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