there will be storm water storage under the driveway. He stated that the water will be released into the City storm sewer system. He stated that if permitted to do so, he will connect the downspouts to the City storm sewer. Ms. Neuman stated that this is a request for approval of a demolition and a replacement structure, garage, pool and a landscape plan. She stated that this property is located in an established, older neighborhood, a neighborhood which has experienced a great deal of redevelopment activity. She noted that in the past, the Board has worked hard to preserve the character of this neighborhood and the architectural styles found in it. She noted that the homes in the neighborhood have simple forms and not a lot of detail or nooks and crannies in the elevations. She stated that the characteristics of the neighborhood are important to consider when looking at a replacement house. She Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 27 of 35 stated that the existing house is a very small, cute cottage with limited vegetation on the site. She acknowledged that from a practical perspective, reuse of the structure is unlikely since it does not meet current standards. She acknowledged that the extent of work that would be needed to make this a typical home would be significant; nevertheless, she stated that the cottage is characteristic of the history of the neighborhood. She stated that the petitioner is proposing to site the replacement house closer to the street than permitted by the front yard zoning setback, about 30 feet from the street, rather than 40 feet. She explained that typically, new construction is expected to meet current Code requirements and variances are discouraged. She noted however that in the past, the Zoning Board of Appeals has supported some front yard variances for new homes in cases where the replacement house is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the setback allows the house to be aligned with an overall pattern of setbacks established on the street or to avoid creating a gap in the streetscape. She stated that a setback variance would need to be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration. She stated that the Zoning Board would likely look to the Building Review Board’s comments regarding the massing and detailing of the proposed house. She pointed out that requesting a variance raises the bar for any project. She noted that in this case consideration should be given the impact of the proposed two-story mass of the replacement house on the streetscape. She noted that during the preliminary engineering review, questions were raised about whether the driveway was truly pervious. She explained that the driveway is actually an impervious system that will allow water to filter through the surface, but to a pipe system below the driveway, not into the ground. She stated that the stormwater is proposed to be directed into the City’s storm sewer system. She asked for Board input on the architectural style of the house and on the proposed detailing, massing and materials in the context of the streetscape and overall neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Lidstrom reviewed the proposed fencing confirming that there will be a double fence with a lower fencer around the pool and spa area. He stated that the interior fence will be cedar or iron. He stated that another fence will enclose the entire yard starting at the house. He stated that the fences will be compatible with the style of the house and will compl y with Code requirements. He stated that the fence is needed to keep his dog on the property. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Lidstrom reviewed the front elevation describing the different types of windows shown. He commented that he has built homes with the various styles of windows before and they add interest to the façade. He stated that he is uncertain about the oval window and acknowledged that may not be the right choice in this case. He confirmed that the elevations presented show different window configurations noting that work is continuing on the details. He stated that a window on the second floor makes sense and fills a void. He stated that he researched the Craftsman style and found homes that have a curved window noting that it is very attractive. He commented on the columns noting that they fill the space on the façade and are proportional to the composition. He noted that the configuration of the columns is different on the two sides to add interest to the house. He stated that the Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 28 of 35 columns are a detail found on many Craftsman houses. He confirmed that the elevations should represent the chimneys as being the same height. Jerry McMassy, architect, stated that the drawings represent the minimum chimney height required by Code but agreed that the lower chimney could be raised to match the taller one. In response to a question from Board member Bleck, the architect verified that garage doors are only proposed on one elevation. He stated that the model misrepresents the garage doors. Board member Ruggles commented that in her opinion, there is a significant amount of work that needs to occur in order to meet the criteria. She stated that the home is not reading as a Craftsman all the way around. Chairman Vignocchi, invited public comment. Thomas Karen, the neighbor across the street, stated that the existing house is not significant and is in severe disrepair commenting that he looks at the property every day. He stated that he is encouraged by this project noting the massing, materials and color choices. He stated that in his opinion, the project is headed in the right direction. Board member Ruggles stated support for the demolition of the existing home noting that it has outgrown its usefulness. She discussed the proposed massing of the replacement house and encouraged exploration of presenting a one story element on the streetscape given the petitioner’s interest in requesting a variance from the setback requirement. She stated support for the hip roof but stated that it appears too shallow and reads as a Mediterranean style. She stated that the floor to ceiling heights appear to be 10’ as shown on the plans, she noted that traditionally, the homes on the street have 9’ to 8’- 6”ceilings. She requested precedent studies for the rear porch, columns, bay windows and arched windows noting that seeing historic precedents will help the Board evaluate how the elements relate to the Craftsman style. She stated concern about applying various elements from different compositions into a single design. Mr. Lidstrom offered that the rear porch can be eliminated and agreed that the ceiling heights on the drawings will be clarified. He commented on the siting noting that an average setback distance of homes along the street was considered and the home is sited to be consistent with the setback of other two-story massing along the streetscape. Chairman Vignocchi thanked the petitioner for his comments noting that the Board is now deliberating and asked the Board for input on the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback. Board member Dugan observed that based on the drawings provided by the petitioner, the siting of the proposed house is forward of the 40 foot setback line but is still sited back from other homes on the street. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 29 of 35 Board member Clair commented that the encroachment into the setback itself is not a concern for him. Board members King and Bleck agreed noting that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to determine whether the project meets the criteria for a setback variance. Board member King questioned the siting of the home if a one story porch element was added. The Board concurred that the entire mass should be setback to accommodate a one story mass in front to maintain the character of the streetscape. Board member Ruggles noted that the arc of surrounding homes should be followed along the street when possible. Board member Clair observed that the front entrance does not have a human scale but instead, the entrance is a two story mass. He noted that the configuration is odd with the appearance of a two story mass over the first floor and the various notches. He stated that the oval window is out of place. He noted some nicely proportioned elements but commented that there is not enough separation between the smaller and larger masses. He added that attention to detailing is needed noting for instance the treatment of the chimneys and uneventful chimney cap. He stated that the window placement is classic on one elevation and more happenstance and romantic on the other elevation. He commented on the rear elevation noting the inconsistencies with the windows and porch placement. He stated that in his opinion, the Arts and Crafts bungalow style is appropriate for the neighborhood. He stated support for the demolition and noted that more work is needed on the massing and detailing and the design needs to be cleaned up before further discussion of the materials. He stated that he would like to see the house softened up. Board member King stated agreement with the comments of Board member Clair and asked for more work on the colors. Chairman Vignocchi summarized that the Board is generally supportive of the demolition but more work is needed on the replacement house to address the items discussed by the Board members including the porches, windows, massing and detailing. She added that references for Craftsman elements should be provided. Board member Dugan made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to refine the petition taking into consideration the comments from the Board and the recommendations in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Ruggles and was unanimously approved by the Board in a vote of 6 – 0. Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 30 of 35 7. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing home and construction of a replacement structure at 587 Illinois Road. Owner: Todd Altounian Representatives: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Vignocchi asked the Board to identify any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Board member Bleck recused himself noting that his firm is involved in the engineering on this property. Peter Witmer thanked the Board for staying late to hear the petition and stated that the existing house has been abandoned for several years and is a strong candidate for demolition. He stated that the existing home has a sidewalk out to Illinois Road and provided an overview off the neighborhood noting the other corner lots in the area. He stated that this is a tight neighborhood without much space between the houses. He noted that this lot consists of two buildable lots. He discussed the siting of the replacement house noting that it is sited closer to Illinois Road than the existing house. He showed a site plan noting that the proposed house is in compliance with the required setbacks. He noted the one story wrap around porch used as a corner feature. He stated that new landscaping will help to define the property and the corner. He stated that a low hedge will hold the edge of the sidewalk and foundation plantings will surround the house. He reviewed the location of the detached garage. He stated that the design of the replacement house and location of the detached garage provides a private back terrace area. He reviewed the driveway configuration noting the intent to protect the trees in the area. He stated that a replacement stockade fence is proposed along the east property line. He showed a perspective of the replacement house noting the double gable scheme which helps to break up the massing. He stated that the design and siting allow s for private and public spaces on the lot given the corner location. He commented on the rear elevation noting the double gable in that area as well. He showed a streetscape elevation and commented on the one and two story structures located in the area. He stated that trees will help to mask the height of the garage and offered that the garage roof pitch could be lowered to be more compatible with the neighborhood. He commented on the detailing of shutters and gables noting the consistency with farmhouse architecture. He stated that the massing is simple. He stated that there is a rhythm to the design, but not strict symmetry. He stated that the first floor is elevated to provide light into the basement. He pointed out that due to square footage constraints; the rear porch shown on the plan is no longer part of the proposal. He reviewed each elevation. He stated that the first floor ceiling height is 9’-0” and the knee wall on the 2nd floor is about 5’-6”. He stated that the siding will be wood shingles. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petitioner provided information to support the demolition and that it appears that the criteria are met. She clarified that neglect or failure to do maintenance is not justification for demolition. She stated that several options for siting the Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 31 of 35 house and garage were reviewed. She stated that currently there is a visual void on the streetscape at this corner. She commented that the proposed siting appears to best balance the impacts on both the Wildwood and Illinois Road streetscapes. She stated that there are limitations on the lot as a result of the corner yard setbacks that directed the placement of the structures. She added that the proposed plan minimizes the amount of impervious surface on the site as opposed to extending a driveway from Illinois Road back to a garage. She welcomed Mr. Witmer’s comment that there is an opportunity to lower the height of the garage given its location adjacent to an outdoor living area of a neighboring home. She noted concern that the window on the rear elevation of the garage could shed light on to private areas of neighboring properties. She asked for Board input and direction on the Wildwood Road elevation of the proposed residence, on the garage and on the driveway configuration. She recommended that the driveway be curved enough to allow sufficient room for a planting bed and screening at the property line. In response to questions from Chairman Vignocchi, Mr. Witmer clarified the proposed and existing grades on the property. He stated that the existing grades are not changing. He stated that the finished first floor is elevated 3 feet above grade to allow natural light into the basement. He stated that the total height of the structure is just less than 30 feet and conforms to the building scale requirements. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Mr. Witmer commented that the tree next to the garage is a Maple and has an interesting low branching shape. He stated that it appears to be in good condition and that the intent is to save the tree. He discussed the railings on the balcony and porch noting that they will be wood with simple square pickets and consistent detailing on both. In response to questions from Board member Dugan, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the garage doors will have smaller panel with divided lites. In response to questions from Board member King, Mr. Witmer stated that two garage doors are possible, but noted that a single door is more practical. In response to comments from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Witmer agreed that the door could be designed to look like two doors, but remain a single door to increase the functionality. In response to questions from Board member King, Mr. Witmer discussed the lowering of the garage roof and window and agreed to make those changes. He noted that with the lowered roof, a single window in the front of the garage might be appropriate. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Witmer commented on the positioning of the house acknowledging that it is about 2-1/2 times the foot print of the existing home. He noted that the scale of the house is broken down with porches. He stated that in his opinion, it will fit into the streetscape noting the two story homes to the west on Illinois Road that are sited forward on the lots. He noted that the width of this Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 32 of 35 double lot supports the house as sited. He reviewed a streetscape drawing pointing out the setback distances of other homes along Illinois Road. He stated that the height of the house is pushed down to the extent possible by limiting the height of the second story. He commented that the house is simple, with appropriate materials, and a detached garage; all elements that are characteristic of this neighborhood. He added that this will be a great family house on a small lot consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He affirmed that he is comfortable with the way the project has come together. Chairman Vignocchi invited public comment. Antoine Pompe, 204 Wildwood, stated that he also owns the property at 175 Wildwood and has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years. He complimented the proposed replacement residence. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of several neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting. He stated several concerns, the first being the garage location with frontage on Wildwood Road. He asked whether anything can be done to make the garage less obtrusive. He stated that l owering the pitch of the roof might help. He asked whether consideration was given to orienting the doors differently. He commented that many of the driveways in the neighborhood are paver stone, not asphalt. He added that most driveways in the neighborhood are narrow, a single lane that expands to a greater width at the garage. He stated that a narrow driveway many not be as convenient, but reduces the amount of driveway and fits better with the neighborhood. He noted that most garages are hidden behind the houses and not as visible from the street as this garage will be. He asked that the large maple tree be protected noting that many large elms have been lost in the neighborhood. Locke Walsh, 595 E. Illinois Road, stated that he is the neighbor to the east and raised several concerns. He noted that the homes to the east of the proposed house are setback further from the street than the homes to the west on Illinois Road. He stated that as a result, when sitting on his front porch, he will be looking into the new house. He stated that the height of the garage and its proximity to the east property line are concerns acknowledging that based on the discussion, the height of the garage will likely be lowered. He noted that the garage should be moved forward, toward Wildwood Road, to allow space for landscaping between his property and the garage to screen his patio and yard. He stated that m oving the garage forward will also help to protect the many maple trees near the back portion of the property stating concern that they will be harmed by construction. He noted that the properties have a wooded appearance and expressed concern that it will be lost. He noted that some of the trees need trimming and that one is split and should be addressed before construction so it does not fall. He noted that the fence proposed for removal is on his property and asked that he be consulted prior to any changes. He discussed the landscape plan noting that landscape screening along the east property line is critical. He asked for the opportunity to review the landscape plan. He noted that the presenter stated that the property will not be re- graded; he noted however that currently, a significant amount of water flows across the property to his back yard. He stated that upon the City’s advice, he put in swales to help direct water to appropriate areas. He noted that doubling the impervious surface on the property is a concern and questioned where the water will go. He stated that he knows Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 33 of 35 that the problem is fixable because the drainage issues were fixed at Farwell Field, across the street. He stated that with these details addressed, the project will enhance the neighborhood although the demolition activity itself will impact the neighborhood. He asked the Board to take his points under consideration. Board member Dugan made a motion to extend the meeting until midnight. The motion was seconded by Board member King and was approved by the Board in a 4 to 1 vote with Board member Clair voting in opposition. Bud Turner, 190 Wildwood Road, asked why the house could not be moved to the west and the driveway moved to Illinois Road. He asked that if the plan remains as presented, a one lane driveway should be required at the curb and the garage should not be moved forward. Chairman Vignocchi invited petitioner’s response to public testimony. Mr. Witmer reviewed the drainage plan noting that the site is being engineered to allow all of the water to be picked up and directed to the storm sewer. He stated that the drainage situation should be improved as a result of the project. He agreed that the height of the garage will be lowered. He confirmed that the location for the garage was given a great deal of thought and it was determined that the proposed location is the best. He agreed to look at enhancing the vegetation to minimize the impacts of the garage. He reviewed the zoning setbacks noting the limits the setbacks place on the options for siting the house due to the property’s location on the corner. He stated that he believes that the replacement house design and siting conforms to the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the garage could be moved forward a few feet if that will help support vegetation on the east side of the garage. He offered that the driveway could be pinched a bit more near the street but noted that currently it is not much wider than a single driveway. He suggested that the driveway could possibly be curved away from the property line a bit more. He stated that the issues raised can be addressed with some slight modifications to the plan. In response to questions from Board member Clair, Ms. Czerniak stated that the condition and capacity of the storm sewer will be reviewed by City engineering staff. She stated that they have preliminarily reviewed the plan and will look more closely at it once the project is submitted for permit. Board member Clair noted that there are objective and subjective aspects of this type of project. He questioned whether someone walking by the house would notice the difference of several feet in setback one way or the other. He noted that there will be distractions to draw attention away in real life versus when seen in elevation. He stated that from a practical standpoint, pulling the garage forward will allow more room for planting behind it. He noted that from the home owner’s experience, the garage should be shifted forward far enough to have the patio exposed to a garden, rather than a garage. He stated that enough issues were raised by the neighbors to justify this petition Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 34 of 35 returning to the Board in final form. He stated support for the demolition noting that one vernacular home would be replaced by another vernacular home. He stated that some refinement is needed to the architecture. He commented that the home is appropriately oriented to the corner. He expressed concern about the lack of articulation of the west elevation, along Wildwood Road. He noted that only a downspout is used to articulate the gable form, rather than pulling the form forward. He urged the addition of some articulation. He commented that bricks should be considered rather than a panel inset of siding under the bay window. He noted areas where two gables come together uneventfully. He commented that on the south elevation, the porch door is not centered but appears to be acceptable. He noted that a window appears to be missing in the mudroom to complete the pattern of the window forms. He observed similar opportunities for refinement and enhancement on the east elevation commenting on various window configurations that are used. He noted the strength of the landscape plan with turf areas and hedges. He asked that the petition be returned to the Board for final action. Board member King stated support for the demolition. He noted that the need to balance the interests of residents on Illinois and Wildwood Road is a challenge. He stated support for moving the garage forward to Wildwood Road slightly to allow space for plantings. He agreed with Board member Clair’s comments on the opportunities to improve upon the various design aspects of the project and stated that he can support approval of the petition with conditions to reflect the Board’s discussion. Board member Dugan stated support for the demolition. She added that she is comfortable with the siting of the house noting that the wrap around porch has an openness to it. She observed that currently, the property appears as a void on the streetscape. She commended the landscaping. She stated support for moving the garage forward and lowering the height. She agreed that landscaping should be added on the east side of the garage. She asked that the colors of the garage and garage roof be carefully selected to m inimize the appearance of the garage. She stated confidence that the engineers will properly direct the drainage on the site. She stated support for moving forward with approval of the project. Chairman Vignocchi asked for further comments on the action desired by the Board. Board member Ruggles stated support for the demolition. She stated concern about the siting of the house acknowledging that it is a corner lot and that the setbacks limit the siting to some extent. She noted however that the square footage on the lot is maximized. She stated that the house will be prominent on the streetscape and questioned whether it will fit into the neighborhood. She commended the use of the porch and gable in an effort to reduce the appearance of scale. She stated that more work is needed on the detailing. She stated that the project has merit but questioned the fit with the neighborhood. Board member Clair suggested that given the hour, it would be in everyone’s best interest to continue the petition noting that the architect appears to have heard the comments. He stated that it is an important piece of property and will be very visible to everyone Building Review Board Minutes – March 6, 2013 Page 35 of 35 traveling down Illinois Road. He stated that the minor improvements needed are worth the time and effort. Board member King made a motion to continue the petition to allow refinement consistent with the comments from the Board and neighboring property owners. Board member Ruggles seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There were no additional public comments. 9. Additional information from staff There was no additional information presented by City staff. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development