Lake County Gazette

City of Lake Forest Building Review Board met March 2.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

A meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely in compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, issued on March 16, 2020 that suspended certain Open Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Building Review Board members present: Chairman Jim Diamond and Board members, Joanne Bluhm, John Looby, Scott Renken and Richard Walther

Building Review Board members absent: Sally Downey and Timothy G. Franzen

Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development Jennifer Baehr, Planner

1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Diamond

Chairman Diamond reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves.

2. Consideration of the minutes from the January 10, 2022 meeting of the Building Review Board.

The minutes of the January 10, 2022 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence on a vacant lot, a conceptual landscape plan, and overall site plan. The property is addressed as 415 Oak Knoll Drive and is in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. Property Owner: Fidelity Wes of Oak Knoll LLC, (Mike DeMar, 100%). Contract Purchasers: Raymond & Ina Anderson

Project Representative: Rick Swanson, architect

Chairman Diamond asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.

Mr. Swanson introduced the project noting that the Board has approved several homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision to date and noted that another new home will be presented to the Board for approval on the adjacent lot to the home in this petition at next month’s meeting. He reviewed the site plan noting that a circular driveway with two curb cuts is proposed adding that efforts were made to preserve as many trees as possible. He stated that the proposed residence is designed in the French Provincial style which dates to the 1600’s. He explained that although some elements of the French Provincial style have changed over the last several centuries, today's French Provincial homes retain many of the traditional design features like brick and stone facades, deeply pitched roofs, and arched windows. He stated that a synthetic roof material is proposed along with stone veneer exterior walls, smooth cut limestone window trim and sills, aluminum clad wood casement windows with simulated divided lites, copper flashing, and stone pavers for the porch and steps. He stated that the front door will be stained a dark mahogany tone and the garage doors will be insulated fiberglass overhead carriage style doors with a dark natural oak stain. He stated that the house complies with all height and square footage limitations. He stated that the design of the home is not overly ornate as seen in some French styles but instead presents a simple look. He stated that the main roof forms on the house have a 10:12 pitch with a sweep at the eaves. He stated that the eaves will be painted the same color as the trim. He stated that the front entrance will have a limestone surround with a wrought iron balcony above. He stated that the dormer elements on the home are prefabricated copper products manufactured by Copper Craft. He stated that the dormers will be set further into the roof and will not project as far as suggested by the drawings in the Board’s packet. He stated that limestone quoin detailing is proposed at the corners of the house. He noted that the chimney will be stone, with a clay chimney pot. He explained that a lighter stone is proposed on the exterior walls to allow them to blend with the cut limestone details. He noted that the stone walls will be constructed with regular mortar with flush joints. He stated that the synthetic roof material will be dark brown to blend with the trim and the other exterior materials. He stated that the windows will have horizontal muntins only, true to the style of architecture. He stated a covered porch is proposed at the rear of the home with the decorative balcony above with accessibility from the second floor. He presented renderings of the homes in the subdivision approved to date by the Board and stated that next month, an English Manor style home will be presented to the Board.

Ms. Baehr stated that to date, the Board has approved 10 homes in the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. She stated that the property that is the subject of this petition is one of the smaller lots in the subdivision and, like many of the other properties in this subdivision, is encumbered by a Drainage and Conservation Easement at the rear of the lot. She stated that the home as presented is generally consistent with the selected French architectural style. She stated that staff recommends further study and refinement of the dormers on the front and side elevations to achieve a design that more closely aligns with the style of the home. She noted that all the homes in the subdivision to date have natural wood shingle roofs adding that a synthetic roof material is proposed for this home. She noted that given the steep pitch of the roof on this house, the synthetic material will be highly visible and identifiable as a synthetic product especially above the garage where there are large expanses of solid roof. She stated that in the past, the Board has supported consistency in roof materials within a subdivision. She stated that in past approvals, the Board has also emphasized the importance of balancing the use of synthetic materials with high quality natural materials to assure a quality appearance over time as some materials patina. She stated that as proposed, the house currently presented includes various high quality natural materials but noted however that the petitioner who is the developer of the subdivision has a pattern of requesting changes to approved materials and designs after the fact. She suggested if the Board supports a synthetic roof material, it be conditioned on adhering to the other high-quality, natural materials presented to the Board for the other areas of the home. She noted that this petition is the first in this subdivision to propose two curb cuts adding that from a zoning perspective, this property has sufficient street frontage to permit two curb cuts, but noted that as proposed, the second curb cut adds to the amount of impervious surface on the site and increases the impact to significant trees on the site. She suggested consideration of requiring a paver driveway on a pervious base to reduce to some extent the likely negative impact on significant trees located near the trees. She noted that the desire for two curb cuts required the house to be pushed back on the lot to meet zoning requirements, impacting significant trees at the rear of the house as well. She stated that one of the trees impacted is a healthy Shagbark Hickory tree which the City Arborist identified as being worthy of preservation because of its young age and high quality species. She stated that if the petitioner moves forward with the site plan as proposed, double inch for inch replacement will be required in compensation for impacts to this significant tree. She stated that the conceptual landscape plan that was submitted by the petitioner is not consistent with good forestry practices due to the over planting of trees in the rear yard which is suggested by the plan to achieve the replacement inches. She stated that payment in lieu of planting will likely be necessary given the number of high quality trees proposed for removal. She recommended that a revised landscape plan be brought back to the Board for review and action.

Board member Bluhm suggested that an alternate driveway configuration be considered to preserve more of the Oak trees in the front and reduce impervious surface on the site. She suggested the driveway configurations on Lots 1 and 5 may provide some guidance. She stated support for shifting the house forward on the lot, away from the healthy Shagbark Hickory tree. She asked for clarification on the roof pitch noting a discrepancy between the presentation and the materials in the packet. She complimented the architectural details. She stated however that the dormers to not appear to enhance the front façade and seem to be under sized. She stated support for elimination of the front facing dormers adding that they are not a functional element and are not needed for natural light. She noted the Board’s efforts for consistency within the subdivision. She stated support for a wood shingle roof.

Board member Looby stated support for the concept of a circular driveway but acknowledged the concerns about impacts to significant trees and the amount of impervious surface. He suggested consideration of pavers or another pervious surface for the driveway. He acknowledged that without the circular driveway and two curb cuts, maneuvering a vehicle on the property could be awkward. He agreed that a detailed and realistic landscape plan is needed. He stated that the dormers as presented are not very noticeable. He stated that if a different style of dormers is proposed, the Board should review the revised plans. He stated support for the synthetic roof product in general but acknowledged the interest in consistency within the subdivision. He stated that the style of the home is appropriate for the neighborhood. He asked if new plantings can be located in the Drainage and Conservation Easement.

Board member Walther agreed that further study of the driveway configuration is needed. He stated that a single curb cut with a car park area in front of the house should be considered. He stated two curb cuts are functional when the property along a straight portion of the street because the house can be approached from different directions. He noted that this property is on a cul-de-sac and can only be approached from one direction. He asked that additional studies be prepared showing alternate configurations for the driveway. He noted a concern that the copper dormers, if they remain, will patina over time against the synthetic roof material and will not be attractive in 10 to 15 years. He stated that he researched the manufacturer of the proposed dormers and found there are many styles offered and some that would present a more residential look that is more appropriate for the home. He agreed however that as proposed, the dormers seem to disappear against the roof and may not be necessary. He stated that overall, the home is bold with clean lines and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Board member Renken complimented the design of the house noting that the proportions are consistent with the French Provincial style. He pointed out that the windows on the first and second floors have different muntin patterns but are the same height and stated that all the windows on the first and second floor should be consistent with two horizontal muntins dividing the window into three panes of glass vertically. He asked that further study be conducted on the division between the casement window and the transom window above it. He explained that normally, transoms are one window, not divided into two. He suggested that the top of the casement window be raised slightly to allow the transom to be a single, undivided window. He noted that the increase in the height of the casement window could allow division into three panes. He stated support for the use of a synthetic roof product. He noted that Middlefork Farm Subdivision included homes with various roof materials. He noted that the synthetic product proposed is appropriate for some architectural styles including the style proposed in this petition. He agreed that the dormers could be eliminated adding that they appear too tall and narrow for the home. He stated that if the dormers remain, the proportions and style should be refined. He agreed with Board member Walther that two curb cuts on a cul-de-sac is awkward. He suggested that the petitioner consider a driveway configuration similar to the driveway approved for Lot 1 in the subdivision. He stated that the plate height of the garage appears short and suggested raising it by six inches or a foot.

Chairman Diamond agreed that consideration should be given to eliminating the dormers on the front elevation. He commented that there is a difference between mixing roof materials in a subdivision of 60 or 70 homes and doing so in a smaller subdivision like the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision. He noted that wood shingles have already been approved on 10 homes in the subdivision. He stated support for a single curb cut given the location of the property on a cul-de-sac adding that a turnaround or motor court could be added in front of the home.

Mr. Anderson thanked the Board for the comments and stated that the input will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Swanson acknowledged that the dormers could easily be eliminated or modified. He stated that in his opinion, a synthetic roof material is appropriate for this style of architecture. He stated that he has used synthetic roof material on several homes and has not had any issues. He stated that if a synthetic product imitating wood, rather than slate, was proposed, he would be concerned because the synthetic material would be obvious in juxtaposition to the natural wood shingles on the nearby homes. He stated that the resistance to wood shingles is that they do not last forever. He stated that on this home, many high quality, natural materials will be used adding that the only synthetic product will be the roof material. He stated that the roof pitch is 9.5:12 and noted that the pitch was originally proposed at 10:12 but was modified to comply with the City’s square footage limitations. He stated that all the windows will have the same muntin pattern and acknowledged that there is an error in the elevations that were submitted to the Board. He stated that the plate height on the garage may not be able to be raised as suggested by Board member Renken because of the square footage limitation but agreed that raising the plate height would be an improvement. He stated that the contract purchaser is adamant about having a circular driveway adding that the lot was chosen because the lot width permits two curb cuts. He noted that the covenants for the subdivision allow circular driveways. He acknowledged the concerns about trees and the amount of impervious surface and suggested that the petitioner be allowed to explore options with staff. He explained that because of the zoning limitation on the width of the driveway within the front yard setback the house was pushed back on the site to accommodate a functional circular driveway. He agreed to conduct further study of the driveway to preserve significant trees.

Ms. Baehr confirmed that trees and other vegetation can planted in the Conservation and Drainage Easement on the property subject to a determination by City staff that the species are appropriate, good forestry practices are followed that the plantings will not impede overland drainage flows.

In response to a question from Board member Walther, Ms. Baehr confirmed that if there is not space for replacement inches on the site, the City can approve plantings of the replacement inches in the parkways or in the natural areas within the subdivision.

Board member Bluhm stated that she is satisfied with the petitioner’s response to the concerns raised about the dormers. She stated that she remains about the driveway configuration as it relates to impervious surface and impacts to trees. She noted that although she does not object to synthetic roof products in general, there are only 16 homes in the subdivision and in her opinion, the roof material should be consistent throughout the subdivision.

Board member Looby stated support for removing the dormers. He expressed support for the synthetic roof material. He noted that he understands the City Arborist’s recommendation to preserve the Shagbark Hickory tree behind the house but noted that in his experience these trees can be messy. He suggested that the petitioner be asked to work with staff to address the concerns raised about the driveway.

Board member Renken stated that there appears to be three main issues: the roof material, the driveway and the dormers. He stated that he is confident that the petitioner can work with staff to respond to the Board’s comments on the front facing dormers. He stated that he is indifferent on the driveway configuration. He expressed support for the synthetic roof product noting that is appears appropriate for the architectural style.

Chairman Diamond recommended the use of cedar shingles for the roof consistent with the prior approvals in the subdivision. He stated that he is comfortable directing staff to work with the petitioner to resolve the driveway configuration in response to the Board’s concern. He stated that a detailed, workable landscape plan is needed.

Ms. Baehr suggested that because of the number of trees that will potentially be impacted on the site and because a reasonable workable landscape plan has not yet been submitted, a hardscape and landscape plan should be brought back to the Board for review. She added that the driveway configuration can be given further consideration at that time.

Board member Walther agreed that hardscape and landscape plans should be brought back to the Board given the concerns raised about the amount of impervious surface, tree preservation and drainage.

Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion.

Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the new residence based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval.

1. The following design aspects shall be further studied and refined in response to the Board’s discussion.

a. The front facing dormers shall be removed or an alternate style shall be proposed and will be subject to review and approval by staff.

b. The garage roof plate shall be raised between six inches and one foot if that can be accomplished without exceeding the allow able square footage.

c. Alternate driveway configurations shall be explored and returned to the Board along with a detailed landscape plan for review and will be subject to Board approval.

2. The landscape plan shall reflect the required replacement inches to the extent possible on the site using good forestry practices. Replacement inches that cannot be accommodated on the site shall be compensated through payment in lieu of on site plantings. The plan must meet or exceed the minimum landscape standards for new residences detailed in the Code, including ground cover, mid-level and canopy trees and evergreens across the site.

3. Consideration shall be given to the use of pavers and alternate construction methods to reduce the amount of impervious surface and to lessen the impact to trees located close to the driveway. The hardscape treatment shall be detailed on the landscape plan presented to the Board.

4. All modifications to the plans including those detailed above and any others made in response to Board direction or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.

5. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, any declining or damaged parkway trees shall be removed and replaced by the developer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property.

6. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices, properly direct drainage and mitigate off site impacts.

7. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees identified for preservation and to protect trees on neighboring properties during construction, must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. In addition, a maintenance plan, including pre and post construction treatment for trees to be preserved must be submitted.

8. Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. All exterior lights shall be set on automatic timers to go off no later than 11 p.m. except for security motion detector lights.

9. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development.

The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of a single family residence and construction of a duplex residence and attached garage. Approval of a conceptual landscape plan and overall site plan is also requested. The property is addressed as 50 June Terrace.

Property Owners: Alvin and Beverly McRae

Project Representative: Diana Melichar, architect

Chairman Diamond asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.

Ms. Melichar introduced the petition on behalf o and purchased the home at 50 June Terrace in 1955. She explained that due to the property owners advancing age, they would like to construct an accessible duplex home, with a second unit for family members. She explained that the existing home is set further back from the street than other homes in the neighborhood. She stated that to the south the property is bordered by South Park and to the west, the bike path. She explained that any building on the property is best sites on the south side of the lot to take advantage of the views and light from South Park. She stated that the existing home was built in 1920 and is 1,027 square feet and in average physical condition. She stated that the home has a crawl space. She stated that there is no known architect of record adding that the home has no distinctive architectural features. She noted that the existing home is completely non-conforming with respect to zoning setbacks so adding to the existing home was not considered. She noted that the neighborhood consists primarily of two-story homes with simple building masses and additive elements such as porches and porticos. She explained that the proposed duplex residence takes cues from the adjacent homes and is designed in a traditional vernacular style. She stated that the property owners want aesthetically pleasing quality building materials with low maintenance and longevity. She explained that they intend to use smooth, pre-painted fiber cement siding and trim. She stated that natural wood shingles are proposed on the gable ends for a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. She stated that the porch columns will be painted fiberglass, the roof asphalt shingles, and noted that panel shutters are proposed on some windows. She stated that the south elevation of the home has more fenestration for views and light to the park. She noted that a screen porch is located between the main house and the garage as a connecting element. She noted that the roof of the screen porch serves as an exit from the second floor unit and outdoor space for that living unit as well. She stated that the garage mimics the design and exterior materials of the house. She noted that the garage will have an insulated carriage style door with a composite overlay. She stated that the north elevation of the home does not have many openings to shield it from the north winds and to provide privacy from the neighbor to the north. She pointed out a covered entry into the mudroom on the north elevation. She stated that the overall design is consistent with the massing of the traditional vernacular style adding that the gable roof forms, window shapes and material usage are all also consistent with the chosen style. She presented an overlay of the existing and proposed site plans. She noted that the proposed residence is sited to align with the established 30 foot front yard setback of homes on the street. She stated that two trees will be impacted. She stated that the existing curb cut and driveway apron will be used and the driveway will be extended to the rear of the property to access the garage. She noted that the driveway provides space between the new home and the neighboring home to the north. She presented the conceptual landscape plan noting that the intent of the landscaping is to allow the house to fit into the existing streetscape. She noted the mature trees in the area surrounding the property and stated that three new deciduous trees will be clustered in the southeast corner of the front yard. She stated that the hardscape on the site is a combination of bluestone and concrete pavers like other properties in the neighborhood. She concluded noting that the proposed improvements will support property values in the neighborhood.

Ms. Baehr reviewed the petitioner is requesting approval of the demolition of the existing home and approval of the design aspects of a replacement residence. She stated that the existing house does not have any historic or architectural significance. She stated that alterations or additions to the existing house would likely result in essentially rebuilding the house which could be challenging given the fact that the house is nonconforming with respect to current zoning setback requirements. She stated that findings in support of the demolition are detailed in the staff report. She stated that the proposed replacement residence is sited closer to the street than the existing residence, consistent with the established setback along June Terrace. She noted that there is a significant increase in impervious surface on the site and recommended that efforts be made to incorporate some pervious materials in the plan. She stated that the design of the replacement structure is simple, and the selected style of the home is fitting for this neighborhood. She noted that a variety of window sizes and muntin patterns are reflected on the plans and suggested further study and refinement to present a more consistent appearance across the elevations of the home. She noted that the images presented to the Board reflect shutters that are more proportional to the windows, an improvement over the images included in the Board’s packet. She stated that the proposed exterior materials are generally consistent with the City's Design Guidelines except that a composite material is proposed for the fascia, soffit and trim. She stated that in the past, the Board has supported natural wood for these elements. She stated that the updated landscape plan presented to the Board by Ms. Melichar has not yet been submitted to staff for review but appears to meet the landscape requirements.

In response to questions from Board member Looby, Ms. Baehr stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the required variances from the front and rear yard setbacks for the proposed duplex.

Board member Renken complimented the creativity in designing a duplex work for this site. He noted that the rear facing garage in this case is appropriate because it allows the home and the garage to be connected on a very narrow site. He noted that the property is bordered by the bike path and railroad tracks so the west facing garage doors do not impact a neighboring home. He stated that in his opinion, the window muntin patterns appear to be consistent. He acknowledged that the windows above the kitchen counters appear squatter than the other windows. He stated that the Board has consistently required shutters to be proportional to the width of the window. He suggested that the shutters either be eliminated or widened to fit the window openings. He noted that shutters are only proposed on the front elevation and asked the petitioner to consider adding shutters to the other elevations for consistency. He asked whether asphalt shingles are proposed for the bay window on the side elevation and on the small expanse of roof between the second floor wall and gable end on the front elevation.

Board member Walther stated that the Board has consistently recommended that natural materials are used for elements like the fascia, frieze boards and soffits. He strongly recommended natural wood for those types of elements and for the gable end as well. He added that the natural materials will provide some texture. He complimented the petitioner’s decision to use natural cedar shingle as opposed to a fiber cement shingle product which has a glossy appearance. He stated that care will need to be taken to select appropriate light fixtures particularly if for any lighting proposed higher on the building than normally found in the neighborhood. He suggested moving the air conditioning units to the south side of the home and away from the side entrance on the north side of the home and the neighboring home. He added that in that location, the units will be closer to the mechanical room in the basement. He asked whether the window well below the bay window is needed for egress and if so, how that would work. He noted that as proposed, the impervious surface totals 68 percent of the lot area. He stated that the amount of impervious surface must be reduced through the addition of some pervious materials on the site.

Board member Looby agreed with Board member Walther’s comments. He asked if the home is designed to be wheelchair accessible. He commented that the site has limitations due to its size.

Board member Bluhm stated support for the demolition of the existing house and the recommendations offered in the staff report. She stated concern about the amount of impervious surface on the site and agrees that that issue needs to be addressed. She noted that two garage doors instead of one would be more convenient if the second unit is ever occupied by a non-family member.

Chairman Diamond suggested that the reduction in the amount of impervious surface and finalization of the landscape plan be left to staff to resolve. He agreed that a natural material should be used for the trim, fascia and soffit and that consideration should be given to locating the air conditioning units on the south side of the home to mitigate noise impacts to the neighbor to the north. He asked the petitioner to address the Board’s questions and comments.

Ms. Melichar stated that the updated landscape plan should satisfy the City’s requirements for new residential construction. She stated that the project engineer is considering opportunities to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. She stated a willingness to discuss the use of natural materials for the trim, fascia and soffits with the property owners. She noted that the owners are trying to reduce the need for maintenance. She stated if the shutters on the front elevation are eliminated, there will be unbroken wall space. She stated that the shutters were added to add detail and color. She acknowledged that the image shown in the presentation included larger shutters compared to image included in the Board’s packet. She stated that the small expanse of roof along the bottom of the gable end will have cedar shingles to match the material on the gable wall. She stated that the home is not designed to be wheelchair accessible, but ramps could be added in the future in the garage and on the north side of the home, at the side entry. She stated that the air conditioning units are located on the north side of the house because the primary living areas in the home are on the south side, but she agreed to consider relocating the units. She stated that the window well below the bay window is not an egress window. She stated that dividing the garage into two separate spaces is a great idea, but there is not enough space to accommodate a larger garage and the necessary turning radius. She acknowledged the concerns about light fixtures on the second floor unit and the need to mitigate impacts on neighboring homes. She stated that the intent is to vertically orient the windows around the home and to make them proportional to one another.

Board member Walther asked the petitioner to provide some additional information on possible solutions that are being considered to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. He stated that the wider shutters reflected in the petitioner’s presentation appear to be more appropriate than those shown in the packet materials. He stated that in his opinion, the Board should remain consistent with past decisions by requiring natural materials for the fascia and soffits.

Board member Bluhm agreed that the larger shutters reflected in the presentation appear to be appropriate.

Board member Renken agreed with Board member Walther’s comments on the use of natural materials and remaining consistent with past decisions that when a composite or synthetic material is used for the siding, trim, fascia and soffits should be natural wood. He agreed with Ms. Melichar’s comment that the front elevation will appear empty without shutters and stated support for retaining the wider shutters as shown in the presentation. He agreed that information is needed on how the amount of impervious surface will be reduced.

Chairman Diamond agreed with the comments made by Board members Walther and Renken and suggested that the Board’s motion should specifically note the use of natural materials for the trim, fascia and soffits. He stated support for the wider shutters on the front elevation.

Ms. Melichar stated that the project engineer believes that pervious pavers can likely be used for a portion of the driveway, near the garage. She stated that further drainage calculations must be completed to confirm what is feasible.

Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Diamond invited a motion.

Board member Looby made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence.

The motion was seconded by Board member Bluhm and approved by a vote of 5 to 0.

Board member Walther made a motion to recommend approval of the new duplex residence based on the findings in the staff report and incorporating the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval.

1. The amount of impervious surface shall be reduced through the incorporation of pervious surfaces or other means given the unusually large percent of the site proposed as hardscape. If this condition cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the petition must return to the Board for further review.

2. Aluminum clad wood windows shall be used.

3. The fascia, soffit and trim shall be natural wood.

4. Shutters must be proportional to the windows.

5. All modifications made to the plans, including those detailed above and any additional modifications made either in response to Board direction or as the result of final design development, shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.

6. Prior to submitting plans and an application for permit, a tree survey shall be prepared by a Certified Arborist for the trees on the site that are proposed for removal to allow a determination of the replacement plantings that will be required.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed, landscape plan shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The plan shall, at a minimum, meet the landscaping standards for new residences detailed in the Code and provide for the required replacement inches on site to the extent possible using good forestry practices. If all replacement tree inches cannot be accommodated on the site, the number of remaining inches for which a payment in lieu of planting will be required must be noted on the plan. The full payment in lieu of on site plantings is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

8. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to protect trees on and adjacent to the site during construction must be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City.

9. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate the project is consistent with the applicable Code requirements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading or filling on the site should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices to properly direct drainage. All necessary measures should be taken on the site to slow water runoff from the site given the significant increase in impervious surface proposed.

10.Details of exterior lighting shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. Care shall be taken to limit any lighting above the ground floor and to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. Cut sheets for all light fixtures shall be provided and all fixtures, except those illuminated by natural gas at low light levels, shall direct light down and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. All exterior lights shall be set on automatic timers to go off no later than 11 p.m. except for security motion detector lights.

11.A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Offsite parking and shuttling workers to the site may be necessary due to the narrow street.

The motion was seconded by Board member Looby and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER ITEMS

5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items.

There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.

6. Additional information from staff.

In response to a question from Board member Walther, Ms. Baehr stated that the subcommittee for the Preserve at Westleigh petition reviewed two additional home designs and discussed ways to achieve greater diversity in design within the subdivision. She stated those discussions are continuing. She stated that with respect to the 821 Northmoor petition, further review is pending submittal of materials by the petitioner.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

https://cms9files.revize.com/cityoflakeforestil/Document_center/Agendas%20and%20Minutes/Building%20Review%20Board/2022/Minutes/BRB%20Minutes%2003.02.2022%20-%20Approved.pdf