BRB_2024_03_06_MINUTESThe City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of March 6, 2024 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
March 6, 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, and Sarah Lamphere
Building Review Board members absent: Board member Sally Downey
Staff present: Luis Prado, Assistant Planner, Abigail Vollmers, Senior 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 February 7, 2024 Building Review Board
meeting.
The minutes of the February 7, 2024 meeting were approved as presented.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence and the associated hardscape
and landscape plans at 1400 Oak Knoll Drive.
Property Owner: Jamie and Sophia Childs
Contract Purchasers: Joseph Paul D’Cruz and Dewelyn Diana Menezes
Project Representative: Jeff Letzter, Project Manager
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. Letzter stated that in response to the Board’s comments at the last meeting, the
design of the proposed home was revisited. He stated that just prior to the meeting,
he presented the latest revision to staff which reflects a centered front entry. He
stated that revisions were also made to the north elevation to break up the roof and
solid wall. He stated that some modifications were made to the west elevation but the
expanse of glass in the family room was retained. He stated that minor modifications
were made to the garage and the height of the chimney was lowered to the height
required by the Code. He stated that the size of the arbor vitae planned along the
north property line was increased to provide screening for the neighbor. He
distributed an updated color rendering. He stated that the intended style is French
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 2 of 17
Manor. He noted that since the last presentation, the roof was lowered, flared, and
simplified. He noted the variety of architectural styles in the area. He reviewed the
floor plans. He provided a section noting that the outer walls are clipped to respond
to the roof shape. He stated that drainage and grading plans for the site are in
progress. He noted that the neighbors to the north are in support of the project. He
presented samples of the proposed exterior materials noting that true limestone is
proposed. He stated that the proposed color palette has been used elsewhere in
Lake Forest.
Ms. Czerniak stated that at the last meeting, the Board continued the petition with
direction to the property owner to soften the stark color palette, refine the roof forms,
further articulate the elevations and in particular, the north elevation, reconsider the
appropriateness of the quoins, and to enhance the proposed landscaping. She noted
that the changes made to the north elevation appears to respond to the Board’s
direction. She noted that the landscaping along the north property line was
enhanced to screen the driveway and garage doors from the neighbor to the north.
She stated that at the time plans are submitted for permit, an auto turn diagram will
be required to document that the garage apron and the driveway overall are
sufficient to accommodate the necessary turning movement. She noted that the new
owners of the house to the north, which was also constructed by Childs Development,
have already applied for a permit to expand their driveway after finding that it does
not provide sufficient space for maneuvering into and out of the garage. She stated
that overall, the proposed materials are of high quality. She stated that further study
and refinement will be beneficial to the project and recommended that final review
and approval by delegated to a subcommittee of the Board.
Board member Lohmueller commented that stated the project has come a long way
since the last meeting. He suggested further study of the front entry and suggested
that given the intended French Manor style, an arch over the front entrance could be
considered. He stated that the monochromatic color palette could be soften by using
grey or dark blue windows. He encouraged further study of the detailing around the
windows.
Board member Stamer stated that given the large expanse of the roof, black asphalt
shingles will make the house appear heavy especially with the dark windows.
Board member Lamphere complimented the stone. She agreed that the black roof
appears out of place and not consistent with the overall appearance of the house.
She expressed concern about whether the driveway is adequately sized to easily
accommodate the required turning movements.
Board Bluhm stated that in her opinion, the proposed house appears to be a smaller
version of the much large house across the street, to the house. She stated that the
excessive similarity is disconcerting and inconsistent with the variety of home designs
found in the area. She acknowledged that the exterior materials are a little different
from the larger house and appear to be an improvement. She questioned whether
the owners of the very similar home to the south have any concerns about their house
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 3 of 17
being replicated.
Board member Renken agreed that the project has improved since the last meeting.
He acknowledged that quality exterior materials are proposed and complimented the
smooth quoins and textured stone. He suggested that black or grey would be
appropriate for the fascia and gutter. He complimented that enhanced articulation
on the north elevation but questioned why the projections are truncated. He stated
that the small garage doors will be problematic and suggested changing the size of
the doors and the length of the garage to make the garage more functional. He
stated support for the symmetry of the front entrance but noted that the front
entrance needs work. He commented that overall, the house looks too and
encouraged further study of the use of the quoins and refinement of the arch and the
two small windows above it.
Chairman Looby agreed that the project has improved. He suggested larger
arborvitae noting that fewer will be needed and the appearance will be enhanced.
He stated concern about the functionality of the garage as proposed noting that it will
be difficult for a vehicle to enter the first garage bay. He added that snow plowing will
be difficult. He stated that the garage doors and driveway configuration should be
studied further the refined.
In response to Board comments, Mr. Letzter agreed to study the front entrance further
noting that increasing the height and considering the use of limestone to distinguish
the entrance from the quoins may be helpful. He agreed to discuss the color palette
further with the clients. He stated that consideration can be given to pulling the house
back on the lot to improve the turning radius at the garage. He stated that five feet is
provided along the property line for landscape screening. He pointed out that in
comparison to the new house and similar house at 1415 Oak Knoll Drive, the stone
proposed in this case is more textured. He pointed out differences in the front entry
detail as well. He stated that landscaping is planned in front of the home to soften its
appearance from the streetscape. He stated that it may be possible to increase the
size of the windows above the front door adding that raising the height of the front
entry may be helpful in addressing that concern. He stated that the home is proposed
at the maximum square footage, so it is not possible to modify the garage to make it
more functional. He agreed to consider increasing the size of the arborvitae along the
north property line.
Chairman Looby invited public comment. Hearing none, he returned the petition to
the Board. He stated support for moving the petition forward with final approval
delegated to a subcommittee. He invited a motion.
Board member Renken made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based
on the findings in the staff report as adopted by the Board. He stated that the petition
is subject to resolving the items identified by the Board to the satisfaction of a
subcommittee and subject to the following conditions.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 4 of 17
1. The following elements shall be studied further and refined to the satisfaction of a
subcommittee of the Board.
Refine the front entry including the windows above the entry.
Soften the color palette with attention paid to the roof, trim and gutters.
Study and refine the size and placement of the garage, the size of the
garage doors, and the configuration of the driveway and garage apron
to make the garage functional for vehicles. Position in of the house and
of the garage and driveway.
Increase the size of the Arborvitae along the north property line.
2. All modifications to the plans including those made in response to direction from the
Subcommittee of the Board and as the result of final design development, shall be
clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plan originally
provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to
review any changes, in consultation with the Board Subcommittee or Chairman as
appropriate, to verify that the plans as presented are consistent with the Board’s
approval or if further Board review is required prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
Tree Removal and Landscaping
a. A tree removal plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by
the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall identify any trees proposed for removal and
trees identified for protection and preservation.
b. A plan shall be submitted identifying the location of tree protection fencing to be
installed prior to the start of construction and describing pre and post construction
treatments proposed to increase the changes of long term survival of the trees intended
for preservation which are located close to construction activity.
c. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and
approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. At a minimum, the plan must reflect foundation
plantings around the entire structure and the number of trees required by the Code for
new construction. The plan shall reflect significant plantings along the north property
line including eight foot tall Arborvitae. The landscape plan shall specify the quantity,
species, and size at the time of planting for all new landscaping. Consideration shall be
given to the City’s recommended planting list.
Drainage and Grading
d. Detailed drainage and grading plans must be submitted. Grading or filling is limited to
the minimum necessary to meet accepted engineering standards and practices. The
property must continue to accept water that is tributary to the site and runoff from new
construction must be addressed to avoid increasing stormwater runoff on to neighboring
properties.
Exterior Lighting
e. 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
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 5 of 17
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.
Construction Parking and Staging
f. 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 Stamer and was approved by a 6 to 0 vote.
4. Consideration of a new residence on a vacant lot at 210 Majestic Oak Court. A
preliminary landscape plan will also be considered.
Property Owner: North Shore Builders, Inc.
(William J. Ryan 94%, John Rushin 3%, James A. Esperson, 3%
Representative: Doug Wirth, 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.
Mr. Wirth stated that the proposed residence is designed taking cues from traditional
and English Cottage style architecture. He stated that the new house is intended to
relate to the historic residence to the south. He reviewed the elevations noting that the
intent is to create a quaint, ranch style, cottage constructed of quality materials. He
stated that along with the new residence proposed to the south, the massing and
orientation of the two new homes are intended to address the street and work together
with the historic residence without trying to imitate it. He stated that the design of the
house is not intended to be symmetrical. He reviewed the floor plan and noted that
three car side load garage. He stated that natural exterior materials are proposed
including wood trim and a stone clad chimney. He stated that the property will be well
landscaped.
Ms. Czerniak stated that the lots in this agenda item and the following item are in the
Westleigh Farm Subdivision. She explained that the subdivision was approved as a
conservation subdivision, a subdivision that allows lots to be smaller than required in the
applicable zoning district in exchange for preservation of common open space. She
reviewed the layout of the subdivision noting the 26 lots on the north portion of the
subdivision which were based on a limited number of model homes previously approved
by the Board. She explained that the seven lots at the south end of the subdivision,
where the subject lot is located, are intended for individually designed homes that pay
some deference to the historic residence. She commented on the proposed site plan
noting that as currently configured, the driveway is located on or very close to the south
property line leaving no space for landscaping of to capture runoff from the garage
and driveway. She added that the driveway apron appears to be undersized and may
make it difficult to pull into and out of the garage. She stated that the siting of the
house appears to limit views from the streetscape to the historic home. She noted that
the lot is deep enough to allow the house to be shifted back on the lot to open up the
entry to the Majestic Oak Court neighborhood. She noted that the north elevation of
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 6 of 17
the home will be very visible from the common areas and open space to the north. She
pointed out the large expanses of unbroken walls on both the north and south
elevations of the proposed residence. She noted that several trees have been lost in
the south portion of the Westleigh Farm Subdivision and suggested that trees should be
re-established on the lots as they are developed to restore a mature canopy in the area
over time.
Chairman Looby commented that the footprints of the houses and driveway
configurations were not staked on the lots making it difficult to understand the
relationship to the streetscape and the historic residence. He agreed that there
appears to be an opportunity to shift the house back on the lot to provide a more
welcoming entrance to the Majestic Oak Road neighborhood. He invited comments
and questions from the Board members.
Board member Stamer agreed that consideration should be given to the feasibility of
shifting the house back on the lot. He pointed out that the chimney as portrayed may
be a little short of the Code requirement for minimum chimney heights.
Board member Bluhm asked for clarification on whether the markings on the plan
indicate a brush line or wetlands. She agreed that consideration should be given to
moving the house back on the lot. She stated support for the side load garage instead
of a front load garage. She suggested that large windows be considered in the gable
ends. She stated that the residence as proposed appears to take cues from several of
the model homes to the north. She stated that in this location, the home should be
unique with some reference to the historic home.
Board member Lamphere noted the unique location of the proposed residence, near
an historic home and adjacent to a common area open space area and community
clubhouse. She stated that in her opinion, the house appears to turn its back on the
beautiful common area amenity to the north. She suggested that consideration be
given to providing the house with some sort of a relationship to the common amenity.
Board member Lohmueller stated that the location of the post on the porch in front of
the front door is awkward. He stated that the house seems to be configured to
maximize its width on the site. He agreed that consideration should be given to
providing a way for the house and site to embrace the amenity. He stated that the
north façade needs attention and suggested reducing the width of the house overall to
allow it to be sited more comfortably on the lot.
Board member Renken stated that as designed, it is not clear if the intent is a modern
farmhouse or an English cottage. He stated that if the intent is an English cottage
design, there should be greater focus on the details consistent with that style. He stated
that the roof and entrance should be studied further and agreed that the spacing of
the posts on the porch is not appropriate. He suggested that consideration be given to
using three posts properly spaced. He suggested a stone base or thicker post be
considered to allow the posts to visually support the porch roof. He noted concerns
about the double gable, large expanse of unbroken siding, and lack of articulation and
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 7 of 17
windows. He pointed out that there is an opportunity for a window in the kitchen, or
windows on either side of the hood, looking out toward the open space. He added that
there may be an opportunity to add a covered porch at the door or a larger window on
the bay. He suggested consideration of a hipped roof at the dormers. He stated that in
his opinion, the arched garage doors are inappropriate. He stated that overall, the
petition needs more study and refinement adding that if an English Cottage style is
desired, efforts should be made to focus on elements of that style. He agreed that
shifting the house back on the lot could have a positive impact on the functionality of
the garage and driveway.
Chairman Looby agreed with the comments of the other Board members.
Mr. Ryan stated that although the historic residence was not required to be preserved as
part of the original approvals of the development, once the residence was sold, he
understood that new homes would eventually be built adjacent to the historic home.
He stated that the owners of the historic residence have done a great job restoring it.
He stated that the proposed new homes are sited consistent with the established
setback lines on the plat of subdivision which are already further back than the normal
setbacks required in the Code for the applicable zoning district. He stated that further
consideration will be given to adjusting the siting of the proposed homes. He noted the
difficulty in creating a house that is appealing to a buyer but does not overshadow the
historic residence. He stated that some design elements were inspired by the David
Adler designs of the original stable and clubhouse which were recreated at new
locations as part of the development. He stated that all of the Board’s comments will
be considered and to the extent possible, integrated into the design. He pointed out
the intent to move from a single story home on the 210 parcel to a large home on the
230 parcel as it transitions to the larger, historic home.
Chairman Looby stated support for the concept of a transition up to the historic
residence. He encouraged the developer to reconsider the siting of the homes on the
lots and stressed the importance of staking the footprints of the proposed homes prior to
the next meeting. He suggested that before further Board comments, the plans for the
proposed residence on the 230 Majestic Oak Court property be presented to the Board.
Hearing no objections from the Board, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
5. Consideration of a new residence on a vacant lot at 230 Majestic Oak Court and a
preliminary landscape plan.
Property Owner: North Shore Builders, Inc.
(William J. Ryan 94%, John Rushin 3%, James A. Esperson, 3%
Representative: Doug Wirth, 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.
Mr. Wirth described the proposed house as a French Manor style. He reviewed the
proposed materials: stone veneer, architectural asphalt shingles, stucco, and metal
downspouts and gutters. He stated that the home has a traditional massing. He
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 8 of 17
presented conceptual streetscape images of the home in the context of the existing
and proposed homes in the immediate area. He noted that the proposed side load
garage will be screened by a hedge. He reviewed the floor plans noting that the floor
plan is more formal than the previous plan for the 210 lot. He reviewed the elevations
noting that all of the elevations are detailed at the same level. He pointed out that the
south elevation will be visible from the King Estate, the historic residence.
Ms. Vollmers stated that as with the previous plan, the siting of the proposed residence
appears to obstruct, rather than relate well to the historic residence. She stated that the
new home does not appear to have a symbiotic relationship to the original residence.
She stated that although not variances are requested, there may be opportunities for
refinements to allow the new home to be more compatible with the surroundings. She
commented that both side elevations feel heavy with large expanses of roof. She noted
that there may be opportunities to break up the roof while at the same time, offering
additional windows for light and vent for the second floor spaces. She stated that
quality exterior materials are proposed. She stated that staff recommends further study
and refinement based on the comments and direction from the Board.
Chairman Looby invited Board comments and questions.
Board member Lamphere stated that the proposed house is beautiful, with strong
elements, but expressed concern that it does not relate well in placement or character
to the historic residence.
Board member Lohmueller commented that the streetscape image does not appear to
represent the proposed house accurately. He observed that the house appears to be in
the front yard of the historic house to the south. He encouraged further thought to
designing a home that fits with the parameters of this particular lot.
Board member Bluhm stated that it is difficult to look at the proposed houses individually
because of the unique context in which they must be considered. She stated that the
King Estate house is elegant because it is simple and straight forward. She stated that a
5,400 square foot house in the front yard of the historic residence is not appropriate. She
stated the home design in the French style is beautiful but commented that the
projecting garage is problematic in her opinion.
Board member Stamer stated support for moving forward with the French style home.
He pointed out that it does not appear that divided lite windows are proposed and
cautioned that the chimney does not appear tall enough to meet Code requirements.
Board member Renken commented that the historic home is where it is and is set on an
angle in relation to the adjacent buildable lots which can be developed. He
commented that the siting and styles of the new homes can be manipulated. He
complimented that residence proposed for the 230 Majestic Oak Court property. He
stated that the siting of the home is a concern. He acknowledged that the projecting
garage pushes the home back on the lot but suggested that it should be pushed back
further. He added that the proposed house on the 210 Majestic Oak Court property
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 9 of 17
should be pushed back further to allow the driveway to function properly. He
complimented that proportions of the residence proposed on the 230 Majestic Oake
Court parcel. He observed that two kinds of windows appear on the house, double
hung and casements. He suggested that all of the windows should be casement
windows, with simulated divided lites, with affixed interior and exterior muntins with a
spacer bar consistent with the selected French style. He questioned whether the
window surround is proposed as stone or wood and suggested that it should be
limestone for consistency with the selected style. He noted that the door surround does
not need to have much depth because the door itself is recessed. He stated that the
stucco should not be stark white, but a softer tone. He suggested that the second floor
windows should be configured to be as wide as the windows below them noting the
wider windows will not only enhance the elevation but will add light to the second floor
spaces. He suggested that the dormers be reviewed to verify that they are appropriate
in width. He questioned whether the little window on the appendage was needed. He
suggested further study of the size of the door on the rear elevation. He noted the
opportunity to soften the appearance of the large roof by adding a window. He
pointed out that on the garage elevation, the two arches of differing widths do not work
well together and suggested consideration of three garage doors with consistent
arches. He commented that there are too many windows of varying shapes and sizes.
He asked for more details on the back porch and questioned whether a pergola or
covered area is intended. He stated that the house can be improved with some further
attention to detail. He encouraged looking at the houses as a group with respect to the
siting with the goal of minimizing the appearance of a new house being located in the
front yard of the historic residence.
Chairman Looby agreed that the houses should be sited further back on the lots. With
respect to the house proposed on the 230 Majestic Oak Court lot, he stated that three
garage doors of similar size, rather than two of differing sizes will be an improvement. He
stated support for the concept of transitioning from the smaller home on the north to the
larger, historic home. He encouraged siting the homes so that they appear to sweep
along the streetscape. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, he
invited public comment on both the 210 and 230 Majestic Oak Court petitions.
Tina Dann-Fenwick, 301 S. Ridge Road, stated that she lives and often walks in the area
of the proposed houses. She stated that, in her opinion, the houses are not doing
enough to reference the Howard Van Doren Shaw house with Classical elements such
as columns, mill work, and trim work. She stated that her main concerns are the gables
and the asymmetry noting that the historic residence is very symmetrical. She stated
that the middle dormer does not look Classical in any way and the gables appear fake,
with no depth. She questioned the appropriateness of the French style house with the
neighboring English style homes.
Jannett Hodkinson, 250 Majestic Oak Court, stated concern about how the proposed
homes are sited on the lots. She agreed that without staking, it is difficult to understand
the relationship of the proposed homes to the street and to her historic home. She
stated that the corner of the garage appears to be just 18 feet from the property line
and questioned whether the garage will be difficult to access. She stated that she
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 10 of 17
always anticipated that the new homes would have front loading garages. She
presented images of her driveway noting the limited space available. She noted the
location of her kitchen in relation to the proposed house. She stated that in her opinion,
the lots should be combined into a single lot and one house should be built, not two.
She stated that she and her husband have worked hard to restore the historic residence.
Mr. Hodkinson, 250 Majestic Oak Court, stated that the house proposed on the 210
Majestic Oak Court property appears to closely resemble the model homes in the north
portion of the subdivision. He stated that as a lifelong resident of Lake Forest, he is not
aware of other subdivisions with homes that are so similar in appearance. He pointed
out that his home, which was designed by Howard Van Doren Shaw, is unique and
simple. He stated that the symmetry is beautiful. He stated that the developer should
be careful about the siting to avoid negatively impacting the common area and the
historic home. He stated that he is shocked to hear that an asphalt roof is proposed and
stated that the roof should be cedar like the roof on his house. He questioned the
accuracy of the streetscape image that is presented noting that the relationship
between his home and the proposed homes does not appear to be visually correct. He
stated that if the two lots are combined, the house can be pushed back and centered
away from his house and the common area.
Mr. Fenwick, 301 S. Ridge Road, pointed out that the Majestic Oak Court area was the
site of many mature Oak trees prior to development of the subdivision. He stated that
many of the trees have since died. He suggested that Oak trees should be replanted in
the area to support insects and birds.
Jane Duney, 895 S. Orchard Circle, stated that she is grateful to be in the Westleigh Farm
Subdivision, a luxury tract home community. She stated that the remaining homes
should be customized, individual homes designed to appeal to a diverse group of
people. She thanked the Board for its careful review.
Ernie Kraemer, 785 W. Orchard Circle stated that he did not expect to see a cookie
cutter house proposed for a lot on Majestic Oak Court, a house similar to his and other
homes in the north part of the subdivision. He stated that a single house should be built
on the two combined lots.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the two parcels are
separate, legal, buildable lots. She stated that if someone purchased both of the lots,
they could be consolidated into a single lot at the owner’s discretion.
Board member Lohmueller suggested that rather than transitioning to a larger house
adjacent to the historic residence, it may be worth considering placing the smaller
house on the middle lot, the lot just north of the historic residence.
Board member Bluhm suggested developing one of the lots located south of the historic
residence instead of two homes to the north of the historic residence as the initial new
homes in this part of the subdivision.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 11 of 17
In response to Board member Bluhm’s suggestion, said that approach is not out of the
question. He noted however that he feels as the developer, he is being penalized for
preserving and offering the historic home for sale. He pointed out that preserving the
house was not required as part of the development approvals. He stated that lots were
configured around the house recognizing that it may or may not remain. He stated that
since the house was preserved, he understood that locating new homes near the
historic home would be a challenge. He noted that the historic home is awkwardly
positioned in relation to the road. He stated that landscape screening is planned but
noted that it is not unusual throughout Lake Forest to be able to see another home from
your home.
Chairman Looby stated that the Board understands that the lots are buildable, legal lots.
He stated that the Board’s intention is to work with the developer toward the best
solution. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion to continue
both petitions for the new homes at 210 and 230 Majestic Oak Court to allow time for
the developer to consider the comments offered by the Board.
Board member Stamer made a motion to continue both petitions to allow the
petitioner to consider the comments and suggestions offered by the Board and make
refinements to the plans.
The motion was seconded by Board member Lohmueller and was approved by the
Board by a vote of 6 to 0.
6. Consideration of a building scale variance for an addition and alterations at 766
Highview Terrace.
Property Owners: Scott Nehls and Susan Groh
Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager
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. Letzter stated he did an addition to the home about 12 years ago for a previous
owner of the property. He presented images of the home. He stated that the proposed
addition will be constructed on the existing footprint. He stated that alternatives were
considered to avoid the need for a building scale variance, but the proposed plan was
determined to work best with the existing configuration of the house. He stated that as
proposed, the addition results in an overage of about 106 square feet. He reviewed the
floor plans. He presented a streetscape image and a site plan. He reviewed the
existing and proposed elevations. He stated that the goal is to avoid changing the front
elevation. He reviewed the changes proposed to the side and rear elevations. He
presented overlays of the existing and proposed elevations.
Mr. Pardo stated that a partial demolition is proposed to remove the earlier addition and
allow a new and expanded addition in its place. He stated that the addition as
proposed requires a building scale variance. He stated that the house was constructed
in 1951 and expanded about 12 years ago. He noted that the house today is under the
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 12 of 17
allowable square footage and with the proposed addition, is 106 square feet over the
allowable square footage, about three percent. He suggested that consideration be
given to replacing the existing front facing octagonal window with a window that is
more consistent with the shape and style of the other windows around the house. He
stated that one letter was received in support of the petition and was provided to the
Board.
Board member Bluhm stated that the additional square footage will add a lot to the
house. She agreed that the octagonal window seems lonely. She suggested
consideration of replacing the window to resemble other windows on the home more
closely. She stated support for the building scale variance.
In response to a comment by Board member Bluhm, Mr. Letzter clarified that the window
is round, not octagonal.
Board member Renken stated support for the petition noting that the simpler roof form
proposed as part of the addition improves the appearance from the street. He
commented that in his opinion, six inch exposure siding looks better than eight inch, but
he acknowledged that the siding on the addition is proposed at eight inches to match
the siding on the rest of the house. He suggested adding a window on the right side
elevation to break up the expanse of blank space. He agreed that a double hung
window would look better than the round window on the front facing elevation.
Board member Lohmueller agreed that changing out the front facing round window
should be considered. He stated that the roof should be detailed further to make it
clear how the roof forms will come together.
Board member Lamphere stated support for the plan noting that it will add space and
value to the home.
Chairman Looby complimented the plan and agreed with Board member Renken that
the addition of a window on the side elevation would be beneficial and would add a
window in the bathroom. He noted that the circular window was previously in the
bathroom and with the addition, will now be in the bedroom.
In response to comments from the Board, Mr. Nehls stated that his wife is found of the
circular window because it is unique.
In response to comments from the Board, Mr. Letzter agreed that adding a window on
the side elevation will be helpful. He stated that replacing the round window will be
discussed with the homeowners.
Chairman Looby invited public comment, hearing none, he invited a motion from the
Board.
Board member Lohmueller made a motion to recommend approval of the addition and
the building scale variance subject to the following conditions of approval. He stated
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 13 of 17
that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and adopted by the
Board.
1. Consideration shall be given to adding a window on the right elevation and
replacing the round window on the front elevation with a window that is more
consistent with the other windows on the house.
2. All modifications to the plans including those made in response to Board direction or
discussion and those made as a result of final design development shall be clearly
called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plans 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 verify that
the plans as presented are consistent with the Board’s approval, and if not, further
Board review is required prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
Tree Removal and Landscaping
a. A plan shall be submitted identifying the location of tree protection fencing to be
installed prior to the start of construction to protect vegetation intended to remain on
the subject property, on the parkway, and on the adjacent property.
b. A detailed landscape plan for the area on the north side of the house, in the area of the
construction, shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist. At a minimum, the plan must reflect foundation plantings around the
addition. The landscape plan shall specify the quantity, species, and size at the time of
planting for all new landscaping.
Exterior Lighting
c. Details of exterior lighting shall be included with the plans submitted for permit. Cut
sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures and except lights 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.
Construction Parking and Staging
d. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and
will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of
Community Development. On street parking of contractor vehicles shall be limited to
two vehicles parked on the street in front of the house due to the narrowness of the
road.
Board member Stamer seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
7. Consideration of additions, alterations and site plan modifications at 980 Mellody
Road.
Property Owner: Jack Harris
Representative: Andy Kacprzynski, architect
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 14 of 17
Mr. Kacprzynski described the proposed addition and rear patio. He stated that the
driveway will remain. He stated that the intent is to salvage and reuse the existing
foundation and basement and to the extent possible, the existing walls. He stated that
the intention is to create a contemporary looking Ranch home with white stucco,
natural stone, cedar beams and columns, and asphalt shingles. He reviewed the
existing and proposed elevations. He stated that a standing seam roof is proposed on
the flat roof elements. He stated that black aluminum clad windows are proposed.
Ms. Vollmers stated that the home was built in 1955 and is generally consistent with other
homes found in the area. She stated that in general, the standards are satisfied. She
stated that the three car garage proposed for the west side of the property will provide
a good buffer from Waukegan Road. She stated that at this time, it is unclear how
much of the house will be demolished adding that if more than 50% of the house overall
is demolished, it will be considered a complete demolition. She stated that as proposed,
the house is 22 percent under the allowable square footage. She suggested that the
front elevation could benefit from some simplification noting that there are several
competing elements in close proximity. In particular she pointed out that the small
canopy to the left of the front door appears to conflict with the element over the front
porch. She asked for clarification on the areas where stone is proposed. She suggested
consideration of removing the small eyebrow canopy to allow the stone veneer to travel
up the wall. She stated that the material of the beams on either side of the front door
should be clarified noting that based on the information submitted, the columns appear
to be cedar although there are some references to stone columns. She suggested
softening the color of the gutters and downspouts to minimize the prominence of these
elements. She stated that based on the plans submitted at least six mature trees are
proposed for removal. She noted that other trees may be impacted adding that a
determination of the required replacement inches will be made once more information
is available.
In response to a question from Board member Renken, Ms. Vollmers suggested that the
stone could extend all the way up on the front facing element instead of stopping at a
random point.
Board member Bluhm questioned whether the front facing canopy is intended to
provide shade or is solely a decorative element. Remove if not needed. She stated
concern about the proposed vinyl windows. She agreed that the utilitarian elements of
the house, the downspouts and gutters, should match the roof to avoid standing out.
She stated that the stone is presented appears choppy and noted that the windows in
the gables appear undersized. She asked for clarification on the rear porch noting that
the intentions with respect to the roof are unclear. She stated that it is also not clear
whether there is a step down from the house to the porch and suggested that having a
single level may make the area more functional. She noted that the third bay of the
garage is too close to the house to allow vehicle access.
Board member Stamer stated support for the design overall. He noted that the canopy
ties in with the standing seam roof. He stated that he does not understand the stopping
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 15 of 17
points for the stone noting that it appears too segmented without reason. He noted that
the stone may tie into the landscape and hardscape design but noted that no
information on those items is provided.
Board member Lohmueller stated that in his opinion, the canopy can work and
suggested that the stone could be limited to the entrance or eliminated entirely. He
agreed that the third garage bay located immediately adjacent to the house is not
functional for a vehicle.
Board member Renken complimented the style and quality of the proposed project
adding that the project will improve the corner and streetscape. He suggested that the
stone be limited to the entry adding that if the stone is carried around, it should stop at
the windowsill. He stated support for the canopy. He commented that based on the
drawings, the house looks stark and noted that the addition of some details could be
helpful. He suggested that consideration be given to making the dormer windows taller
adding that they appear squatty. He pointed out that the placement of the double
and single garage doors could be switched to improve accessibility.
Chairman Looby agreed that the stone should be kept lower. He complimented the
petitioner for taking a house from the 1950’s that is unremarkable and revitalizing it. He
asked for clarification on the intended tree removal.
In response to a question from Chairman Looby, Mr. Harris stated that the trees were
evaluated and identified for removal to provide natural light to the site. He noted that
there are diseases that are affecting the trees and making them weak. He noted that
some of the trees are very close to the house.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Looby invited public comment.
Jan Shields, 985 Mellody Road asked that the project be managed to avoid blocking
the street and her driveway. She stated that she appreciates that something is being
done with the house but commented that as proposed, it appears very stark. She
stated that she has invested significantly in her home and noted that it is in the historic
district.
Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Looby commented that a parking and
staging plan will be required prior to the issuance of a permit and will be reviewed by
staff. He stated that the street will not be able to be blocked. He asked the petitioner to
consider softer colors to avoid a stark appearance.
In response to Board comments, Mr. Kacprzynski stated that stone columns are
proposed at the front entrance with a wood beam on top. He agreed that the garage
doors could be switched, or the single garage door could be used for storage. He
stated that the color of the gutters and downspouts will match the roof. He stated that
vinyl windows are proposed but can be changed to metal clad windows if desired. He
stated that the intent is to do the project right and meet the requirements of the
community.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 16 of 17
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Looby invited a motion.
Board member Renken made a motion to recommend approval of the petition subject
to the following conditions of approval. He stated that the recommendation is based
on the findings as detailed in the staff report which are adopted by the Board and
incorporates the deliberations of the Board as additional findings.
1. The following elements shall be addressed and reflected on the plans presented for
permit.
a. Use a softer, less stark, color palette overall.
b. Match the color of the gutters and downspouts to the roof so they do not
stand out.
c. Consider switching the garage doors to make the inner bay accessible.
d. Increase the size of the windows.
e. Use aluminum clad wood windows.
f. Lower the stone on the front element to the windowsill height.
g. Provide a sample of the proposed stone to staff for review.
2. All modifications to the plans including those detailed above and those made as a
result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted
for permit and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached
for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation
with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans as presented are consistent
with the Board’s approval or if further Board review is required prior to the issuance of
any permits.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
Tree Removal and Landscaping
e. A tree plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist. The plan shall identify any trees proposed for removal and trees
identified for protection and preservation.
f. A plan shall be submitted identifying the location of tree protection fencing to be
installed prior to the start of construction and describing pre and post construction
treatments proposed to increase the changes of long-term survival of the trees intended
for preservation which are located close to construction activity.
g. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and
approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. At a minimum, the plan must reflect foundation
plantings around the entire structure and the number of trees required by the Code for
new construction. In addition, the plan shall reflect all required replacement inches to
compensate for trees removed from the site. If the replacement inches cannot be
accommodated on the site using good forestry practices, a payment in lieu of on site
plantings may be accepted by the City. The landscape plan shall specify the quantity,
species, and size at the time of planting for all new landscaping. Consideration shall be
given to the City’s recommended planting list.
Building Review Board Minutes – 3/6/2024 Page 17 of 17
Drainage and Grading
h. Detailed drainage and grading plans must be submitted. Grading or filling is limited to
the minimum necessary to meet accepted engineering standards and practices. The
property must continue to accept water that is tributary to the site and runoff from new
construction must be addressed to avoid increasing stormwater runoff on to neighboring
properties.
Exterior Lighting
i. 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.
Construction Parking and Staging
j. 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. Due to the location of the property, on Waukegan Road, on
street parking and staging on Mellody Road shall be limited. Turning movements on to
and from Waukegan Road and sightlines shall not be obstructed.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and was approved by the Board
by a 6 to 0 vote.
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 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Luis Prado
Assistant Planner