BRB_2024_05_01_MINUTES
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of May 1, 2024 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
May 1, 2024 at 6:30 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building, 800 Field Drive, Lake
Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Chairman John Looby and Board members
Eric Lohmueller, Scott Renken, Justin Stamer, Joanne Bluhm, Sarah Lamphere, and
Sally Downey
Building Review Board members absent: None
Staff present: Luis Prado, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of
Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Looby
Chairman Looby 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 April 3, 2024 Building Review Board meeting.
The minutes of the April 3, 2024 meeting were approved as presented.
3. Consideration of the demolition and replacement of a house and detached garage
at 1129 Griffith Road. A landscaping plan will also be considered.
Property Owner: Andres Merits Trust (Andres Merits, trustee)
Representative: Diana Melichar, Architect
Chairman Looby asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Melichar provided background on the house noting that the petitioner grew up in
the home and now wishes to re-create it to allow him to age in the home. She noted
that consideration was given to initially reusing the existing residence, but it was
determined that replacing the home was the preferred option. She presented photos
illustrating the condition of the existing house noting areas of water damage and
areas were the home is not compliant with current building Code requirements. She
noted that lifting the home and replacing the foundation would be required to meet
the petitioner’s needs. She stated that the exterior of the home does not have any
historic or architectural merit. She noted that the detached garage is in poor
condition. She stated that the petitioner desires to demolish both the home and
garage and construct replacement structures. She presented the proposed site plan
noting that the footprint of the replacement house and garage are in nearly the same
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 2 of 13
location as the existing structures. She noted that the closeness of the neighboring
homes limit views of the side elevations of the proposed home. She noted that
because the property is small, the petitioner desires living space in the basement. She
stated that the replacement home is designed in a Vernacular Colonial Revival style.
She stated that the proposed exterior materials include brick, aluminum clad wood
windows, and asphalt shingles, all durable materials. She stated that in her opinion,
the new house should increase property values in the neighborhood. She presented a
streetscape image noting the similarity of the massing of the proposed residence with
other homes along the street. She presented elevations of the home and garage and
described the architectural details. She noted that the new driveway is pulled away
from the property line to provide space for plantings and drainage between the
driveway and the property line. She stated that a new front walk is proposed to
connect the driveway to the front door. She concluded noting that rehabilitating the
existing deteriorating residence would be costly and would not result in a quality end
product. She stated that the replacement home will be a dry, accessible, energy
efficient, and fire rated structure. She added that outdoor living space is planned as
an outdoor amenity.
Mr. Prado stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals recently recommended approval
of a front yard setback variance to allow the house to be sited consistent with the
pattern of setbacks found along the street and to allow the garage to be sited as
proposed in the rear yard. He stated that findings are included in the staff report in
support of the demolition of the residence and garage. He stated that the proposed
replacement residence is very close to the maximum permitted square footage and
building height and noted that as-built drawings will be required during construction to
confirm that the house does not exceed the limits as established by the Code. He
noted that the staff report suggests some refinement to the north and south elevations
with respect to window placement to align first floor windows with second floor
windows. He noted that the petitioner indicated an interest in adding an accessible
ramp to the home in the future. He suggested that consideration be given to how a
ramp could be accommodated with the proposed site plan. He stated that
correspondence was received from a neighboring property owner and was provided
to the Board.
Chairman Looby invited questions and comments from the Board.
Board member Lohmueller stated that the proposed residence fits well into the
neighborhood and complimented the front elevation. He observed that on the south
elevation, the shutters look crowded against the chimney and suggested eliminating
the shutters. He asked for clarification on the type of brick proposed for the new home
and for details on the windows. He suggested further study of the two small roofs on
the rear elevation and consideration of locating the light at the rear door to the home
to the side, rather than above the door depending on the style of light proposed.
Board member Downey agreed that more information is needed on the proposed
brick. She stated that the overall height of the home will need to be closely monitored
during construction to assure that the maximum allowable height is not exceeded.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 3 of 13
She agreed that the shutters appear crowded and placed inconsistently around the
home. She stated that if an access ramp is planned in the future, now is the time to
consider where it can be accommodated. She suggested carefully considering
landscaping including arborvitae to minimize the potential for headlight impacts on
the neighboring home. She noted that the space between the two driveways
appears adequate for plantings.
Board member Stamer agreed that the south elevation could be improved by
eliminating the shutters. He stated that in his opinion, the shutters work well on the
other elevations. He acknowledged that the placement of the windows flanking the
range in the kitchen is driven by the interior layout noting that although the windows
cannot be aligned with the windows on the second floor, making them larger could
improve the appearance of the elevation.
Board member Renken complimented the proposed house noting that it appears
simple and elegant. He stated that the existing house appears to be in good
condition from the outside but acknowledged that the interior photos tell a different
story. He noted that there appears to be only two feet between the driveways which
will limit the ability to plant in that area. On the south elevation, he suggested
consideration of pulling the middle window in the stairwell up even with the second
floor windows noting that the shift will provide more natural light into the second floor.
He stated that he understands why the windows are located as shown o n the south
elevation and suggested considering eliminating the second floor windows noting that
there are other windows in the bedroom. He agreed that the shutter near the
chimney should be eliminated.
Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition. She noted that if the size of
the windows in the kitchen is increased, the appearance of the elevation will be
improved, and additional natural light will be provided in the kitchen. She stated that
if the size of the windows cannot be increased, the windows above should be
removed. She stated that, in her opinion, the shutters are only necessary on the front
elevation adding that the shutters located tight to the chimney should be removed.
She complimented the brick mold planned for around the windows. She suggested
consideration of moving the downspouts to the side elevations, off of the front
elevation. She stated that the new home will fit well into the neighborhood.
Board member Lamphere agreed that the new house will be an improvement to the
neighborhood and will fit well with the surrounding homes. She stated support for the
demolition. She agreed that the shutters near the chimney should be eliminated and
that the shutters on the front of the home should remain. She stated that if a ramp is
planned in the future, the site plan should contemplate how it will be accommodated
to avoid a tacked on appearance. She acknowledged that there are limitations on
options for window placement and sizes due to the interior kitchen layout. She
questioned whether the driveway could be gravel to help alleviate drainage issues
and expressed concern that if the downspouts are moved to the side elevations,
water may sheet drain on to neighboring properties.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 4 of 13
Chairman Looby encouraged the petitioner to submit plans for the patio concurrent
with the plans for the house. He asked for clarification on the proposed brick. He
suggested consideration of pitching the driveway away from the house and installing
a storm sewer. He invited the petitioner to respond to the questions raised by the
Board.
Ms. Melichar agreed to re-look at the placement and use of shutters around the home
and the placement and size of windows. She stated that aluminum clad Marvin
windows are proposed with simulated divided lites and a brickmould surround. She
stated that an historic appearing brick is proposed. She stated that the downspouts
can be relocated off of the front elevation. She stated that given the history of water
infiltration into the home, careful consideration is being given to drainage adding that
water sheet drains from the street to the home. She stated that a landscape plan is
being developed for how the strip of greenery adjacent to the driveway will be
treated. She presented conceptual studies of a ramp to be added later but stated
that for now, more landscaping is desired. She confirmed that a ramp at the rear of
the home works with the site plan. She confirmed that the plans submitted for permit
for the new house will include patios, walks, and landscaping. She stated that
consideration will be given to the placement of the light at the rear door to the house.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Merits stated the intent to use brick that is
similar in color to the brick on the existing house. He confirmed that the brick will not
be glazed. He stated his intent to erect a stockade fence between the two driveways
adding that vines may be grown on the fence. He stated that drainage will be
properly addressed. He said that neighbors on both sides of his property have
expressed support for the redevelopment of the property.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Looby invited public comment.
Hearing none, he invited final Board comments. Hearing no further comments from
the Board, he invited motions.
Board member Lamphere made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition
of the existing residence based on the based on the findings in the staff report which
are adopted by the Board as part of the motion.
The motion was seconded by Board member Lohmueller and approved by the Board
by a vote of 7 to 0.
Board member Renken made a motion to recommend approval of the replacement
residence, detached garage, conceptual landscape, and overall site plan based on the
findings presented in this staff report which are adopted by the Board as part of the motion
and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion
includes the following conditions of approval.
1. Further study shall be conducted of the following items:
a. Elimination of the shutters near the chimney.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 5 of 13
b. The size and placement of windows with the goal of achieving greater
alignment.
c. Relocation of the downspouts to the side elevations.
d. Placement of the light at the rear door of the house.
2. All modifications to the plans including those detailed above and any others
made in response to Board comments and 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 to the permit submittal for
comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes in consultation with
the Chairman as appropriate to determine whether the modifications are in
conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any
permits.
3. Prior to 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 all required replacement tree inches to account for trees removed using
good forestry practices. The landscape plan must include the quantity, species, and size
at the time of planting for all new landscaping.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect the parkway trees and all
other trees that may be impacted during construction must be submitted and will be
subject to review and approval by the City.
5. At the time of submittal for a building permit, detailed drainage and grading plans must
be submitted. No grading or filling shall be permitted except the absolute minimum
necessary to meet accepted engineering standards and practices. The plans will be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
6. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut
sheets for all proposed exterior 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.
7. 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. Given the narrow width of the street, off site contractor
parking may be required. The street must remain passable at all times and driveways of
other homes may not be obstructed.
The motion was seconded by Board member Stamer and was approved by a vote of 7
to 0.
4. Consideration of a new residence and preliminary landscaping plan on a vacant lot
at 1175 Old Colony Road.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 6 of 13
Property Owner: Mary Milligan Funk
Representative: Mary Milligan Funk
Chairman Looby asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest, hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Funk stated that she proposes to develop a vacant, infill lot which is about a third
of an acre in size. She stated that the proposed home is modest in size with an
attached garage and screen porch. She stated that the proposed home is 26 feet in
height and 20 percent below the allowable square footage. She stated that the
home is a simple design with a front loading garage. She stated that the exterior will
be white stucco with simulated divided lite wood windows, soft green shutters with
appropriate hardware, and limestone sills. She stated that the front door will be wood
and explained that to elevate the design, copper gutters and downspouts are
proposed on the front of the home with aluminum on the sides and rear. She stated
that the driveway will be gravel and the front stoop will be brick or blue stone. She
reviewed each elevation noting that windows on the north elevation are limited for
security and because the elevation is not visible from the streetscape. She stated
however that she is willing add a window if needed. In response to comments in the
staff report, she presented a revised plan for the south elevation reflecting changes to
the window placement noting that as now proposed, the windows are placed more
consistently. She stated that the window in the stairway is intentionally placed to fill
the space in a better way than previously shown. She commented on the rear of the
house and garage noting that the garage extends 45 feet back from the house with
only a utility area located behind it. She stated that consequentially, there is no value
or functionality in placing windows on the rear wall of the garage. She stated that
trees will cover the area. She presented a roof plan, floor plans, and a section. She
presented a site plan noting that the siting complies with the zoning setbacks. She
presented a conceptual landscape plan noting the gravel driveway, the areas where
ground cover is proposed, and stated that brick or bluestone is planned for the
hardscape. She stated that a detailed landscape plan will be submitted later in the
process.
Mr. Prado stated that findings are presented in the staff report in support of the petition
with several recommendations for areas of refinement. He stated that the site plan
should be revised to reflect a driveway width of no more than 16 feet in the front yard
setback and the patio behind the house if one is proposed. He noted that the staff
report recommends further study and refinement of the north, south, and east
elevations of the residence in an effort to achieve a stronger balance between solids
and voids and to avoid large expanses of solid walls.
Chairman Looby invited questions from the Board.
Board member Downey stated that any action by the Board should include a
condition requiring the driveway width to comply with the limitations in the Code. She
asked for clarification on whether a basement is proposed. She confirmed that there
is not a window in the bedroom on the south elevation. She questioned where the
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 7 of 13
door on the second floor leads.
Board member Stamer suggested adding a window on the south elevation to provide
natural light into the bedroom. He pointed out that on the east elevation, to the left of
the rear garage entry door, an additional window would benefit the home. He stated
that additional detail is needed on the floor plan to allow an understanding of what is
planned for the attic and how the exterior is impacted.
Board member Lamphere complimented the house noting that it will be a good
addition to the neighborhood. She agreed that the house would benefit from
additional windows particularly on the north elevation. She requested clarification on
what is planned for the attic space. She observed that when entering the house from
the garage, near the front door, a closet is impacted.
Board member Bluhm acknowledged that the placement of the windows on the south
elevation is dictated by the interior adding that the revised elevation presented by the
petitioner is an improvement over the elevation presented in the Board’s packet. She
suggested enlarging the door on the rear elevation of the garage and shifting it away
from the mechanicals. She asked for clarification on whether the chimney is proposed
as stucco or masonry. She complimented the copper gutters noting that they will
weather naturally.
Board member Renken complimented the house but noted that the plans provided to
the Board are incomplete. He noted that the second floor living space is not shown
and expressed concern about the lack of windows in that space. He noted that a
door is shown to an attic which, based on the elevations, will be a dark space. He
stated that when the construction drawings are prepared, the area will need to be
detailed. He suggested consideration of dormers on the rear elevation, similar to
those on the front. He suggested consideration of the addition of shutters to fill the
blank space near the high window on the north elevation. He pointed out other areas
that lack detail stating that overall, in his opinion, the plans need further study, review
for consistency between the floor plans and the elevations, and detailing. He
suggested consideration of a window in the gable on the south elevation. He noted
that no chimney cap is indicated on the plans. He stated that if copper gutters and
downspouts are used on the front of the home, they should be used consistently
around the home. With respect to the window detailing, he suggested consideration
of a header that pops out to match the sill that is indicated.
Board member Lohmueller agreed that there are questions because of the lack of
detailing on and consistency between the floor plans and the elevations. He agreed
that the rear wall of the garage needs to be enhanced beyond the single door. He
noted that the metal roof will be prominent adding that in the materials provided, it
appears to be zinc but whatever the material, it should have some variation which will
give the home an aged look. He agreed that using copper gutters and downspouts
around the home would be preferable but acknowledged that cost issue. He
suggested adding a detail that indicates that function of the garage.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 8 of 13
Chairman Looby stated that a consistent material all around the house should be used
for gutters and downspouts. He stated that a cut sheet is needed to clarify the
proposed garage doors. He questioned whether the house is proposed as slab on
grade. Hearing no further questions from the Board, he invited the petitioner to
respond to the questions and comments offered by the Board.
Ms. Funk stated that she is trying to build a modestly priced house to fit in with the
neighborhood. She stated that she would prefer to put copper gutters and
downspouts around the house but noted that cost is a concern. She stated that she
will likely use all aluminum gutters and downspouts in response to the Board’s
comments. She acknowledged that the plans need to be further detailed with
respect to the attic. She agreed to consider modifications to the windows, the
addition of shutters, and enhancing the rear elevation of the garage. She stated that
the chimney will be masonry with a chimney cap. She stated that the home is
proposed as slab on grade, without a basement. She noted that she is building a
healthy house to minimize the potential for health issues related to mold and mildew.
She stated that her goal is to build a modest price at reasonable cost so that she does
not price the home above others in the neighborhood.
Chairman Looby invited public comment, hearing none, he invited final questions and
comments from the Board.
Board member Bluhm stated support for copper gutters and downspouts on the front
elevation to upgrade the home.
In response to questions from Board member Lamphere, Mr. Prado confirmed that the
attic is included in the square footage calculation whether it is built out or not,
Board member Renken stated support for brown or bronze colored aluminum gutters
and downspouts all around the home. He stated that more detail is needed on the
plans and color palette. He stated that the windows and rear elevation of the garage
should be studied further and refined.
Chairman Looby agreed that a single material should be used for the gutters and
downspouts. He stated that details of the gutters should be reflected on the plans and
suggested including a trim box.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Looby invited a motion.
Board member Stamer made a motion to indicate general support for the petition
with direction to the petitioner to address the following items and return to the Board
for formal action,
➢ The driveway shall not exceed 16 feet in width in the front yard setback.
➢ Provide samples of proposed exterior materials.
➢ Provide further detail of the materials and architectural elements on all elevations.
➢ Show dimensions on the plans.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 9 of 13
➢ Use a single material for gutters and downspouts.
➢ Conduct further study and refine the north, south, and east elevations as it relates
to balancing the relationship of solids and voids.
o Consider the addition of windows, dormers, and shutters to break up large
expanses of unbroken walls.
➢ Provide further detail on the floor plan and assure consistency between the floor
plan and the exterior of the home. Provide details of the intended attic space.
➢ Illustrate areas of hardscape on the site plan.
➢ Provide a detailed landscape plan.
➢ Provide details on the intended chimney cap.
The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and was approved by a vote of
7 to 0.
5. Consideration of the demolition of an existing residence and a new single-family
residence and preliminary landscaping plan at 890 Oak Knoll Drive.
Property Owner: Charlie Pick
Representative: Charlie Pick
Chairman Looby asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Pick stated that he was before the Board in November requesting approval to
demolish the existing house because of its deteriorated condition. He stated that he
has not yet proceeded with the demolition. He stated that the property is large, very
deep, with many mature Oak trees. He explained that the design inspiration for the
new home is a modern farmhouse with natural materials and a more natural
character than typically found on this style of home. He reviewed the proposed
exterior materials including 24 inch board and batten and lap siding. He stated that
the color palette is warm whites and grays with gun metal, gray windows. He stated
that a generous amount of stone is proposed at the front entry and on the chimney.
He stated that the tight knot lap siding is intended as an accent to break up the board
and batten. He pointed out the articulation on each elevation. He presented
conceptual color renderings. He described the three car garage noting the carriage
style doors. He stated that rectangular solar panels are proposed on the south facing
roof of the garage. He described the large front porch on the house, the three
clerestory windows in the great room, and the sunroom on the rear of the house with a
pergola. He pointed out the simplicity of the roof lines and the windows. He stated
that because of the large lot, the house is smaller than permitted. He stated that the
home is consistent in scale with other homes in the area.
Mr. Prado stated that findings in support of the demolition are detailed in the staff
report. He noted that the Board previously approved the demolition of the house on
two occasions however, the petitioner, despite expressing concern about the house,
has not yet proceeded with demolition. He stated that a condition requiring the
demolition to proceed within 90 days of approval of this petition is recommended. He
stated that findings are presented in the staff report in support of the proposed
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 10 of 13
replacement house with some recommendations for areas that could benefit from
further study and refinement. He stated that the final landscape plan should include
landscaping to screen the parking area from the streetscape and from the
neighboring property.
Chairman Looby invited questions from the Board.
Board member Lamphere said that the house appears to generally be in keeping with
other homes in the neighborhood. She encouraged the use of softer colors as
opposed to stark white and black. She stated that further study and refinement of the
on the north elevation will benefit the overall design. She noted that little detail is
provided on the patio at the rear of the home.
Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition. She agreed that further
refinement of the north elevation is needed and suggested making the window over
the tub larger. She stated that windows should be consistent sizes. She stated that
landscaping will be important as part of the project. She asked for information on the
materials proposed for the patio, the parking area, and the driveway.
Board member Renken stated that the home fits in well with the neighborhood noting
that it is in between a ranch home and a two story home. He stated that the home is
modest, but well detailed with good proportions on the front elevation. He agreed
that the north elevation could be improved with the addition of a window or two. He
also suggested the addition of a horizontal board on the north elevation . He
complimented the proposed color palette and the scale of the house.
Board member Lohmueller noted that the rendering in the packet implies a black and
white modern farmhouse but stated that the softer color palette as described by the
petitioner is a better option. He observed that the natural wood elements at the front
entry and some of the window heads might appear awkward next to Hardie board.
He asked for clarification on the materials proposed and how they relate to each
other. He asked for more information on the stone, whether it is veneer and whether
mortar will be used.
Board member Downey noted that based on the City’s Design Guidelines, no more
than two primary exterior materials should be used. She stated that as she
understands the plans, there appears to be multiple materials proposed. She agreed
that further study of the north elevation is needed and suggested that two windows
would be an improvement to the elevation. She stated concern about potential light
impacts on neighboring properties due to the large windows. She stated that
screening will be important.
Board member Stamer agreed with the comments made by the other Board
members. He asked about the proposed green glazed tiles. He stated that the
landscape plan should reflect screening around the proposed parking area in the
front yard.
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 11 of 13
Chairman Looby suggested 16 inch board and batten siding rather than 24 inch to
achieve a more residential scale. He asked whether the Hardie board siding material
will be painted on site. He stated that more detail is needed on the garage doors and
questioned whether a herring bone or board and batten pattern is proposed and
whether the doors will be custom built or factory standard. He stated that the stone
used on the front entry and chimney must be at least four inches thick. He invited the
petitioner to respond to the questions raised by the Board.
Mr. Pick stated that the garage doors will have a carriage design and will be washed
gray in steel or wood. He agreed to provide a cut sheet of the garage door at the
time of submittal for permit. He stated that the stone on the residence will be four
inches thick and will have a substantial look. He explained that there are two primary
materials proposed on the home, stone and horizontal siding. He stated that the tight
knot cedar headers are intended to break up the elevations noting that without the
cedar, the home will appear stark. He stated that the intent is to create a County-
look. He stated that the posts and headers at the front entry will be a richer, darker
cedar. He stated that stone is only proposed at the front entry and on the chimney.
He stated that there are only two primary exterior materials, lap siding and board and
batten. He stated concern about putting a window in the shower on the north
elevation. He agreed to explore options for the north elevation. He stated that the
landscape plan presented is very preliminary. He said that the parking area in the
front yard can be easily screened with plantings. He stated that there will be plantings
around the garage and plantings on the north side to break up the expanse of wall.
He stated that from a security perspective, he does not want more entry points to the
home especially those that serve no purpose except for aesthetics. He stated that the
driveway is asphalt with a polished cobble stone apron at the street and cobble
stones along the sides of the driveway. He stated that the rear patio will be a unilock
product for drainage. He stated that a fire pit is planned. He stated that overall, the
amount of impervious surface will be close to what currently exists on the site. He
stated that he believes that the driveway is configured to provide an adequate area
for turning movements. He stated that his goal is to remove o nly two Bur Oak trees
which will be replaced at 50 percent because they are in decline.
Chairman Looby invited public comment. Hearing no requests to speak from the
public, he invited final questions and comments from the Board.
In response to a question from Board member Downey, Mr. Prado confirmed that the
limitation to two exterior materials is not a requirement but a consideration for the
Board as each petition is reviewed to assure that the design presented is not overly
busy or inconsistent,
Chairman Looby stated that the garage doors should blend in with the home and not
be a prominent element.
Board member Renken stated that the Board considers each house on its own merits.
He stated that in his view, the proposed house is two primary materials with accent
materials which are intended to add interest. He stated that the landscape plan
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 12 of 13
should reflect plantings to screen the unbroken wall on the north elevation.
In response to questions from Board member Lohmueller, Mr. Pick stated that the
Hardi-board will be painted in the field because the color will be custom and not
standard colors.
Board member Downy stated that trees should be part of the landscaping on the
north side of the home to screen the wall.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Looby invited a motion.
Board member Downey made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of
the existing residence noting that the demolition should proceed promptly. She stated
that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report which are
adopted by the Board as part of the motion.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and approved by the Board by a
vote of 7 to 0.
Board member Renken made a motion to recommend approval of the replacement
residence, attached garage, conceptual landscape and overall site plan based on the
findings presented in the staff report which are adopted by the Board and
incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He noted that the
recommendation includes the following conditions of approval.
1. The board and batten spacing should be 16 inches.
2. A horizontal board shall be added to the north elevation and further study shall be
conducted to determine whether additional or larger windows can be added to break
up the large expanse of wall,
3. Samples of the materials and color palette shall be provided as part of the submission
for a building permit.
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. 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 all required replacement tree
inches to account for trees removed. The plan shall provide for a) significant
Building Review Board Minutes –5/1/2024 Page 13 of 13
landscaping on the north side of the house to mitigate the expanse of unbroken
wall and b) plantings to screen the parking area at the front of the home from the
street and from the neighboring property. The landscape plan must include the
quantity, species, and size at the time of planting for all new landscaping.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees on the site
intended for preservation that may be impacted during construction must be
submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City.
7. At the time of submittal for a building permit, detailed drainage and grading plans
must be submitted. No grading or filling shall be permitted except the absolute
minimum necessary to meet accepted engineering standards and practices.
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 Lamphere and was approved by a vote
of 7 to 0.
4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
No additional public testimony was presented to the Board.
5. Additional information from staff.
No additional information was provided by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development