BRB_2020_10_07_MINUTES
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of October 7, 2020 Meeting
A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
October 7, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely in compliance
with Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, issued on March 16, 2020 that suspended
certain Open Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of
a public body due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Building Review Board members present remotely: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board
members, Joanne Bluhm, Sally Downey, John Looby, James Sykora, and Richard
Walther
Building Review Board members absent: Chris Bires
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
Jennifer Baehr, Assistant Planner
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Diamond
Chairman Diamond 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 September 2, 2020 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
The minutes of the September 2, 2020 meeting were approved as presented.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a two story addition at the rear and side
of the existing residence and demolition of the existing garage and construction a
replacement garage. The property is located at 114 Washington Circle. A building
scale variance is also requested.
Property Owners: Jim and Eileen Swartout
Project Representative: Michael Breseman, architect
Chairman Diamond asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Breseman explained that the subject property is located in a neighborhood comprised
of homes built in the early 1900s with a variety of architectural styles. He noted that the
property owners recently purchased the property. He explained that the goals of the
project include expanding the kitchen, creating a family room with a dining area, adding
a mudroom on the first floor and creating a master suite and office on the second floor. He
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 2 of 9
added that a replacement, larger garage is proposed at the rear of the property to
accommodate today’s larger vehicles. He noted that a building scale variance of 5
percent is requested. He stated that factors in support of the variance request include the
fact that there is significant square footage in the attic due to the roof pitch that is not living
space and the large wrap-around porch accounts for additional square footage since it
exceeds the allowance for design elements. He noted that the location of the addition is
dictated by the zoning setbacks. He explained that the existing house encroaches into the
side yard setback on the north side of the property so the addition is shifted south to avoid
further encroachment into the setback. He stated that the massing of the addition reflects
simple forms consistent with the Farmhouse style. He explained that originally, the proposed
addition was taller, however after working through design studies, the height of the
addition was lowered to allow the addition to be subservient to the existing home. He
presented the floorplans of the home and existing and proposed elevations. He explained
that a conceptual landscape plan was prepared and the property owners intend to
complete the landscaping in phases. He stated that a patio is located at the rear of the
proposed addition. He stated that the replacement garage is a simple two car garage
with storage space at the rear. He noted that a shed dormer is proposed on the front of
the garage. He stated that the addition and replacement garage will have horizontal fiber
cement siding, architectural asphalt shingle roofing, and aluminum clad windows.
Ms. Baehr explained that the petitioner is requesting approval of additions to the
existing home, demolition of the existing detached garage and approval of a new
two car detached garage. She stated that the proposed additions will match the
existing home in appearance and in style. She explained that the additions are
intended to make the home more functional for the new owners. She stated that the
existing residence complies with the allowable square footage for the property. She
explained that the additions in total add 1,190 square feet to the home including
square footage for elements that could be considered design elements if the entire
allowance for design elements was not already accounted for by the existing front
porch on the house. She stated that the square footage of the existing home along
with the proposed additions exceeds the allowable square footage by 144 square
feet, 5 percent of the allowable square footage. She noted that a review of the
criteria for a building scale variance is included in the staff report and based on staff’s
evaluation, the criteria for a building scale variance are met. She explained that the
existing garage does not provide the space needed for the petitioner’s vehicles and
the work necessary to make the existing garage functional would result in a large
portion of the existing garage being rebuilt. She stated that the proposed garage is
designed in a manner that complements the home to a greater extent than the
existing garage. She noted that staff received two letters from neighboring property
owners in support of the project adding that copies of the letters were provided to the
Board and to the petitioner. She noted that a recommendation and findings in
support of the petition are detailed in the staff report.
In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Baehr confirmed that the Board
may want to include a condition requiring that the landscaping is completed concurrently
with the addition.
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 3 of 9
In response to questions from Board member Downey, Mr. Breseman stated that the
existing windows on the house were installed recently, by a previous owner, without City
approval. He stated that there are no plans to replace the recently installed windows. He
explained that aluminum clad wood windows with simulated divided lites and fiber
cement siding are proposed for the addition and garage. He noted that the new windows
will be double hung windows, consistent with the existing windows.
In response to questions from Board member Sykora, Mr. Breseman explained that the size
of the garage was driven by the size of the owners’ vehicles and the desire for additional
storage space. He added that the size of the garage is limited by the square footage
allowance for the garage.
Board member Bluhm commended the petitioner on the project and expressed support
for the building scale variance.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Breseman confirmed that Hardie
board will be used to patch areas of siding on the existing house. He explained that the
addition will have open eaves to avoid conflict with the location of the windows. He noted
that open eaves are often found on Farmhouse style homes. He stated that depending on
the owners’ budget, opening the eaves on the existing house may be a possibility.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. Baehr confirmed that the portion
of the existing porch that is proposed to be enclosed is included in the square footage
calculation for the house.
Chairman Diamond stated that the proposed project will enhance the appearance and
improve the functionality of the home.
In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Mr. Swartout stated that he and his
family are currently residents of Lake Forest. He explained that he and his family love the
neighborhood and the property’s proximity to the Central Business District. He stated that
the existing home does not accommodate a family of six adding that the proposed
addition will allow for the home to be functional for his family. He noted that the property
currently has a number of mature trees that provide screening of the house from the street
and neighboring properties. He stated the intent to preserve the trees and add
landscaping over time. He confirmed that the porch has a tongue and groove wood
ceiling.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony.
Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Bluhm suggested that the owners explore opening the eaves on the
existing house if it is feasible within the budget.
Board member Walther commented that opening the eaves on the existing house will
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 4 of 9
make the home more consistent overall with the Farmhouse style and will result in
consistency in detail between the house and the addition. He added that the new
garage should also have open eaves for consistency.
Board member Looby agreed with Board member Walther. He stated that the project will
greatly improve the property and neighborhood.
Board member Downey stated that the project reflects a strong design. She stated that in
her opinion, the closed soffits on the existing house do not appear to detract from the
overall design of the house.
Board member Sykora agreed with comments made by Board member Bluhm. He
expressed support for a condition that speaks to at least a portion of the landscaping
being completed concurrent with the construction of the addition.
Chairman Diamond agreed with comments made by Board member Walther. He
agreed to allow further comment by the petitioner as an exception to the Board’s meeting
procedures.
Mr. Breseman agreed that opening the eaves on the existing house is a great idea, he
noted however that opening the eaves could lead to more invasive work. He stated that
open eaves will be added to the garage.
In response to comments from Mr. Breseman, Board member Walther suggested that a
section of the eave can be opened to investigate the extent of work that would be
needed to open the existing eaves.
Ms. Czerniak suggested that a condition be added directing consideration and
exploration of modification of the existing eaves on the house to match the detailing of the
eaves on the addition.
In response to comments from the Board, Mr. Swartout confirmed that the intent is to
preserve the existing trees on the site. He stated that the landscaping in front of the home is
planned to be completed this fall and the plantings on the south side and at the rear of
the property are planned to be done concurrent with the construction of the addition and
garage. He noted that to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines, the siding and windows
on the addition and garage were updated at a cost and noted that the budget may not
allow for opening the existing eaves around the home.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion.
Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of a rear and side
addition, demolition of the existing garage and approval of a replacement garage,
and a building scale variance. He noted that the recommendation is based on the
findings detailed in the staff report, the testimony presented by the petitioner and the
Board’s deliberations. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following
conditions:
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 5 of 9
1. Consideration should be given to modification of the existing eaves on the house to
match the open, sloped soffit as proposed on the addition which is more consistent
with the farmhouse style. The eave on the garage shall match the sloped soffit on
the addition as presented to the Board.
2. If any modifications are made to the plans that were presented to the Board, 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.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and
approval by the City’s Arborist. Particular attention shall be paid to assuring
sufficient screening along the property lines either through existing vegetation or
additional plantings if it is determined by the City’s Certified Arborist that additional
screening can be accommodated to reasonably screen the appearance of the
additions and garage.
4. The landscaping that serves to screen the rear and side addition shall be planted
concurrent with the construction of the addition or, if planting is not possible due to
the time of year, a bond shall be posted in the amount of the cost of the plant
materials and labor plus ten percent to assure planting as early as possible during
the next planting season.
5. Details of any exterior lighting that is proposed shall be provided 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. All exterior lights, except for motion
detector lights for security purposes, shall be set on timers to turn off no later than 11
p.m.
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.
The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family
residence and a replacement residence on the property located at 1088 Griffith
Road.
Property Owners: Brian and Jennifer Harbison
Project Representative: Ruben Anastacio, architect
Chairman Diamond 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 – 10/7/2020 Page 6 of 9
Mr. Harbison introduced the project. He stated that he and his wife purchased the property
in 2018 with plans to build their retirement home. He explained that they are requesting
approval to demolish the existing residence on the property in its entirety and build a
replacement residence. He stated that they initially considered renovating the existing
home but based on the poor condition of the home, rehabilitation was not feasible. He
stated that when they began the design process for a replacement residence they
studied the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that the
replacement residence is designed in the Colonial Revival style and features a brick
exterior and simple massing and detailing. He explained that the lot is very small and
presents many challenges in siting the residence. He stated that front, side and rear yard
setback variances were recently supported by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow
construction of the residence and attached garage as proposed. He stated that the
driveway is configured to avoid impacting a parkway tree and a tree that is along the
north property line. He stated that two maple trees in the rear yard will be removed. He
added that the trees are in fair to good condition based on the survey that was prepared.
Ms. Baehr stated that the property is on the west side of Griffith Road and is a through
lot, with frontage on both Griffith Road and McKinley Road. She explained that the
existing home on the property was built in 1912 and has been vacant for a number of
years. She stated that the petitioner engaged a structural engineer to conduct a
study of the condition of the existing home and based on the engineer’s findings, the
cost to repair and renovate the existing home far exceeds the long term value. She
noted that the structural report is included in the Board’s packet for reference. She
stated that based on information in the structural report and staff’s own evaluation of
the existing home, the demolition criteria appear to be met and findings in support of
the demolition are detailed in the staff report. She explained that as proposed, the site
plan reflects the replacement residence generally in the location of the existing home
on the property with an attached garage in the northwest corner of the site. She
stated that the proposed residence is designed in the Colonial Revival style, and
features elements of that style such as a front entry portico and quoin detailing. She
stated that the proposed material palette consists of materials that are consistent with
the style of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that staff
recommends pervious materials for some of the hardscape on the site to reduce the
amount of impervious surface given the heightened concerns about stormwater
runoff particularly in small lot neighborhoods. She added that staff also recommends
that the proportions and style of the windows be studied further in order to more
closely follow the style of the home and present a more consistent appearance across
all the elevations of the home. She stated that the petitioner provided a conceptual
landscape plan that reflects new plantings including some small trees and shrubs at
the front of the home. She noted that there are two existing maple trees in the rear
yard that are proposed for removal and based on the survey, these trees are in fair to
good condition and with their removal, a total of 12 replacement inches will be
required on the final landscape plan. She noted that staff received letters in support of
the project from neighbors in the area and the letters are included in the Board’s
packet. She stated that overall, based on staff’s review of the project, the standards
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 7 of 9
of the Board are generally met, and a recommendation for approval subject to
conditions is offered in the staff report.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Anastacio stated that the
garage door will be aluminum with a wood grain. He explained that the different sizes of
windows that appear on the side and rear elevations relate to the interior layout of the
home. He noted that asphalt shingle is proposed for the roof material.
Board member Walther stated that the windows should be refined to achieve greater
consistency around the elevations. He suggested that the horizontal windows on the left
elevation be eliminated and vertical windows, more consistent with the proportions of the
windows on the front of the home, be used. He added that the windows should present a
consistent muntin pattern.
Board member Bluhm agreed with Board member Walther’s comments.
Board member Looby suggested that samples of the materials be provided to staff for
review before installation.
In response to questions from Board member Sykora, Mr. Anastacio agreed that an
additional window in the garage can be considered.
In response to questions from Board member Sykora, Ms. Baehr explained that as currently
proposed, the residence and garage are very close to the maximum of 30 percent lot
coverage.
In response to questions from Board member Downey, Mr. Anastacio stated that the
window located close to the ground on the right elevation is located in the stair to the
basement.
Board member Downey observed that the windows on the right elevation are located at
many different heights and should be further studied. She suggested that an alternative to
concrete be considered for the front walkway and rear patio.
Chairman Diamond agreed with Board member Downey’s comments. He invited final
comments from the petitioner.
Mr. Harbison stated appreciation for the Board’s comments and agreed to consider the
adjustments suggested by the Board.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public comment.
Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Looby suggested bluestone or pavers for the hardscape areas to enhance
the appearance of the house and to limit impervious surface. He agreed with the
comments made by other Board members regarding the windows.
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 8 of 9
Board member Walther stated that because there is very little room on the north side of the
property between the driveway and the property line, it is important that care be taken to
direct water away from the neighbor’s property. He suggested landscaping, absorbent
materials or a curb along the driveway to direct water runoff.
Board member Bluhm agreed with Board member Looby’s comments regarding limiting
the hardscape materials.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion.
Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of
the single family residence and approval of a replacement residence and attached
garage. He noted that the recommendation is based on the findings detailed in the
staff report, the testimony presented by the petitioner and the Board’s deliberations.
He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans shall be refined to address the following items:
a. Incorporate pervious materials into the hardscape plan to reduce the amount of
impervious surface on the property.
b. Study and refine the window style and proportions in an effort to m ore closely follow
the chosen architectural style and to present a more consistent appearance across
all elevations.
c. Consider installation of a curb along a portion of the northern edge of the driveway
and landscaping to mitigate drainage toward the neighboring property.
2. If additional modifications are made 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.
3. The overall height of the house, in combination with any grade changes shall be
clearly detailed on a section submitted at the time of application for permit to verify
that the height does not exceed 30 feet from the point of lowest existing grade
adjacent to the home, to the highest roof peak. As-built drawings shall be submitted
at appropriate intervals as determined to be necessary by City staff, to verify
compliance with the height limitations.
4. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with
the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum
necessary to meet good engineering practices to properly direct drainage.
Building Review Board Minutes – 10/7/2020 Page 9 of 9
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed, landscape plan shall be
submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.
The plan shall, at a minimum, meet the landscaping standards for new residences
detailed in the Code and provide for the required 12 replacement inches on site to
the extent possible using good forestry practices. If all replacement tree inches
cannot be accommodated on the site, the number of remaining inches for which a
payment in lieu of planting will be required must be noted on the plan. The full
payment in lieu of on site plantings is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
6. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect
trees during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and
approval by the City. Careful attention shall be given to protecting parkway trees.
7. 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. All exterior lighting, except for security lights with motion detectors,
shall be on timers to turn off no later than 11 p.m.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction
vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to
City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
OTHER ITEMS
4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
5. Additional information from staff.
No additional information was presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Baehr
Assistant Planner