DISCLAIMER – THE FOLLOWING ARE DRAFT MINUTES FROM
THE BUILDING BOARD
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON APPROVAL OF
THE BUILDING BOARD
BUILDING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
October 15, 2013, Park View Room
Meeting was called to order at 5:33 PM.
1. Roll Call
Present: Mr. Domaszek, Mr. Liechty, Mr. Olson, Mr. Schoenecker & Mr. Wollersheim
Absent: Ms. Godfrey, Mr. Marks, Mr. Oliveri, Mr. Pearson (all excused)
Also: Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Lucas and Applicants
2. Review and act on the Building Board meeting minutes dated October 1, 2013.
Mr. Schoenecker requested that the word “meter” in the first paragraph on page two be
changed to “mortar”. Mr. Schoenecker also requested that the word “tone” in paragraph
two on page two be amended to “stone”.
Mr. Liechty requested that in the first paragraph under item number three the following
changes be made: the word “sated” be changed to “stated” and that the words weather
ledge and precise ledge be capitalized as they refer to specific color palettes.
Mr. Liechty also requested that the two instances of the word “residing” be changed to
“re sided”. Mr. Liechty noted that the word “removed” should replace the word “moved”
in paragraph two under item 6. Mr. Liechty requested a syntax arrangement change for
the final sentence of paragraph four under item 6 so it should read “and it could be tied
in below the eave and above the roof”.
Mr. Olson requested the insertion of the word “that” between the word chimney and was
in sentence on of paragraph four on page four. Mr. Olson noted that the word “would” in
paragraph six on page four should be changed to “could”.
Mr. Liechty requested the word “type” replace the word “time” in paragraph two on page
ten. Mr. Liechty also requested that the word “gray” replace the word “great” in the last
sentence of paragraph three on page ten. Mr. Liechty requested the insertion of the
word “the” between “at” and “house” in the first paragraph under the heading of
landscaping. The first paragraph on page eleven was requested to read “Mr. Pionkowksi
stated that the front yard is build up but the backyard is lower, thus they didn’t want to
include much landscaping in the back”.
Mr. Liechty motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Schoenecker seconded
and the motion passed 5-0.
1
3. Review and act on a request by Richard & Colette Brunkan at 1350 Blue Ridge
Blvd. for an addition.
Daniel Betla appearing before the Board.
Mr. Liechty questioned if the columns shown are on the face of the structure and do not
project out. Mr. Betla replied that the frieze will project out about 2 1/4”. Mr. Olson added
that in the detail provided it looks like there is a little more space.
Mr. Liechty asked if the siding was going to match the lower or upper reveal. Mr. Betla
replied that it would match the garage with hardy plank. Mr. Liechty asked about the
slope of the roof and if it was ok for an asphalt shingle. Mr. Betla replied that the roof
was spec’d for ice and water and the shingle was really just decorative. Mr.
Wollersheim asked if the shingle would match the existing. Mr. Betla replied that it
would.
Mr. Liechty asked if there would be any divided light in the arch. Mr. Betla replied that
there would not be. Mr. Liechty stated that there was detailing that occurred in the other
arches. Mr. Liechty also asked if the colors would match the existing. Mr. Betla replied
that they would match. Mr. Liechty asked about the optional skylights and if a decision
had been made on them. Mr. Betla stated that there was some concern over the
budget but believes that the Brunkans intend on having them installed. Mr. Liechty
asked if the fireplace was a direct vent. Mr. Betla replied that it was. Mr. Wollersheim
asked the distance the addition would be from the well. Mr. Betla replied that it would be
three feet. Mr. Liechty stated that he appreciated the detail in the drawing.
Mr. Liechty motioned to approve as submitted. Mr. Schoenecker seconded and the
motion passed 5-0.
4. Review and act on a request by Cathy & Steve Baker at 12705 Green Meadow
Place for a shed.
Alan Brower from Swimming Pool Services appearing before the Board.
Mr. Liechty began by asking if the drawing was to scale. Mr. Brower believed that it was.
Mr. Liechty stated that the eave height listed is 8’ but typically the eave height is 6’8”.
Mr. Brower stated that the eave height could be changed and the plan was to install
cedar siding to match the house. Mr. Liechty asked if the reveal for the siding would be
the same. Mr. Brower stated it would match. Mr. Liechty stated that the windows on the
South of the shed have divided lights but there are no divided lights on the house. Mr.
Brower stated that the intent is to match the house so the divided lights can be
changed. Mr. Liechty stated that the pitch of the roof on the shed looks shallow and
questioned if the eave height could be brought down to 6’8” in order to increase the
pitch height to better match the house. Mr. Brower stated that he agreed with Mr.
Liechty on the pitch and that the change could be made.
Mr. Wollersheim asked if there would be any corner or window trim to match the existing
home. Mr. Brower stated there were no plans for trim.
2
Mr. Liechty stated that the plan calls for a white door with white siding however the
home is a buttery color. Mr. Brower replied that the siding will have to be painted to
match the home and the same applies to the shingles.
Mr. Olson asked if there was any way to center the doors on the sides as they appear
just a touch off center. Mr. Brower replied that they could center the doors.
Mr. Domaszek asked if the shed was within the setback. Mr. Griffiths responded that it
was not but he was supplied with written approval by the neighbors and is allowable.
Mr. Brower also stated that he had additional approvals in writing to introduce into the
record. Mr. Domaszek confirmed with Mr. Griffiths that if the neighbors approve then no
public hearing is required. Mr. Griffiths affirmed Mr. Domaszek statement.
Mr. Liechty motioned to approve the item with changes to include the two doors being
6’8” in height and centered on the North & South elevations, the East elevation doors
and windows having the divided lights removed, the ridge to remain at 10’ and the eave
height reduced to 6’8”, the window head height and door head height to match as well
as the fascia, siding and shingles to match existing home. Mr. Wollersheim seconded
and the motion passed 5-0.
5. Review and act on a request by John & Carol Washcovick at 1005 Grandview
Drive for an addition.
Joan Sweet, Architect, appearing before the Board.
Ms. Sweet stated that the plan was to keep the front of the main house, removing the
roof and adding new trusses and roof to facilitate an exercise room above the new
garage accessible above the breezeway.
Mr. Liechty asked if the addition was moving closer to Corto Lane. Ms. Sweet stated the
plan was not to change any setbacks. Mr. Wollersheim questioned if no change in
setbacks included toward Grandview. Ms. Sweet stated that it appeared as if the
original porch had no foundation so it is being removed and replaced with one.
Mr. Griffiths interjected that per the provided memo the addition will require a special
exception from Plan Commission.
Mr. Liechty stated that the existing brick is painted and questioned if it will remain white.
Ms. Sweet responded that the new color will be gray and that the siding and shakes will
be gray and have off-white trim. Mr. Liechty asked what the color of the garage door
would be. Ms. Sweet replied that it would be white to match trim. Mr. Wollersheim
stated that the trim in the gables have decorative brackets and questioned if the new
ones would match. Ms. Sweet stated they would match. Mr. Wollersheim asked if there
was a reason for the 7’garage door and if the space was for the exercise room. Ms.
Sweet stated that it was. Mr. Liechty stated that the space above the garage door was
high. Mr. Wollersheim asked if there was room for an 8’ door. Ms. Sweet stated that
there may be room but it is already tight. Mr. Wollersheim stated that if it was raised it
would alleviate the excess space commented on by Mr. Liechty. Mr. Liechty pointed out
that due to the space constrictions in the plan that a taller garage door would not be
possible. Ms. Sweet stated that in order to break up the space above the garage a
3
possibility of adding brackets was discussed. Mr. Schoenecker questioned if it would
appear like an eyebrow. Ms. Sweet provided an example to the Board via her tablet of
a previous project for what she was proposing.
Mr. Olson asked if the window on the South elevation was a full window or just shutters.
Ms. Sweet replied that it was a full window and that the drawing was incomplete. Mr.
Liechty asked if the columns in front would be square and without fluting. Ms. Sweet
replied that they would be square with both top and bottom pieces. Mr. Olson added
that it is not a new house but looks like a new house. Mr. Griffiths reminded the Board
that a motion should recommend approval to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Liechty motioned to approve and recommend approval by the Plan Commission
with the change of a shed roof be added to the garage overhead door with brackets to
support and owner option to enclose and add lights. Mr. Schoenecker seconded and
the motion passed 5-0.
6. Discussion about neighbor notification.
Mr. Griffiths addressed the Board by stating that earlier in the year a resident came
before the Board complaining about an addition that detrimentally affected drainage on
her property. Mr. Griffiths continued that the resident felt that she was not properly
notified about the work that was being done. Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Lucas compared
policies from similar communities and provided it in the packet material.
Mr. Olson stated that he felt that all Village residents were paying enough taxes that
they should know if something is going on. Mr. Olson continued that there is so much
involved with most projects including drainage that he would like to get any problems
resolved ahead of time. Mr. Domaszek stated that the more notice the better and that
to him the municipality that stuck out was Shorewood and the addition of 200 square
feet. Mr. Wollersheim stated that he felt notification should occur for all new
construction at minimum. Mr. Olson stated that he felt a good threshold is alterations
and additions over 200 square feet. Mr. Liechty agreed that 200 square feet seems
reasonable.
Mr. Domaszek asked Mr. Griffiths what was involved when a notice is sent. Mr. Griffiths
replied that it was just a letter. Mr. Olson confirmed that it was a letter saying the date
and time of meeting. Mr. Griffiths stated that the Code requires staff to notify for certain
things but moving forward he would prefer a specific distance or abutting neighbors.
Mr. Griffiths stated that Village staff has been notifying new construction as a practice
but could be an administrative policy as well. Mr. Domaszek asked about the Board’s
feelings on alterations. Mr. Olson stated that just replacing doors wouldn’t be necessary
to notify the neighbors and he was leaning toward no notification on alterations.
The Board requested more information on wording to explore a change in the code.
7. Adjournment
4
Mr. Liechty motioned and Mr. Wollersheim seconded to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:21 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeremy Lucas
Administrative Intern
5