City of Lake Forest Building Review Board met March 12.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members, Chris Bires, Jim Diamond, Fred Moyer, James Sykora and Richard Walther
Building Review Board members absent: Ross Friedman
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development and Jennifer Baehr, Assistant Planner
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Notz
Chairman Notz 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 of the February 7, 2019 meeting of the Building Review Board.
The minutes of the February 7, 2019 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Recognition of past Board member Robert Reda.
Chairman Notz recognized past Board member Reda for his six years on the Board. He mentioned some of the key projects that were heard by the Board during Mr. Reda’s tenure. He recognized the important role that Mr. Reda played in the meetings, summarizing the Board’s discussions and making motions for the Board’s consideration that were articulate and comprehensively reflected the Board’s deliberations. He thanked Mr. Reda for his service to the community and presented him with a plaque in appreciation.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of new residence on a vacant lot, the overall site plan and a conceptual landscape plan. The property is located at 1131 Turicum Road.
Owner: William Yacktman
Representative: Rick Swanson, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Swanson introduced the petition on behalf of the property owner/developer. He explained that the site is located north of the Fort Sheridan Cemetery, and north of a ravine. He stated that the property is the last vacant lot in an established neighborhood. He added that the property is 41,516 square feet and is heavily wooded. He added that the lot area consists of all table land pointing out that the property does not extend into the ravine. He explained that the site plan shows a single curb cut and noted that the proposed house is sites a significant distance from the side property lines in comparison to adjacent homes. He acknowledged that as reflected on the site plan, a portion of the driveway that exceeds 16 feet is partially located in the front yard setback. He stated that the house will be shifted further back on the site to comply with regulations pertaining to the width of a driveway within the front yard setback. He noted that shifting the house back will allow it to better relate to the houses on either side of the property. He explained that the landscape plan reflects plantings to provide screening on both the east and west sides of the property. He stated that the proposed exterior materials include a cedar shingle or asphalt shingle for the roof material, zinc gutters and downspouts, wood fascia, soffits and shutters, composite wood siding, and a stained wood bead board ceiling in the entry porch.
Ms. Baehr, stated that the proposed residence appears to meet the City’s design guidelines and the review standards. She noted that as Mr. Swanson explained, the driveway as currently proposed is not in compliance with zoning regulations because it exceeds 16 feet in width within the front yard setback. She added that there is a condition included in the staff report that speaks to reconfiguring the driveway or shifting the house further back on the property to locate the portion of the driveway that exceeds 16 feet out of the front yard setback in order to comply with the Code. She explained that the plans propose removal of a total of 349 tree inches. She noted that 180 replacement tree inches are reflected on the landscape plan submitted by the petitioner. She stated that as required by City code, the total amount of replacement inches will be required to be planted on the site, or if the plantings cannot be accommodated on the site, payment in lieu of on-site plantings may be accepted by the City to support tree planting in the general area. She stated that the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation submitted a letter which was provided to the Board offering comments that speak to the simplification of the siding, the fenestration pattern and the entrance portico. She added that staff could work through those details with the petitioner during final design development if determined to be appropriate by the Board.
Chairman Notz invited questions from the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Sykora, Mr. Swanson explained that architectural asphalt shingles are being considered for maintenance reasons due to the heavy tree cover in the area.
In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Swanson stated that the entry porch flooring is proposed as either stamped concrete or field stone, and the garage doors are wood. He stated that there are no known drainage issues on the site adding that grading and drainage plans will be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Swanson stated that paver brick may be installed along the driveway or in the driveway apron as an accent. He explained that the landscape plan shows existing plantings that are intended to remain on the site.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Swanson agreed to work closely with the City to assure that the required tree replacement inches are addressed. He added that planting too many trees on the site may not allow the trees to thrive and reach maturity. He confirmed that a chimney is shown in the plans an optional element. He noted that the railing is proposed as a composite material.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Swanson stated that the standing seam roof material is zinc. He confirmed that the house will be shifted back on the site to comply with the zoning regulations. He added that preserving key trees on the site will also be considered in determining the final siting.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Swanson confirmed that it may be possible to move the entire circular portion of the driveway out of the front yard setback. He explained that grade changes on the site will be kept to a minimum noting that the foundation is stepped to respond to the existing grades of the site.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comments.
Ted Greenlees, 1111 Turicum Road, stated that he is the adjacent neighbor on the west side of the subject property.
In response to questions from Mr. Greenlees, Mr. Swanson stated that the distance between the house and west property line is approximately 35 feet. He added that arborvitaes are proposed on the west side of the site. He noted that a project of this size typically takes 8-12 months to construct. He stated that the site allows for a pool if a buyer desires one.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that a pool and a minimum deck of four feet must be located a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. She added that consideration will also need to be given to preserving trees on the site given the extensive tree removal that will be required for the house and driveway.
Michael Murphy, 1130 Turicum Road, stated concern regarding the proposed location of the curb cut for the driveway in relation to the surrounding driveways. He asked that the petitioner consider the location of the driveway curb cut to avoid conflicts with the existing driveways.
In response to questions from Alex Tenuta, 1161 Turicum Road, Mr. Swanson confirmed that plantings are proposed to provide screening along the east side of the house.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak explained that the City engineer reviews the drainage and grading plan and if appropriate, will require modifications prior to the issuance of permits. She stated that neighbors can request a copy of the drainage and grading plan. She added that during construction, engineering staff visits the site frequently to ensure that conditions on the site are consistent with the approved plans
In response to questions from Ms. Mary Ann Pope, 1213 Turicum Road, Mr. Swanson stated there is a 20 foot ravine setback on the property. Ms. Czerniak explained that the responsibility of the ravine may be a private property owner if the property line extends into the ravine. She added that in other cases maintaining the ravine is the responsibility of the City or Open Lands Association. She noted that this property does not extend down into ravine. Chairman Notz stated that cedar shingle is not the required roofing material in the City of Lake Forest. Mr. Swanson stated that the proposed residence is a spec house.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited response to public testimony and final comments from the Board.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak explained that the ravine in this area is owned by and the responsibility of the City and Lake Forest Open Lands Association. She noted that some portions of the ravine may be private property and explained that those areas are the responsibility of private property owners. She stated that she is not aware of any agreement that private property owners are required to sign relating to construction near the ravine. She offered to look into concerns raised by Ms. Copa relating to her property.
In response to public testimony, Chairman Notz clarified that cedar shingles are not required, but in some cases are preferred by the Board. He noted that given the tree cover in the area, in his opinion, architectural asphalt shingles could be acceptable.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the proposed residence is a spec house and will be offered for sale.
Board member Moyer observed that in the elevations, the house appears more horizontal while the renderings convey a different, more vertical character. He stated that the renderings have more of a “cottage” appearance while the elevations reflect a more “estate” feel creating a disparity between the character of the two depictions.
In response to comments from Board member Moyer, Mr. Swanson explained that the renderings are somewhat deceiving adding however that the renderings are computer generated and accurate.
Board members Bires and Walther recommended the use of cedar shingles for the roof material.
Board member Sykora expressed support for the project noting that it appears to meet the applicable standards.
Chairman Notz summarized the Board’s discussion and suggested that the petitioner coordinate with neighbors on the driveway location while considering the impact to existing trees on the site. He stated that the petitioner’s concerns about the use of cedar shingles on this property is warranted given the dense vegetation in the area. He reiterated that architectural asphalt shingle is an acceptable material.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Diamond made a motion to recommend approval of the residence, attached garage, conceptual landscape and overall site plans based on the findings presented in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the motion is subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. The petitioner is directed to seek input from the surrounding property owners on the placement of the driveway curb cut given the number of curb cuts in the immediate area. The final curb cut location shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development.
2. The site plan shall be modified to shift the house back on the property to a) more closely align with the neighboring homes to the east and west, and b) to comply with the Code requirement limiting the width of driveway within the front yard setback to a maximum of 16 feet.
3. Either cedar shingles on the roof or architectural asphalt shingles are permitted.
4. The construction plans have already been submitted for permit and are under review. Permit issuance is pending the submittal of a revised site plan in compliance with the conditions as detailed above.
5. A revised and detailed tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to any tree removal. The plan shall provide a listing of tree inches to be removed along with the species and condition of each tree.
6. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist prior to a rough framing inspection. The petitioner is directed to review the landscape plan with the adjacent property owners to the east and west prior to submittal and the plan shall reflect some screening along each property line. The landscape plan shall detail all replacement inches planned for the site. Any replacement inches that cannot be accommodated on the site shall be compensated through a payment in lieu of on- site planting in an amount determined by the City’s Certified Arborist and must be made in full to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect any trees identified for preservation during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. In addition, for any trees that, as determined by the City Arborist, may be impacted by construction activity, a plan for protection, including pre and post construction treatments as may be appropriate, must be prepared by an independent Certified Arborist and submitted with the building permit application. The tree protection plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.
8. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. The street must remain passable at all times and open for emergency vehicles. All driveways must remain open and accessible.
The motion was seconded by Board member Sykora and approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
OTHER ITEMS
4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
5. Additional information from staff.
No additional information was presented from staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
https://www.cityoflakeforest.com/assets/1/27/Building_Review_Board_Minutes.03.12.2019.pdf
Alerts Sign-up