Loading...
BRB_2025_04_02_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of April 7, 2021 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 6:00 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: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board members, Joanne Bluhm, Sally Downey, John Looby, and Richard Walther (two vacant positions) Building Review Board members absent: None 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 from past meetings of the Building Review Board. Consideration of the minutes was postponed. 3. Continued Consideration of a request for approval of partial demolition of the existing residence including removal of the existing roof and portions of exterior walls to accommodate a second story addition and various exterior alterations. The property is located at 365 Chiltern Drive. Property Owner: Albany Bk & Tr CO NA TTEE TR#11-6528 Project Representative: Wojtek Bialy, designer 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. Bialy stated that since the last meeting, the plans were revised in response to the Board’s discussion at the last meeting. He noted that material samples were available at the site for the Board’s review. He pointed out that the heavy limestone trim around the windows was eliminated, a larger limestone surround was added to highlight the front entrance, and crown moldings and a slight roof overhang were added. He noted that instead of the black aluminum gutters and downspouts previously proposed, copper gutters and downspouts are now proposed. He stated that a trellis for vines was added to break up the solid wall on the north elevation. He stated that adding windows to the north elevation is Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 2 of 21 not workable due to the interior layout. He stated the patio was extended and an outdoor kitchen added at the north end of the rear elevation to balance the porch at the south end on the rear elevation. He noted that a pergola was considered but not pursued because it would require variances. He stated that the project as now presented has the support of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that the light sconces reflected on the drawings will be similar to light fixtures on other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that a composite imitation slate roof tile is proposed noting that in his opinion, the synthetic product is superior to other roofing materials, and aesthetically pleasing. He stated that a sample of the composite material was provided for review. He stated that the existing trees and vegetation will remain and arborvitae will be added along the rear property line for privacy. Ms. Baehr reviewed that the Board heard this petition at the last meeting and continued the matter with direction to the petitioner for further refinements on specific aspects of the design. She stated that the changes as reviewed by the petitioner are reflected on the plans in the Board’s packet. She stated that overall, the refinements appear to have addressed many of the Board’s comments. She identified some open items including: the proposed use of synthetic roof material, the proportions and scale of the large single casement windows, and the large expanses of unbroken wall on the east and south elevations. She requested Board input on the open items. She stated that a conceptual landscape plan was provided by the petition that reflects new ornamental plantings at the front of the home and evergreen plantings at the east and south perimeters of the site. She noted that because the height and mass of the home will be increased, staff recommends that a mix of shade trees, evergreen plantings and understory plantings be incorporated into the plan using species that generally align with the natural character of the neighborhood. She noted that added landscaping may help to mitigate the impact of the expanded home from the street and from surrounding properties. Board member Looby complimented the changes. He noted that the modified front entrance and the additional plantings provide a focal point for the home. He stated support for the use of the trellis to break up the solid wall. He pointed out that the slight roof overhang provides for some shadowing on the elevations. He stated support for the composite roof tiles noting that it is not an inexpensive substitute for natural roof materials. He stated that his understanding that the composite material is as durable as slate. He stated support for staff’s recommendation for additional landscaping to break up the solid white walls. Board member Walther thanked the property owner and architect for considering and responding to the Board’s previous comments. He commended the change to copper gutters and downspouts. He asked about the material that is proposed along the base of the home. He pointed out that the pavers for the driveway and front walkway appear to be different colors based on how they appear in the rendering. He noted that the solid wall on the rear of the home is broken up by the outdoor kitchen. He cautioned that homes that are light colored can be discolored by smoke in the area behind a grill and suggested that some further consideration might be given to the location of the outdoor kitchen area. He commented that the expanse of unbroken wall on the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 3 of 21 south elevation is mitigated by the fact that along that side, the home does not appear as a full two story mass because of the roof form. He suggested some enhancement to the landscaping along the south elevation to the expanse of wall further. He stated that as he drove around the neighborhood, he observed a mix of roofing materials and despite the fact that he does not favor the synthetic roof product, he fined it acceptable because of the variety in the neighborhood. He noted that there are a number of slate roofs in the area to the west of this property which are very attractive. He stated that slate on this home would have been a good solution. Board member Bluhm agreed with many of Board member Walther’s comments adding that the synthetic roof product is acceptable on this home in her opinion. She commended that change from aluminum to copper gutters and down spouts pointing out that the copper will patina over time and change color from what is presented in the rendering. She stated support for the color palette as presented. Board member Downey thanked the petitioner and the architect for the refinements made to the home since the last meeting. She complimented the house and in particular, the changes made to the front door. She stated that the unbroken expanse of wall on the east and south elevations do not appear to stand out. She agreed with Board member Walther that a large tree on the south side of the house would visually break up the wall. She stated that she does not see an issue with the proportions of the windows, an issue raised by staff, but stated an interest in hearing from the other Board members on that aspect of the home. She acknowledged that composite roof products have been used on other homes in the City but noted that she did not find the product on homes in this neighborhood. She stated that from a distance, the composite product will likely not be identified as such. She stated that the composite product would not be her choice adding that natural slate is very attractive. She acknowledged the cost of slate and stated support for the composite roof over asphalt shingles. Chairman Diamond agreed with the comments of the various Board members. He pointed out that as the copper gutters and downspouts age, the discoloration may stain the white stucco. He stated a preference for natural cedar or slate for the roof noting that natural materials were used for the roofs of the homes in Kelmscott Park which the petitioner identified as the inspiration for the proposed design. He stated that the revised plans are a great improvement over the original plans. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited a response to Board comments from the petitioner. Mr. Bialy stated that the composite roof product is desired not because it is less expensive than slate, but because the house structurally, cannot support slate. He stated that in his opinion, a cedar shake roof would detract from the character of the house. He stated that it will take about a hundred years before the copper gutters and downspouts turn green or brownish. He acknowledged that the gutters and downspouts will not be as shiny as implied in the renderings. He stated that if the copper gutters and downspouts are installed at the proper distance from the wall, Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 4 of 21 there will not be any staining on the wall. He stated that stucco at the base of the home will be detailed to imitate limestone. He stated that the driveway and front walkway will be brick pavers. He stated consideration will be given to adding a larger tree on the south side of the home. Mr. Milewski stated that a color sample of the brick pavers can be provided before the driveway and walkway are installed. He stated that the intent is that the paver will match the style of the house. He stated his intention to install a granite apron. He pointed out that there are already mature trees on the property. He stated that copper valleys and snow guards will be installed on the roof to match the gutters and downspouts. He stated that as the copper turns brown, it will match the bronze windows and front door. Chairman Diamond invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Walther stated the window on the south elevation should be consistent with the windows on the front of the house because that window is part of the stair tower. He stated that he is indifferent with respect to the use of single or double casement windows on the north side of the house because they are in the garage. He stated appreciation for the petitioner's willingness to continue to work with staff on the landscape plan adding that further work on the plan will be important to the overall success of the project. He offered that a few additional larger trees will help mitigate the large expanse of unbroken wall on the south elevation and the mass of the second story. He reiterated that with respect to the composite roof material, he does not find it very attractive, but he believes that there is enough variety in the neighborhood that the composite product is acceptable in this particular case. Board member Looby stated that he is pleased with the revisions made to the design of the home. He stated that it will be easy to incorporate an additional tree into the landscape plan and suggested adding another birch tree noting that it will grow tall enough to break up the wall. He stated that the copper gutters and downspouts can be installed with holders to keep them off of the walls to avoid staining. He agreed with Board member Walther that the outdoor kitchen, in the proposed location, may lead to smoke and grease staining on the white stucco wall. Board member Downey agreed with Board member Walther’s comments on the composite roof material. She stated that it is her expectation that since the property owner is roofing contractor, he has full knowledge of how the product will hold up over time. She stated that she is comfortable with the windows as proposed. She stated that in her opinion, the outstanding items are fairly minor, mostly related to the landscape plan, and can be resolved with staff. Board member Bluhm agreed with Board member Downey’s comments. She stated that the home will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. In response to a question from Board member Walther, Mr. Bialy explained that the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 5 of 21 windows in the stairway and in the garage are fixed casement windows and are not needed to meet Code requirements adding that they are only there to break up the wall and let in natural light. He stated that the intention is that the windows in the garage match the windows in the stairway on the front of the home. He stated that the owner prefers the current design with the mix of single and double casement windows around the home. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the partial demolition of the existing residence, a second story addition and various exterior alterations subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Give consideration to replacing the single casement windows in the garage with double casement windows in an effort to present a more consistent style and proportions of openings across all elevations of the home. 2. All modifications to the plans, including those detailed 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. 3. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, 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 from off of the site. 4. A revised, detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at time plans are submitted for a building permit. The landscape plan shall incorporate additional plantings, including a larger tree, to soften the appearance of the increased height and mass of the home, particularly on the south side of the home, and reflect plantings that match more closely to the character of the neighborhood, with a mix of native deciduous trees, evergreens and understory plantings, in a natural arrangement. The landscape plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. 5. 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. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street. The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition of the existing residence and construction of a replacement front porch, a two-story rear addition, and various associated exterior alterations. Building scale and height variances are also requested. The property is located at 674 Oakwood Avenue. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 6 of 21 Property Owners: Michael and Ashley Yakes Project Representative: Troy Mock, 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. Mock introduced the petition noting that the home was built in 1903 and has been in the Yakes family since that time. He stated that the family plan to update the home for livability and to better align with some of the newer homes in the neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed changes noting that the enclosed porch on the front of the home will be removed adding that originally this element was an open porch. He said that the house has many remnants of the American Four-Square style which typically has an open porch on the front. He stated a new, open porch will be centered on the front elevation reducing the appearance of mass from the streetscape. He stated that the new porch will be the same depth as the original porch and will be detailed with simple columns and a low pitch, metal roof consistent with the architectural style. He stated that the windows around the homes will be replaced and the existing openings modified for consistency in proportions and some consistency in the pattern of solids and voids around the home. He noted that a stool and apron window detail is proposed. He stated that the aluminum siding will be replaced with white Hardie Board and all of the trim and soffits will be natural wood to soften the appearance of the home. He stated that the lower part of the home will have horizontal lap siding with a five inch exposure, and the upper part is proposed to be board and batten siding. He noted that the combination is intended to break up the mass of the home. He added that the trim and soffits will match the color of the Hardie Board. He stated that a two-story addition, a lean-to type structure with no architectural merit, was built on the rear of the home in the 1940s. He stated that the rear addition will be removed and replaced with a new two-story addition. He explained that the proposed addition will provide an expanded kitchen space, a family room and a functional mudroom. He added that on the second floor, the addition will provide for the addition of a master bedroom. He explained that the roof on the proposed addition will align with the roof on the home which currently exceeds the allowable height of 30 feet, for a distance of about seven feet. He explained that the existing house is currently nonconforming with respect to the side yard setback and pointed out the with the removal of the existing rear addition and construction of the replacement addition, the extent of the encroachment into the side yard will be reduced. He noted that the proposed replacement addition will provide improved access from the detached garage into the mudroom and kitchen. He stated that the proposed addition will match the existing wall height and roof pitch and as a result, it will exceed the current 30 foot height limitation. He pointed out that the roof line on the northern portion of the addition drops down and complies with the 30 foot height limitation. He noted that a covered entry and deck are proposed on the rear of the home along with large windows. Ms. Baehr reviewed the various components of the petition; demolition of the existing enclosed porch at the front of the house and the existing two story rear addition, construction of an open front porch and a two story addition on the rear of the home Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 7 of 21 and other exterior alterations around the home. She stated that the extent of demolition is less than 50 percent of the existing structure so the request is considered a partial demolition. She noted that detailed demolition plans are included in the Board's packet and findings in support of the proposed demolition are detailed in the staff report. She stated that the proposed additions are intended to make the home more functional and improve the exterior appearance. She stated that the new open porch at the front is centered on the front elevation and is designed to match the farmhouse style of the home. She noted that front porches are a common feature in this neighborhood. She stated that the two story addition proposed on the rear of the home aligns with the north and south walls of the home. She stated that the proposed rear addition requires variances from the building scale and height limitations. She stated that the existing residence complies with the allowable square footage but as noted by the petitioner, the house exceeds the allowable height adding that the house was constructed long before the building scale and height limitations were established. She stated that the open front porch is permitted as a design element and does not add square footage to the home. She stated that the house, with the proposed rear addition, exceeds the allowable square footage by 448 square feet, a 21 percent overage. She stated that the existing home is 33 feet and 8 inches tall and the allowable height for this property is 30 feet. She explained that a portion of the proposed two story addition will match the height of the existing home and therefore requires a height variance. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the requested variances based on the fact that the proposed addition is located entirely behind the mass of the existing home and is designed to be compatible with the massing and height of the home and other homes nearby. She stated that the petitioner is also proposing to replace the existing siding and all the existing windows. She explained that in some areas, the window sizes will be reworked to present a more regular and balanced fenestration pattern across all the elevations of the home. She stated that a landscape plan has not yet been developed, but as the project moves forward, the existing landscaping will be reviewed and if appropriate a plan for additional landscaping will be developed and presented to staff for review. Board member Walther stated that the Board carefully considers any request for variances. He stated that in this case, there is some precedent on the street because of the age of the neighborhood and the small lot sizes to support a variance. He noted that the majority of the additional square footage is located behind the house and out of sight from the streetscape. He added that the aerial photograph in the packet shows that the home is very similar in scale to the two homes to the north and consequently, it appears this variance is consistent with prior Board approvals along the street. He stated that with respect to the request for a height variance, the existing home is already 33 feet tall and the addition of a portion of a new roof at that height will not change the appearance of the home. He stated support for the requested variances. He commented on the garage noting that the home will be completely remodeled but the garage appears to have old roofing and siding materials and will not relate well to the renovated house. He asked whether the fencing around the property, which appears to be in poor condition, will be replaced. Board member Looby agreed with Board member Walther’s comments pertaining to the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 8 of 21 variance requests. He commended the property owners for preserving and remodeling the home as opposed to demolishing it. He stated that the project will be a great improvement to the streetscape. Board member Downey stated that the property owner’s statement of intent provided a good history of the home and helped her to understand the changes made to the home over the years. She expressed support for the project as proposed and support for the requested variances. She added that the proposed changes that necessitate the variances do not negatively impact any neighbors. She said that the home, with the proposed modifications, will fit into the neighborhood. She stated that the changes proposed to the window proportions and placement will create a sense of symmetry around the home enhancing its appearance. She stated support for the conditions as detailed in the staff report. Board member Bluhm agreed with the comments of the other Board members and stated support for the requested variances. Chairman Diamond stated that the proposed changes will greatly improve the appearance of the home. He agreed with Board member Walther’s comments about the condition of the garage and that fact that it will appear out of place after the house is improved. He stated support for the variances. He invited the petitioner to respond to the Board’s comments and questions. Mr. Mock stated that the owners are considering re-siding and re-roofing the garage. He stated that enlarging the garage may require a zoning variance. He stated that the existing garage door is 14 feet wide and 7 feet tall and a new 16 foot wide, 8 foot tall overhead door is being considered. He stated that the petitioners would like to enlarge the garage just enough to have some storage space. He stated that the square footage of the enlarged garage will not exceed the allowable square footage. He stated that he is not aware of plans to replace the fencing. In response to a question from Chairman Diamond, Ms. Baehr stated that if no variances are required from the Board, plans for a slightly enlarged garage may be able to be approved by staff. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final comments and questions from the Board. Board member Downey stated support for staff review of the plans for the enlarged garage as long as it is in compliance with the allowable square footage. Chairman Diamond agreed with Board member Downey. Board member Bluhm also agreed with Board member Downey’s comments on the garage. She stated that some landscaping should be added to the front yard to soften the appearance of the house. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 9 of 21 Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Looby made a motion to recommend approval of the partial demolition of the residence, the addition of an open front porch, the rear addition, modifications to the windows and approval of building scale and height variances subject to the following conditions. 1. 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. 2. A landscape plan reflecting plantings in the front and rear yards as determined to be needed shall be submitted and will be subject to staff review and approval. 3. 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. 4. 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. No construction parking is permitted on Oakwood Avenue due to the narrowness of the street and the volume of traffic. Offsite parking in the public parking lots nearby may be necessary. Permits can be obtained for parking in the public lot across the street. The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Continued consideration of a request for approval of models for the remaining 19 lots in the Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes development located on the south side of Amberley Court, between Saunders Road and Conway Farms Drive, south of Route 60. Property Owner: McNaughton Development (Paul R. McNaughton, 100%) Project Representative: John Barry, McNaughton Development 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. Barry stated that they initially presented plans to the Board a couple months ago and since that time, have reworked the architectural design. He noted that since the last meeting, they met with staff and also with the homeowners in the development. He stated that the homes are now designed in the French Country, Shingle and Tudor Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 10 of 21 architectural styles instead of in a “transitional coastal” style. He stated that as now proposed, the home designs offer a consistent design theme without being monotonous. He stated that the homes as now proposed reflect consistent exterior building materials. He explained that the French Country homes have architectural grade asphalt shingles on the roof, aluminum gutters and downspouts, L.P. Smartside prefinished siding and stucco exterior walls, stucco trim boards, a four inch stone veneer on portions of the elevations, stucco chimneys with clay pots, and fiberglass windows and patio doors. He noted that asphalt shingle roofs are proposed for both the French Country and Tudor designs because asphalt shingles are more true to these styles. He added that buyers will have the option to upgrade to cedar shingles. He stated that the Shingle style homes will have cedar shingle roofs as the standard because wood shingle fits better with that style. He explained that they are also proposing asphalt shingles for the French Country and Tudor homes because cedar roofs will put them at a disadvantage in the marketplace. He stated that the local competition is the Willow Lake and Westleigh Farm developments. He added that the desired price point for the new homes in Amberley Woods is between the price points of the other two developments at $900,000. He stated that the most recent sales of homes in the Amberley Woods development were between $800,000 and $900,000. He explained that asphalt shingle roofing costs $30,000 less per house than cedar shingles. He stated that his firm does not see the value in cedar shingles for the homes because buyers will likely prefer putting that money toward other features of the home that might be seen as adding more value. He stated concern about maintenance of cedar shingle roofs and also the limited lifespan in comparison to asphalt shingles. He explained that the development has heavy tree cover so the homes will be in the shade and will be prone to moss, mildew and mold growth. He stated that the realistic lifespan of cedar roofing is about 15 to 20 years. He stated that the first homes in the Amberley Woods development were built in 2007 and may be close to having functionally obsolete roofs today. He added that most homeowners do not look forward to replacing their roof. He stated that the model designed in the Shingle style incorporates the use of stone and shake siding. He reviewed other changes that were made since the last meeting noting the revised placement of the windows and the addition of windows in some areas to break up the side elevations. He noted that bay windows and gable forms were added to break up the expanses of solid walls. He stated that the roof forms were modified and lowered to reduce the appearance of massing. He stated that the Shingle style home has a cedar shingle roofing, aluminum gutters and downspouts, L.P. Smartside prefinished wood fascia, soffits and trim, stone chimneys, and fiberglass simulated divided lite windows. He stated that the Tudor design has asphalt shingle roofing, aluminum gutters and downspouts, L.P. Smartside fascia and soffits, simulated textured cedar bands in stucco, brick exterior walls with some areas of stucco, brick chimneys with clay pots, and fiberglass windows. He stated that they are proposing one model with a side load garage and the other three models with front load garages. He stated that he understands the desire for fewer front facing garages but noted that a side load garage takes up more space on the site, requires more impervious surface and could impact more trees. He stated that the model homes limit options for buyers with respect to design and materials and noted that they prefer to allow the buyers to have the option of front facing garages. He stated that the hardscape proposed includes an asphalt driveway, paver stoops, walkways and patios. He stated that to meet the anti- Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 11 of 21 monotony guidelines of the development, if the homes on adjacent lots use the same floor plan, different architectural styles will be required. He stated that if homes on adjacent lots are of the same architectural style, the color schemes will be different. He stated that in his opinion, many changes and compromises were made since the last meeting to more closely conform to the City’s Design Guidelines while also keeping in mind today’s market realities and preferences. He stated that the development was established 15 years ago and they are the third developer. He stated that he is confident that his company can offer a quality product, at an effective price point, that will be acceptable to the market. He stated that the product will complement the existing homes in the development and will increase property values. Ms. Baehr stated that this petition was previously presented to the Board in February and at that time, the Board continued the petition with a request that the petitioner study designs, other than those used for tract homes in other communities, in an effort to achieve homes of a style, detailing and materials that relate to the existing Courtyard homes and to the condominium building. She stated that in response to the Board's direction, the petitioner is presenting revised plans. She noted that the architectural styles now proposed are more compatible with the existing homes in the development that the designs previously proposed. She stated that overall, the revised plans respond to some of the concerns raised at the last meeting. She stated that the elevations somewhat follow the selected architectural styles and further refinement is recommended to more closely align all elements of the homes with the chosen architectural styles. She noted that the primary difference between the various architectural styles is the exterior materials. She commented that elements such as the roof forms, roof pitches, window proportions, window types and architectural detailing appear fairly consistent on all of the proposed home designs she noted however that those elements should reflect the specific architectural style selected for each of the models. She noted that at the last meeting, the Board encouraged the petitioner to offer more options for homes with side load garages. She noted that presently, only three of the twelve house plans offer options for side load garages. She stated that staff recommends that more options be developed for homes with side load garages in an effort to achieve a more even balance between front facing and side garages along Amberley Court. She stated that the proposed exterior materials include a mix of natural and composite materials. She reviewed the proposed materials; stucco, composite shake siding, stone, brick, asphalt shingle roofs for the French Country and Tudor designs, and a wood shingle roof for the homes designed in the Shingle style. She noted that fiberglass glass windows with muntins on the interior and exterior are proposed along with a composite materials for the trim, fascia and soffits. She added that the proposed chimney materials include stucco, stone and brick adding that clay chimney pots are proposed on all of the homes. She stated that the proposed exterior materials are generally consistent with the selected architectural styles. She noted however that in order to more closely match the high quality materials used on the existing Courtyard Homes, and consistent with past Board approvals, staff recommends the use of natural wood for the trim, fascia and soffits instead of the composite material and stone instead of stucco for chimneys for the French Country designs. She stated that overall, the changes made to date by the petitioner have improved the home designs from those initially presented but noted Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 12 of 21 that there appears to be an opportunity to further refine the plans to more closely align with the City's Design Guidelines and with the character and quality of the existing development. She requested direction from the Board on whether the proposed plans as now presented go far enough in aligning with the high quality and the character of the existing Courtyard Homes. She noted that letters were received from neighboring property owners and were distributed to the Board. Board member Walther stated appreciation for the effort made by the petitioner since the last meeting to respond to the concerns raised. He stated support for some of the recommendations in the staff report, particularly the recommendation related to the use of natural materials for all trim, fascia and soffits. He added that he also agrees that stone should be used in place of stucco for the chimney for the model home designed in the French Country style. He pointed out that a synthetic roofing material was proposed on a recent petition, a material that he does not favor however, he supported the use of the material in that case because it was consistent with the variety of materials found in that particular neighborhood. He stated that because the Amberley Court neighborhood is rich in wood shingle roofs, he supports the continued use of that product. He noted that one of the neighbors objected to the use of brick for the new homes however, he pointed out that there are brick homes in Conway Farms nearby and commented that brick is an appropriate exterior material for homes designed in the Tudor style. He stated support for a Board subcommittee to work with the petitioner to resolve the remaining open items and finalize the details of the home designs. Board member Looby agreed with Board member Walther’s comments on the use of natural materials for all trim, fascia and soffits and on the use of wood shingle roofing. He added that the use of at least some natural materials will allow the homes to be more consistent with the existing development. He reiterated that all of the existing Courtyard Homes have cedar shingle roofs. He agreed that the petitioner should provide more options for side load garages to avoid too many front facing garages along the street. Board member Bluhm stated that while she would like to see more side load and fewer front facing garages and wood shingle roofs; the development has struggled for 15 years. She stated that the first two homes built in the development are beautiful but were difficult to sell. She stated that affordable homes with a first floor master for empty nesters are missing in Lake Forest. She noted that the price of lumber has increased significantly in the past year. She stated that she recognizes that the Board’s focus is good design but noted that there must be a balance to allow development to be economically feasible. She stated that she is not in favor of the L.P. Smartside product for the shake siding adding that the product may be better suited for lap siding. She noted however that she may be able to support the L.P. Smartside product as a more practical choice over natural cedar shingles. She agreed with staff’s recommendation regarding the use of natural wood for trim, fascia and soffits. She stated support for more side load garages. Board member Downey agreed with Board members Walther’s and Looby’s Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 13 of 21 comments related to the use of natural materials. She stated that shutters if proposed, should be applied consistently to all the windows. She stated that shutters only on the front elevations creates the appearance of unauthentic designs. She stated that the arched windows, with a single shutter do not appear consistent with the selected architectural style. She stated that in her opinion, the front entrances appear as secondary entrances and are underwhelming. She suggested that consideration be given to the addition of design elements or detailing to highlight the front entrances. She stated that in some designs the garage mass has stone, stucco and brick on the front elevation. She stated that using a single material may improve the appearance of the garage element and the front elevation. She stated that the roof lines on the Carlisle and Fenwick models do not appear proportional or consistent. She stated support for the use of brick exteriors noting that the existing condominium building and the historic residence in Amberley Woods are both brick. She commented that given the concern over building costs raised by the petitioner, maybe only a certain percentage of homes in the development should be required to have cedar shingle roofs. She stated that given the size of the lots, the option for side load garages may be limited. Chairman Diamond stated that natural materials should be used for all trim, fascia, and soffits. He stated support for cedar shingle roofs for all the homes in the development. He encouraged the petitioner to incorporate a paver or brick border around the driveway. He agreed that the chimneys on the French Country designs should be stone. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited the petitioner to respond to the Board’s questions and comments. Mr. Barry requested the opportunity to work with a subcommittee of the Board to expedite the resolution of the open items and areas of concern. He stated that he understands the concern over introducing a new roof material when the five existing homes in the development all have cedar shingles. He reiterated however that in his opinion, the cedar shingle roofs on the existing homes will need to be replaced soon and he offered to talk to the current homeowners about replacing the existing cedar shingle roofs with asphalt roofs for consistency in the development. He stated that a paver border along the driveway is usually added to the homes he constructs. He stated a willingness to consider stone chimneys on the French Country designs. He stated that another option for a side load garage can be developed but stated that he would like to leave the decision on a side load or front facing garage to the buyers. He stated that L.P. Smartside product is not a composite product but is made from wood components like fiberboard. Hearing no further comments from the petitioner, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Wayne Urbanek, 2025 Amberley Court, thanked the Board members for their service. He stated that the five homeowners met with the developer a few times to discuss the new plans for homes in their neighborhood. He noted that the homeowners still have Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 14 of 21 some concerns as stated in the letter provided to the Board in advance of the meeting. He explained that in addition to the existing homes in Amberley Woods, all of the homes in Conway Farms have cedar shingle roofs and he asked the Board to require that the new homes constructed by the developer be consistent with the high quality building materials used in the area. He stated that he, as well as a few of his neighbors, are not interested in Mr. Barry’s offer to replace their existing cedar shingle roofs with asphalt shingle. He asked that if a subcommittee is appointed to discuss the project further and is ultimately responsible for final approval of the project, the homeowners be involved with that process. He stated that he is looking forward to further refinement of the plans. Keith Kreb, 1815 Amberley Court, stated that he has lived in one of the Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes for about nine years and has attended many of the past meetings of the Board when the Amberley Woods development was discussed. He explained that the first two single family homes in the development were built in 2007, not a great time to be selling million dollar plus homes anywhere with what was going on with the economy. He stated that the whole development went through a foreclosure process and his home was the first to be put back on the market by the bank in 2012. He stated that in his opinion, the development was just a victim of timing. He stated that as a resident on Amberley Court for nine years, he believes that the development is challenged not because of the product or the price, but because of the lack of a cul-de-sac at the west end of Amberley Court and the uncertainty about the future of the commercial property on the corner. He noted the various ownerships involved in the Amberley Woods development. He stated that the development as now presented is an improvement over the initial plans presented by the McNaughton group. He noted that if the issues with the cut through traffic and the commercial property are addressed, quality built homes will sell. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. Czerniak stated that in the past, the City has expressed support for a cul-de-sac at the west end of Amberley Court, a private road. She stated that the owner of the commercial property on the corner is continuing to consider options for the property. Board member Walther stated that when he reviewed the material samples provided by the petitioner, he considered the materials as if he were walking along Amberley Court in order to get a sense for how the materials appeared from that distance. He stated that in his opinion, it is visually evident that the materials are not natural materials, he added that the materials appear fake. He noted that the materials appear to have a gloss finish. He suggested that as part of the review by a subcommittee, if the Board moves in that direction, the petitioner should provide a mock-up of the proposed materials all together to allow a better sense of what the homes, once constructed of the combination of non-natural materials, will look like. He stated that the Board has historically endorsed the use of natural materials for elements such as the fascia, trim and soffits. He noted that the roof forms as viewed from the side elevations look awkward and encouraged the petitioner to revisit and refine the roof forms. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 15 of 21 Board member Downey agreed with Board member Walther’s comments. She reiterated that the front entrances need refinement. She stated that the primary question appears to be the use of asphalt shingles instead for cedar shingles for the roofs. She noted that the existing homes in the development that have cedar shingle roofs are at the east and west ends of the street, almost like bookends. She stated that the new homes in between could read as a separate neighborhood. She stated that offering a cedar roof as an option does not seem to be a realistic approach given the cost. She stated that she is conflicted about the roof material and would like to see the development be successful. She suggested that perhaps the Board could limit the number of asphalt roofs to maintain a balance. Board member Looby stated that based on his review of the material samples provided by the petitioner, in his opinion, the materials as a whole have a low quality appearance. He added that the gloss finish is not helpful. He stated that natural wood should be used for the trim adding that the use of natural wood will greatly enhance the appearance of the new homes. He agreed with Board member Downey’s comments on the consistent application of shutters around the home. He stated that cedar roofs are very common in Lake Forest. He noted that in his opinion, replacing the cedar shingle roofs on the existing Courtyard Homes with asphalt would downgrade the houses. Board member Bluhm stated support for the appointment of a Board subcommittee to work with the petitioner to resolve the open items. She explained that the Board must bear in mind what people are willing to spend on these homes adding that it the prices are too high, people will go to the east side of Lake Forest to buy a home. She stated that she views Amberley Woods as a separate neighborhood from Conway Farms. She added that she also views the Courtyard Homes as separate from the condominium building. She reiterated that the price of lumber has increased significantly over the past year. She agreed that cedar shingle roofs would be more consistent and preferable if cost was not an issue. She stated her hope that the project can be both beautiful and successful. Chairman Diamond stated that given the cedar roofs on the existing homes along Amberley Court, a mix of materials for the roofs could create a disconnected appearance in the development. He explained that in his opinion, Conway Farms is part of the context within which the Courtyard Homes should be considered adding that all of the homes in Conway Farms have cedar shingle roofs. He stated that he feels strongly that natural materials should be used on the new homes for consistency with the surroundings. In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. Czerniak stated that although the Board does not appoint subcommittees often, in this case, in order to expedite final approvals and in light of the interest expressed by the neighbors, a subcommittee may be helpful. She stated that given the neighbors’ interest, the recommendation of the subcommittee should be returned to the full Board for final action at a public meeting. She confirmed that notice will be provided to the neighbors prior to Board consideration of the petition at a future meeting. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 16 of 21 In response to questions from Chairman Diamond, Mr. Barry stated that they intend to start by building three model homes but have not yet decided which models to build. He stated that one of the three homes will be a sales model and the other two homes will be spec homes. Board member Walther stated that the Board is committed to work with the petitioner to move the project forward. He stated that the Board recognizes that the petitioner has made good progress on improving the designs of the proposed homes since the original presentation. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to study, refine and respond to the comments and concerns raised by the Board and neighboring property owners. The Board authorized the Chairman to appoint a subcommittee of two members of the Building Review Board for the purpose of offering additional input as the plans are revised in an effort to facilitate final approval by the Board at the next meeting. The Board offered the following direction and requests for additional information. • Continue to refine the plans to more fully adhere to the City’s Design Guidelines and to be consistent with the quality and character of the established development in the Amberley Woods development. • Prepare a mockup of exterior buildings materials in combination as they are proposed on the various home designs. Include the proposed color palettes. • Use natural wood for the trim, fascia and soffits. • Use stone for the chimneys in place of stucco. • Use consistent materials and applications for the garage on the Brunswick French Country design. • Use a consistent level of detailing on all elevations to present a cohesive appearance. • Use shutters that are proportional to the window opening and apply the use of shutters consistently on all elevations. • Incorporate detailing or design elements to highlight the front entrances and draw attention away from the front facing garages. • Refine roof types and roof pitches to relate to the chosen architectural style to present a more cohesive appearance. • Refine the window types and proportions to follow the chosen architectural style. • Refine the locations and alignment of windows to present a more regular and balanced appearance. • Develop additional designs with side load garages to allow for a balance of front load and side load garages. • Incorporate plantings along the sides of the houses, to the extent possible while also properly managing stormwater flows and the driveway. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 17 of 21 The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 6. 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 1525 Sage Court and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC (Mike DeMar, 100%) Contract Purchasers: Samantha and Tom Bakas Project Representative: Jeff Letzter, Aspect Design Inc. 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. Letzter introduced the petition and noted that the proposed residence is in the newly developing Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision. He stated that a plan for a model home in the subdivision was previously presented to the Board and revisions were requested he noted however that the model home is on hold because buyers have stepped forward and the homes in the subdivision are now being custom designed for each buyer. He stated that the developer, Mike DeMar of Fidelity Wes, bought the entire subdivision from the original developer and the design guidelines put in place by that developer are guiding the design of the homes. He reviewed the residence mow proposed noting that it is designed in the Tudor style with brick, stucco, wood timber details, limestone trim around the front entrance, a cedar shingle roof, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated divided lites. He stated that the soffits, fascias, and corner boards will be wood and the chimney brick, with a clay chimney pot. He presented the site plan and elevations of the home. He noted that the property has an irregular shape because it is on the cul-de-sac at the end of Sage Court. He stated that the home is set back about 100 feet from the front property line and noted that a side load four car garage is proposed on the west side of the house. He noted that City staff commented that the roof mass on the west elevation appears expansive and heavy and explained that the roof has a 14:12 pitch and slopes back to the central part of the house. He said that changing the pitch of the roof would complicate the overall roof form. He stated that in an effort to minimize the appearance of the large, expansive roof mass, dormers were added to visually break up the roof. He pointed out the projecting bay element with decorative cedar trim on the east side of the home, in the stairway noting that it relates to the intended Tudor style. He noted that there is a Conservation Easement on the south side of the property which protects trees and vegetation in that area and pointed out that the site is heavily wooded. Ms. Baehr reviewed that the property is located on the south side of the cul de sac, on Sage Court. She stated that this proposed new residence is presented by the developer on behalf of the contract purchasers of the lot. She noted that the residence is sited at an angle on the property, facing north, toward the street. She stated that the proposed attached garage faces west. She reviewed that based on the description provided by the petitioner, the residence is designed in the Tudor architectural style, a style that is compatible with the architectural styles found in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that a number of elements common to the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 18 of 21 Tudor style are incorporated into the design including an arched entryway, tall narrow casement windows, decorative half-timbering and decorative brickwork. She noted some areas of large, expansive roof forms noting that staff encouraged the petitioner to consider further study and refinement of the roof forms in an effort to minimize the appearance of mass, particularly on the side elevations. She stated that are the petitioner’s architect explained, a good solution was not found so instead, dormers and projecting bays were added to distract from the large roof forms. She stated that natural exterior materials are proposed consistent with the proposed architectural style and with the City's design guidelines. She stated that a total of 10 trees are proposed for removal some of which are in poor condition. She stated that several healthy black walnut trees, high quality native shade trees, are proposed for removal however, they are located in areas of the site that do not appear to be impacted by site grading or construction activity. She stated that the City Arborist requested that those trees be preserved to maintain the wooded character of the property and the overall subdivision. She stated that the Code requires that trees and vegetation in a Conservation Easement remain to maintain the natural character of the area and a buffer from adjacent development. She stated that if the property owner desires to remove vegetation from a Conservation Easement, an inventory prepared by a Certified Arborist must be submitted to the City and any proposed removals are subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. She stated that replanting is required in the Conservation Easement to restore the same density of vegetation that currently exists. She stated that the petitioner provided a conceptual landscape plan that reflects foundation plantings and some plantings at the front of the property. She stated that the landscape plan should reflect the natural character of the overall subdivision. She stated that as the landscape plan is further developed, additional plantings should be incorporated to enhance the wooded character of the property. Chairman Diamond invited questions from the Board. Board member Looby complimented the design of the residence. He commended the use of natural exterior materials. He stated that further work is needed to enhance the landscape plan. Board member Walther questions whether the color renderings accurately reflect the proposed color palette. He pointed out that the renderings indicate dark red brick with brown trim and black windows. He stated that the windows should match the brown trim. Board member Bluhm stated that the proposed home will fit well in the new subdivision. She stated that it appears that the trim color is intended as a charcoal grey, instead of a traditional brown adding that the grey is a modern touch to the classic Tudor style. She suggested that instead of black windows, consideration should be given to charcoal grey windows to match the trim. She agreed with Board member Walther that the black windows do not appear to fit in with the proposed color palette. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 19 of 21 Board member Downey asked for clarification on the tree replacement inches and the Conservation Easement. She asked if the landscape plan presented by the petitioner meets the applicable requirements. Chairman Diamond complimented the home and agreed that further enhancement of the landscape plan is needed. Board member Looby stated that the proposed color palette appears to resemble the Deerpath Inn with black windows and charcoal gray trim. He noted that black windows are often found on Tudor homes. In response to questions from Board member Downey, Ms. Czerniak stated that Conservation Easements are established at the time of subdivision to protect and preserve trees and vegetation in a particular area, most often to maintain a vegetated buffer between an existing development and a new development. She stated that any removal of trees or vegetation from a Conservation Easement is subject to review and approval by the City and, replacement plantings are required to return the area to the same density of vegetation that existed prior to the removals, within a reasonable period of time. She stated that Conservation Easements on private property are the responsibility of the property owner to maintain on an ongoing basis. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Kristel Bauer, 530 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that her home is adjacent to the Oak Knoll Woodlands development. She expressed concern about the lot sizes in the development in comparison to the size of the surrounding lots. She stated concern about how the character and value of her property will be impacted. She stated concern about the number of homes planned for the development and the traffic that will result. She pointed out that there are no sidewalks in her subdivision and many children playing. Brian Bauer, 530 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that because the lots to the south of the subdivision, along Oak Knoll Drive to Conway Road are larger than the lots in the new development, the homes are larger as well. He also expressed concern about increased traffic and the danger that will present to children in the neighborhood. Ms. Czerniak stated clarified that the subdivision, including the number and size of lots, was approved several years ago after an extensive public process. She stated that traffic volumes were considered as part of that discussion. She explained that the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision is a Conservation Subdivision which means that the overall density is consistent with the zoning however, in order to preserve wetlands, woodlands and open space, the lots are smaller. She stated that during construction, the developer will be responsible for assuring that contractors abide by applicable traffic regulations and to make sure they are cautious of children and school busses. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 20 of 21 Board member Walther that normally, the petitioner provides material samples for the Board’s review. He stated support for moving the petition forward with a condition that a mock up of the materials and color palette be provided for review. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the new residence, landscape plan, and overall site plan subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. A mock up of the proposed exterior materials and color palette shall be provided to staff for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 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. Prior to submitting plans and an application for permit, a detailed tree evaluation report shall be prepared by a Certified Arborist for the trees on the site to allow a determination of the replacement plantings that will be required in the Conservation Easement and of the total number of replacement inches to be planted on site, outside of the Conservation Easement, based on the size, species and condition of the trees proposed for removal. The Black Walnut trees shall be evaluated and if, in the determination of the City’s Certified Arborist, these trees can be protected and preserved, appropriate steps should be taken to do so. 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. 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 Building Review Board Minutes – 4/7/2021 Page 21 of 21 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. The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 8. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Assistant Planner