Loading...
BRB_2021_08_19_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of August 19, 2021 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:30 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board members, Joanne Bluhm, Sally Downey, John Looby, Scott Renken and Richard Walther Building Review Board members absent: Timothy G. Franzen, Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development Jennifer Baehr, 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 March 3, 2021 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the March 3, 2021 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence on a vacant lot, a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan. The property is addressed as 1505 Sage Court and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC (Mike DeMar, 100%) Contract Purchasers: Dan Rodriguez and Casey Schlacher Project Representative: Rick Swanson, 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. Swanson introduced the project on behalf of the property owner. He stated that this home is on Lot 16 in Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision. He stated that this home has more presence in the subdivision because it is on the corner of Sage Court and Oak Knoll Drive as you enter the subdivision. He explained that they always try to make all four sides of the home attractive but it is particularly important with this home being on a corner and is more visible. He noted that the house is oriented to face Sage Court and the side load garage faces west. He added that the driveway is located on Sage Court. He stated that Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 2 of 16 driveway has a straight approach that works better for this particular site. He stated that the proposed residence is designed in the French provincial style. He added that the French provincial style is a classic style that is simple and elegant. He noted that the home will have a warm color palette. He explained that the exterior materials include white brick for the chimney, warm gray stucco walls, charcoal windows, dark gray fascia and soffit, cast stone for the front door surround and window sills, the front door will be mahogany, and insulated steel garage doors. He added that pavers will be used for the walkways and stoops. He noted that the house complies with all zoning and building scale requirements. He stated that the shutters are proportional to the window sizes and will have shutter dogs and hinges. He stated that dormers and bay windows are proposed on the front elevation. He stated that they took care to be sure that the windows around the home are evenly spaced and aligned with one another. He stated that the same exterior materials will be carried throughout all four sides of the home. He noted that the rear elevation has a bay window that matches the bay windows on the front elevation. He stated that the garage will have three individual doors that are 8 feet tall and 9 feet wide. He added that a dormer is proposed above the garage. He presented a color rendering. He noted that the headers above the windows and garage doors are cedar that will be stained a warm color to look like a true wood lintel. Ms. Baehr stated that this home is the sixth new residence in this subdivision that has been presented to the Board. She noted that with the property being located on the corner at the entrance to the subdivision it does have more visibility than the other properties in the subdivision that the Board has previously seen. She stated that there is a conservation easement located along the south side of the property that in intended to remain as a dense, natural buffer between this property and the existing home to the south. She stated that the design of the home based on staff’s review is consistent with the chosen architectural style and mostly high quality, natural materials are proposed. She noted that cast stone is proposed for some of the architectural elements. She explained that the use of cast stone was discussed by the Board at the last meeting and with past projects, staff has seen where cast stone yellows over time. She added that if cast stone is used it will be important that the cast stone product and color is reviewed carefully. She stated that this particular site is fairly open within the buildable area so not many trees will require removal as part of the project. She stated that based on the landscape plan that has been submitted there are enough new plantings to make up for the required replacement inches for the trees that will be removed on site. She added that the landscape plan shows plantings along the driveway to screen views of the garage doors and evergreen and shade trees are proposed on the east side of the site to screen views of the pool in the rear yard from Oak Knoll Drive. She stated that the staff report includes a recommendation for approval for this petition along with a few standard conditions. Board member Renken stated that overall it is a great house and the design reflects a simple elegance. He noted that the home is more narrow and smaller in size than many of the other homes in the subdivision. He asked why the roof above the garage has two roof peaks instead of just one. He asked about the decision to use cast stone over natural stone. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Swanson explained that having two peaks on the roof above the garage lowers the overall height of the garage roof which helps to reflect a clear hierarchy between the different parts of the home. He stated that another option to keep the garage roof lower in height would to have a flat roof. He stated that using natural stone for the front door surround is cost prohibitive. He noted that the cast stone will have the same color tone as natural stone. He added that producing detailed elements such as the door surround is much easier with cast stone because it is molded. He explained that if they use cut stone for the window sills and cast stone for the door surround, it would be difficult to match the two different materials so they are proposing cast stone for the sills and the door surround. Board member Looby stated that he likes the design of the house and the shutter detailing is attractive. He expressed concern about the number of lights on the west elevation next to the garage doors. He stated that the number of light fixtures should be reduced the number of lights. Mr. Swanson stated that the four lights provide a symmetrical appearance on the garage elevation. He added that the subdivision will have a Homeowners Association that will have restrictions on the lighting. He stated that the number of light fixtures could be reduced however the elevation looks better with four fixtures between the garage doors. Board member Looby stated that consideration should be given to the use of a bulb that flickers and produces a low level of light. Board member Bluhm asked about the roof pitch on the main mass of the home. Mr. Swanson stated that the main roof form has a 12:12 pitch. He added that originally the main roof had a 14:12 pitch but the pitch was reduced to lower the bulk number. Board member Bluhm asked if the shutters will have horizontal or vertical louvers. Mr. Swanson clarified that there is a discrepancy between the elevation drawings and the color rendering and horizontal louvers are proposed. He added that horizontal louvered shutters are more appropriate than vertical louvers for this particular architectural style. He noted that vertical louvered shutters would have to be custom made and is not worth the expense. Board member Bluhm stated that the petitioner should continue to work on the drainage plan and work with staff on the amount of impervious surface on the site. Board member Looby asked if the pool in included as part of the petitioner’s request. Ms. Baehr confirmed that the pool is included as part of the request and is reflected on the plans. Board member Downey stated that the house is a gateway house and holds much more importance in terms of the appearance because of its prominent location. She stated that the home is very elegant. She stated that the Board spent a lot of time discussing the use of cast stone. She explained that it seems that the petitioner ideally would use natural cut stone but from a practical standpoint cast stone has to be used. She stated that previously the Board approved one home in the subdivision with cast stone which seems to have Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 4 of 16 opened up the door and now more homes are being presented with cast stone as opposed to natural stone. She stated that she struggles with the use of cast stone versus natural stone because the Board is not supposed to really be encouraging non-natural material. She added that she visited the Kelmscott development and the cast stone used on those buildings has turned yellow, has chipped and does not match. She stated that if the Board is approving cast stone it has to be the right material for this neighborhood and it is very important because this is a beautiful home and the Board wants it to age well. She added that she understands that it is a cost issue but that cannot be the nature of our decision making, and the Board’s decision has to be on what is the right thing for this home and for the whole neighborhood. She explained that the Board in the past has had similar discussions about high quality, natural materials and the associated costs which is always a struggle. She expressed concern about moving forward with approving cast stone because then the Board is in a difficult position and will either have to approve the use of cast stone for all the homes in the subdivision or none at all. She stated that the detailing in the transom seems disconnected from the style of the home. She asked why shutters were added to only some of the windows around the home. She stated that the pool deck material has a beige color and wavy texture that does not seem right for the elegant style of the home. Mr. Swanson stated that he does not have a sample for the pool deck material. He explained that shutters could not be added to some of the windows around the home because there is not enough wall space and if shutters were added they would extend beyond the wall. He stated that the front door and transom was influenced by a historic home in France. He noted that if the Board feels that the design of the transom window is not right for the home, they are willing to look at other options. Board member Looby asked if the transom window has beveled glass. Mr. Swanson stated that the transom window does not have beveled glass but it will be a simulated divided light window. Board member Walther agreed with the comments about the use of cast stone versus natural cut stone made by Board member Downey. He explained that Mr. Swanson made the point in his presentation about keeping true to the architectural style, and if they truly were being true to this particular style, natural stone would be proposed instead of cast stone. He asked about the color of the roof shingles, the color and material of the roof saddles, where the mechanical equipment for the pool will be located, what type of screening will be provided for the mechanical equipment, and what type of fence is proposed around the pool. Mr. Swanson stated that the mechanical equipment for the pool will be screened and they will work with staff on the specific type of screening. He stated that the roof saddles will either be zinc or copper. He explained that they have been doing their own research on cast stone and they are finding that cast stone is a better option than natural stone. He added that they are aware of the concern about the stone yellowing, and it seems that that is more of a manufacturer issue. He noted that unlike natural stone, the cast stone does not need to be sealed. He stated that he understands that cost does not play into the Board’s decision, but if cast stone cannot be used they will have to use wood instead, Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 5 of 16 and that would not be as attractive and comes with maintenance issues of its own. He stated that they are confident in the structural stability of cast stone. He explained that they are continuing to work with the manufacturer on the yellowing aspect of the product and he believes they will have more information and answers for the Board by the next time the Board meets. He stated that the roof will be natural cedar shingle. He added that the roof shingles will not be stained or painted. He stated that Board member Walther’s comment about the roof shingle brought up another point that he would like to discuss. He explained that many other homes in the subdivision have composite wall siding or shingle, and it is important that the wall shingle looks like natural shingle, and they are having trouble finding with a lot of composite materials with a smooth finish, so they want to revisit the finish of the wall siding and shingle with the Board at a future meeting. He added that they want to bring forward and sample of natural siding/shingle that has been painted and a sample of composite siding/shingle that has been painted so the Board can see the samples and give direction on the finish since they are not able to find siding with a smooth finish as the Board previously discussed. Ms. Czerniak clarified that the home being currently presented to the Board is stucco and does not have any wall shingle or siding. Board member Walther stated that the Design Guidelines that were established by the previous developer as part of the subdivision process noted that earthtones be used for the homes and white or light color brick should not be used. He acknowledged that white brick is proposed for the chimney which is an accent and not a primary material, but he expressed concern about granting approval of white brick for the chimney on this home and opening the door to the use of white brick for other homes in the subdivision, so that is something that as a Board they need to be cognizant of. He stated that the Board has now seen five homes in this same subdivision that are white or off-white. He explained that the petitioner needs to be careful about creating a monotonous look throughout the subdivision with mostly white houses. He asked that a map with the color palettes of each of the homes that have been previously approved be provided to the Board in future packets. He added that the Board will get to a point where they are going to have to say that no more houses in the subdivision can be white because almost all of the house that have been presented to date have been white and there has not been much variety so far. Mr. Swanson explained that certain colors are more popular with certain generations and when the Design Guidelines for the subdivision were written, the language about white brick was intended to apply more to houses in the ostentatious French provincial style used in tract housing, and so the Guidelines were written to put limitations that would prohibit that kind of house. He added that they always knew that as the developer they had the authority to make adjustments to the Guidelines because things change over time. He stated that white brick can be very tasteful and there are many homes in the City that are white brick. He noted that it was never their intention to have to come to the Building Review Board for any of the houses in the subdivision with the exception of the first two homes because they had developed the Design Guidelines specific to this particular subdivision. He noted that normally with the established Design Guidelines they should not have to request approval for every single house in the subdivision. He added that only if a Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 6 of 16 home was controversial in the subdivision then it would need to come to the Building Review Board. He stated that because of the uniqueness of the subdivision and the fact that it is one builder doing everything and so there will be a certain pattern that is followed. He stated that they have already met with clients that want a white brick house with gray windows and it is a very lovely house, but it is not going to look nice if it right next door to another white brick house. He stated that staff will certainly make sure that there is variety in the subdivision. Chairman Diamond asked if the Covenants for the subdivision include a restriction on the wattage of light bulbs. Mr. Swanson stated that he believes the Covenants do have a restriction on the wattage of light bulbs, and if not they can look at adding that to the Covenants. Board member Bluhm stated that with respect to monotony in the subdivision, she noticed that the wood headers above the windows and garage doors are also used on the other home on the Board’s agenda tonight. Mr. Swanson stated that when he first begins working with the contract purchasers for each new home in the subdivision they take into consideration what kind of homes are on the adjacent properties and across the street and they are very careful not to repeat the same style home next to one another. Board member Walther stated that it would be helpful for the Board if the petitioner provided information on the surrounding homes when each new home is presented to review the home in the context of its neighbors. He added that it is difficult to remember each home that has been approved to date. Ms. Czerniak stated that in the future staff can include renderings for each of the homes that have been approved to date in the Board’s packets. Board member Looby asked if a thick or thin cedar shingle will be used for the roof. Mr. Swanson stated that all the homes in the subdivision medium cedar shingles will be used for the roof, and is a thinner type shingle. Board member Looby noted that the thin machine shingles do not last very long. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Downey asked how the Board should move forward knowing that there will be more houses in the future with cast stone and composite materials. She acknowledged that the petitioner has done research but the contract purchasers that will be living in the home should really go out and look at examples of cast stone and see what it looks like. She expressed concern about the petitioner claiming to use cut stone in the application materials then changing to cast stone in their presentation during the meeting. She stated that it is not clear what the composite shingles will look like based on the petitioner’s earlier comments about having a difficult time finding a smooth finish. She noted that painting the shingles themselves will not address all the issues associated with a Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 7 of 16 composite material. She stated that she is concerned about the quality of the materials that have been proposed and she wants to be sure that all the homes in the subdivision are held to same standard. She asked for clarification from staff on how to move forward if the Design Guidelines in the Covenants state that white brick is not permitted but the Board now knows that a home is coming in the future that has white brick. Mr. DeMar stated that the Design Guidelines do not state that there cannot be any white brick. He added that the Guidelines also stated that concrete patios are allowed. Board member Downey stated that her concern about the patio material is that there seems to be a disconnect between the patio material and the architecture of the home, and the color and texture of the patio material does not fit with the elegance of the home. She suggested bluestone be used for the patio. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board has approved cast stone in the past, and one of the issues that the Board and staff has seen is that cast stone yellows, which many people are dissatisfied with. She explained that this subdivision really stands alone, and if every home has cast stone there is no comparison to another home in the subdivision that has limestone. She stated that staff calls out in the report the issues with cast stone to make sure that the property owners are aware that they really need to be involved in selecting the cast stone and understanding the potential for yellowing and understanding the concerns about durability. Board member Downey asked if the Board should continue to approve cast stone but with the condition that the manufacturer is reviewed carefully. Ms. Czerniak stated that the decision on cast stone is left up to the Board, but this subdivision is really self-contained, but there were certainly neighbors to the south were very concerned about the overall quality of the subdivision. She added that with respect to the composite wall shingles, although not proposed for this particular petition, it sounds like the petitioner will provide samples that will be helpful for the Board to see. She explained that long term durability is something the Board raises, but ultimately that is a decision the homeowner has to make. She explained that with respect to the Covenants, like any private covenants that are recorded with a subdivision, no matter what they have to do with, whether its pools or color palettes, technically the City does not have the legal ability to enforce those, although the Covenants are used to inform the Board’s discussion and decisions. She added that like Mr. Swanson mentioned, ultimately the developer could choose to modify the Covenants but if they modify them to be too lenient, this Board will has control to make sure the homes follow the City’s Design Guidelines to the Board’s satisfaction. Board member Downey stated that she has a problem with the Board allowing things for certain petitions and not holding others to the same high standard. Ms. Czerniak stated that different architectural style do feature different materials more prominently, so there is also is some flexibility in that, and the Board looks at the overall product. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 8 of 16 Chairman Diamond asked how the Board’s decisions on non-natural materials for this particular development might influence the next development that comes forward. Ms. Czerniak explained that this development is an evolving situation and there is some merit to saying that this particular subdivision is at the end of a cul-de-sac and it is self- contained. She added that there are subdivisions like Conway Farms, to the north and west of this area, which has very strict regulations, but that is a separate subdivision. She stated that in this case staff is bringing each of the homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision to the Board because the development has evolved, and a new developer has stepped in and there has been some difficulty in communication although it seems things are improving, but staff felt obligated to be sure that this development ultimately is built out based on the representations that were made to the Plan Commission and to City Council at the very beginning. Board member Looby stated that it has been promised that that the Board would see the best of these composite materials, not something that has come off the shelf at Home Depot. He stated that things are evolving and there have been some improvements with the quality of composite materials. He stated that hopefully this petitioner comes back to the Board with samples of the shingle and the cast stone that are of high quality. Ms. Czerniak stated that in many cases the Historic Preservation Commission and this Board have required a mock up of the various materials be constructed on site and staff will evaluate the mock up based on the comments from the Board, so it would be appropriate to add a condition that a mock up be constructed on site. Board member Downey stated that the petitioner has not provided information on what the pool fence will look like. She added that it would be in everyone’s best interest for the Board to see the project as a whole and right now it is very difficult with missing information and without see the specific materials that are proposed. Mr. Swanson stated that they do not normally request special approval for the pool fence. He added that most fences would be just a wood or iron fence. Board member Looby stated that the fence is part of the overall architecture and because the fence is required for the pool in the rear yard and it is part of the overall project it is under the Board’s purview. He added that landscape elements or garden walls are also under the Board’s review. Mr. Swanson stated that they will work through the details of the fence. Chairman Diamond stated that this home is at the entrance to the subdivision and it is important that the details are worked through and appropriate for a house that serves as a gateway to the neighborhood. Board member Renken stated that the Board is not going to solve the issues that have been discussed for years between natural and synthetic materials. He noted that the Board is here tonight to look at what is appropriate for this particular home. He explained Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 9 of 16 that at the last meeting, the petitioner stated that they would provide detailed information on the cast stone and shingle products. He stated that he is comfortable moving forward with this particular home but there are still some open issues related to the quality of the cast stone product. He noted that there should be language in the Board’s conditions that notes that if the Board approves cast stone there must be samples provided for the Board’s review. He added that he personally does not have a concern about the use of cast stone but it is important that the product is from the right manufacturer and it is a quality product. Board member Bluhm stated that she is in agreement with the comments made by Board member Renken. She added that the homeowners are going to be motivated to find the best possible cast stone product so that they end up with a beautiful home. Chairman Diamond stated that the home is beautiful but more information should be provided from the cast stone manufacturer. Board member Walther stated that he agrees with Board member Renken’s comments about providing more detailed information on the cast stone product so the Board has an opportunity to direct the petitioner to find another product if the sample provided is not to the Board’s satisfaction. He stated that for the record he would like to make clear that the in this particular case the use of white brick is appropriate because it is not widely used on the home and is only on the chimney, but a much greater use of white brick would be contrary to the Covenants. Board member Looby stated that the lantern lights are attractive, although there is a requirement that lights are aimed downward, but the Board should develop a standard related to the bulbs and type of lighting. He added that he is concerned about bright white LED lights, and a softer light should be used, and that not only applies to this home but all homes in the City. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Renken made a motion to recommend approval of a new residence and the associated conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan based on the findings as presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. Prior to submittal of plans for permit, the following shall be further studied and refined: a. Color, texture and application of the pool deck pavers. b. Location of the pool equipment. c. A sample of the cast stone shall be presented to the Board to allow evaluation of the texture and color. d. Provide details on the fence around the pool. 2. All modifications to the plans including those made in response to Board direction and changes made as the 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 Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 10 of 16 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. Provide a mock-up of the exterior materials on the property prior to the application of the materials on the house. 4. The final landscape shall include, but not be limited to, replacement plantings within the Conservation Easement and all required replacement tree inches for trees removed elsewhere on the site. In addition, the plan shall reflect plantings to meet the minimum landscape standards for new residences detailed in the Code, including ground cover, mid-level and canopy trees and evergreens across the site. No removal of vegetation of any kind is permitted within the Conservation Easement without prior City approval. The intent of the Conservation Easement is to preserve a dense vegetative buffer at the perimeter of the subdivision. 5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, any declining or damaged parkway trees shall be removed and replaced by the developer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property. 6. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements and will be 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, properly direct drainage and mitigate off site impacts. 7. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees identified for preservation and to protect trees on neighboring properties during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 8. 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. All exterior lights shall be set on automatic timers to go off no later than 11 p.m. except for security motion detector lights. 9. 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. 10. Future homes in this subdivision should be considered in the context of the colors and the designs of the surrounding homes to assure variety and anti-monotony. Information on the homes previously approved shall be provided to the Board with each petition. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 11 of 16 The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Consideration of a Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence on a vacant lot, a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan. The property is addressed as 395 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC (Mike DeMar, 100%) Contract Purchaser: Steven and Beth Bush Project Representatives: Rick Swanson, 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. Swanson introduced the petition on behalf of the property owner. He stated that this home is located on Lot 6 in the Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision and is at the end of the cul- de-sac on Oak Knoll Drive and the site backs up to the Conway Farms Golf Course. He noted that the home faces the cul-de-sac. He stated that there are not very many significant trees on this particular site. He explained that they may reconsider the driveway configuration given that the current driveway is a bit awkward and some modifications could provide a better approach and easier access to the garage on the north side of the house. He stated that the home is a European country style that reflects traditional roof forms and stylistic design elements. He noted that the home is in compliance with all zoning and bulk restrictions. He explained that the home will have and off-white stucco and stone on the exterior walls and a cedar shingle roof. He noted that the shutters will be French blue and a copper roof is proposed on the bay window. He added that the casement windows and exterior trim will be a warm gray. He stated that a stair tower element that projects on the south elevation of the home that breaks up the façade. He added that garage faces the golf course and will not be visible from the street. He noted that the garage has a single 9 foot wide overhead door and a double overhead door that is 16 feet wide. He added that the garage doors will be insulated steel and be the same color as the front door which is a mahogany tone. He stated that the north elevation has two sets of closed shutters that are used to break up the large solid wall. Ms. Baehr stated that this property is at the north end of Oak Knoll Drive and has a conservation easement that ranges from 50 feet to 75 feet along the east side of the property. She stated that the design of the home based on staff’s review does generally meet the City’s Design Guidelines. She added that the staff report includes a recommendation that speaks to further refinement of the garage mass. She explained that as currently presented the garage roof as viewed from the north elevation appears somewhat inconsistent with the roof forms on the rest of the home. She stated there are a number of large Oak trees at the front of the site that are in poor condition and are proposed for removal. She added that there are several trees that will be impacted as part of construction of the home that require replacement inches to be planted on site. She stated that based on the current landscape plan there are enough new plantings to cover the required replacement inches. She noted that the staff report offers a recommendation for approval of this petition along with a condition about refinement of the garage elevation as well as a few standard conditions that are detailed further in the report. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 12 of 16 Board member Looby stated that it is a beautiful home and the color palette is attractive. He stated that the driveway configuration could be more interesting. He stated that he is interested to hear thoughts from the architect on how the garage may be modified to address the comments made in the staff report. Board member Bluhm stated that there are overlapping gable roofs above the garage and the City’s Design Guidelines discuss overlapping gables and say that new construction should contain simple roof forms and the inappropriate use of overlapping gables is one of the great problems of contemporary construction, and only used when the smaller gable is part of a balcony, porch or entrance, or in a very rare instance when they are appropriate for the architectural style. She noted that from the front, the overlapping gables look fine, but on the north elevation the smaller gable that is four feet wide and extends beyond the larger gable appears awkward. She asked the architect to explain the decision to have the overlapping gables on the garage mass. She noted that the smaller gable that projects from the main garage mass also pushes the driveway out further. She suggested simplifying the rooflines above the garage. She noted that there are existing trees on the north side of the driveway that are not shown on the plan that appear to be impacted by the driveway configuration. She added that the shape of the driveway is unusual and revisiting the garage mass could help resolve the issues with the driveway configuration. She asked if the shutters will have vertical boards. Board member Walther stated that he would like to hear from the architect what options he might consider to refine the rooflines on the north elevation. He explained that it does not seem possible to have a cathedral ceiling in the master bedroom as noted on the floorplan with the pitch of the roof as shown on the elevation. Mr. Swanson stated that the building section that was provided correctly reflects how the roof will be built to allow for a cathedral ceiling in the master bedroom. He stated that the elevation should show the roof higher. Board member Walther stated that the window lites in the top portion of the garage doors appear large and suggested reducing the size of the lites. Board member Downey stated that the home is in a great location in the subdivision. She noted that some shutters are shown as a solid panel while others have vertical boards. She stated that in her opinion the herringbone pattern on the garage doors appears busy and takes away from the beautiful, clean looking house. She explained that the stucco color has a green tone and it may look like its dirty particularly with landscaping around the home that will reflect off of it. She suggested that the homeowner look at the stucco color in the light because they may not be completely happy with how it looks. She stated that the French blue shutters will be beautiful but the homeowner should be sure that it does not look too purple. She stated that the paver material is shown in two different colors and finishes, one that looks like faux wood, adding that that type of look does not seem right for this house. Mr. Swanson stated that there is an error in the drawings and clarified that all the shutters will be the same with vertical boards. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 13 of 16 Board member Renken stated that he likes the rambling and asymmetrical look to this house versus a more formal French or Colonial style that the Board sees very often. He asked about the roof on the bay window and if it should be concave instead of convex. He explained that the garage roof is not shown correctly on the rear elevation and the stone on the garage mass would actually rise a few feet higher than what is currently shown. He stated that the smaller gable that projects on the front elevation adds character and symmetry to the home. He noted that the driveway approach does look awkward. He explained that eliminating the projecting gable element would not make the driveway any better, in fact the driveway should come further out toward the north to have a better angle to access the garage. He stated that the garage does present a large expansive roof. He noted that a dormer or two could be added to break up the roof. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited the petitioner to respond to the questions from the Board. Mr. Swanson stated that he always tries to break up the garage mass with multiple roof forms. He stated that a couple vent dormers could be added to the garage roof to break up the expansive roof and also serve a purpose. He stated that the overlapping gables are a common element to this particular style. He explained that his initial thought with respect to the driveway configuration is to sweep the driveway further north and hold off from the garage by about four or five feet at a minimum to allow for some plant material between the garage and driveway. He added that the projecting gable element on the front actually is beneficial to the design of the house because it screens views of the garage doors from the front and it provides a more natural transition from the front of the home to the garage on the north side. He stated that the light fixtures shown on the garage elevation are a standard placeholder that comes from the computer software and they do not accurately reflect the scale of the light fixtures. He stated that they have not selected the specific light fixtures at this point. He added that larger light fixtures will most likely be installed on the front and smaller fixtures will be on the garage and on the rear of the home. He noted that they will work with staff on the specific light fixtures. He stated that the herringbone design is common to carriage homes and stables in France. He added that the drawing makes the herringbone pattern on the garage doors look more busy because of the scale of the drawing and the lineweight. He added that the herringbone pattern will be much more subtle in reality. He stated that the garage doors are not custom, Clopay, the manufacturer, makes a door that looks just like the ones shown in the architectural plans. He added that the garage doors are insulated steel that will be painted. Board member Looby asked the petitioner to provide an image of the door with the herringbone pattern. Board member Downey stated that traditionally, stable or carriage doors have a thicker trim detail around the openings, and the garage doors that are currently presented to not have that type of detail. Mr. Swanson stated that with respect to the use of cast stone, he can work with the developer to have a representative from the cast stone manufacturer attend the next meeting to answer some of the Board’s questions about the product. He explained that cast stone has Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 14 of 16 been used in the City in the past but that does not necessarily mean that it should continue to be used because of if there are issues they should be looked at carefully because it important to both the developer and to the client. Board member Looby stated that the landscape plan shows a row of arborvitae along the north side of the driveway that do not fit in with the natural character of the site. He added that arborvitae do not hold up very well during winter storms. He stated that a more natural planting should be used to screen the driveway and garage doors. He added that the lift station is also going to be built nearby and the homeowner will want to add additional screening. He noted that there is not a lot of room between the edge of the driveway and the property line to add screening but consideration should be given to planting White Pine trees which are more fitting for the site and will provide much better screening than the arborvitae that is currently proposed. He noted that if the driveway was moved out further to provide a more functional approach to the driveway there may be an opportunity to work with the Conway Farms Golf Course to plant White Pines that were straddling the property line slightly. Board member Downey asked about the size of the headers above the garage doors. She stated that in her opinion the headers appear heavy and seem crowded between the garage door and the roofline. Mr. Swanson stated that the headers are cedar and are meant to look like a timber lintel. He stated that the headers will be stained with a warm tone. Board member Looby stated that the headers above the garage are attractive. Mr. DeMar stated that the contract purchasers are flexible on the herringbone pattern on the garage doors. He added that while they are discussing changes to the driveway the contract purchasers would like to add a circular drive at the front. Mr. Swanson stated that it does not appear possible to have a circular driveway on this particular site. Board member Looby stated that with driveway pulled away from the house more it will be much easier to turn into the garage. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of a new residence and the associated conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan based on the findings as presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. Conduct further study and refine the garage roof form on the north elevation to be more in keeping with the other roof forms on the home. 2. Conduct further study and provide additional information on: a. Provide an image of the garage doors reflecting the herringbone pattern. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 15 of 16 b. The hardscape materials in an effort to be consistent with the style of the home. 3. All modifications to the plans including the refinements noted above and any others made in response to Board direction or as the 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. 4. The final landscape shall include, but not be limited to, replacement plantings within the Conservation Easement and all required replacement tree inches to account for trees removed outside of the easement. In addition, the plan shall reflect plantings to meet the minimum landscape standards for new residences detailed in the Code, including ground cover, mid level and canopy trees and evergreens across the site. Substantial year round plantings shall be included along the north property line to fully screen views of the garage and driveway from the adjacent golf course. a. The landscape plan shall also incorporate plantings along the north side of the driveway and in front of the garage doors that are more in keeping with the natural character of the site. 5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, any declining or damaged parkway trees shall be removed and replaced by the developer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property. 6. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements and will be 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, properly direct drainage and mitigate off site impacts. 7. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees identified for preservation and to protect trees on neighboring properties during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 8. 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. All exterior lights shall be set on automatic timers to go off no later than 11 p.m. except for security motion detector lights. 9. 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. Building Review Board Minutes – 8/19/2021 Page 16 of 16 The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Planner