Loading...
BRB_2024_12_04_MINUTES The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of December 4, 2024 A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, December 4, 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 Scott Renken, Sally Downey, Justin Stamer, Sarah Lamphere, Eric Lohmueller, and Joanne Bluhm 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 November 6, 2024 Building Review Board meeting. The minutes of the November 6, 2024 meeting were approved as presented. 3. Continued consideration of plans for a new two-story single family residence on a vacant lot at 1425 Telegraph Road including hardscape, and a conceptual landscape plan. Property Owner: Forest Lake LLC (Teresa Rygielski 50%, Conrad Karbowski 50%) Representative: Ivona Karbowski 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. Karbowski stated that the project architect was not able to attend the meeting. She stated that no variances are requested. She stated that since the last meeting some modifications were made to the plans in response to comments from the Board. She reviewed a site plan noting the relationship of the house to the adjacent houses to the north and south. She reviewed the driveway configuration as now proposed noting that the circular drive in front of the house was eliminated and replaced with a motor court. She stated that the garage apron was shifted away from the south property line to increase the opportunity for plantings to screen the driveway and garage doors from the neighboring property. She presented color renderings of the Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 2 of 12 proposed residence and pointed out that the smaller masses on the north and the south sides of the home noting that they are setback from the front elevation of the house at different distances. She stated that the roof forms were modified slightly in response to Board comments. She described the front entrance noting that it is recessed from the wall. She presented a landscape plan and pointed out the trees proposed for removal. She stated that the footprint of the house is staked on the site. She presented some images of homes that served as inspiration for the design of the proposed home. She stated that black wood windows likely clad with fiber glass are proposed. Mr. Prado stated that since the Board last saw this petition, some modifications were made to the site plan and the roof forms. He stated that a conceptual landscape plan was prepared and is included in the Board’s packet. He noted that the staff report identifies some areas where further study and refinement could benefit the overall design. He suggested consideration of a Board subcommittee to assist in moving the project forward. Chairman Looby invited questions from the Board. Board member Stamer complimented the homes that were used for inspiration and noted some differences between those homes and the proposed residence and encouraged further study to better align elements of the proposed residence with the images shown. He stated that in particular, the north and south elevations lack glazing resulting in large expanses of unbroken walls. He stated support for the driveway modifications made since the last meeting. Board member Downey commended the petitioner for the changes made in response to the Board’s comments at the last meeting. She stated that the images presented help to explain the intended overall design. She pointed out that the images presented reflect consistency around the home which is lacking in the proposed residence presented to the Board. She noted some discrepancies between the plans and the renderings and requested clarification. She stated that it would be beneficial to work toward greater symmetry in the overall design. Board member Lohmueller commented that the house as now presented is very similar to the plans previously presented to the Board. He stated support for a Board subcommittee in an effort to move the project forward in a manner consistent with the Board’s comments. He strongly suggested that prior to subcommittee involvement, the petitioner work closely with staff and consider significant modifications. Board member Lamphere stated that in her opinion, it is important for the windows on the front elevation in particular to be symmetrical noting that as currently proposed, the windows appear awkward. She asked for clarification on what appears to be a flat hardi-board panel on the front of the garage and on how the roof was modified since the petition was last presented to the Board. Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 3 of 12 Board member Bluhm stated support for a hipped roof element but noted that there are discrepancies between the drawings and the renderings presented. She questioned whether the peak of the roof rises above the ridge noting that it is unclear from the images presented. She stated support for flattening the hip. She suggested removing the hardi-board panel from the front of the garage. She stated that the driveway entrance should be moved to the south, away from the roots of the trees that are identified for preservation. She stated that the motor court is too large, 52 square feet, and looks like a parking lot in front of the residence. She suggested shifting the house back on the lot to avoid positioning it directly in front of the homes to the north which will face the side of the new home. She noted that the house could be sited between the two homes to the north to minimize the impact. She stated that the staking on the site appeared to be incomplete. Board member Renken noted that since the last meeting, the roof was reconfigured to incorporate a large flat section with saddles which offers cohesiveness. He stated that as explained by the petitioner, the front door is recessed behind the front wall significantly and as a result, there is no need for posts. He agreed with the staff suggestions for refinement on all four elevations. He stated that it is important that the windows across the front elevation are consistent. He noted concern about the garage elevation which is in a single plane with three garage doors and a storage room all under one large roof. He suggested consideration of projecting one of the bays out and using a gable with a window to break up the appearance of mass. He noted that a window could be helpful in the storage room. He suggested adding windows on the north elevation to break up the large solid wall. He stated concern about the tree on Telegraph Road and suggested consulting an arborist to assure that steps are taken in an effort to protect and preserve the tree. He agreed with staff that the driveway and garage apron should be set back from the south property line at least ten feet to allow for adequate plantings to buffer the neighboring home adding that sufficient pavement will remain for maneuverability. He commented that it appears that the previous house on the property was located in approximately the same location. Chairman Looby stated that he understands the desire to provide sufficient space for delivery trucks to maneuver on the property rather than parking on Telegraph Road. He suggested that the motor court could be designed to appear as more of a courtyard than a parking lot. He stated that a detailed landscape plan reflecting plantings around the motor court should be submitted. He agreed that the windows across the front elevation need to be consistent and that the south elevation, the garage element, needs to be articulated in some way. He asked the petitioner to work with the project engineer to determine whether the house can be shifted forward or back on the site while still allowing proper drainage and overland stormwater flows. He stated that a softer, rather than stark white, color palette will be easier to maintain. Board member Stamer asked for clarification on the proposed driveway material. He Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 4 of 12 noted that the plans are inconsistent with respect to the proposed setback distance for the driveway and garage apron from the south property line. Chairman Looby stated that the hardscape should be set back at least 10 feet from south property line. In response to questions and comments from the Board, Ms. Karbowski explained that on the front elevation, the narrower windows are proposed in the bedroom and wider windows in the living room. She stated that the house is designed to meet their needs and preferences. She stated that an “arctic white” color is proposed for the exterior of the house, not a stark white. She stated that the curb cut on to Telegraph Road is intended to remain in the existing location but agreed to consider shifting it if necessary to preserve the tree. She stated that a large motor court is desired to accommodate delivery trucks. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Prado confirmed that since the last meeting, staff offered some direction to the petitioner. He stated that if there are questions about drainage on or across the property, the City Engineer can review a preliminary plan and offer comments. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Looby invited public comments. Peggy Jadwin, 1419 Telegraph Road, stated that she lives in the second house in from Telegraph Road, directly to the north of the proposed house. She stated that because the house is proposed directly in front of her house, she is concerned about light impacts, landscape screening, and drainage. She suggested consideration of moving the house about 20 feet on the lot to avoid the side elevation being located directly in front of her house. She stated that the original house on the property was located further to the east on the lot. She stated that shifting the proposed house will help to mitigate the impact of the large new home on her house. Tim Pepowski, 1419 Telegraph Road, described how water currently flows across the property, from southwest to east. He stated that moving the house closer to Telegraph Road should not negatively impact the drainage flows in the area. He noted that the petitioner owns the property to the east of the proposed house, all the way to the railroad tracks. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Looby suggested that a subcommittee could be helpful in assuring that concerns raised by the Board and the public including, but not limited to: the siting of the house in relation to the homes to the south and the distance from the south property line, the symmetry across the front elevation and consistency in the form and size of the windows, and the articulation of the south elevation (the garage) are satisfactorily addressed. He invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Karbowski stated that respect to the drainage, all of the surrounding properties Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 5 of 12 are higher than the subject property. He stated that the house is sited at the highest point on the property. Chairman Looby invited final comments from the Board. Board member Bluhm stated that she feels strongly that the house should be sited closer to Telegraph Road to avoid blocking the views from the front of the homes to the north and to better align the house with other homes along the streetscape. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, he Looby invited a motion. Board member Lohmueller made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report and subject to final review and approval by a subcommittee of the Board to assure that the Board’s comments and concerns are fully addressed through refinements to the plans. He noted that at the subcommittee’s discretion, the petition as revised can be directed back to the full Board for further review. He stated that the subcommittee is charged with reviewing the revised plans and confirming that the following concerns are satisfactorily addressed. 1. Refine the site plan. ▪ Shift the house to mitigate direct impact to the front of the homes to the north and to better align with other homes along the streetscape. Show the proposed house in relation to the neighboring homes. ▪ Locate the driveway and curb cut to preserve significant trees and to allow for a substantial buffer between the driveway and garage apron and the south property line to allow for plantings and stormwater management. Provide a minimum setback of 10 feet from the south property line. ▪ Reduce the size of the proposed motor court or configure it to appear more as a courtyard through the use of hardscape and landscape. Provide detailed plans reflecting the intended hardscape and landscape. 2. Study and refine all elevations of the house. ▪ Refine the overall architectural design of the residence with a focus on consistency with all aspects of the selected architectural style. More fully align the design aspects of the home with the inspirational images provided. ▪ Refine the south elevation to mitigate the long, unbroken plane of the garage doors. Consider projecting the two car garage door and the use of a gable detailed with a window similar to the element on the right side of the west elevation. ▪ Refine all elevations to achieve a more regular pattern and proportional arrangement of windows, doors, solid walls and design features to more closely align with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. o On the north and south elevations: consider windows in and above the storage room, in the bathroom, on each side of the playroom, and in the living room. o On the west elevation: provide symmetry across the elevation with Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 6 of 12 windows of the same size and shape and on the second floor, a single rather than double window in the playroom. 3. Study and refine the exterior materials. ▪ Soften the color palette overall for compatibility with the surrounding homes. ▪ Use fiberglass or metal clad wood windows with simulated divided lites with muntins affixed to the interior and exterior with a spacer bar between the glass. ▪ Use wood for trim including facias, friezes, and soffits. ▪ Consider horizontal detailing, panels or siding, at the base of the house to mitigate the vertical appearance and to add interest. ▪ Eliminate the Hardi-board panel above the mechanical room. ▪ Provide samples of materials and colors for subcommittee review. 4. All modifications to the plans including those detailed above and any others made in response to Board or subcommittee direction or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the subcommittee as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s and the subcommittee’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 5. Submit a final tree survey and tree removal plan that fully and accurately document the species, size, and condition of the trees on the site and clearly identifies those proposed for removal. 6. Submit a detailed landscape plan that at a minimum: ▪ Satisfies the planting requirements in the Code for new construction. ▪ Includes trees, beyond the minimum required by the City for new construction, to satisfy the replacement inches required to compensate for the removal of trees. ▪ Provides a landscape buffer of a minimum of ten feet between any hardscape and the property lines. ▪ Provides significant screening of the front motor court. 7. Stake the site to reflect revisions made to the site plan. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. 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. b. 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 Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 7 of 12 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. c. 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. No construction access, parking, or staging is permitted on the private lane located along the north property line. Telegraph Road must remain fully passable and unobstructed and free of dirt and debris at all times. The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Consideration of a new house, attached garage, hardscape and a conceptual landscape plan on a vacant lot at 1138 Ridge Road. Property Owner: 1132 Ridge Road LLC (Art Marti 50%, Nicholas Stratigates 50%tDanuta Mikrut 100%) Representative: Art Marti, Owner and President of Triple M Partners 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. Mikrut stated the intention to build a spec house on two adjacent vacant lots that will be consolidated. She stated that her firm has built homes for over 25 years in neighboring communities. She stated a desire to build a business in Lake Forest by offering homes in the one to three million dollar range of 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. She stated that the homes are intended to appeal to a higher level buyer adding that quality materials will be used, and attention given to details. She presented conceptual renderings of the proposed home. She stated that in response to staff comments, the black and white color palette was softened to cream, beige, and mahogany/expresso brown. She explained that the two lots are being consolidated to achieve a larger home given the intent to market the home for over two million dollars. She stated that the options for siting the home are limited due to the zoning setbacks. She stated that initially, a circular driveway was proposed however, due to the zoning requirements, a single curb cut with a straight driveway is proposed along with a sidewalk to the front door. She stated that a landscape architect has not yet been selected. She presented a conceptual landscape plan and tree survey. Mr. Marti noted that the site slopes down in the rear which influenced the siting of the house along with the zoning setbacks. He stated that the intent was to build a traditional home but noted that due to the height limitation and the desire to make the house as large as possible, a modern Craftsman style home with a hip roof is proposed. He stated that four inch thick stone veneer is proposed around most of the home with thinner stone used in limited areas on the side elevations for constructability reasons. He stated that Hardi-board is also proposed on the exterior. He stated that Marvin or Pella composite windows are proposed with fiberglass Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 8 of 12 cladding on the exterior and wood on the inside. Mr. Prado confirmed that the proposed two story house is located across two vacant lots. He acknowledged that the petitioners softened the color palette from the stark white originally proposed. He confirmed that the driveway as reconfigured, with a single curb cut conforms to the zoning requirements. He noted that the staff report recommends further study and refinement of the columns to reflect the intended architectural style and removal of the closet above the garage to simplify the massing. He stated that the staff report also recommends further study and refinement of the window placement and consideration of adding windows. He suggested consideration of continuing the stone banding along the foundation between the two car and single car garage doors. He stated that samples of the exterior material should be provided for review prior to the issuance of permits. He stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition subject to recommended conditions. Chairman Looby invited questions from the Board. Board member Lamphere stated support for a softer color palette. She stated that consideration should be given to adding windows particularly on the elevations that will be visible from the streetscape, in the study, powder room, and the third bedroom. She acknowledged that removing the closet on the second floor could be problematic from a functional perspective. Board Lohmueller agreed with the recommendations in the staff report and the comments offered by Commissioner Lamphere. He stated that more attention should be given to the window placement and suggested adding a window on the front elevation, in the bathroom. He stated that further refinements will improve the elevations and suggested exploring solutions for the bump out. He questioned the use of vertical board and batten in combination with horizontal lap siding. He stated that the front porch will make or break the front elevation. Board member Downey asked for clarification on how many different exterior materials are proposed noting that the Board prefers to limit the number of materials to two. She stated that the stone veneer should be four inches thick all around the house. She commented on the columns on the front elevation noting that the columns appear to be more consistent with a Craftsman style as originally proposes rather than a contemporary style as now described by the petitioner. She stated that more detail overall is needed. She commented on the placement of the walk in closet and suggested consideration of locating it at the rear of the home. She agreed that further study and refinement of the placement of windows around the home is needed to achieve greater symmetry. Board member Stamer suggested further study of the floor plan to determine if the closet can be relocated to the rear elevation. He noted that it may be possible to increase the width of the closet by relocating it. He stated that eliminating the closet Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 9 of 12 which juts out about eight feet from the front wall, could significantly improve the front elevation. He noted the inconsistency of the windows. Board member Bluhm stated that as proposed, the house is not consistent with the Craftsman architectural style but instead, is more of a modern Prairie style house. She added that the Craftsman style posts at the front door are not appropriate. She noted that as proposed, the house has more than two exterior materials, vertical board and batten, horizontal panels, and stone. She stated that in her opinion, the Prairie style of the front door is acceptable. She questioned whether there are plans to develop the open part of the lot with a pool, patio, or outdoor kitchen. Board member Renken complimented the house adding that it will fit into the neighborhood well. He noted that given the low pitch of the roof, the house is not quite Craftsman in design. He commented on the front elevation noting that the fascia appears heavy and could be stepped or broken down to create a less massive appearance. He suggested consideration of using all horizontal siding and complimented the proposed stone. He agreed that the closet over the garage should be relocated to the rear of the house possibly using a gable with the benefit of increasing the size of the closet potentially. He stated that the stone should be at least four inches thick, and the trim should be real wood despite the fact that Hardi- board will be used elsewhere on the home. He agreed that the windows need to be refined for consistency, alignment, and symmetry. He suggested that there are too many single windows in the porch and suggested using larger panes of glass. He suggested splitting the windows above the garage doors. He stated support for the softer, expresso color palette. Chairman Looby stated support for adding a small window in the bathroom. He confirmed that the stone used for the siding must be at least four inches thick. He stated support for moving the closet to the rear elevation and for a softer color palette to make the house stand out from others in the neighborhood. He invited public comment, hearing none, he invited responses to the Board’s questions and comments from the petitioner. Mr. Marti stated that thin stone is not proposed, but the stone will be cut in half for use in some areas. He confirmed that the trim will be cedar. He stated that it will be difficult to put a window in the bathroom and some other areas because of the roof pitch. He stated that the house is designed to comply with the Building Code. He stated that the focus is on providing symmetry inside the home and as a result, there are some compromises on the exterior. He stated that both vertical and horizonal siding is proposed to add interest to the home consistent with the details found on other modern homes. He stated the intent to build a beautiful home despite the restrictions on the lot due to the topography, zoning setbacks, and height and square footage limitations. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Looby invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 10 of 12 Board member Stamer made a motion to recommend approval of a new house, the associated hardscape, and the conceptual landscape plan on property located at 1138 Ridge Road. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and the Board’s deliberations which are incorporated as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions adding that final review is delegated to a Board subcommittee. He stated that if the subcommittee finds that the conditions are not satisfactorily met, the petition may be returned to the full Board for further review. 1. Conduct further study and refinement of the plans in response to the Board’s comments and as detailed below. 1. Use a soft color palette and provide color samples. (The Board stated general support for the espresso color offered by the petitioner.) 2. Refine the base and cap of the columns of the front porch to better align with the chosen style, select either Craftsmen or Contemporary. 3. Refine the fascia to reduce the appearance of weight and mass. 4. Relocate the walk-in closet above the garage to the rear of the home to simplify the massing. 5. Refine the size, placement and arrangement of windows to achieve greater symmetry and alignment. a. Widen the windows on the garage for consistency with the width of the other casement windows around the home. b. Consider adding windows to the powder room, study, and bathrooms. c. Use fewer panes in the sunroom to simplify the appearance. d. Modify the windows in the bedroom on the north elevation to create two sets of two casement windows. 6. Simplify the exterior materials. a. Reduce the number of types of exterior materials to two. b. Consider using only horizontal siding to simplify the exterior. c. Use natural cedar for the trim, fascia and soffits. d. Consider continuing the stone band along the foundation between two-car and single-car garage doors. e. Stone veneer must be at least four inches thick. 7. Present material samples for review by a Board subcommittee and staff. 2. All modifications to the plans including those detailed above and any others made in response to Board direction or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit. Staff is directed to present the refined plans to the Board subcommittee for a determination on whether the plans 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: Tree Removal and Landscaping Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 11 of 12 a. A tree plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall identify 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. 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 all required replacement tree inches to account for trees removed to the extent possible using good forestry practices. The landscape plan must include the quantity, species, and size at the time of planting for all new landscaping. 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 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, Staging, and Tree Protection 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 adjacent street must remain passable at all times, unobstructed, and free of dirt and debris during construction. 4. Submit as-built drawings during the construction process to assure that the maximum permitted building height of 35 feet is not exceeded as measured from the lowest point of the existing adjacent grade to the tallest peak of the roof. The motion was seconded by Board member Downey and was approved by the Board by a 7 to 0 vote. Building Review Board Minutes – 12/4/2024 Page 12 of 12 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. No additional public testimony was presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. No additional information was provided by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development