Loading...
BRB_2021_10_06_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of October 6, 2021 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, issued on March 16, 2020 that suspended certain Open Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Building Review Board members present: 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 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 the June 2, 2021 and September 1, 2021 meetings of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the June 2, 2021 and September 1, 2021 meetings were approved as presented. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of a single family residence and construction of a replacement residence and attached garage. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested. The property is addressed as 1000 Grandview Lane. Property Owners: Steven and Nancy Hannick Project Representative: Diana Melichar, 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. Ms. Melichar introduced the project. She stated that based on Lake County records, the home and two car attached garage were built in 1960. She stated that the clapboard sided, one-story house is in fair condition. She noted that there is no known architect of record adding that research did not identify any past owner of significance. She added that the existing home has no distinctive architectural features. She pointed out that the existing home is skewed in its orientation to the street as well as to the property lines. She noted that the property is 90 feet wide rather than the 100 foot width required today in the R-2 zoning district which makes Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 2 of 24 the angled orientation of the home appear even more pronounced on the site. She presented alternative concepts that were considered for additions and renovations to the existing home and explained that those concepts resulted in a larger building footprint than would result from a replacement residence. She added that in order to achieve the petitioner’s desired home, extensive interior renovation and alterations would be required and as a result, more than 50 percent of the home would be demolished. She added that because of the skewed orientation of the home on the site, additions would further restrict views to the outside, reduce the size of the rear yard and make a connection to the rear yard from the home difficult. She offered further comments in support of the proposed demolition. She noted that Mid-century Modern homes are found throughout the neighborhood and the owners are proposing a one-story replacement home, in the contemporary style. She presented images of existing Mid-century Modern homes in the surrounding neighborhood noting that they display irregular massing, window spacing and shapes. She noted that the modern home located just a few doors south of the subject property reflects large expanses of glass adding that many of the modern homes in the neighborhood have low roof slopes and flat roofs typical of the style. She added that contemporary style homes have geometric massing, express the building materials and nestle into their sites rather than set themselves apart from the landscape. She presented perspective renderings of the proposed home noting that it is in keeping with the mix of homes in the neighborhood. She stated that the Mid-century Modern style and massing is maintained on all four elevations. She noted that the residence features simple building forms and walls that are grounded with a stone base. She added that the roofs are expressed as low sloping, floating planes. She noted that a wood and glass front door allows for visual flow from the front yard to the backyard. She noted that the windows are arranged to reflect the home's interior uses and the garage door windows are horizontally oriented. She explained that the western facing windows will capture warmth and sunlight in the winter months and will be shaded by dense forest and privacy screening in the summer. She stated that the glass walls provide an intimate connection between indoor and outdoor spaces, with easy access to outdoor living areas. She explained that the building materials were selected for durability and longevity. She stated that the color palette was selected to blend in with nature. She presented an image of the proposed coursing and cut of the limestone veneer and the bronze colored windows. She stated that a sustainable, recycled and durable synthetic siding product is proposed for the home. She presented an image of the synthetic siding on a contemporary home in Highland Park. She stated that in order to retain as many trees and backyard space as possible, the garage is tucked in behind the front yard zoning setback as it angles along the street. She explained that most of the proposed driveway and turning pad adjacent to the garage are located within the footprint of the existing driveway. She stated that the new driveway approach is narrowed in comparison to the existing driveway and is perpendicular to the roadway for visibility and safety. She explained that the new residence’s orientation on the east west axis with its facade and entry walk centered on the lot, strengthens the sense of arrival from the street. She stated that the building footprint creates an entrance forecourt that will be landscaped to accent the architecture of the home. She noted that there is an abundance of woodland and trees on the site. She stated that presently, the property is covered Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 3 of 24 with a thicket of buckthorn, poison ivy and other invasive plants adding that the new owners have already started the process of woodland restoration by removing the invasive plants adding that dead and diseased trees will also be removed. She stated that once the buckthorn and invasive plants are removed, the owners intend to plant evergreen trees, flowering understory trees, ornamental shrubs and perennials to create a dense privacy screen along the property lines and interesting views for the owners and their neighbors throughout the seasons. She stated that on the west facade of the house, in keeping with the Mid-century Modern aesthetic, the owners selected concrete for the terrace located between the north and south wings for level footing. She stated that a small circular lawn in the rear yard extends the open space to the restored woodland edge where a footpath will be added to allow exploration of the woods and perimeter plantings. She stated that the new residence will improve the value of the property and those around it by replacing a residence that is awkwardly sited on the property. She added that the new home and landscape will improve the streetscape and improve the current conditions on the site. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the petition is requesting approval of the demolition of the existing residence and approval of a replacement residence, site plan, tree removal and landscaping. She stated that the Board action should be in the form of two motion. She stated that findings in support of the demolition are detailed in the staff report. She stated findings in support of the replacement residence are also detailed in the report. She reviewed that there are Mid-century Modern homes found throughout the neighborhood as reviewed by Ms. Melichar adding that many of the homes are sited on wooded lots similar to the property in this petition. She stated that the proposed exterior materials and the color palette blend well with the existing and planned landscaping. She explained that the proposed residence is approximately 30 percent below the allowable square footage and has a low profile. She noted that as proposed, about 27 percent of the property will be impervious surface, a fairly high percent. She noted that Ms. Melichar explained that concrete is proposed for the rear patio to provide level footing. She asked for the Board's input on the balance of solids to voids on the north and south elevations noting that those elevations have only a few windows. She acknowledged that the primary views from the house are from the rear elevation, into the backyard. Board member Looby commended Ms. Melichar for a thorough presentation. He stated that the images of the proposed building materials were very helpful. He agreed that the existing residence is obsolete and does not fit well on the property. He expressed support for the demolition of the existing residence. He stated that the proposed replacement residence fits in very well with the neighborhood and complimented the exterior materials. He questioned if there are other hardscape materials that would meet the petitioners’ needs that could be used in place of the impervious concrete for the rear patio. He acknowledged that overtime, the concrete will blend in somewhat with the landscape. He noted however that a different hardscape material, or an accent material, could make the patio more interesting. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 4 of 24 Board member Downey commended the petitioner’s presentation adding that it made the project and the exterior materials easy to understand. She stated support for the demolition of the existing home acknowledging that the siting of the existing home is awkward. She stated that the replacement residence is beautifully designed. She questioned whether an alternate material for the rear terrace is available that will still provide the level surface desired by the petitioners. She stated that an alternate material could make the terrace more interesting. She stated that the concrete terrace does not appear to offer the same level of interest as the house. She stated that if the owner chooses to use concrete for the terrace, outdoor furniture could be selected to complement the style of the house to tie the two elements together. She stated that given that the homeowner is a landscape architect, she is confident that landscaping will be added to soften the areas of solid wall on the north and south elevations. She asked about the material proposed for the footpath around the rear yard and asked what color is proposed for the front door. Board member Renken stated that the project is very well thought out. He agreed that the demolition criteria are satisfied. He stated that the new home will be a great improvement to the neighborhood adding that the modern style is appropriate. He stated that initially, he thought that a slightly higher roof pitch would be appropriate but stated that after review, he has no concerns with the design of the house. He stated that in his opinion, not every elevation has to have the same expanse of windows. He stated that the new house will complement the site adding that the removal of the underbrush and the addition of landscaping will benefit the site. He stated support for the concrete terrace because it is at the rear of the home. He stated support for the petition. Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition of the existing house. She complimented the proposed siding. She stated that moving the curb cut away from the corner of the property benefits the site. She complimented the landscaped court at the front of the house and questioned whether stone chips could be used for a portion of the driveway or motor court to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. She agreed that a natural material, instead of concrete, would be preferable for the terrace but noted that since the terrace is at the rear of the house, and given the petitioners’ reasons for preferring concrete, she is supportive of the terrace as proposed. She agreed that incorporating additional openings on the north and south elevations could be beneficial but stated that she will support the elevations as proposed. Board member Walther stated support for the demolition. He stated that initially, he agreed with staff’s recommendation to incorporate additional openings on the north and south elevations but after listening to the comments of the other Board members, he is less concerned about the expanse of solid wall in those locations. He added that in other projects, landscaping has been used successfully to soften the visual impact of large expanses of wall. He observed that the foot path is very close to the house on the north side adding that it may be difficult to get a wheelbarrow or other equipment through that area. He noted that there might be an opportunity to shift the path away from the house to provide more space for maneuvering and provide Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 5 of 24 space for landscaping along the foundation to help break up the appearance of the solid wall. He asked for more detail on the concrete terrace proposed at the rear of the home. He asked if a stain or chip seal treatment is planned for the concrete to provide a more natural appearance as opposed to a gray trowel finish. Chairman Diamond complimented the design of the home and stated support for the demolition. He stated that he is not concerned about the concrete rear terrace. He added that the petitioner may want to consider Board member Walther’s comments about a stain that might offer a more natural look. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, he invited public testimony. Hearing none, he asked the petitioner to respond to the Board’s questions. Ms. Melichar responded to the questions raised by the Board members. She said the front door will be painted red to add a pop of color to the house and highlight the entrance. She stated that the color of the door can be changed in the future. She explained that the house is designed to be environmentally sensitive, one of the reasons for the limited openings on the north elevation. She added that the property owners have an extensive art collection and intend to use the solid walls along the north and south elevations to display art. She noted that the garage walls will be used for storage and therefore do not have windows. She noted that there is an opening on the front facing elevation. She explained that the property owners are moving from a three-story home and intend to age in place in the new home so steps are limited at the front stoop and at the back of the home. She stated that the concrete terrace will be accessible for those with limited mobility. Ms. Hannick stated that she is a landscape architect and the owner of the property. She explained that the concrete patio is a commonly found as a complement to a Mid-century Modern home adding that the landscape and hardscape design was inspired by the work of Thomas Church, a landscape architect who designed indoor/ outdoor living spaces in California. She stated that her goal is to have the inside and outside flow adding that the concrete terrace is intended to recede and not be a strong design element. She explained that the surrounding landscape is meant to standout. She stated that a segmental, linear, concrete block paver is proposed for the front walk. She added that in the rear terrace will have fewer joints to avoid settling and to allow furniture to be placed easily. She stated that consideration was given to using joint materials such as blue chip, but in her experience, over time settling occurs and maintenance is difficult. She stated that there will be some joints on the rear terrace which will add interest because of the shape of the terrace. She stated that beyond the rear terrace, the property will be kept natural. She stated that the existing bark and mulch path at the rear of the property will be maintained to avoid changes to the area that could impact the root systems of the trees. Ms. Melichar stated that the property owners met with the neighbors and provided form letters to give neighbors the opportunity to provide comments on the project. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a few form letters were submitted by neighbors in support of the petition. She stated that the letters are in the Board’s packet. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 6 of 24 Chairman Diamond stated that he supports the petition and invited final comments from the Board. Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition of the existing home. She commented that it is clear that a lot of thought has gone into the petition. She stated support for the new home as presented. Board member Downey stated appreciation for the petitioner’s explanation of the reasons for the red front door and the concrete terrace at the rear of the home. She stated support for the petition as presented. Board member Looby agreed with the comments of Chairman Diamond and Board member Downey. Board member Walther agreed with comments of the other Board members. He observed that the basement plan shows a storage room with a closet that looks like it could be considered a bedroom however, there is no egress window in that room. He asked that the City verify Code compliance with respect to that space. Board member Renken stated support for both the demolition and the replacement residence. He stated that the new home will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Looby made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a replacement residence, attached garage and approval of the associated hardscape the preliminary landscape plan based on the findings as presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. Consideration should be given to ways to soften the appearance of the concrete patio at the rear of the home including landscape treatments, the use of pattern joints and appropriate finishes. 2. If modifications are made to the plans either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices to properly direct drainage. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 7 of 24 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscape plan and a tree and vegetative removal plan and shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall meet, at a minimum, the landscape standards for new residences as detailed in the Code and shall include all required replacement tree inches to account for trees removed. If the full amount of required replacement inches totaling 89 inches, cannot be accommodated on site, a payment in lieu of on site plantings will be required before the issuance of a building permit to support plantings in the parkways in the neighborhood. 5. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees from construction activity must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City. If determined to be appropriate, the plan shall include pre and post treatment of the trees identified for preservation. 6. Details of exterior lighting shall be included on the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets of all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view by the fixture or by sight obscuring glass. All exterior lighting, except for security lights with motion detectors, shall be on timers to turn off no later than 11 p.m. • Care should be taken to assure that interior lights are located in a manner to avoid light spillover from the skylight on the north side of the home in keeping with the dark sky and right to night goals of the City and the low level lighting character of the neighborhood. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and attached garage on a vacant lot. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested. The property is addressed as 1415 Oak Knoll Drive. Property Owners: Danit and Tom Voitik Project Representative: David Aharoni, builder Danielle Slamans, 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. Voitik introduced himself and the design team. He stated that he and his family are excited to move into Lake Forest and build their dream home. He noted that the property is vacant and located in a subdivision with lots of a similar size. He stated that the proposed residence fits in with the existing homes in the area. He stated that the proposed Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 8 of 24 residence is designed in a modern French provincial style. He reviewed the exterior elevations of the home noting that the design development has taken about eight months. He stated that a patio is proposed at the rear of the home. He stated that the house has a single car and a three car garage which all face north. He stated that in response to staff comments, the roof forms and roof pitches were refined. He stated that the exterior walls will be a combination of cut limestone and natural tumbled stone, all the same color. He stated that black aluminum clad wood windows with limestone surrounds are proposed. He stated that the front door and garage doors will also be black. He stated that gas light fixtures with a very low lumen level are proposed. He stated that the railings on the balconies around the home will be wrought iron and the gutters and downspouts, copper. He stated that a Tesla Solar Roof is proposed and said that he has completed extensive research on the Tesla Solar Roof system and noted that the product offers many benefits. He added that in appearance, the Tesla Solar Roof is comparable to a black slate roof. He noted that the Solar Roof shingles are 15 inches by 45 inches and have a natural texture. He stated that the driveway is large and trees and other vegetation is planned in the front yard. He noted that a circular fountain is proposed near the front door. He stated that significant landscaping is planned. He stated that the buckthorn in the rear yard will be removed to open up the active part of the yard. Ms. Czerniak stated that this property is a transitional property, between the larger lots to the south and the smaller lots to the north. She stated that the property is the last vacant lot in the Biltmore Subdivision which was approved in 2000. She noted that the subdivision was unusual in that the subdivision included lots only on the east side of the street and the west side of the street is bordered, for the most part, by the rear yards of houses fronting on or accessed from Estate Lane. She stated that just to the north, on the west side of Oak Knoll Drive, the Board recently approved three new homes, one of which is currently under construction. She stated that the other homes in the Biltmore subdivision are large with full two story massing and expansive roofs. She stated that as proposed, the house is very close to the maximum square footage adding that as this project moves forward, it will be critical that the City regularly receives as-builts confirming that the square footage does not exceed the allowable. She stated that the materials proposed are all high quality. She stated that the proposed Tesla solar roof is consistent with the City's sustainability goals. She stated that to date, a sample of the solar roof tile has not been provided by the petitioner, she suggested that the Board may want to require that a mockup of the roof system be provided for review prior to installation. She noted that roof tiles with a matte finish would be consistent with the overall high quality exterior materials proposed. She commented that the massing of the house is asymmetrical and confirmed earlier conversations between the petitioner and City staff in an effort to emphasize the main mass of the house and the front entry and minimize, to some extent, the north end of the house. She requested input from the Board on the two types of stone proposed, with different textures, noting that from the staff perspective, the different stone materials appears to take away from the importance of the main entry. She noted that the vertical, dark window element is a strong element of the home. She stated that as mentioned a fountain is proposed in front of the home however, the details of the fountain and the materials have not yet been determined or provided to staff for review. She stated that based on the plan submitted, no lighting is proposed on the fountain adding that the fountain is sited in compliance with the setback requirements. She stated that gas lights are proposed on either side of the Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 9 of 24 main entrance. She noted that the City’s lighting guidelines require that fixtures shield the source of the light and direct light down. She noted however that the guidelines do not specifically address natural gas fed lights. She stated that gas fed lights are soft, subtle and produce a low level of light and recommended that the Board consider a condition to allow the gas fed lanterns without shielding of the light source. She noted that a house of this size requires substantial landscaping to allow the house to settle into the site. She noted that although the landscape plan that was submitted does not reflect substantial landscaping, the petitioners have stated that substantial landscaping is planned. Board member Walther agreed that a mockup of the Tesla roof should be reviewed to allow the Board to understand the appearance of the tiles. He stated that he is concerned that the solar tiles may have a sheen. He noted that the roof plan shows individual roof vents and stated that a continuous ridge vent or fewer penetrations should be considered. He expressed initial concern that there is an awkwardness to the front elevation element is painted plywood. He stated that it is important for the Board to understand the intended material and detailing of the large window. He expressed concern about the use of three different cuts of stone, tumbled stone, small rectilinear cut stone, and the large stone blocks at the entrance. He stated that additional refinement is needed on the north side of the home, particularly on the front elevation. Board member Downey agreed with Board member Walther’s comments. She stated that she is supportive of the lantern fixtures as proposed if gas fed lights are used. She agreed that a sample of the roof tiles should be reviewed to assure that the tiles do not have a sheen. She added that the opportunity to use a sustainable product is exciting. She commended the quality of the exterior materials overall. She expressed concern that based on the color elevations provided by the petitioner, the house looks busy adding that the three different types of limestone are distracting. She suggested that consideration be given to replacing the black painted wood around the three sets of windows with limestone. She stated that without more detail on the black window element, it is difficult to visualize and unclear whether or not the element will be detailed or just be painted wood. She agreed that a continuous ridge vent should be used instead of individual roof vents. She expressed concern about landscaping on the site being phased in noting that if the budget for the house is more than expected, landscaping may be overlooked. She stated that minimum plantings and plantings needed to allow the house to settle into the site should be required along with construction of the house. She noted that the petitioner can always add more landscaping later. She noted that drainage concerns were raised by neighbors in the area when other new homes on sites nearby were discussed and asked whether drainage has been addressed in the area. Board member Renken stated that the scale and majesty of the house, and the high quality exterior materials fit in with the houses to the south. He stated that it is not uncommon for homes to have two different types of stone, limestone or a harder stone surrounding the windows and doors, and a rough stone elsewhere. He stated that the grooving and scoring is important to consider when different types of stone are used. He stated that the limestone around the front entrance makes it stand out. He noted that this stone appears to have few score marks making the entry simple while still drawing attention. He stated that the limestone used on the north end of the house, in the vertical Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 10 of 24 recessed area, appears distracting. He suggested consideration of natural stone for that area. He stated that the black window element on the front of the house needs detailing. He suggested that panels could be used, as opposed to plywood, to create shadow lines to enhance the appearance of the element. He agreed that a continuous ridge vent should be used instead of multiple individual vents. He stated that landscaping is very important and agreed that the plan should at least meet the minimum Code requirements. He stated that given the quality of the home proposed, it will be disappointing if the landscaping is not of the same quality. He stated support for gas fed lighting provided that the lumen level is low. He stated support for the style of the light fixtures as proposed. He stated that generally, he is supportive of the Tesla solar roof but agreed that more information, including a mockup of the tiles is needed to understand the material used for the tiles and the appearance of the tiles. He added that he is interested to know how the solar roof tiles hold up over time and whether the tiles fade. He asked about the material and color of the frieze and fascia. He noted that there will be a horizontal band created by the frieze and fascia between the roof and gutter. Board member Looby asked whether square footage is available for the future pool house shown on the landscape plan. He expressed concern that the large house uses the available square footage. He stated that is in interested in the Tesla roof but concerned that the Board does not have information on the product. He asked if the entire roof will be covered with the Tesla solar tiles. He agreed that a continuous ridge vent should be used instead of individual vents. He stated support for gas lighting noting that gas lanterns add interest to a home. He stated that any proposal to convert the lights to electric in the fixture at a future will require City review of the fixtures. He stated that the samples of the stone are helpful in comparison to the appearance of the stone on the color renderings. He agreed with the comments of the other Board members on the need for further study of the different types of stone and agreed that more detailing is needed on the black window element on the front elevation to provide shadow and depth. Board member Bluhm stated support for the Tesla solar roof noting that it is forward thinking. She stated that she understands that the Tesla tiles are made of tempered glass and metal and is jet black. She stated support for the gas light fixtures adding that they work well with copper gutters. She noted that gas lighting is soft and said she is not concerned about the brightness. She noted that homes in the area are set back from the street and are heavily landscaped. She stated that the stone sample reads as a light gray rather than white. She stated that is confused by the limestone sample noting that it has a red-yellow color and a very polished appearance. She suggested that consideration be given to using larger limestone blocks to highlight the front entrance and smaller tumbled stone on the vertical section on the north side of the house. She observed that the homes in the subdivision are either brick with limestone trim, or all stone with limestone trim. She stated that in her opinion, eliminating the limestone on the north side and replacing it with tumbled stone will highlight the front entryway. She asked about the wrought iron work and the design of the balconies. She stated that the scale and massing of the home appears consistent with the other homes in the subdivision. She observed that the site slopes down from the center so the house will sit at the high point of the site. She noted that there is a Conservation Easement at the east end of the lot so the grade will not change in that area. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 11 of 24 Chairman Diamond agreed that a mockup of the Tesla roof is needed. He asked for information on the longevity of the Tesla roof product and how storm damage is addressed. He agreed with Board member Looby’s suggestion that if a change from gas lights to electric lights is proposed, further City review should be required. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited the petitioner to respond to the Board’s questions. Mr. Voitik stated that the Tesla roof has a 30 year warranty and is very durable. He stated that the Tesla roof tiles will cover the entire roof. He stated that some of the tiles will be solar activated from the ground adding that the activated tiles will not appear different from the other tiles from the street, only from above the house. Ms. Slamans stated that the goal of the various materials is to give the house character, not to make it look busy. She stated that the cut limestone used in the vertical recessed area on the front elevation will be the same color as the other stone. She added that cut limestone is proposed in other locations around the home, not just on the front elevation. She stated that the black window element on the front elevation will have panels where the windows break and a scalloped detail at the top. She stated that the home will be detailed in the French Eclectic style, with a modern look. She stated that the iron work will be custom made so an exact image of the balconies is not available yet. She noted that the intent is that the iron work will have clean lines, with subtle detailing. She stated that an overly ornate appearance is not desired. She stated that the window element on the front of the house will be painted black to tie into the color of the roof. Mr. Voitik clarified that there will be no roof vents because the house will have all foam installation. He stated that the landscape plan will meet the City’s criteria adding that significant landscaping is planned to complement the large home. Ms. Czerniak responded to the Board’s questions. She spoke to drainage on the site noting that there is a drainage easement on the east side of the property adding that the drainage and grading plan will be reviewed in the context of the existing easement. She explained that the drainage issues raised during the discussion of the new homes located to the northwest of this site adding that City representatives have met with a number of residents in that area to discuss longer term storm sewer improvements that are needed. She stated that staff does not anticipate impact on properties on the west side of Oak Knoll Drive as a result of the petition now before the Board. She stated that as proposed, the house in this petition is less than a quarter of a percent under the allowable square footage. She confirmed that there is no square footage available for a future pool house. She stated that a pool will be permitted, but no an additional structure. She stated that there is no limitation on the amount of impervious surface as long as the drainage is determined to be workable by the City Engineer. She clarified that it is possible that in the future there may be one or more homes on the west side of Oak Knoll along this block. Chairman Diamond invited final questions and comments from the Board. Board member Bluhm reiterated that additional information is needed about the proposed stone and roof materials. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 12 of 24 Board member Downey stated that it is difficult to understand the details of the home and the color palette without additional information. She suggested that a subcommittee of the Board may be able to review the details and determine whether or not further review by the full Board is necessary. She stated that a mockup of the roof and wood detailing should be provided to convey the intent of the petitioner. She added that an image of the proposed iron work should also be provided for review. She noted that the City’s Design Guidelines direct that the number of exterior wall materials be limited to two different types and in this case, the petitioner is proposing to use the same limestone material but in three different ways. She commented that the front entrance is very attractive but the different cuts of stone are distracting. She stated that she is in favor of moving the petition forward with the appointment of a subcommittee of the Board to review the items previously noted. Chairman Diamond and Board member Looby agreed with Board member Downey’s suggestion to appoint a subcommittee of the Board to review the items called out by the Board. Board member Looby commended the design of the entrance to the home. He agreed that the form and detailing of the stone at the front entrance would benefit from further study and refinement to avoid the appearance of a flooring tile. He stated that based on the drawings, it is difficult to determine how the different types of stones will look together. Board member Walther stated that it appears there is a discrepancy on the rear elevation as shown on the drawing and on the rendering. He explained the architectural drawing shows tumbled stone on the kitchen area but the rendering shows black painted wood. He stated that the architectural drawing for the rear elevation presents a nice balance between the cut stone on the right and tumbled stone in the center of the home. He stated that a similar balance will benefit the front of the house. He stated that the larger sections of cut stone around the front door in combination with the tumbled stone, creates a busy appearance. He stated that some additional study of the front elevation is needed. He stated support for appointing a subcommittee to work with the petitioner in an effort to move the petition forward. Board member Renken stated that the petitioner explained that no roof vents are needed likely because a conditioned attic is proposed and there is no need for venting. He stated support for the petition and agreed that a subcommittee should be appointed to review the issues discussed. He stated that because the house is setback a considerable distance from the street, the stone may look like limestone block from the street because the cut lines will not be very visible. He stated that the stone used in the recessed area on the front elevation and on the kitchen area on the rear elevation should have fewer lines and more closely resemble the stone around the front door. He suggested that the petitioner consider using the tumbled stone on the front and rear elevations and the cut limestone around the front entry. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 13 of 24 Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of a new residence with attached garages, the conceptual landscape plan and the overall site plan based on the findings as presented in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions. 1. A subcommittee of the Board, appointed by the Chairman, shall review and work to resolve the following aspects of the design. The subcommittee is authorized to grant final approval of the petition. If resolution on one or more of the items below cannot be reached, the petition shall be returned to the full Board for further review and action. a. A mockup of the solar roof panels shall be presented to the subcommittee to provide a clear understanding of the overall appearance of the system from the streetscape. The panels shall have a matte finish, rather than a sheen. b. Details of the wood paneling around the vertical windows shall be presented to provide an understanding of the shadowing, articulation and quality intended for that vertical element on the front elevation. c. Details of the pattern proposed for the wrought iron shall be presented. d. Details of the exterior materials including color, pattern and texture shall be presented to allow an evaluation of the overall composition of the facades, the prominence of the front entry, and the complexity, or lack thereof, of the elevations. 2. If roof vents are necessary, a continuous ridge vent shall be used in place of multiple roof vents. 3. All modifications made 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 plans submitted for permit 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, at a minimum, fully satisfy the minimum landscape requirements as provided for in the Code and plantings shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Minimum plantings include ground cover, mid-level and canopy trees and evergreens. No removal of vegetation of any type is permitted in the Conservation Easement without prior City approval and without submittal of a replacement planting plan to re-establish the density of the existing plantings. The plan will be subject to review and approval by the City. 5. 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 Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 14 of 24 and mitigate off site impacts. Grading is not permitted in the Conservation Easement. 6. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees or vegetation identified for preservation, the Conservation Easement and if appropriate, trees on neighboring properties during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. 7. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down 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. 8. 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 Downey and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and attached garage on a vacant lot. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan is also requested. The property is addressed as 475 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC, (Mike DeMar, 100%). Contract Purchasers: Kiran Paruchuru & Prasanthi Chennareddy 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 the property is at the entrance to the subdivision, on the east side of Oak Knoll Drive. He stated that as proposed, the driveway is curvilinear and winds through the front yard and wraps around to the garage on the north side of the house. He stated that the house is landscaped on all four elevations. He noted that there are not many significant trees on this site. He explained that the proposed home is designed in the Shingle architectural style which is characterized by asymmetrical facades, deep overhangs, steep pitched gable roof forms, Tuscan columns and double hung windows with muntins only in the upper sashes. He explained that the exterior materials include a stone veneer called “Kensington” from Hallquist Stone, limestone window sills, smooth Hardie board shingle siding painted with Benjamin Moore Charlotte Slate, the casement windows, and white fascia, soffits, gutters and downspouts. He stated that the shutters are black and the entrance door a warm oak stain. He stated that a cedar shingle roof and white insulated steel overhead garage doors are proposed. He presented a sample of the stone. He explained that the Charlotte Slate color is a blue-gray color which is a refreshing departure from all the white Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 15 of 24 and gray already approved in the subdivision. The stated that a paver stone walkway and entrance stoop are proposed. He noted that the proposed residence is in compliance with all applicable Code requirements. He stated that the front elevation reflects a unique eyebrow dormer detail. He stated that the windows around the home are ganged together in groups of three which is common on a Shingle style home. He noted that shutters are applied to the single windows around the home. He stated that the front porch has Tuscan columns and an arched roof at the entrance. He pointed out that garage façade is broken up with a sixteen foot wide door on one plane and a nine foot wide door on a slightly different plan to avoid the appearance of an unbroken line of garage doors. He noted that the garage is oversized to provide storage space. He stated that there is a long shed dormer on the rear elevation and pointed out the gable element with brackets at the center of the dormer to break up the mass. He added that a pergola, with Tuscan columns is proposed at the rear of the home. He stated that a stone chimney is proposed. He added that stone is also proposed for the water table around the home. He stated that the home was designed keeping in mind that it will be the first house seen upon entering the subdivision. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the Board has seen plans for several new homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision recently. She noted that there are a total of 16 lots in the subdivision and noted that a map with addresses and color renderings of the homes approved to date is included in the Board’s packet. She confirmed that a total of thirty- two trees are proposed for removal and of those, twenty-four of are dead ash trees. She stated that replacement inches are not required for those trees. She stated that replacement inches are required for eight of the trees that will be removed totaling sixty= nine inches. She reiterated that this is the first house that will be visible upon entering the subdivision she added that unlike most of the other homes presented in this subdivision to date, the color palette includes deeper color tones, textures and details appropriate for the selected architectural style. She noted that the present petition responds to many of the concerns the Board raised during the discussion of the house previously proposed for this lot. She noted that the portion of the driveway in the front yard setback will need to be shifted slightly, out of the side yard setback. She noted that with respect to this petition and the next petition, there is a condition that acknowledges that critical infrastructure in the subdivision has not yet been completed by the developer. She stated that note is intended to make sure that buyers of the lots and the contract purchasers are aware of the situation and aware that a letter of acknowledgement will need to be signed prior to the issuance of a building permit. She noted that there is also a condition recommending further study and refinement of the windows in the rear dormer. She stated that findings in support of the petition are detailed in the staff report. Board member Renken commended the front elevation of the home and noted that the design is graceful. He stated that this is a great house to have at the entrance to the subdivision. He commented that the breakfast area is only 10 feet wide and may be tight. He offered that if the area is expanded by a couple feet, the gable element that breaks up the shed dormer in the back would also increase in size to allow for possibly two or three windows on each side of the gable. He noted that high windows could be used in the shed dormer to work with the floorplan. He commended the color palette noting that the blue-gray color of the shingles will certainly allow the home to stand out from the other Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 16 of 24 homes in the subdivision. He suggested rotating the whole house about 5 to 10 degrees counterclockwise to solve the driveway issue and to facilitate access to the garage on the north side of the house. Board member Looby agreed with the comments made by Board member Renken. He questioned how much the house will need to be shifted to address the driveway encroachment issue. He agreed that the petitioner should consider rotating the house slightly as suggested by Board member Renken. He stated that the home will be great on the site. Board member Bluhm commended the design of the house. She agreed that if possible the house should be rotated slightly to address the driveway issue. She stated that rotating the house does not appear to impact views of the house from the entrance to the subdivision. She agreed with Board member Renken’s suggestion to widen the gable on the shed dormer on the rear elevation. She stated that at least one more window should be added to the shed dormer adding that the second floor bedroom could benefit from the addition of a window. She asked for clarification on the paint color for the wall shingles. She stated that it does not appear that the landscape requirements are fully satisfied yet adding that it will be important to make sure the requirements are met. In response to a question from Board member Bluhm, Mr. Swanson acknowledged that there is a discrepancy between the paint sample that was provided to the Board and the paint color noted in the plans. He clarified that the paint color will be Benjamin Moore Charlotte Slate. Board member Downey asked for clarification on the metal roof. She agreed with comments made by Board member Bluhm on the need to add windows in the shed dormer. She commended the proposed house noting that the house previously presented for this site was just not right for the lot. Board member Walther agreed with the comments of the other Board members. He stated that the shutters should have shutter dogs and hinges. He asked what the developer has planned for the wedge shaped area between this property and the neighboring subdivision. He stated that the area should have quality landscaping consistent with the new homes. Chairman Diamond complimented the home. He agreed with Board member Renken’s suggestion to rotate the house to make the driveway more functional. Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited the petitioner to respond to the Board’s questions. Mr. Swanson stated that consideration was given to adding another window on the left side of the gable element on the shed dormer on the rear elevation. He stated that it is possible but creates an awkward condition in the bathroom. He agreed to study the issue further. He clarified that a metal roof is proposed on the arched roof at the entry and on the eyebrow dormer. He confirmed that the shutters will have shutter dogs and hinges. He stated that with respect to the wedged shape area south of the property, the developer’s Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 17 of 24 intent is to keep the area natural as break between the existing homes to the south and the homes in this new subdivision. He stated that grass can be considered in the parkway. He agreed with the suggestion to rotate the house acknowledging that it will create a better approach to the garage and offer better views of the home from the streetscape. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak stated that the wedged shaped area discussed by Board member Walther is an outlot and is intended to remain somewhat natural in appearance. She stated that consideration will need to be given to maintenance of the area by the developer and later the Homeowners’ Association. Board member Bluhm stated confidence that the architect will appropriately address the issues raised. She stated support for the petition. Board member Renken agreed with Board member Bluhm and stated support for the petition. Board member Looby stated support for the petition and comments that he looks forward to seeing a beautiful home on the site. Board member Walther stated support for the petition adding that the architect has made it clear that the issues raised will be addressed through work with City staff. Chairman Diamond stated support for the petition and hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of a new residence and attached garage on a vacant lot and approval of the hardscape plan, preliminary landscape plan and overall site plan. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions. 1. Conduct further study of the rear shed dormer in an effort to incorporate additional openings to present a more balanced appearance consistent with the pattern of solid to voids reflected on the rest of the home. 2. Explore rotating the house slightly to both address the zoning issue and improve the ease of navigating the driveway. 3. All modifications made 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 submitted for permit 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. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 18 of 24 4. The final landscape shall include, but not be limited to, 69 replacement tree inches to account for healthy trees removed from the site as well as plantings to meet the minimum landscape standards for new residences detailed in the Code including: ground cover, mid-level and canopy trees, evergreen trees, and substantial year round plantings to fully screen views of the garage and driveway from the adjacent property. • If additional trees are impacted due to construction activity on the site, additional replacement tree inches may be required. If all of the required replacement inches cannot be accommodated on the site in a manner consistent with good forestry practices, a payment in lieu of on site planting will be required to support enhanced plantings in the parkway in the general vicinity. 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. Grading is not permitted in the conservation easement. 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. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down 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. If the petitioner desires the issuance of a building permit prior to the completion and approval of critical infrastructure in the development, an Acknowledgment prepared by the City will need to be signed, notarized and filed with the City. The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 19 of 24 6. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and attached garage on a vacant lot. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan is also requested. The property is addressed as 450 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC, (Mike DeMar, 100%). Contract Purchasers: Scott and Stephanie Bussan Project Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager 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 project on behalf of the property owner. He stated that this home is also proposed in the Oak Knoll Woodlands subdivision. He stated that the home is designed in the Colonial Revival style with a cedar shingle roof, white siding, black shutters and a red front door. He stated that color and material samples were provided for the Board’s review. He stated that the site plan as presented is geared toward preserving eight Heritage trees in front of the home. He stated that the driveway is slightly curved and extends along the north side of the property. He stated that the home is set back about 98 feet from the front property line. He stated that the front elevation of the home is symmetrical with a taller main mass and a lower, one and a half story garage element on the north side of the house. He stated that the majority of the windows on the home are single windows with shutters which are appropriately sized. He stated that the shutters will have shutter dogs and hinges. He noted that a gable dormer is located above the garage on the front elevation and a shed dormer is located on the back of the garage. He noted that three gable dormers are proposed on the main mass of the home. He stated that the garage will have nine by eight overhead doors. He stated that flower boxes are proposed below the second floor windows on the front elevation. He noted that a brick chimney with a clay pot is visible at the back of the home. He stated that the windows are aligned between the first and second floors. He pointed out small square windows noting that they respond to the interior layout of the home. He stated that there is a portico at the front entrance with wood columns, railings and balusters. He reviewed the floorplans and roof plan. He noted that the main gable roof forms on the home have an 8:12 pitch and the roofs on the gable dormers have a slightly steeper pitch. He pointed out that the pitch of the roof on the shed dormer is shallower. He noted that the home is in compliance with the height and square footage requirements. He presented images of Colonial Revival homes. He pointed out that the property has an irregular shape and narrows toward the back. He noted that there are five existing Heritage trees in the rear yard that will be preserved. He stated that new trees are planned in both the front and rear yards. He stated that the front sidewalk and stoops will be bluestone. He noted that there will be a two foot retaining wall on the north side of the driveway. He stated that efforts will be made throughout construction to protect the Heritage trees intended for preservation. Ms. Czerniak stated that a key feature of this property is the Heritage trees adding that the siting of the house is critical in trying to protect and preserve some of the trees. She pointed out that the house is set back a considerable distance from the front property line in an effort to save some of the Heritage trees in the front yard. She acknowledged that some of the trees identified for preservation may be lost due to construction and the number of Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 20 of 24 replacement inches will be adjusted accordingly. She stated that in the rear yard, dense plantings should remain or be added to maintain a screen between this subdivision and the homes on Stablewood Lane. She stated that 211 replacement tree inches are currently required to replace the trees proposed for removal. She noted that although Mr. Letzter stated that the columns on the front portico will be wood, in the past, the Board has approved a synthetic material for columns, for durability. She commented that the homeowners should be aware that flower boxes at second floor windows can be difficult to maintain adding that if maintained properly, they are a nice feature on the front elevation. She stated that in reviewing the new homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision to date, the Board expressed concern about the monotony of the color palette. She stated that the home in this petition continues the white and black color scheme proposed on many homes in the development. She noted however that the home in this petition is one of the first houses on the west side of Oak Knoll Woodlands Drive. She stated that it will be important that other homes in this area of the subdivision provide some variety in materials and the color palette. She stated that the staff report details findings in support of the petition. Chairman Diamond invited questions from the Board. Board member Bluhm complimented the traditional, Colonial Revival home and the efforts to preserve the Heritage trees. She acknowledged that white and black is a classic color scheme for a Colonial Revival home but expressed concern about the predominance of white houses in the subdivision. She noted however that “white” can appear different on various materials. She noted that there is only one other white Colonial Revival home in the subdivision so she can support the color scheme for this house as presented. Board member Walther stated that the dormers on the front of the home appear undersized with only about six inches on either side of the dormer window with no space for molding or trim around the window. He suggested making the dormers slightly wider. He stated that the corner boards are noted as one by six on the architectural drawings but appear significantly smaller on the front elevation than on the rest of the elevations. He asked for clarification on the size of the corner boards. He stated that shutters should be added to the four single windows on the rear elevation to be consistent with the rest of the single windows on the home. Board member Downey noted that the other Colonial Revival home in the subdivision is on Sage Court and has white siding with gray shutters. She observed that both of the homes are very similar in design. She agreed with Board member Bluhm that white siding with the black shutters is appropriate in this case. She stated support for the red front door. She agreed with Board member Walther’s comments about the size of the front dormers. Board member Looby complimented the style of the shutters and agreed that shutters should be added to the single windows on the back of the house. He asked for clarification on the type of light planned at the front door; overhead, hanging or wall mounted. He pointed out that the flower boxes need to be lower than the edge of the window so they can be maintained without dirt and water ending up inside the house. He complimented the house stating that it will be a good addition to the new neighborhood. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 21 of 24 Board member Renken complimented the house noting that it is very traditional and quiet. He stated that because the house is set back from the street, he can support the proposed color palette noting that the appearance will be softened by the trees in front of the house. He agreed with Board member Walther’s comments about the size of the dormers. He stated that shutters should be added to the windows on the rear elevation. He stated that overall, the detailing is aligned with the chosen architecture style. Chairman Diamond agreed with the comments made by his fellow Board members. Board member Walther pointed out that the header above the garage doors appears to be undersized and suggested that consideration be given to sizing it so that it visually supports the opening. In response to a question from Board member Walther, Ms. Czerniak explained that the driveway cannot be located in the side yard setback in front of the front yard setback. She noted that in the case of this petition, the driveway encroaches into the side yard setback further back on the site, behind the front yard setback which is permitted. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited the petitioner to respond to the Board’s questions. Mr. Letzter agreed to reconsider the proportions of the front dormers. He clarified that the corner boards are one by six, but the gutters are in front of the corner boards on the front elevation making them look smaller. He stated concern that shutters on the rear elevation will appear crowded against the chimney. He agreed with Board member Walther’s comments on the size of the header above the garage doors. He stated that there will be an overhead light above the front door noting that there will be trim work next to the front door so wall mounted fixtures are not planned. He stated that they will give further consideration to the flower boxes to determine whether it is feasible to keep them properly maintained. He stated that they will consider fiberglass for the columns at the front entry for durability. He thanked the Board for the comments on the proposed color palette, adding that the white siding and black shutters will work well on this home. Board member Renken stated that in his opinion, shutters can be added to the rear elevation without appearing crowded. He stated that the shutters will add a dark element to contrast with the white. Board member Walther agreed with Board member Renken’s comment about the shutters. He stated that for the record, the Board has previously raised concerns about the monotony of the color palettes for the homes in the subdivision. He stated that while the white and black scheme works on this particular house, future homes should present some variety in colors. He noted that the existing homes on Oak Knoll Drive are a variety of earth tones and settle quietly into the landscape. He stated that so far, the homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision present a completely different character than the established subdivision to the south. He stated that the rest of the homes in the subdivision should have darker color schemes. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 22 of 24 Board member Bluhm stated support for the color palette as proposed for this home but agreed that the Board should be mindful about the color palettes on the other new homes moving forward. She agreed with the comments offered by the other Board members about shutters on the rear elevation, the size of the front dormers and the header above the garage. Board member Looby agreed that shutters will add a finished look to the rear elevation. Board member Downey agreed with all the comments of the other Board members. Chairman Diamond asked staff to respond to the comments made about anti-monotony in the subdivision. Ms. Czerniak stated that the comments from the Board about the color palettes of future homes in the subdivision are noted. She added that the developer is in attendance and hopefully will advise potential buyers early on about the need for darker color palettes for the remaining homes. 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 attached garage on a vacant lot and approval of the hardscape plan, preliminary landscape plan and the overall site plan. He stated that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and incorporates the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions. 1. The following refinements shall be made to the plans: a. Modify the dormers on the front façade to appear more proportional to the overall façade. b. Consider adding shutters to the single windows on the either side of the chimney on the rear elevation, first and second floors. c. Lower the window boxes on the second floor of the front elevation to make them functional. d. Widen the header above the garage door. 2. All modifications made 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 plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. The final landscape shall include, but not be limited to, providing 211 replacement tree inches to account for trees removed and in addition, shall meet the minimum Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 23 of 24 landscape standards for new residences detailed in the Code including ground cover, mid-level and canopy trees and evergreens across the site. The landscape plan shall demonstrate that dense landscaping will be maintained and enhanced at the rear of the property to provide from the neighboring home Stablewood Lane. If additional trees are impacted due to construction activity on the site, additional replacement tree inches may be required. If all of the required replacement inches cannot be accommodated on the site in a manner consistent with good forestry practices, a payment in lieu of on site planting will be required to support enhanced plantings in the parkway in the general vicinity. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. In addition, a maintenance plan, including pre and post construction treatment for trees to be preserved must be submitted. 7. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down 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. 8. 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. 9. If the petitioner desires the issuance of a building permit prior to the completion and approval of critical infrastructure in the development, an Acknowledgment prepared by the City will need to be signed, notarized and filed with the City. The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. Building Review Board Minutes – 10/6/2021 Page 24 of 24 There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 8. Additional information from staff. • Discussion regarding manufactured stone with an opportunity for questions from the Board. Ms. Czerniak stated that in response to questions from the Board, the petitioner provided information and samples of the synthetic stone proposed for use in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. She stated that the Board has approved the use of the specific cast stone presented by the developer for two homes in this subdivision, 1505 Sage Court and 455 Oak Knoll Drive. She recommended that going forward, if the use of cast stone is proposed, it is incumbent on the petitioner to provide detailed information and samples of the specific synthetic stone proposed to allow an evaluation by the Board and staff based on certain parameters. She stated that it will be a learning process for all parties noting that there are examples of projects in the community where synthetic stone has not worked well and other examples where synthetic product has proven to be acceptable. She stated that staff will keep the information provided on this specific product and conduct periodic inspections to determine how the product is performing over time. She added that consideration should be given to the character and quality of surrounding homes in determined whether a synthetic product is appropriate for any particular structure. Board member Downey stated that in viewing the samples provided by the developer, the two colors, buff and crystal white, appear very similar. She noted that when she looked at the back of the buff sample, it appears to be yellowing. She acknowledged that the synthetic stone is less expensive but noted that how it performs and appears over time is important to consider. Board member Looby agreed that there should be parameters established to allow petitioners to identify manufacturers who can meet certain specifications. He noted that overtime, the Board and staff will come to understand which products and which manufacturers offer a product of appropriate quality, characteristics and durability for the community. There was no additional information presented to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Planner