Loading...
BRB_2018_11_07_MINUTESBuilding Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 1 of 10 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of November 7, 2018 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, November 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, Jim Diamond, Fred Moyer, Ross Friedman, and Richard Walther Building Review Board members absent: Chris Bires and Bob Reda Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development and Jennifer Baehr, Assistant Planner 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 October 3, 2018 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the October 3, 2018 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a building scale variance to allow for a kitchen and garage addition at 1052 Buena Road. Owners: Jim & Sophia Koliatsis Representative: Victoria Lidstrom, designer Chairman Notz asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Lidstrom introduced the project on behalf of the property owners, Jim and Sophia Koliatis. She stated that the intent of the project is to build a kitchen and garage addition. She noted that the additions will result in a 1.16% overage in the allowable square footage for the property. She explained that the house is a split- level home and the interior living space extends over five different levels throughout the home, resulting in small interior spaces. She stated that the driveway extension required to access the proposed garage addition will require removal of a large Oak tree. She added that there is also a Maple tree located adjacent to the rear kitchen addition and the petitioners plan to protect that tree Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 2 of 10 during construction. She stated that the proposed additions will match the exterior materials on the existing house. She added that the additions are designed with hip roof forms to match those of the existing house. She stated that the proposed additions will meet the property owners living and storage space needs. Ms. Baehr stated that the existing house has a front facing garage so the addition of the garage facing the street is not out of character for the residence. She added that the rear addition is an extension of the existing kitchen and will not impact the streetscape. She explained that with the proposed garage and rear addition the total square footage of the house will be 54 square feet over the maximum allowed for the property. She confirmed that to provide access to the garage addition, a driveway extension is proposed that will require the removal of a large Oak tree. She added that because the Oak tree is healthy and due to its size, considered a heritage tree, double inch for inch replacement is recommended by the City’s Certified Arborist. She explained that the property is large enough to accommodate replacement tree inches on-site. She noted that if the replacement inches cannot be accommodated on site, payment in lieu of on-site replacement of the required tree inches will be required to support tree plantings in the parkways in the surrounding area. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Lidstrom stated that a landscape plan is being developed and will reflect the required replacement tree inches. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Lidstrom stated that the siding of the garage will match the siding on the existing house. She added that brick is not proposed for the garage addition because the existing brick will be difficult to match. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Lidstrom stated that the depth of the garage addition is intended to provide the owners with additional storage space. She added that the existing garage is a very small two- car garage and does not offer enough space vehicles and storage. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. Czerniak stated that double inch for inch replacement is recommended because the Oak tree of high quality and because of its size, is considered a heritage tree. Board member Moyer stated that although the petitioner has not yet provided a landscape plan, the required replacement inches will help to mitigate the loss of the tree and the impact the front addition will have on the streetscape. He stated that the proposed additions to the house and enhanced landscaping will be an improvement to the property. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. Lidstrom stated that any improvements required by City engineering staff will be followed to address Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 3 of 10 any drainage concerns resulting from the proximity of the garage addition to the neighboring property to the north. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Koliatsis agreed that the use of brick on the additional garage bay could be considered if matching brick can be found. Board member Moyer commented that given the small front facing area on the proposed garage bay that would be brick, in his opinion, there would not be enough brick to make a statement. Chairman Notz agreed that the front façade of the proposed garage bay has very little surface area that could be clad in brick since the garage door takes up most of the front façade of the proposed addition. He suggested that the choice of siding on the front façade of the new garage bay be left up to the petitioner. He added that it may be worthwhile to reconsider the configuration of the garage in order to make the space more functional, He noted that as proposed, the width of the garage is only 10 feet. Board member Moyer pointed out that if the garage is widened, the roof line will rise on the north elevation. Board member Friedman stated that landscaping is critical for the success of this project. He stated that adequate plantings will be needed. He stated that the Board considers building scale variances carefully with an eye to creating a precedent. He observed that the garage addition can be reduced to comply with building scale limitation while still providing functional space. Chairman Notz agreed with Board member Friedman that the project should be modified to comply with building scale requirements. He added that, in his opinion, the additional garage bay on the front façade helps to balance the house. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of two additions, one for an expanded kitchen, the other, an additional garage bay. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and incorporates the Board’s discussion and testimony presented. He noted that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The additions shall be reconfigured to conform to the allowable square footage. 2. If brick is used on the garage, it shall match the brick of the existing house. 3. If any modifications are made to the plans that were presented to the Board, Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 4 of 10 either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications 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. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted reflecting the required replacement inches, 78 inches, for the Oak tree that will need to be removed. The plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. If the required replacement inches cannot be accommodated on the site using good forestry practices, a payment in lieu of on-site planting will be required to support plantings along the parkways in the surrounding neighborhood. 5. A pre and post construction tree maintenance and protection plan shall be submitted along with the building permit application to assure that all appropriate steps are taken in an effort to preserve the Maple tree in the rear yard. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. If the long term health of the tree cannot be assured due to construction impacts, replacement tree inches shall be to compensate for the loss of the tree in the rear yard. 6. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view by the fixture or by sight obscuring glass. 7. A plan for construction parking and materials staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a demolition of an existing residence and attached garage located at 220 Foster Place and approval of a replacement residence, attached garage, landscape plan, and overall site plan. Owners: John & Lisa Staton Representative: Doug Reynolds, Reynolds Architecture 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. Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Reynolds introduced the project. He stated that the existing house on the property has been vacant for a number of years and has flooding and structural issues. He stated that demolition of the existing residence is proposed along with a new single family residence. He reviewed the proposed siting of the new residence noting that it is parallel to Foster Place. He noted the parking area at the front of the residence and the more private parking area adjacent to the garage, at the side of the house. He stated that the house is designed in the “French Manor” architectural style. He explained that the massing of the house is broken into sections with steeply pitched roofs and formal architectural elements. He reviewed the proposed landscaping, a variety of plantings intended to screen the site and foundation plantings. He stated that the materials of the residence include lannonstone, slate roof tiles, limestone detailing and copper gutters and downspouts. He added that the property owners would like to use gas light fixtures on the exterior. Ms. Baehr stated that the existing house on the property does not appear to have significant architectural or historic value, and adaptive reuse of the house would likely result in significant demolition and potentially, a subpar end product. She explained that the proposed residence and parking court proposed in front of the house are sited closer to Foster Place than the existing residence. She suggested that consideration be given to shifting the residence further back on the site to allow more space for landscaping to screen the parking court and to allow the parking court to be located behind the front yard setback as required by the Code. She explained that as proposed, the top of the foundation on the west end of the house is approximately seven feet above the existing grade. She suggested that consideration be given to stepping down the house as it moves toward the west property line to avoid the appearance from extensive height. She added that as an alternative, extensive landscaping could be installed to minimize the visual impact of the increased height from the streetscape and neighboring properties. She noted that the neighbor to the east expressed concern about storm water runoff from the property given the proposed grade changes and increased impervious surface. She noted that the neighbor also asked that adequate landscaping be required to screen the garage and driveway. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Reynolds stated that the site will be regraded in an effort to soften the existing grades. He acknowledged that the foundation of the house could be stepped down to minimize the amount of fill on the site but noted that doing so would cause some difficulties with the interior floor plan. Board member Friedman observed that the architectural style of the house and the massing at the west end does not allow for a stepped foundation. Board member Moyer stated that the proposed residence is a great improvement over the existing house. He observed that the proposed driveway and parking Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 6 of 10 court appear to be undersized and as a result, will not well. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Reynolds stated that the design of the driveway and parking court was driven by the zoning setbacks. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the City Code does not permit parking courts in the front yard setback but noted that the house could be shifted back on the site and enlarged outside of the front yard setback. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Reynolds agreed to consider shifting the house further back on the site in order to create a more functional parking court that also complies with zoning requirements. Board member Moyer suggested that consideration be given to modifying the windows to make them more vertical. He added that the shutters should be appropriately sized for the windows and observed that the house would appear more elegant without shutters. He noted that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation provided comments and suggestions which could benefit the project relating to the design of the front entry and the proportions of the windows. He encouraged the petitioner to consider the Foundation’s comments. Chairman Notz stated agreed that the shutters are a disservice to the design of the house. He suggested that detailing could be used in place of shutters. Board member Friedman stated that the shutters on the triple windows are not appropriate because they are not properly sized for the windows. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Reynolds stated that half-round gutters are proposed. He stated that as proposed, the soffit and fascia are a synthetic product. He acknowledged that the City’s Design Guidelines encourage the use of natural materials. He stated that the front door is mahogany and the garage doors are painted wood with glass on the upper sections. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Reynolds confirmed that the historic garden wall will be preserved and is located away from the area where construction will occur. He added that the historic garden wall will be protected during construction with fencing. He stated that the porch columns are fiberglass. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Howard Elies, 262 Foster Place, stated concern about the lack of landscaping between his property to the east and the proposed residence. He stated that the proposed landscaping on the east side of the property does not appear Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 7 of 10 adequate to screen views of the garage and driveway from his home. He added that he is concerned that the new residence and significant hardscape surface will change the drainage patterns in the area. He explained that with the proposed regrading on the site, water may not be able to continue to naturally flow from east to the west across the property proposed for redevelopment. He stated that if flows are impeded, significant pooling and standing water will occur on his property. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that significant grading is proposed on the site. She explained that as part of the plan review process the City Engineer will look closely at the overland flow pattern to assure that proper flow routes are maintained, to ensure that the project meets good engineering practices and to confirm that the project does not cause negative impacts to surrounding properties. She added that the Board may want to add a condition to assure that landscape screening is provided on the east side of the property to screen the garage and driveway. In response to questions from Elizabeth Norton, 237 Onwentsia Road, Mr. Reynolds stated that the height of the residence is approximately 28 feet from the proposed grade, and about 37 feet from existing grade. He stated that the chimneys rise 3 to 4 feet above the roofline. Bob Graham, 181 Foster Place, stated that the property features unusual topography. He stated confidence that the City Engineer will ensure that there will be no adverse drainage impacts on the surrounding area as a result of the construction of the new residence. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Notz asked the Board for final comments. Board member Moyer suggested that if the shutters remain, the appearance could be softened by using a paint color that is closer to the color of the stone. Chairman Notz encouraged the petitioners to revisit the appropriateness of the shutters reiterating that removing the shutters may enhance the overall design. He added that it is important that stormwater is directed away from the house and that the existing overland drainage pattern be maintained to avoid negatively impacting surrounding properties. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of the new residence, attached garage, hardscape, conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s discussion as additional findings. He noted that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 8 of 10 1. The plans shall be revised as follows: a. The siting of the residence shall be shifted further back on the site to provide sufficient space for a functional parking court located outside of the front yard setback. b. Consideration shall be given to elimination of the shutters to simply the overall design of the residence. If shutters are desired, they must be properly sized for the windows and detailed with traditional hardware whether or not the shutters are functional. c. The elevations submitted for permit shall clearly reflect the intended architectural detail. 2. Due to significant grade changes, close attention shall be paid to storm water management on the site. Drainage and landscape plans shall not conflict. 3. If additional modifications are made to the plans that were presented to the Board, beyond those detailed above, either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications 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. 4. A final landscape plan shall be submitted along with the plans submitted for permit and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist is directed to review the plans with particular attention to the following. a. The plans shall reflect substantial layered landscaping to screen views of the motor court from the streetscape. b. The plans shall reflect substantial layered landscaping along the east to screens views of the east facing garage and driveway area; and also along the west property to mitigate the impact of the height of the house recognizing that a considerable amount of re-grading and fill is proposed at the west end of the house. c. The plans shall clearly identify all tree removal that is planned and a tree survey to allow the calculation of tree inches removed. d. The plans shall clearly detail all trees and existing vegetation intended to remain. Proposed tree protection measures shall be detailed for trees on the site that are intended to be protected and preserved during construction and protection measures that will be taken, if any, e. Particular attention shall be paid to whether the existing vegetation after grading impact is maintained and whether additional plantings are necessary to screen the parking courts and garage mass. Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 9 of 10 5. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets of all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view by the fixture or by sight obscuring glass. 6. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. All parking of construction vehicles shall be accommodated on site. No street parking is permitted due to the narrow street. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and was approved by a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Consideration of a request for approval for signage and an awning for a new business at 207 E. Westminster. Owner: William Marlatt Tenant: Belden Interiors Representatives: Joanne Walgreen, Belden Interiors Steve Normandy, Acme Awning Company 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. Normandy introduced the project. He stated that the business owner would like to install an awning, on the awning frame used by the previous tenant, over the main entrance of the business. He explained that the awning design incorporates the business name and a “Greek key” trim detail. Ms. Baehr stated that in addition to the awning, the business owner is proposing six window signs. She explained that the window signs are proposed in the transom spaces on the east and south elevations of the tenant’s space. She added that two of the six window signs are proposed on the east elevation and the remaining signs are located on the south elevation. She stated that the proposed sign is the business’s logo. In response to Board member Walther, Ms. Czerniak stated that it is possible for each tenant on the first level of the building at 207 E. Westminster to have signage and awnings. She stated that unlike some other buildings in the Central Business District, an overall signage and awning style was not proposed by the property owner or brought forward for Board review. She confirmed that signage or awnings proposed by future tenants will be brought to the Board for review. Board member Walther expressed concern that each tenant in the building may want a different shape and style of awning. Building Review Board Minutes – November 7, 2018 Page 10 of 10 In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that currently, the tenants do not plan to use the multiple doors fronting on Forest Avenue located behind the planting beds. She stated that she is not aware of plans to remove the hardware. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Baehr stated that the proposed window sign is a 10 inch circle. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Diamond made a motion to recommend approval of the awning and signage as proposed based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s discussion as additional findings. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a 4 to1 vote with Board member Walther voting nay stating that a uniform awning shape and style should be considered for the building. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. No additional information was presented from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Assistant Planner