Loading...
BRB_2022_04_06_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of April 6, 2022 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:30 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board members, Joanne Bluhm, John Looby, and Scott Renken Building Review Board members absent: Sally Downey, Timothy G. Franzen and Richard Walther 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 the March 2, 2022 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the March 2, 2022 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence on a vacant lot, a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan. The property is addressed as 435 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC, (Mike DeMar, 100%). Contract Purchasers: John and Mindy Rittner 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 stated that the Board has approved several homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. He stated that the property now presented for consideration is on the west side of Oak Knoll Drive. He stated that the proposed residence is sited to follow the setback pattern of the neighboring homes approved to date and to preserve as many trees as possible. He presented the conceptual landscape plan and images of the proposed hardscape materials. He stated that the residence is designed in the English Tudor Revival style and said that the exterior walls of the home will be a combination of warm red brick veneer and white stucco with limestone window headers Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 2 of 12 and sills, dark gray or brown windows, painted cedar soffits and fascia, aluminum gutters and downspouts, a dark stained mahogany front door, a synthetic roof product. He stated that the residence complies with zoning and square footage limitations. He presented the exterior elevations of the proposed residence pointing out that the front entry has a stone surround. He noted that the garage mass is broken up by offsetting the garage doors. He stated that the windows are tall and narrow with transoms. He stated that the chimney on the rear elevation is brick with a clay pot. He presented samples of the proposed exterior materials. Ms. Baehr noted that to date, 11 residences in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision have been reviewed by Board. She stated that the property in this petition is about three quarters of an acre in size and like other properties in the subdivision, is encumbered by a drainage and conservation easement along the rear property line. She explained that the easement areas must remain vegetated adding that construction is not permitted in the easement. She stated that the residence is designed consistent with the chosen architectural style adding that for the most part, high quality natural materials are proposed for the exterior. She noted however that a synthetic roof product is proposed. She noted that the Board approved one residence in this subdivision with a synthetic roof product to date on property located north of this property. She pointed out that in the past, the Board has required that if synthetic materials are proposed, there is a balance between synthetic and natural materials to provide for some patina over time and an overall high quality appearance. She cautioned that the developer in this subdivision has, in some cases, proposed changes to materials after Board approval. She stated that it will be important for the developer and homeowners to follow the approvals granted by the Board. She stated that the house as proposed is wedged between trees on both sides of the property likely impacting the trees on both sides negatively. She stated that the City Arborist recommended that the site plan be revised to increase the likelihood that the healthiest and highest quality trees are preserved and acknowledged that may require removal of additional lower quality trees. She recommended that the petitioner work with a Certified Arborist to modify the site plan with the goal of preserving the most significant trees. Board member Looby complimented the home and stated support for the synthetic roof product if the rest of the home is comprised of natural materials. He asked if alternate site plans were considered to preserve the higher quality trees. In response to a question from Board member Looby, Ms. Baehr stated that the number of replacement inches required has not yet been determined pending some further study of the site plan and an understanding of whether there is the opportunity to preserve some or all the Heritage trees on the site. She stated that Heritage trees require double inch for inch replacement. Board member Bluhm complimented the home and said that in her opinion, it will be a great addition to the subdivision. She noted that it appears that if the house is flipped, some Oak trees on the south side will still be impacted. She stated that locating the driveway on the north side of the home appears consistent with the location of other Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 3 of 12 driveways on properties on the west side of Oak Knoll Drive. Board member Renken stated that the home is nicely detailed and true to the chosen architectural style. He stated that in his opinion, the synthetic roof material is a good fit for this architectural style. He stated that the red brick adds diversity to the subdivision which currently is developing with mostly white homes. He stated that if preservation of trees was not a concern, he could fully support the siting of the home as proposed because it is consistent with the siting of other homes on the street and the north facing garages. He encouraged further study of the site plan with the goal of preserving more of the significant trees. Chairman Diamond complimented the home and agreed that the petitioner should explore alternate site plans in the interest of tree preservation. Board member Looby stated that the house should not be pushed back or pulled forward on the site because it would be out of alignment with the rest of the homes on the street. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. John Rittner, 315 16th Street Wilmette, introduced himself and his wife as the contract purchasers of the lot. He explained that they selected this lot because of the many trees on the site and stated their intent to preserve as many trees as possible. He stated that they are aware that the house should be sited to fit with the established setback pattern of homes along the street. He stated that they have worked to find a site plan that is consistent with the neighborhood and preserves as many trees as possible. He stated that an arborist will prepare a pre and post construction treatment plan for the trees near the driveway and home that will be impacted in an effort to help them survive the construction. Ms. Rittner emphasized that they do care about preserving trees. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Diamond invited Mr. Swanson to respond to the Board’s questions and comments. Mr. Swanson agreed to reconsider the site plan in response to the Board’s comments but noted a preference for the current siting of the house. He agreed to consult an arborist to discuss the possibility of preserving some of the significant trees. Chairman Diamond invited a motion. Board member Looby made a motion to recommend approval of the new residence subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The site plan shall be modified in consultation with Certified Arborists to increase the chances of preserving the most desirable and healthy trees on the site. A revised Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 4 of 12 site plan shall be subject to review and approval by City staff and the City’s Certified Arborist in consultation with the Chairman. If a satisfactory site plan is not presented, the petition should be returned to the Board for further review. 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. The final landscape shall include, but not be limited to, all required replacement tree inches to account for trees removed including double inch for inch replacement for any healthy Heritage trees that are removed and shall 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. 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 that 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 for pre and post construction treatment for trees to be preserved must be submitted and will be subject to City review and approval. 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. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 5 of 12 9. The construction site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Debris must be removed from the site on a daily basis and the street must be regularly cleaned to eliminate caking mud. The motion was seconded by Board member Renken and approved by a vote of 4 to 0. 4. 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 1150 Highland Avenue. Property Owner: US First Seria One LLC, (Nenad Zecevic, 100%). Project Representative: Alan Leskiv, 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. Leskiv introduced the project and stated that a two-story residence with attached single and two car garages is proposed. He stated that the residence is sited in compliance with zoning setbacks. He noted that 13 trees are proposed for removal. He stated that the two car garage is side loaded to hide the double width garage door from the street. He stated that the single car garage is front facing but is set back from the street almost 90 feet. He presented a preliminary landscape plan and stated that a fence is proposed along the south property line to screen the driveway and garages from the neighboring home. He reviewed the elevations and stated that in response to the recommendations in the staff report the roof pitch was changed from 10:12 to 8:12, the dormer was eliminated on the south elevation, and the stone base continues around the home. He stated that the composite siding will be light blue, and the trim will be painted wood. He stated that the home is designed in the traditional Craftsman architectural style. Ms. Baehr stated that the property is in an established neighborhood which was mostly built out in the 1980s and 1990s. She noted that the property is about a third of an acre and is irregular in shape with the property lines following the angle of the street. She stated that the proposed residence is described by the petitioner as a Craftsman style home adding that some elements of the home align with the chosen style, however the roof forms and pitches do not. She recommended further study and modification of the roof forms to align with the Craftsman style. She stated that the plans in the petitioner’s presentation to the Board appear to address concerns raised in the staff report about the dormer on the south elevation and the use of a consistent stone base. She stated that a number of low quality trees, in poor condition will be removed for the proposed construction. She noted replacement inches is required for the few healthy trees that will be removed. She pointed out that the siting of the house and driveway as proposed does not allow space for any landscaping along the property line to screen the driveway and garages. She recommended that at a minimum, a solid wood fence be installed along the property line for screening. She stated that a letter was received from a neighboring property owner expressing concern about drainage. She stated that prior to the issuance of any permits for construction on the site, drainage and grading plans prepared by a licensed engineer will be required and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer will review the plans before any building permits are issued. Board member Bluhm agreed that the south facing dormer should be removed and the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 6 of 12 stone base should be carried around the house. She stated that the roof forms would benefit from further study and refinement but acknowledged that hip roofs are used on some Craftsman style homes. She stated support for the rafter tails on the gables. She pointed out that Craftsman style homes often have a very strong horizontal expression and suggested eliminating the secondary gable on the front of the garage. Board member Renken commended the petitioner for making the changes in response to the staff report. He observed that lowering the roof pitches improves the appearance of the home. He agreed that with the current plan, a solid fence is necessary for screening because there is no space for landscaping. He confidence that the drainage concerns raised by the neighbor will be addressed as part of the City Engineer’s review process. He questioned whether there is sufficient space to maneuver into and out of the garage. He suggested further study of the driveway. He suggested replacing the hip roof forms with gable style roofs to follow the Craftsman style. He stated that the front door does not appear to follow style of the home. In response to a question from Board member Renken, Mr. Leskiv stated that the brick will be four inches thick. Board member Looby agreed with the comments of the other Board members. In response to questions from Board member Looby, Mr. Leskiv stated that there is one foot between the driveway and the south property, and the driveway is 23 feet wide and is functional. Chairman Diamond pointed out that a fence along the south property line may be problematic for vehicles backing out of the garage given the narrow driveway. He suggested allowing enough space to plant shrubs instead of installing a fence. Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited public testimony. Mike Moebs, 1140 Highland Avenue, stated that he previously owned the property in the petition. He stated that there is a low spot at the southwest corner of the site adding that he attempted to correct the drainage issues. He expressed concern about the proposed tree removal noting that he previously treated the Ash trees on the property. He expressed concern about the proposed location of the driveway and suggested that the driveway should be in the center of the property. He stated that he strongly opposes the petition as currently proposed. Chairman Diamond invited a staff response to public testimony. Ms. Baehr stated 13 trees are proposed for removal because they are in the footprint of the home and driveway. She stated that no tree removal is proposed at the rear of the property. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that before any permits are issued for work on the site, detailed drainage and grading plans will be required. She noted that the preliminary engineering plan reflects a new storm sewer pipe connecting to the City storm sewer. She offered that Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 7 of 12 the City Engineer could meet on site with the property owner and neighbors to discuss the drainage concerns. She stated that a driveway located within a foot of a property line is not recommended because it eliminates the opportunity for landscaping and may cause drainage issues with runoff impacting the neighboring property. She noted that a minimum setback of five feet from the property line is recommended. She acknowledged that a fence along the property line could be problematic given the limited back out area between the garage and the property line. She stated that an auto-turn study was not yet submitted for City review. Board member Looby suggested that the petitioner work with the neighbor to install landscaping on their property, south of the driveway. Chairman Diamond invited further public testimony. Garth Huskey, 1166 Highland Avenue, expressed concern about drainage. He stated that there is some landscaping on his property, along the property line, but noted that additional plantings to screen the new home, will be very expensive. He expressed concern about the location of the driveway in relation to his home and backyard. He stated that side load garages are not common in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed curb cut is directly across from an existing curb cut on the east side of the street. He questioned how snow will be removed from the small area in front of the garage, between the garage and the fence. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Diamond invited the petitioner to respond to the questions and comments from the Board and the public. Mr. Leskiv stated that the side load garage is proposed to minimize visibility from the street. He stated that the property owner is not interested in a front facing garage. He stated that the width of driveway access to a garage is required to be a minimum of 22 feet by Code and is 25 feet wide. He stated that a storm sewer is proposed along the south side of the property. He agreed to consider other options for the site plan. Chairman Diamond stated that given the open items, a continuance of the petition is appropriate. In response to a question from Board member Renken, Mr. Leskiv stated that the home cannot be shifted north because it will encroach into the setback due to the width of the home. Board member Renken suggested consideration of reducing the size of the garage slightly to provide additional space for the driveway. He stated that at 22 feet, maneuvering vehicles into and out of the garage will be difficult. He stated that in his experience, a 24 foot wide garage apron and at least a three foot buffer between the driveway and the property line works well. He asked that consideration be given to refining the massing and roof forms to more closely follow the Craftsman style. Chairman Diamond stated that the front door should be modified to reflect the Craftsman Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 8 of 12 style. He invited a motion. Board member Looby made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to conduct further study and make modifications in response to the comments and concerns raised by the Board as follows. 1. Revise the site plan to resolve the issues related to the functionality of the driveway and the location of the driveway in relation to the south property line. 2. Reduce the width of the home to provide sufficient space for drainage and vegetation on the north and south sides of the home. 3. Modify the configuration of the garages to be sensitive to the neighbor to the south and to be consistent with the placement of garages in the neighborhood. 4. Eliminate the dormer on the south elevation. 5. Add a stone base to the south and west elevations. 6. Refine the roof forms to more fully align with the Craftsman style of the home. Consider replacing the hip roof forms with gables. 7. Eliminate the secondary gable roof form on the east side of the garage. 8. Modify the front door for consistency with the Craftsman style. The motion was seconded by Board member Renken and approved by a vote of 4 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a second floor addition to the existing single story home, open porch additions to the front and rear of the home, demolition of the existing garage and construction of a replacement two-car garage at the property located at 624 Highview Terrace. Property Owners: Jerry O’Brien and Laura Nekola. Project Representative: Chris Russo, 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. Russo stated that the project requires zoning variances adding that the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the request and directed that the petition be presented to the Building Review Board for input on the proposed massing and design. He stated that the home is a single story structure, and a second story addition is proposed to accommodate the owners’ needs. He stated concerns were raised by the neighbor about impacts to natural light and about drainage. He stated that the owners like the style of the existing home and have designed the addition to be consistent with the existing character. He stated that the rear of the home is a large family room with a vaulted ceiling adding that the owners want to keep this amenity. He explained that as a result, constructing an addition over the rear of the home is not an option. He stated that the second floor addition is modest in size and is aligned with the existing exterior walls. He stated that the stairs are located on an exterior wall to avoid creating an awkward interior space behind the stairs. He stated that an open porch is proposed on the front of the home. He stated that the staff report includes recommendations on the exterior materials, massing and roof forms. He explained that only the existing gable ends of the home are sided with shingles siding adding that horizontal clapboard siding is proposed on the walls of the second story addition with shingles on the Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 9 of 12 proposed front facing gable. He stated that gable roof forms were considered but were rejected because of the additional mass and height that resulted. He stated that the hip roof forms have a lower profile and lessen the impact to the natural light for the neighboring home. He stated a willingness to use natural wood for the trim, soffit, and fascia and agreed to modify the transom window on the east elevation as recommended in the staff report. Ms. Baehr confirmed that the petition was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals and was continued pending review by the Building Review Board and requested that the petitioner consider alternate designs to reduce the mass and height of the addition within the required side yard setback. She stated that as background information, the minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals’ meeting are included in the Board’s packet. She stated that the petitioner presented some alternate massing concepts for the addition which are included in the Board’s packet. She stated that questions remain about whether the current proposal is the most appropriate design to expand the home. She requested Board comment and direction on the massing, roof forms and pitches, window proportions, and the exterior materials. She recommended approval of the demolition of the garage and approval of the replacement garage. Board member Renken stated support for the demolition of the existing garage and the design of the replacement garage. He noted that the shed roof above the door on the garage does not appear to be necessary and appears busy. He suggested elimination of the shed roof. He stated support for the open porch on the front elevation and for some expansion of the home to meet the owners’ needed. He stated that with some modifications, the second story addition could be more in keeping with the character of the home and neighborhood. He observed that most of the homes in the neighborhood are designed in a cottage style adding that there are not many two-story houses in the neighborhood. He stated that as designed, there is a disconnect between the home and the proposed second story addition. He suggested consideration of simplifying the roof forms by lowering the plate on the left side of the addition and replacing the gable roof on the first floor with a small, pitched roof. He commented that dormers could be incorporated on the addition for consistency with the Cape Cod cottage style. He stated that there are ways to design the second story addition that do not require a variance without great impacts to the floor plan. He stated that the number of exterior materials should be limited adding that the trim, fascia and soffit should be natural wood. Board member Looby suggested consideration of leaving the stone natural, instead of painting the stone green. He encouraged the petitioner to consider Board member Renken’s suggestions. He stated support for the demolition of the existing garage and for the design of the replacement garage. In response to a question from Board member Looby, Mr. Russo stated that the stone will be painted to match the rest of the house. Board member Bluhm stated support for the garage portion of the project and for the proposed front porch. She agreed that the petitioner should consider the suggestions offered by Board member Renken. She agreed that the stone should not left natural and not be painted. She asked about the length of the gutter. Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 10 of 12 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited public testimony. Donald Pochopien, 155 Maywood Road, stated that he is the neighbor to the west and will be impacted by the second story addition. He stated that the petitioner’s home is four feet from the shared property line and with the second story addition as proposed, will be nine feet taller and 24 feet long within four feet of the property line. He stated concern about the loss of natural light because of the second story addition. He stated that he is opposed to the zoning variance. He suggested that the addition could be built over the back of the home, without the need for a variance. He questioned whether there is a hardship that justifies the variance. He expressed concern about drainage and noted that the replacement garage has a larger footprint than the existing garage and is closer to his home which could exacerbate the drainage issues. He stated that the footprint of the replacement garage should be the same as the footprint of the existing garage. He stated that the downspouts on the petitioner’s home are only four feet from his property. Nancy Knoerr, 692 Woodlawn Avenue, stated that she is the previous owner of the home at 155 Maywood Road. She expressed concern about the impact to natural light to the neighboring home. She stated that the proposed addition will block sunlight to the bedrooms of the home. She stated that there is a way to build the addition without a zoning variance. She stated that the addition can be built over the family room at the rear of the house. She stated that in her opinion, the sun/shadow study completed by the petitioner was not a fair assessment. Neil Gardner, 633 Highview Terrace, stated that his family has lived in the neighborhood for decades. He stated support for the project. He stated that young families in the Northmoor neighborhood are forced to move when they outgrow their homes. He stated that the neighborhood is family friendly and is at risk because of overly restrictive zoning laws. He stated that the addition is proposed within the existing footprint of the home and noted that there is a two-story home directly east of the property. He stated that there is a precedent for two-story homes in the neighborhood. He recognized that there will be some impact to the home to the west but noted that home has many windows that look out to the west and south unimpeded. He encouraged the Board members to allow the petitioners to move forward with the project. Hearing no further requests from the public to speak, Chairman Diamond invited response to public comment from the petitioner. Mr. O’Brien stated that with the proposed addition, the home will total about 2,400 square feet. He acknowledged that a second story addition could be designed without encroaching into the side yard setback however, the floor plan would be problematic because the bedrooms would need to be reduced to about 10 feet in width, small by any standard. He stated that the home to the west currently blocks sunshine to their bedrooms. He stated that the roof ridge on the house to the west is currently taller than the ridge of the existing house. He stated that there are many two-story homes in the neighborhood and pointed out that the home directly to the east was originally a single-story home and a second story addition was constructed in the 1980s. He stated that if a second story addition is design Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 11 of 12 to comply with the side yard setback, the impact to light and air to the neighboring home would not be significantly different from the impacts of the addition as proposed. He pointed out that the neighbor to the west has unimpeded views to South Park. He stated that the neighbor to the west built a berm that resulted in drainage issues. Ms. Nekola stated that none of the homes in the neighborhood comply with the current Zoning Code. She stated that the impact to natural light is the result of the small lot neighborhood and the homes being constructed close together. She stated that the addition is designed to be modest to minimize the length from north to south to minimize impacts on the neighbor to the west. Mr. Pochopien pointed out that the second floor additions on other houses in the neighborhood are setback from the first-floor footprint. Chairman Diamond reiterated that the zoning variance is not under the Board’s purview. Mr. Russo stated that the petitioner is willing to consider the suggestions offered by the Board on the design of the addition. He stated that natural wood will be used for the trim. He stated that the goal is to keep the variance request to a minimum. He stated that drainage issues will be addressed with the engineer. Chairman Diamond invited final comments from the Board. Board member Renken stated that the design of the addition can be improved and encouraged the petitioner to explore various options not just those suggested by the Board. Board member Looby stated that in his opinion, a second floor addition will make the home more livable. He encouraged the petitioners to find a workable plan that meets their needs. Board member Bluhm suggested that there may be an opportunity to reduce the size of the second story addition while still making the home more functional. She noted that the Northmoor neighborhood continues to evolve over time. Board member Renken stated that from a design perspective, the addition will be more successful if aligned with the footprint of the first floor. He suggested that consideration be given to lowering the height of the left side of the addition to soften the appearance and to allow more sunlight to reach the neighboring home. He stated that in his opinion, there are ways to reduce the size of the addition and still achieve the petitioner’s goals. Chairman Diamond invited a motion on the garage portion of the petition. Board member Looby made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the garage and approval of the replacement garage. The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and approved by a vote of 4 to 0. Board member Looby made a motion to continue consideration of the second story addition Building Review Board Minutes – 4/6/2022 Page 12 of 12 with the following direction to the petitioner: 1. Modify the design of the second story addition to present an appearance more in keeping with the chosen architectural style, to reduce the appearance of mass, and to minimize the extent of encroachment into the side yard setback. 2. Study the roof types and pitches to achieve an appearance more in keeping with the style of the home. 3. Modify the horizontal window on the east elevation to more closely follow the window proportions and orientations found on the rest of the home. 4. Replace the clapboard siding on the proposed addition with shingle siding to match the existing house to avoid a busy appearance due to multiple siding treatments. 5. Paint the fiber cement shingle product in the field as opposed to using the manufacturer’s finish, to avoid a sheen. 6. Use natural wood for all trim, fascia, soffit and rake boards. The motion was seconded by Board member Renken and approved by a vote of 4 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Baehr Planner