Loading...
BRB_2018_03_07_MINUTESBuilding Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 1 of 16 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of March 7, 2018 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:30 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members Fred Moyer, Jim Diamond, Bob Reda, Chris Bires and Ross Friedman Building Review Board members absent: Board member Peter Dunne Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Notz Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the February 7, 2018 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the February 7, 2018 meeting were approved with one clarification as requested by Chairman Notz. 3. Consideration of a request for an extension of approval of the demolition of the residence at 172 N. Ridge Road and a replacement residence. (Previous approval was granted on February 16, 2016 and expires on February 16, 2018). Owner: Eliopoulos Family Limited Partnership (Helen Logarakis 100%) Representative: Scott Renken, Chairman Notz introduced the petition. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Logarakis, representing his wife who is the property owner, explained that two years ago, the Board approved demolition of the residence and the design of a replacement residence. He stated that due to financial and family health issues, the project did not proceed and last month, the approval expired. He stated that the project will proceed as soon as possible. Ms. Czerniak noted that no changes are proposed to the previously approved plan. She confirmed that the Board has in the past approved extensions due to personal Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 2 of 16 circumstances. She stated staff support for the extension. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited comments from the Board or a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to approve an extension of the prior approvals to February 16, 2020 subject to all of the terms of the earlier approval. He noted that if demolition of the existing house is not completed prior to the new expiration date and a permit issued for the replacement residence, all approvals will lapse. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of a replacement residence, attached garage, hardscape and landscape plan at 792 Morningside Drive. (Demolition of the existing residence was approved at the last meeting.) Owner: LK Homes, LLC (Lori Glattly 50%, Ken Hite 50%) Representative: Adam Lyons - The Lyons Group Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Lyons introduced the petition noting that since the last meeting, he refined the plans in response to the Board’s feedback. He stated that the result is a better design. He reviewed the site plan overall noting the existing landscape buffer. He reviewed the areas of focus from the last Board meeting: the garage projection, the linking element between the house and garage, and massing and detailing on the front and east elevations. He compared the site plan and elevations presented at the last meeting with the revised plans now presented for approval. He reviewed the key changes noting that the scale of the dormers was reduced, the roof of the front porch was lowered and the design of the front entry portico was modified. He added that the overall height of the garage was reduced and as a result, the garage has less of a presence benefitting the overall design. He noted that the dormer on the garage was lowered and brought closer to the mass of the roof. He reviewed changes made to the fenestration pointing out that along the front porch; the size of the French doors was reduced. He presented a perspective drawing calling attention to the visual impact of lowering the various elements. He noted that at the inside corner, the door from the linking element now opens on to the front porch, rather than in front of it. He reviewed the west elevation noting the changes from the earlier plan. He stated that the refined design reflects more consistency around the home. He discussed the east elevation noting that the two-story linking element presented a challenge due to the width and height of the element. He explained that by reducing the height of the garage, it now reads as secondary to the massing of the house. He noted that in addition, the linking element was shortened by about five feet to further reduce the appearance of mass and the extent of the projection. He pointed out that on the east elevation, the linking Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 3 of 16 element is now broken horizontally by a pergola and the fascia lines are lower. He added that the east facing gable was pulled out to allow the link to be further recessed on the east elevation. He reviewed the floor plan noting that the changes have minimal impact to the interior spaces. He reviewed the revised site plan noting the increased setback from the front property line due to the shortening of the linking element and projecting garage. He showed some photos of existing residences noting that the revised design is appropriate for Lake Forest. Ms. Czerniak commented that Mr. Lyons’ presentation was thorough adding that the revisions made appear to satisfactorily address the key concerns raised by the Board at the last meeting: the height and mass of the garage and linking element, and the overall detailing on the front elevation. She added that Mr. Lyons completed various massing studies as a follow up to the Board’s discussion. She summarized that the garage projection was shortened, the dormers and front entrance refined, and the link element modified to minimize its presence and break up the east elevation horizontally. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the project. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lyons confirmed that no changes are proposed to the originally proposed exterior materials. Board members Diamond and Bires complimented the architect on the changes made in response to the comments at the earlier meeting. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lyons stated that the color pallet will be monochromatic. He stated that the lower pitch standing seam roof areas will be similar in tone to the asphalt roof. Ms. Glattly added that white trim, black aluminum clad windows, dark gray clapboard siding and a charcoal grey roof are proposed. Board member Moyer commented that the plan has developed nicely noting that the changes address the scale issues and move toward simplicity. He noted that the trim as portrayed in the rendering represents colors within the same family and he encouraged following the color palette as represented. Board member Reda stated appreciation for the efforts made to address the comments and concerns raised by the Board and staff. Chairman Notz complimented the project and thanked the architect and petitioner for responding to the earlier comments. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Lyons confirmed that all of the second floor windows will be consistent. He commented on some of the alternate studies noting that the double shed roofs appear contrived. He stated that visually, from the exterior, the linking element drops a foot he noted however because the hallway in the linking element was shifted slightly, the interior head room drops only Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 4 of 16 eight inches. He confirmed that eight feet of head room is available in the linking element. He confirmed that the space above the third garage bay, where the roof steps down, is unfinished. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board and a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the design of the replacement residence, site plan and conceptual landscape plan as a follow up to the prior Board recommendation in support of the demolition of the existing residence at 792 Morningside Drive. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and further supported by the testimony presented and the Board’s deliberations. He stated that the recommendation in support of the project is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to rough inspections. Particular attention shall be paid to whether the existing vegetation along the east and west property lines is adequate, after grading impact, and whether additional plantings are necessary to screen the motor court, garage doors and the expanded mass of the house. 2. At a minimum, inch for inch replacement shall be provided for the Maple tree at the rear of the house that is proposed for removal. The landscape plan shall reflect how the replacement inches are provided for on the site. 3. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted along with plans submitted for permit. Any proposed exterior lighting must be shown on the plan. Illustrations of fixtures should be included to demonstrate that light is directed downward and that all light sources are screened from view. The plan shall include a note that all lights shall be put on timers and turned off no later than 11 p.m. 4. The plans submitted for permit shall detail any areas of change from the plans presented to the Board that may occur through the design development process and shall fully address the above recommendations and be consistent with Board direction. Staff shall review the plans for consistency with the Board’s approvals in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate. 5. A materials staging and construction parking plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review by the City Engineer, City Arborist and Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a permit. No parking is permitted on Woodland Road The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a 6 to 0 vote. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 5 of 16 5. Consideration of a request for a building scale variance to allow construction of a second story addition to the residence at 653 Rockefeller Road. Owners: Mike and Nanette Caruso Representatives: Robert Scales, contractor and Stephen Klumpp, architect Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Caruso introduced the petition noting that he moved into the home two years ago and would like to make the existing space more useable. He noted the area of the roof that will be filled in noting that due to the current configuration, the roof leaks. Mr. Scales stated that a variance is requested to allow the infill addition of about 341 square feet. Ms. Czerniak explained that the existing residence was constructed prior to the current building scale limitations and as a result, is 125 feet over the allowable square footage. She stated that with the proposed addition of 341 square feet, the total overage will be 7 percent. She stated that the requested variance would allow a small addition to the residence. She noted however that the proposed addition will extend the roof mass and will be visible from the street. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Caruso stated that he does not have any presentation material noting that the available material is included in the Board’s packet. He confirmed that the ridge of the roof of the addition will be no higher than the ridge of the existing roof. Board member Moyer observed that a large house, is getting bigger, but noted that the property is large and the proposed addition does not appear to crowd the neighboring homes or impact the surrounding area. He stated that the present composition is somewhat more interesting than the proposed composition. He noted that the existing nice relationship of the large roof to the other elements of the house will be lost. He stated however that as proposed, the addition is generally sensitive to the existing residence. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Caruso presented a model. He stated that the existing roof is cedar, and is 20 years old. He stated that some of the existing cedar shingles may be harvested to mix in with the new materials. He confirmed that cedar shingles will be used on the new roof, consistent with the existing materials. Board member Friedman encouraged consideration of replacing the entire roof, given its age, noting that the end result will be better and will avoid a clear delineation between the existing and new roof. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 6 of 16 Chairman Notz agreed that it will be difficult to match the existing cedar and that the new element will be apparent. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Scales confirmed that there are some problems with leaks in the gap area that is proposed for infilling because the existing roof in that area is flat. He explained that the original saddle was not built properly. Board member Bires stated support for the additional square footage given the size of the property and existing landscape screening. In response to a question from Board member Diamond. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that in general, the variance appears to satisfy the criteria and the proposed addition is not excessive. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Scale explained that the skylight is in a bathroom. Chairman Notz commented that the proposed addition is not imposing and does not extend the footprint of the house. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. John Shustitizky, 675 Rockefeller Road, stated support for the project commenting that it will be good for the home and for the neighborhood. He asked that during construction, consideration be given to placing the dumpster out of sight and limiting construction parking to the driveway. He asked that the permitted construction hours be strictly enforced. He explained that he is in the process of selling his home and does not want the construction project to interfere with that process. Chairman Notz invited a response from the petitioner to the public testimony. Mr. Caruso agreed to conform to the approved construction hours and to do what is possible to minimize impacts on the neighborhood during construction. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a staging and construction vehicle parking plan will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit and the start of construction. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition including the requested building scale to allow the construction of a 341 square foot addition as presented to the Board and a 7 percent building scale overage. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings as presented in the staff report and further supported by the testimony presented and the Board’s deliberations. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 7 of 16 1. Any modifications made to the plans, either in response to comments from the Board or as a result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 2. All exterior lighting shall be directed downward, not out. All sources of light shall be fully screened by fixtures and not be visible from off of the site. Cut sheets of all exterior light fixtures shall be submitted along with construction plans submitted for permit. 3. A materials staging and construction parking plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review by the City Engineer, City Arborist and Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a permit. Any dumpster placed on the property shall be placed as far back on their property as possible to minimize the appearance. Construction vehicles shall be parked on the driveway or in front of 653 Rockefeller, not in front of other homes. 4. The construction hours shall be strictly enforced based on City Code. The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and was approved by the Board by a vote of 6 to 0. 6. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the design aspects of a new hotel, Lake Forest Hyatt Place, in Conway Park, at 200 Field Drive. The Board will consider building design, massing, details and exterior materials and all exterior lighting, landscaping and signage. Owner: Laurel Avenue Lake Forest LTD Partnership c/o Janko Group (Trillium Investments, Inc., Gary Janko, Janko Financial Group LLC, JFLT, LLC) Representative: Stephen Wright, Principal, Wright Heerema Architects Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. He reiterated that the petitioner is a customer of the bank, but not his customer. He stated that he can rule on the petition objectively. Mr. Wright noted that since the last meeting, the Board’s comments have been full addressed. He noted that revisions were made to assure that the roof top mechanical equipment is fully screened. He confirmed that no changes were made in the overall design or exterior materials since the last meeting. He introduced the landscape architect. David McCallum, landscape architect, stated that since the last meeting, he met Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 8 of 16 with the City Arborist on the site and agreed on the trees that are appropriate for removal because they are either in poor condition or in conflict with the driveway location. He stated that none of the trees proposed for removal are significant. He noted that they reviewed the plant pallet and discussed screening of the pool terrace. He noted that a section the sidewalk near the pool was removed to allow space for additional ornamental trees and other landscaping in the area. He confirmed that the City Arborist will be consulted at the time of planting. Mr. Wright reviewed the lighting plan stating that 25 foot poles are proposed, on a three foot concrete base consistent with other parking lot lighting in Conway Park. He noted that if the poles are reduced in height, the tradeoff is more light poles to achieve the same coverage. He stated that the plan as presented achieves the right balance for this site. He stated the intent to highlight the central building element on the east and west elevations. He explained that a dimmable LED light is proposed adding that the color temperature can be controlled and directed to only shine up on the center element. He stated that once the fixture is installed, it can be adjusted with staff to achieve the right effect. He spoke to signage noting that the monument sign is in compliance with the City regulations but does not quite conform to the regulations of Conway Park. He stated that the final details will be resolved with the Association noting however that the sign will not get any larger. He reviewed the wall signage proposed at the top of the building on the west and east elevations. He explained that hotels need a different type of signage than office buildings. He acknowledged that staff recommended holding off on the approval of signage on the east elevation until after the building is constructed and a mock up can be installed to allow the Board and staff to understand the impact, or lack thereof. He stated that although they would like approval of the signage as proposed, they are willing to proceed as suggested by staff. He confirmed that there will be a directional sign at the driveway entrance to direct people to the hotel, or in the future, to the office building. He noted that the entrance has been modified and now provides two entrance lanes to allow a left turn into the hotel and the ability to proceed west. He stated the intention to work with the City and Conway Park to determine whether off site signage is appropriate. Ms. Czerniak noted that as Mr. McCallum described, the City Arborist had the opportunity to walk the site and review the plans and is in full support of what is proposed. She stated that the parking lot lighting as proposed is consistent with the lighting throughout the office park. She stated that the proposed building up lighting is not permitted by the Code however, the Board can recommend approval of a variance to allow the up lighting given the uniqueness of the hotel use and the location of the building away from residential development. She added that the ability to adjust the intensity, color and temperature of the lighting after installation will allow for staff review and modification if necessary, to assure compatibility with the surroundings. She added that Lake Forest is a right to night, dark sky community so minimizing intrusive lighting is important. She added that turning off the up lighting at a certain time during the night, may be appropriate on the east elevation. She added that the staff recommendation, in support of limited building up lighting, is Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 9 of 16 based on the uniqueness of the use of the building and the location of the site. She added that the authority for the building up lighting will also be subject to approval by the Conway Park Owners’ Association noting that the City has worked closely with the Association in the past to align approvals for developments in the office park. She reviewed the variance requested for the proposed signage noting that the Code limits signage to the first floor. She explained that signage above the first floor requires a variance. She stated staff support for a variance to allow signage on the west elevation, at the top of the building. She noted that the letters as proposed are two feet, 4 inches tall, much larger than lettering normally approved by the Board. She added that a multicolor logo is also proposed and suggested that the logo itself, could be considered a single color and in that way, could be permitted as the accent color, a third color, as allowed by the Conway Park signage guidelines. She explained that staff is recommending that consideration of the sign proposed at the top of the building, on the east elevation, be deferred until after the building is constructed to allow the Board to understand the visibility and impact of the proposed sign in the context of the office park. She noted that a mockup of proposed signage is often required by the Board. She noted that a sign at the top of the building on the west elevation, adjacent to the Tollway, will be visible from considerable distance. She pointed out that on the east elevation, the views are shorter and staff is recommending approval of a monument sign on the street frontage which may be adequate to identify the hotel from within the office park. She added that the Board may want to direct staff to consult with the petitioner and the Conway Park Owners’ Association to determine where directional signs may be needed along the public streets. She stated that the proposed monument sign conforms to the Code requirements but slightly exceeds the Conway Park signage limitations. She noted that the petitioner will need to work with the Owners’ Association to resolve that issue. She noted that at the last meeting, the Board asked the petitioner to reconsider the visibility of the pool terrace from the parking lot and sidewalk. She noted that the sidewalk near the pool terrace was removed to provide more space for landscaping. She noted that findings in support of the petition are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that approval of building up lighting could set a precedent for other hotels and suggested that if the Board chooses to recommend approval of the up lighting, the distinguishing features of this particular petition, such as the location of the hotel wholly within an office park, be included in the findings supporting the recommendation. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. McCallum stated that the landscaping around the pool terrace as now proposed is about six feet in height. Board member Bires stated support for a variance to allow a sign at the top of the hotel, on the west elevation, because of the adjacency to the Tollway. He agreed that various options should be considered for signage on the east elevation. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wright said that bronze or Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 10 of 16 charcoal light poles and fixtures are proposed. He stated that LED lights will be used adding that the light fixtures will be smaller than the old shoebox style fixture used elsewhere in the office park. He confirmed that the intensity of the light will be adjustable. He confirmed that the east and west elevations are consistent in design. He reviewed the sign proposed for the top of the building noting that it is within the 250 square foot limitation and stating that the letters are 2’4” tall in order to be readable from the Tollway at 60 miles an hour. He commented that a similar scale on the east elevation seems to be appropriate. Board member Friedman stated support for deferring consideration of the sign proposed for the top of the building, on the east elevation, until a mock up can be installed to provide some certainty on how the sign will relate to the building and the office park. He stated support for up lighting the central core of the building with the light diminishing as the evening wears on out of consideration for potential views from neighboring properties and off site light impacts. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wright confirmed that the light will be adjustable adding that the new technology in lighting is amazing and provides for greater control than in the past. He stated that no generator is proposed on the site but noted that if one is needed, it will be located within the trash enclosure. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Wright explained that although landscaping was added around the pool terrace and patio areas, the goal was not to completely enclose the space, but to achieve a good balance between openness and privacy. Board member Moyer commented that the Board’s recommendations on this petition should be seen as a precedent for other hotel developments in the I-94 corridor, but not for projects in other areas of Lake Forest. He noted that the conditions of this petition are unique in that it is located in an area that serves as a transition between Lake Forest and the rest of the world. He commented that some discretion is still appropriate but noted that the design team applied appropriate discretion in the design of the building. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the petitioner is seeking variances 1) to allow a sign above the first floor, at the top of the building, 2) to allow a multi-colored logo and 3) to allow up lighting on the buildings. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Wright explained that the up light is intended to illuminate the central element in an upward direction, toward the sign at the top of the building. He stated that the light fixture will be mounted to the building. Chairman Notz suggested that consideration might be given to frosting the lower parts of the windows in the gym and pool areas for privacy. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 11 of 16 In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the overall size of the sign proposed on the west elevation meets the Code requirements. She noted however, that due to the location of the sign, at the top of the building, the letters are larger than those used for most signs, for readability. She clarified that the proposed location of the sign at the top of the building, above the first floor requires a variance. She added that the proposed multi-color graphic exceeds the three colors permitted on signs in Conway Park. She suggested that the graphic itself could be considered a single color. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Wright stated that no signage is planned above the entrance to the hotel but the building address will need to be visible from the street. Chairman Notz agreed with Board member Moyer’s comments noting that the two hotels on the west side of the Tollway are very visible. He stated that this hotel must be visible to compete with the nearby hotels. He stated that in his opinion, there are extenuating circumstances that call for consideration of the sign at the top of the building on the west elevation and for consideration of signage on the east side of the building either now or a later time. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Ernie Saunders, Conway Park Owners’ Association, stated that the Association submitted a letter to the Board opposing the signage proposed at the top of the building on the east elevation. He noted however, that the Association is willing to consider the signage further in the future as suggested by staff. He stated that although the monument sign meets the City’s requirements, it deviates from other signs in the office park. He stated that the Association will consider the proposed monument sign. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Notz invited final questions from the Board. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Conway Park Owners’ Association’s requirements for monument signs are more restrictive than the City’s requirements. She suggested that the Board consider the monument sign as proposed noting that after discussions with the Association, the sign may get a bit smaller. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition including the sign at the top of the building on the west elevation, use of the multi-color graphic on the approved signs, and up lighting of the center element of the building on the east and west elevations. He noted that consideration of signage at the top of the building, Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 12 of 16 on the east elevation, is deferred until the building is constructed and a mock-up can be installed at which time the Board will take up the matter. He noted that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report and added that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The roof top mechanicals shall be fully screened from all views from off the site. 2. The submittal for building permit shall include a detailed, full size landscape plan which will be subject to review and final approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. a. The landscape plan shall provide for screening of the patio areas with landscaping, walls or fences, alone or in some combination, to provide for some privacy and protection of those areas from the parking lot. b. At the time of plantings, in the field adjustments should be made in consultation with the City’s Certified Arborist based on plant materials that are available and adjustments that are deemed appropriate as development of the site takes shape. 3. The submittal for building permit shall include detail on the lighting intended for the central tower element. Detail on the fixture type, location and area of illumination should be provided. a. Intensity of the light on the tower element shall be subject to review and approval by staff after installation. If determined to be appropriate, different lighting levels on the tower elements on the east and west elevations may be required and, lowering the intensity of lighting in the later evening hours may be required by staff if determined to be appropriate. 4. The height of the light poles in the parking Iot and around the building shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. 5. The submittal for permit shall include detailed drawings of the signage including information on materials, how the letters will be mounted and details of the lighting proposed. a. The signage lighting shall be limited to ground lighting or back lighting. b. A plan for any directional or informational signage on the site shall be submitted, shall be in conformance with the Conway Park signage regulations, and be subject to staff review and approval. c. City staff is directed to work with the Conway Park Owners’ Association and the petitioner to evaluate the opportunity for directional signage in Conway Park and on Route 60 in an effort to assist in getting people to the hotel. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 13 of 16 The motion was seconded by Board member Bires and was approved by the Board by a vote of 6 to 0. 7. Consideration of a request for approval of modifications to previously approved plans for the Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes. Owner: K. Hovnanian at Amberley Woods, LLC Representative: Richard Swanson, architect , Chairman Notz introduced the project. He asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest, hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Swanson introduced the petition noting that he was the original developer and built the first two homes in Amberley Woods. He stated that in response to the changing market, he was asked to prepare some revisions to the previously approved home designs. He noted that buyers today are interested in smaller homes with nice amenities and less maintenance. He noted that the previously approved homes are 3,200 to 3,800 square feet. He stated that the re-designed plans propose homes ranging from 2,200 to 3,100 square feet. He noted that the development is located on the south side of Amberley Court, west of Conway Farms Drive and is comprised of 24 narrow single family lots averaging about 7,500 square feet. He noted that the average width of the lots is 60 feet adding that most of the lots back up to and face preserved open space. He noted that five of the lots are developed and the homes occupied. He noted that four of the existing homes are designed in the English Country style and one house is designed in the Shingle style. He noted the closeness of the homes to each other adding that as a result, most of the design emphasis is on the front elevations. He noted the mature trees on the site. He stated that the revised designs for the houses include less square footage, but all embrace the English Country style and are consistent with the scale of the existing homes. He reviewed the proposed changes to the previously approved exterior materials noting that seamless aluminum gutters and downspouts, synthetic LP fascia and trim, LP timbers and stucco board panels are now proposed to reduce costs and maintenance, and for durability. He added that the extent of masonry on the less visible elevations is reduced and sheet metal flashing in concealed areas is also proposed. He stated that no changes are proposed to the previously approved cedar shingle roofing or the copper roofing on decorative and exposed areas. He stated that stone or face brick veneer is proposed. He added that the color palettes are unchanged from the previous approvals. He noted that aluminum clad, simulated divided lite windows are proposed along with decorative overhead garage doors. He explained that LP timbers are proposed because they are a sustainable product, last longer, maintain the color as installed, and because of cost. He stated that the homes as proposed will not appear as tract or production housing and will have some level of customization. He reviewed the various floor plans and the anti-monotony parameters which will assure diversity of homes as buildout occurs. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 14 of 16 Ms. Czerniak noted that since the original approvals, various modifications have come forward to the Board in an effort to find the right design for the Courtyard Homes. She noted that the configuration of the 24 lots dictate a long, narrow house. She stated that the English Country theme is retained with the present designs. She stated that the most significant change the Board is asked to consider is the replacement of some natural exterior materials with synthetic products. She stated that the Board has approved the use of synthetic materials in commercial applications and in limited ways for single family homes. She asked for Board input on the proposed exterior materials. She confirmed that the original approvals included a proto-type landscape plan for each property. She also confirmed that as plans are submitted for permit, they are reviewed for conformance with the anti-monotony parameters to assure some variation between homes. In response to questions from Board member Reda, to Ms. Czerniak stated that she cannot recall the Board approving the use of stucco boards in place of true cement stucco. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Swanson stated that he is trying to help his client find a less expensive but attractive solution. He reiterated that the visibility of the side elevations is limited but he acknowledged that he cannot make a strong argument for using the stucco board. Board member Reda noted that the Board has been supportive of limited use of synthetic materials on commercial projects but noted concern about over use of synthetic materials on residential buildings. He questioned whether the roof components are overly massive. Board member Moyer noted that the talent of the architect is evident through the different design options. He stated that he is inclined to be more lenient with respect to the use of synthetic materials given the context of the development and closeness of the homes. He noted however that he values the past decisions of the Board with respect to natural materials and does not want to back away from that position generally. Board member Friedman agreed with Board member Moyer that the sense of style and scale presented is appropriate for Lake Forest. He stated that in his opinion, some of the roof lines are overwhelming for the selected style and asked that consideration be given to scaling down the roof elements. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Swanson confirmed that all of the driveways will be asphalt with paver accents with an emphasis on the pavers. He confirmed that the English Country style is in keeping with the earlier homes and the historic home on the property. Board member Friedman noted that the dilemma of natural versus synthetic materials is ongoing. He stated that the Board has consistently supported the use of Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 15 of 16 natural materials recognizing that they require maintenance. He noted that if the home is not maintained, then the purpose is defeated. He pointed out that synthetic materials do not patina over time. He acknowledged that synthetic materials are getting better, but noted that over use tends to create the appearance of a manufactured development. He stated support for a compromise allowing some use of synthetic products recognizing that the community does not want this property to sit vacant forever. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Swanson stated that currently, the price points are $1.1 to $1.2 million. He stated that the goal is to offer homes in the mid-$700,000’s and low $800,000’s. In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Swanson explained that there could be five ranch homes in a row, but they would not all look the same. He stated that the intent is to have a mix of ranch and two story homes that flow appropriately. He confirmed that there are preserved open spaces on the site. Board member Diamond stated that he supports the project but would like to see natural materials used. He agreed that further study of the roof lines is appropriate. Chairman Notz, acknowledged that likely, to achieve the arches, synthetic trim pieces would be used. He cautioned that with the use of synthetic siding, the seams can stand out and become a significant distraction from a quality design. He questioned how the stucco panels would appear. In response to questions from Chairman Notz on the large expanses of wall on the side elevations of the Clovelly design, Mr. Swanson explained that the expanse of wall is intended to offer options with furniture layout. He noted that shutters are proposed to create a pattern and break up the expanse of wall. He noted that a key cost saving item proposed is the change from copper to aluminum gutters. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Wayne Urbanik, 2025 Amberley Court, stated that he bought one of the Amberley Courtyard homes to downsize from his larger home. He stated that the developer, K. Hovnanian, assured him that all of the homes would be built with the same level of quality of those already constructed. He stated objection to the use of cheaper exterior materials noting that it would reduce the value of his home. He also expressed concern about the proposed ranch style home noting that the existing homes are two story homes. He asked that the Board not approve the use of synthetic materials. Nancy Samuelson, 2035 Amberley Court, stated that true cement stucco was used on her home. She stated that the proposed home designs look attractive and continue the English Cottage theme, but asked that natural materials be used. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 16 of 16 Mr. Swanson thanked the Board for the comments. He stated that he is a fan of quality design and materials and is pleased to hear that true cement stucco was used on the homes constructed to date in the development. He stated that he cannot make the case that stucco board is the right solution. Board member Friedman recommended that true stucco be used. He stated that synthetic materials should not be used for curved detailing. He recommended using cedar for the board and batten detailing but suggested that in this case, synthetic material be allowed for the soffits as long as the material appears elegant and appropriate. Mr. Swanson agreed that a balance of natural and synthetic materials is a good approach. He noted that in the past, he has worked well with staff to resolve final details. He stated that the massing and scale the proposed homes are in keeping with the existing homes in the development. He stated appreciation for the comments of the neighbors and stated that he respects their input. In response to comments about the roof forms from other Board members, Chairman Notz stated that he is comfortable with the roof forms as proposed from a scale and proportion standpoint. Board member Friedman noted a few instances where some refinement of the roof forms would be helpful. Board member Reda noted that wood is prominent on the homes and as a result, true wood should be encouraged. He stated that if stucco boards are used, any visibility should be minimal. Board member Moyer cautioned that if the roof forms are lowered, the homes will move into the category of an average house. He added that in this case, the window on the large expanse of wall is mitigated by the relationships of the various design elements. Board member Friedman encouraged the use of natural materials to the extent feasible. He stated that although copper gutters would enhance the homes, there is a benefit to the community in seeing this development built out. He stated that if aluminum gutters and downspouts are used, they should be thoughtfully selected to match the fascia boards and should not make a statement. He stated that true stucco should be used. He noted that given the natural setting of the homes, natural materials, that patina over time, would be the best fit. Board member Diamond agreed that true wood and stucco should be used. He agreed that the use of aluminum gutters and downspouts is acceptable as a compromise. Building Review Board Minutes – March 7, 2018 Page 17 of 16 Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member recommend approval of the revised designs for the Amberley Woods Courtyard homes based on the findings detailed in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The use of natural materials is encouraged overall. 2. The use of true cement is required, no use of stucco boards is permitted. 3. The use of wood is required for the board and batten elements. The use of synthetic materials for the trim, although discouraged, is permitted. 4. Aluminum gutters and downspouts are permitted and must match the trim as opposed to stand out. The motion was seconded by Board member Moyer and was approved by the Board by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 8. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 9. Additional information from staff. No additional information was presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development