BRB_2022_03_02_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of March 2, 2022 Meeting
A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
March 2, 2022 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, John Looby, Scott Renken and Richard Walther
Building Review Board members absent: Sally Downey and Timothy G. Franzen
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
Jennifer Baehr, Planner
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Diamond
Chairman Diamond reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to
introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes from the January 10, 2022 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
The minutes of the January 10, 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
415 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision.
Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC, (Mike DeMar, 100%).
Contract Purchasers: Raymond & Ina Anderson
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 noting that the Board has approved several
homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision to date and noted that another new
home will be presented to the Board for approval on the adjacent lot to the home in
this petition at next month’s meeting. He reviewed the site plan noting that a circular
driveway with two curb cuts is proposed adding that efforts were made to preserve
as many trees as possible. He stated that the proposed residence is designed in the
French Provincial style which dates to the 1600’s. He explained that although some
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 2 of 13
elements of the French Provincial style have changed over the last several centuries,
today's French Provincial homes retain many of the traditional design features like
brick and stone facades, deeply pitched roofs, and arched windows. He stated that
a synthetic roof material is proposed along with stone veneer exterior walls, smooth
cut limestone window trim and sills, aluminum clad wood casement windows with
simulated divided lites, copper flashing, and stone pavers for the porch and steps. He
stated that the front door will be stained a dark mahogany tone and the garage
doors will be insulated fiberglass overhead carriage style doors with a dark natural
oak stain. He stated that the house complies with all height and square footage
limitations. He stated that the design of the home is not overly ornate as seen in some
French styles but instead presents a simple look. He stated that the main roof forms
on the house have a 10:12 pitch with a sweep at the eaves. He stated that the eaves
will be painted the same color as the trim. He stated that the front entrance will have
a limestone surround with a wrought iron balcony above. He stated that the dormer
elements on the home are prefabricated copper products manufactured by Copper
Craft. He stated that the dormers will be set further into the roof and will not project
as far as suggested by the drawings in the Board’s packet. He stated that limestone
quoin detailing is proposed at the corners of the house. He noted that the chimney
will be stone, with a clay chimney pot. He explained that a lighter stone is proposed
on the exterior walls to allow them to blend with the cut limestone details. He noted
that the stone walls will be constructed with regular mortar with flush joints. He stated
that the synthetic roof material will be dark brown to blend with the trim and the
other exterior materials. He stated that the windows will have horizontal muntins only,
true to the style of architecture. He stated a covered porch is proposed at the rear of
the home with the decorative balcony above with accessibility from the second
floor. He presented renderings of the homes in the subdivision approved to date by
the Board and stated that next month, an English Manor style home will be presented
to the Board.
Ms. Baehr stated that to date, the Board has approved 10 homes in the Oak Knoll
Woodlands Subdivision. She stated that the property that is the subject of this petition
is one of the smaller lots in the subdivision and, like many of the other properties in this
subdivision, is encumbered by a Drainage and Conservation Easement at the rear of
the lot. She stated that the home as presented is generally consistent with the
selected French architectural style. She stated that staff recommends further study
and refinement of the dormers on the front and side elevations to achieve a design
that more closely aligns with the style of the home. She noted that all the homes in
the subdivision to date have natural wood shingle roofs adding that a synthetic roof
material is proposed for this home. She noted that given the steep pitch of the roof
on this house, the synthetic material will be highly visible and identifiable as a
synthetic product especially above the garage where there are large expanses of
solid roof. She stated that in the past, the Board has supported consistency in roof
materials within a subdivision. She stated that in past approvals, the Board has also
emphasized the importance of balancing the use of synthetic materials with high
quality natural materials to assure a quality appearance over time as some materials
patina. She stated that as proposed, the house currently presented includes various
high quality natural materials but noted however that the petitioner who is the
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 3 of 13
developer of the subdivision has a pattern of requesting changes to approved
materials and designs after the fact. She suggested if the Board supports a synthetic
roof material, it be conditioned on adhering to the other high-quality, natural
materials presented to the Board for the other areas of the home. She noted that this
petition is the first in this subdivision to propose two curb cuts adding that from a
zoning perspective, this property has sufficient street frontage to permit two curb cuts,
but noted that as proposed, the second curb cut adds to the amount of impervious
surface on the site and increases the impact to significant trees on the site. She
suggested consideration of requiring a paver driveway on a pervious base to reduce
to some extent the likely negative impact on significant trees located near the trees.
She noted that the desire for two curb cuts required the house to be pushed back on
the lot to meet zoning requirements, impacting significant trees at the rear of the
house as well. She stated that one of the trees impacted is a healthy Shagbark
Hickory tree which the City Arborist identified as being worthy of preservation
because of its young age and high quality species. She stated that if the petitioner
moves forward with the site plan as proposed, double inch for inch replacement will
be required in compensation for impacts to this significant tree. She stated that the
conceptual landscape plan that was submitted by the petitioner is not consistent
with good forestry practices due to the over planting of trees in the rear yard which is
suggested by the plan to achieve the replacement inches. She stated that payment
in lieu of planting will likely be necessary given the number of high quality trees
proposed for removal. She recommended that a revised landscape plan be brought
back to the Board for review and action.
Board member Bluhm suggested that an alternate driveway configuration be
considered to preserve more of the Oak trees in the front and reduce impervious
surface on the site. She suggested the driveway configurations on Lots 1 and 5 may
provide some guidance. She stated support for shifting the house forward on the lot,
away from the healthy Shagbark Hickory tree. She asked for clarification on the roof
pitch noting a discrepancy between the presentation and the materials in the
packet. She complimented the architectural details. She stated however that the
dormers to not appear to enhance the front façade and seem to be under sized.
She stated support for elimination of the front facing dormers adding that they are
not a functional element and are not needed for natural light. She noted the Board’s
efforts for consistency within the subdivision. She stated support for a wood shingle
roof.
Board member Looby stated support for the concept of a circular driveway but
acknowledged the concerns about impacts to significant trees and the amount of
impervious surface. He suggested consideration of pavers or another pervious
surface for the driveway. He acknowledged that without the circular driveway and
two curb cuts, maneuvering a vehicle on the property could be awkward. He
agreed that a detailed and realistic landscape plan is needed. He stated that the
dormers as presented are not very noticeable. He stated that if a different style of
dormers is proposed, the Board should review the revised plans. He stated support for
the synthetic roof product in general but acknowledged the interest in consistency
within the subdivision. He stated that the style of the home is appropriate for the
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 4 of 13
neighborhood. He asked if new plantings can be located in the Drainage and
Conservation Easement.
Board member Walther agreed that further study of the driveway configuration is
needed. He stated that a single curb cut with a car park area in front of the house
should be considered. He stated two curb cuts are functional when the property
along a straight portion of the street because the house can be approached from
different directions. He noted that this property is on a cul-de-sac and can only be
approached from one direction. He asked that additional studies be prepared
showing alternate configurations for the driveway. He noted a concern that the
copper dormers, if they remain, will patina over time against the synthetic roof
material and will not be attractive in 10 to 15 years. He stated that he researched the
manufacturer of the proposed dormers and found there are many styles offered and
some that would present a more residential look that is more appropriate for the
home. He agreed however that as proposed, the dormers seem to disappear
against the roof and may not be necessary. He stated that overall, the home is bold
with clean lines and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Board member Renken complimented the design of the house noting that the
proportions are consistent with the French Provincial style. He pointed out that the
windows on the first and second floors have different muntin patterns but are the
same height and stated that all the windows on the first and second floor should be
consistent with two horizontal muntins dividing the window into three panes of glass
vertically. He asked that further study be conducted on the division between the
casement window and the transom window above it. He explained that normally,
transoms are one window, not divided into two. He suggested that the top of the
casement window be raised slightly to allow the transom to be a single, undivided
window. He noted that the increase in the height of the casement window could
allow division into three panes. He stated support for the use of a synthetic roof
product. He noted that Middlefork Farm Subdivision included homes with various roof
materials. He noted that the synthetic product proposed is appropriate for some
architectural styles including the style proposed in this petition. He agreed that the
dormers could be eliminated adding that they appear too tall and narrow for the
home. He stated that if the dormers remain, the proportions and style should be
refined. He agreed with Board member Walther that two curb cuts on a cul-de-sac is
awkward. He suggested that the petitioner consider a driveway configuration similar
to the driveway approved for Lot 1 in the subdivision. He stated that the plate height
of the garage appears short and suggested raising it by six inches or a foot.
Chairman Diamond agreed that consideration should be given to eliminating the
dormers on the front elevation. He commented that there is a difference between
mixing roof materials in a subdivision of 60 or 70 homes and doing so in a smaller
subdivision like the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. He noted that wood shingles
have already been approved on 10 homes in the subdivision. He stated support for a
single curb cut given the location of the property on a cul-de-sac adding that a
turnaround or motor court could be added in front of the home.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 5 of 13
Mr. Anderson thanked the Board for the comments and stated that the input will be
taken into consideration.
Mr. Swanson acknowledged that the dormers could easily be eliminated or modified.
He stated that in his opinion, a synthetic roof material is appropriate for this style of
architecture. He stated that he has used synthetic roof material on several homes
and has not had any issues. He stated that if a synthetic product imitating wood,
rather than slate, was proposed, he would be concerned because the synthetic
material would be obvious in juxtaposition to the natural wood shingles on the nearby
homes. He stated that the resistance to wood shingles is that they do not last forever.
He stated that on this home, many high quality, natural materials will be used adding
that the only synthetic product will be the roof material. He stated that the roof pitch
is 9.5:12 and noted that the pitch was originally proposed at 10:12 but was modified
to comply with the City’s square footage limitations. He stated that all the windows
will have the same muntin pattern and acknowledged that there is an error in the
elevations that were submitted to the Board. He stated that the plate height on the
garage may not be able to be raised as suggested by Board member Renken
because of the square footage limitation but agreed that raising the plate height
would be an improvement. He stated that the contract purchaser is adamant about
having a circular driveway adding that the lot was chosen because the lot width
permits two curb cuts. He noted that the covenants for the subdivision allow circular
driveways. He acknowledged the concerns about trees and the amount of
impervious surface and suggested that the petitioner be allowed to explore options
with staff. He explained that because of the zoning limitation on the width of the
driveway within the front yard setback the house was pushed back on the site to
accommodate a functional circular driveway. He agreed to conduct further study of
the driveway to preserve significant trees.
Ms. Baehr confirmed that trees and other vegetation can planted in the
Conservation and Drainage Easement on the property subject to a determination by
City staff that the species are appropriate, good forestry practices are followed that
the plantings will not impede overland drainage flows.
In response to a question from Board member Walther, Ms. Baehr confirmed that if
there is not space for replacement inches on the site, the City can approve plantings
of the replacement inches in the parkways or in the natural areas within the
subdivision.
Board member Bluhm stated that she is satisfied with the petitioner’s response to the
concerns raised about the dormers. She stated that she remains about the driveway
configuration as it relates to impervious surface and impacts to trees. She noted that
although she does not object to synthetic roof products in general, there are only 16
homes in the subdivision and in her opinion, the roof material should be consistent
throughout the subdivision.
Board member Looby stated support for removing the dormers. He expressed support
for the synthetic roof material. He noted that he understands the City Arborist’s
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 6 of 13
recommendation to preserve the Shagbark Hickory tree behind the house but noted
that in his experience these trees can be messy. He suggested that the petitioner be
asked to work with staff to address the concerns raised about the driveway.
Board member Renken stated that there appears to be three main issues: the roof
material, the driveway and the dormers. He stated that he is confident that the
petitioner can work with staff to respond to the Board’s comments on the front facing
dormers. He stated that he is indifferent on the driveway configuration. He expressed
support for the synthetic roof product noting that is appears appropriate for the
architectural style.
Chairman Diamond recommended the use of cedar shingles for the roof consistent
with the prior approvals in the subdivision. He stated that he is comfortable directing
staff to work with the petitioner to resolve the driveway configuration in response to
the Board’s concern. He stated that a detailed, workable landscape plan is needed.
Ms. Baehr suggested that because of the number of trees that will potentially be
impacted on the site and because a reasonable workable landscape plan has not
yet been submitted, a hardscape and landscape plan should be brought back to
the Board for review. She added that the driveway configuration can be given
further consideration at that time.
Board member Walther agreed that hardscape and landscape plans should be
brought back to the Board given the concerns raised about the amount of
impervious surface, tree preservation and drainage.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion.
Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the new residence
based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as
additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following
conditions of approval.
1. The following design aspects shall be further studied and refined in response to the
Board’s discussion.
a. The front facing dormers shall be removed or an alternate style shall be
proposed and will be subject to review and approval by staff.
b. The garage roof plate shall be raised between six inches and one foot if that
can be accomplished without exceeding the allow able square footage.
c. Alternate driveway configurations shall be explored and returned to the
Board along with a detailed landscape plan for review and will be subject to
Board approval.
2. The landscape plan shall reflect the required replacement inches to the extent
possible on the site using good forestry practices. Replacement inches that cannot
be accommodated on the site shall be compensated through payment in lieu of
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 7 of 13
on site plantings. The plan must meet or exceed the minimum landscape standards
for new residences detailed in the Code, including ground cover, mid-level and
canopy trees and evergreens across the site.
3. Consideration shall be given to the use of pavers and alternate construction methods to
reduce the amount of impervious surface and to lessen the impact to trees located close
to the driveway. The hardscape treatment shall be detailed on the landscape plan
presented to the Board.
4. 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.
5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, any declining or
damaged parkway trees shall be removed and replaced by the developer prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property.
6. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with
the applicable Code requirements and will be subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute
minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, properly direct drainage
and mitigate off site impacts.
7. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect
trees identified for preservation and to protect trees on neighboring properties
during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval
by the City’s Certified Arborist. In addition, a maintenance plan, including pre and
post construction treatment for trees to be preserved must be submitted.
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.
The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of a single family
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 8 of 13
residence and construction of a duplex residence and attached garage.
Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested.
The property is addressed as 50 June Terrace.
Property Owners: Alvin and Beverly McRae
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 petition on behalf o and purchased the home at 50 June
Terrace in 1955. She explained that due to the property owners advancing age, they would
like to construct an accessible duplex home, with a second unit for family members. She
explained that the existing home is set further back from the street than other homes in the
neighborhood. She stated that to the south the property is bordered by South Park and to
the west, the bike path. She explained that any building on the property is best sites on the
south side of the lot to take advantage of the views and light from South Park. She stated that
the existing home was built in 1920 and is 1,027 square feet and in average physical condition.
She stated that the home has a crawl space. She stated that there is no known architect of
record adding that the home has no distinctive architectural features. She noted that the
existing home is completely non-conforming with respect to zoning setbacks so adding to the
existing home was not considered. She noted that the neighborhood consists primarily of
two-story homes with simple building masses and additive elements such as porches and
porticos. She explained that the proposed duplex residence takes cues from the adjacent
homes and is designed in a traditional vernacular style. She stated that the property owners
want aesthetically pleasing quality building materials with low maintenance and longevity.
She explained that they intend to use smooth, pre-painted fiber cement siding and trim. She
stated that natural wood shingles are proposed on the gable ends for a more aesthetically
pleasing appearance. She stated that the porch columns will be painted fiberglass, the roof
asphalt shingles, and noted that panel shutters are proposed on some windows. She stated
that the south elevation of the home has more fenestration for views and light to the park.
She noted that a screen porch is located between the main house and the garage as a
connecting element. She noted that the roof of the screen porch serves as an exit from the
second floor unit and outdoor space for that living unit as well. She stated that the garage
mimics the design and exterior materials of the house. She noted that the garage will have
an insulated carriage style door with a composite overlay. She stated that the north elevation
of the home does not have many openings to shield it from the north winds and to provide
privacy from the neighbor to the north. She pointed out a covered entry into the mudroom
on the north elevation. She stated that the overall design is consistent with the massing of the
traditional vernacular style adding that the gable roof forms, window shapes and material
usage are all also consistent with the chosen style. She presented an overlay of the existing
and proposed site plans. She noted that the proposed residence is sited to align with the
established 30 foot front yard setback of homes on the street. She stated that two trees will
be impacted. She stated that the existing curb cut and driveway apron will be used and the
driveway will be extended to the rear of the property to access the garage. She noted that
the driveway provides space between the new home and the neighboring home to the
north. She presented the conceptual landscape plan noting that the intent of the
landscaping is to allow the house to fit into the existing streetscape. She noted the mature
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 9 of 13
trees in the area surrounding the property and stated that three new deciduous trees will be
clustered in the southeast corner of the front yard. She stated that the hardscape on the site
is a combination of bluestone and concrete pavers like other properties in the neighborhood.
She concluded noting that the proposed improvements will support property values in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Baehr reviewed the petitioner is requesting approval of the demolition of the existing
home and approval of the design aspects of a replacement residence. She stated that
the existing house does not have any historic or architectural significance. She stated
that alterations or additions to the existing house would likely result in essentially
rebuilding the house which could be challenging given the fact that the house is
nonconforming with respect to current zoning setback requirements. She stated that
findings in support of the demolition are detailed in the staff report. She stated that the
proposed replacement residence is sited closer to the street than the existing residence,
consistent with the established setback along June Terrace. She noted that there is a
significant increase in impervious surface on the site and recommended that efforts be
made to incorporate some pervious materials in the plan. She stated that the design of
the replacement structure is simple, and the selected style of the home is fitting for this
neighborhood. She noted that a variety of window sizes and muntin patterns are
reflected on the plans and suggested further study and refinement to present a more
consistent appearance across the elevations of the home. She noted that the images
presented to the Board reflect shutters that are more proportional to the windows, an
improvement over the images included in the Board’s packet. She stated that the
proposed exterior materials are generally consistent with the City's Design Guidelines
except that a composite material is proposed for the fascia, soffit and trim. She stated
that in the past, the Board has supported natural wood for these elements. She stated
that the updated landscape plan presented to the Board by Ms. Melichar has not yet
been submitted to staff for review but appears to meet the landscape requirements.
In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Baehr stated that the Zoning
Board of Appeals recommended approval of the required variances from the front and
rear yard setbacks for the proposed duplex.
Board member Renken complimented the creativity in designing a duplex work for this
site. He noted that the rear facing garage in this case is appropriate because it allows
the home and the garage to be connected on a very narrow site. He noted that the
property is bordered by the bike path and railroad tracks so the west facing garage
doors do not impact a neighboring home. He stated that in his opinion, the window
muntin patterns appear to be consistent. He acknowledged that the windows above
the kitchen counters appear squatter than the other windows. He stated that the Board
has consistently required shutters to be proportional to the width of the window. He
suggested that the shutters either be eliminated or widened to fit the window openings.
He noted that shutters are only proposed on the front elevation and asked the
petitioner to consider adding shutters to the other elevations for consistency. He asked
whether asphalt shingles are proposed for the bay window on the side elevation and on
the small expanse of roof between the second floor wall and gable end on the front
elevation.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 10 of 13
Board member Walther stated that the Board has consistently recommended that
natural materials are used for elements like the fascia, frieze boards and soffits. He
strongly recommended natural wood for those types of elements and for the gable end
as well. He added that the natural materials will provide some texture. He
complimented the petitioner’s decision to use natural cedar shingle as opposed to a
fiber cement shingle product which has a glossy appearance. He stated that care will
need to be taken to select appropriate light fixtures particularly if for any lighting
proposed higher on the building than normally found in the neighborhood. He
suggested moving the air conditioning units to the south side of the home and away
from the side entrance on the north side of the home and the neighboring home. He
added that in that location, the units will be closer to the mechanical room in the
basement. He asked whether the window well below the bay window is needed for
egress and if so, how that would work. He noted that as proposed, the impervious
surface totals 68 percent of the lot area. He stated that the amount of impervious
surface must be reduced through the addition of some pervious materials on the site.
Board member Looby agreed with Board member Walther’s comments. He asked if the
home is designed to be wheelchair accessible. He commented that the site has
limitations due to its size.
Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition of the existing house and the
recommendations offered in the staff report. She stated concern about the amount of
impervious surface on the site and agrees that that issue needs to be addressed. She
noted that two garage doors instead of one would be more convenient if the second
unit is ever occupied by a non-family member.
Chairman Diamond suggested that the reduction in the amount of impervious surface
and finalization of the landscape plan be left to staff to resolve. He agreed that a
natural material should be used for the trim, fascia and soffit and that consideration
should be given to locating the air conditioning units on the south side of the home to
mitigate noise impacts to the neighbor to the north. He asked the petitioner to address
the Board’s questions and comments.
Ms. Melichar stated that the updated landscape plan should satisfy the City’s
requirements for new residential construction. She stated that the project engineer is
considering opportunities to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. She
stated a willingness to discuss the use of natural materials for the trim, fascia and soffits
with the property owners. She noted that the owners are trying to reduce the need for
maintenance. She stated if the shutters on the front elevation are eliminated, there will
be unbroken wall space. She stated that the shutters were added to add detail and
color. She acknowledged that the image shown in the presentation included larger
shutters compared to image included in the Board’s packet. She stated that the small
expanse of roof along the bottom of the gable end will have cedar shingles to match
the material on the gable wall. She stated that the home is not designed to be
wheelchair accessible, but ramps could be added in the future in the garage and on
the north side of the home, at the side entry. She stated that the air conditioning units
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 11 of 13
are located on the north side of the house because the primary living areas in the home
are on the south side, but she agreed to consider relocating the units. She stated that
the window well below the bay window is not an egress window. She stated that
dividing the garage into two separate spaces is a great idea, but there is not enough
space to accommodate a larger garage and the necessary turning radius. She
acknowledged the concerns about light fixtures on the second floor unit and the need
to mitigate impacts on neighboring homes. She stated that the intent is to vertically
orient the windows around the home and to make them proportional to one another.
Board member Walther asked the petitioner to provide some additional information on
possible solutions that are being considered to reduce the amount of impervious
surface on the site. He stated that the wider shutters reflected in the petitioner’s
presentation appear to be more appropriate than those shown in the packet materials.
He stated that in his opinion, the Board should remain consistent with past decisions by
requiring natural materials for the fascia and soffits.
Board member Bluhm agreed that the larger shutters reflected in the presentation
appear to be appropriate.
Board member Renken agreed with Board member Walther’s comments on the use of
natural materials and remaining consistent with past decisions that when a composite
or synthetic material is used for the siding, trim, fascia and soffits should be natural
wood. He agreed with Ms. Melichar’s comment that the front elevation will appear
empty without shutters and stated support for retaining the wider shutters as shown in
the presentation. He agreed that information is needed on how the amount of
impervious surface will be reduced.
Chairman Diamond agreed with the comments made by Board members Walther and
Renken and suggested that the Board’s motion should specifically note the use of
natural materials for the trim, fascia and soffits. He stated support for the wider shutters
on the front elevation.
Ms. Melichar stated that the project engineer believes that pervious pavers can likely be
used for a portion of the driveway, near the garage. She stated that further drainage
calculations must be completed to confirm what is feasible.
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.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the new duplex
residence based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s
deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to
the following conditions of approval.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 12 of 13
1. The amount of impervious surface shall be reduced through the incorporation of
pervious surfaces or other means given the unusually large percent of the site
proposed as hardscape. If this condition cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the
petition must return to the Board for further review.
2. Aluminum clad wood windows shall be used.
3. The fascia, soffit and trim shall be natural wood.
4. Shutters must be proportional to the windows.
5. All modifications made to the plans, including those detailed above and any
additional modifications made either 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.
6. Prior to submitting plans and an application for permit, a tree survey shall be
prepared by a Certified Arborist for the trees on the site that are proposed for
removal to allow a determination of the replacement plantings that will be
required.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed, landscape plan shall be
submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified
Arborist. The plan shall, at a minimum, meet the landscaping standards for new
residences detailed in the Code and provide for the required replacement
inches on site to the extent possible using good forestry practices. If all
replacement tree inches cannot be accommodated on the site, the number of
remaining inches for which a payment in lieu of planting will be required must be
noted on the plan. The full payment in lieu of on site plantings is required prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
8. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect
trees on and adjacent to the site during construction must be submitted and will
be subject to review and approval by the City.
9. 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. All necessary measures should be taken on the site to slow water
runoff from the site given the significant increase in impervious surface proposed.
10. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit.
Care shall be taken to limit any lighting above the ground floor and to mitigate
impacts on neighboring properties. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/2/2022 Page 13 of 13
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.
11. 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. Offsite parking and shuttling
workers to the site may be necessary due to the narrow street.
The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
OTHER ITEMS
5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
6. Additional information from staff.
In response to a question from Board member Walther, Ms. Baehr stated that the
subcommittee for the Preserve at Westleigh petition reviewed two additional home designs
and discussed ways to achieve greater diversity in design within the subdivision. She stated
those discussions are continuing. She stated that with respect to the 821 Northmoor
petition, further review is pending submittal of materials by the petitioner.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Baehr
Planner