BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/09/06 Minutes
September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 9
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of September 6, 2017 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
September 6, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Training Room at the City’s Municipal Services
Facility, 800 Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Acting Chairman Robert Reda and Board
members: Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Fred Moyer, Peter Dunne and Chris Bires
Building Review Board members absent: Chairman Ted Notz
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Acting
Chairman Reda
Acting Chairman Reda 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 July 31, 2017 work session and the minutes of the
August 3, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board.
The July 31, 2017 minutes were approved as submitted.
The August 3, 2017 minutes were approved with a clarification as requested by
Chairman Notz (by e-mail).
3. Consideration of a request for approval of fencing, entrance pillars and streetscape
landscaping for a previously approved residence at 1020 Walden Lane.
Owner: Chris Brennen and Diane Craft
Representative: Jerry Eppe, Breezy Hill Nursery
Acting Chairman Reda asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Board member Moyer recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition
because is the neighboring property owner.
Hearing no further conflicts or recusals from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited a
presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Eppe introduced the petition noting that as a condition of the prior approval of the
new house on this site, final approval of the streetscape improvements by the Board is
required due to the unique character of the streetscape. He stated that the proposed
September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 9
improvements include limestone pillars to match the house, a split rail fence, and
landscaping. He stated that the improvements are proposed to separate the private
property from the public street noting that today, people cut through the property to
get to the ravine. He noted that as originally presented to the Board, a six foot solid
fence was proposed. He noted that in response to the Board’s concern about the
appropriateness of the solid fence, given the character of the street, an open split rail
fence with pillars every sixteen feet is now proposed. He stated that the fence will be
sited on private property, two feet from the property line to allow for landscaping,
including some evergreens, on the streetscape side, to soften the appearance of the
fence. He noted that there will be views into the property. He pointed out the trees
proposed along the driveway and clarified that entrance pillars, but not gates, are
proposed. He stated that the fence and pillars will complement the house and
streetscape.
Ms. Czerniak noted that the house was previously approved by the Board and that
construction is nearly completed. She noted that at the time that the house was
presented to the Board, an overall conceptual landscape plan was submitted and
generally supported by the Board. She noted however that concerns were raised
about the streetscape and about screening for the neighboring property to the east.
She explained that the open fence now proposed appears to fully address the Board’s
prior concerns about maintaining the landscape dominate streetscape and views into
the property. She noted that correspondence was received from the neighboring
property owner expressing continued concern about the adequacy of landscaping
along the east side of the house. She added that a letter of support for the petition was
received from the Preservation Foundation. She stated that the staff report includes
findings in support of the petition.
Board member Dunne commended the plan noting that it responds well to the
streetscape.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Eppe explained that the
fence will be natural cedar, rustic in character, with eight inch rough and irregular posts .
He clarified that the posts will be round but irregular, with a split look. He stated that the
vertical posts will have fasteners to support the 4” diameter horizontal rails. He noted
that replacement of the rails when needed; will be easy. He confirmed that the top of
the posts will be pitched to shed water.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Eppe confirmed that the
pillars will be constructed of the same stone used on the house. He stated that the area
where the fence is proposed is relatively flat. He noted that the fence ends before the
grade change begins near the ravine.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Reda, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
fence will be on private property, not on the right-of-way, and not adjacent to the
asphalt roadway.
September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 9
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Reda, Mr. Eppe stated that the stakes on
the property do not reflect the location of the proposed fence.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited public
comment.
Fred Moyer, 1044 Walden Lane, the next door neighbor to the east, stated that he and
his wife have lived in their home for 26 years. He noted that they previously indicated
support for the project, have watched the construction at the site over the past three
years and are delighted to welcome their new neighbors. He noted that he observed
the quality craftsmanship and materials that were used and is pleased with the house.
He offered a constructive suggestion noting that care should be taken to assure that
the manhole will not be in the new driveway to avoid future problems. He expressed
continued concern about the adequacy of the landscape screening planned for the
east side of the house. He explained that he understood that he would have a view of
the neighboring house from his front door, but noted that since the house was
constructed, it is apparent that the new house will be highly visible within about twenty-
five yards of the windows of his wife’s office. He noted that landscape buffering is a
standard condition imposed by the Board. He pointed out that it will not take much
landscaping to provide sufficient screening between the two houses. He
acknowledged that there are large, one hundred year old Oaks on his property but
noted that the canopies are high and do not provide lower level screening.
Ms. Czerniak noted that the overall landscape plan addresses screening. She stated
that Mr. Moyer’s letter will be provided to the City’s Certified Arborist to make sure
adequate plantings are included on the plat to provide screening on the east side of
the house. She added that a copy of the landscape plan can be provided to Mr.
Moyer.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Eppe stated that care will be taken to assure that
the manhole is not in the new driveway. He added that he met with the City Arborist on
the property to discuss landscape screening and stated that the plan will be tailored to
respond to the neighbor’s concerns.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Reda invited a motion.
Board member Friedman noted that overall the project is an enhancement to the
neighborhood and is worthy of support. He noted that adequate landscape buffering
will be of mutual benefit. He made a motion to recommend approval of the petition
based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as
presented, and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the
design standards and requirements of the City Code. He noted that approval is
recommended subject to the following conditions:
September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 9
1. Any modifications to the plans, 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 presented to the Board shall be attached, with areas of change
highlighted, for comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in
consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the modifications
are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval.
2. Prior to planting, a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the City, and shall
reflect the approved grading and drainage plan. The final plan shall be subject
to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist is directed to
assure that adequate landscaping is reflected on the east side of the house, to
provide screening between the new house and the house immediately to the
east.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 5 to
0.
Board member Moyer rejoined the Board.
4. Continued consideration of a request for approval of demolition of significant
portions of the existing house and approval of additions and modifications to the
exterior materials, architectural style and roof massing of the existing residence
located at 1565 W. Everett Road.
Owners: Karl and Marz Svensson
Representative: David Wickwire, architect
Acting Chairman Reda asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Wickwire reviewed the changes made since the last meeting. He provided a color
image reflecting how the additions relate to the footprint of the existing house. He
reviewed the landscape plan and noted areas where existing landscaping will be
maintained and pointed out an overgrown swale that will be cleared out. He noted
that plants affected by the construction will be temporarily transplanted and replanted
on the site after construction is complete. He reviewed the hardscape plan, noting
areas where flagstone or limestone pavers will be used. He pointed out the areas
where retaining walls and tiered terraces are planned. He noted the circular planting
areas that will be removed and sodded over to create a more natural, less formal
landscape. He provided color renderings as requested by the Board. He pointed out
areas where windows were added to break up expanses of wall. He noted the cedar
banding proposed around the house and noted that the cedar is darker than previously
discussed. He noted that no other changes to materials were made. He reviewed
each elevation pointing out new windows and the extended cedar banding used to
break up the stucco. He noted that stone was added on both the front and the back
of the home. He reviewed detailed images and explained how the cedar banding will
be attached to the wall. He reviewed the window details, noting that the windows
September 6, 2017 Page 5 of 9
have a band of cedar, with thicker trim board on the top and bottom. He explained
that the windows will have an aluminum frame and a wood finish on the inside. He
stated that cedar trim will provide the transition between the window and the siding.
Ms. Czerniak reviewed that when the petition was previously before the Board, the
Board indicated general support for the proposed alterations and additions to the
house and for the proposed significant or complete demolition of the existing house.
She noted that the Board requested details of the various elements, areas of transition
and materials. She noted that the Board noted areas where refinement would be
helpful to address large expanses of unbroken walls, to provide for consistency in
materials and to achieve consistent detail on all four elevations. She noted that the
Board requested color renderings. She reviewed that although significant, but not
complete demolition is proposed, the Board’s approval of a complete demolition will
avoid delay if after work begins it is determined that complete demolition would result in
a better end product. She confirmed that a structural report was received and appears
to support retaining some portions of the house. She noted that this property stands
alone and is not viewed in the context of the streetscape or other homes. She stated
that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition and offers
recommendations for conditions of approval.
Board member Bires commented that the landscape plan is comprehensive and
commended the color scheme proposed for the house.
In response to questions from Board member Bires, Mr. Wickwire stated that the new
stonework will match the existing thin set natural stone.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
struc tural report was received. She noted that the City’s plans examiner will review the
report prior to the issuance of a building permit.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Wickwire described the
windows confirming that they will be a typical residential, clad window, with wood trim
on the inside. He stated that almost all of the windows are 20” high and four feet wide.
He commented on the various windows and their relationships to each other. He stated
that the door will be solid wood and the front door will be painted a teal color.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Svensson reviewed the
landscape concepts noting that in front of the house, the majority of the existing
plantings will remain. He noted however that the addition of a rain garden is planned.
He added that around the house, in the areas where work will occur, plants will be
removed and saved for replanting. He noted that there is some deterioration on the
front foundation and noted that the area will be tiered to prevent continued erosion of
the slope in that area.
September 6, 2017 Page 6 of 9
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire explained that the
deck will be cedar stained to match the home. He stated that all of the cedar will
match. He reviewed the location of downspouts noting that gutters and downspouts
will be painted to match the cedar. He stated that he is not sure whether the
downspouts will be tied into the storm sewer. He noted that the garage door will be
custom made with wood applied to the door to achieve a grooved pattern. He stated
that the garage door will be painted to match the cedar. He confirmed that the
stucco will extend to the foundation. He stated that the roofing material will be rolled
roofing.
Board member Moyer noted some discrepancies between the renderings and the plans
with respect to the window flashing dimensions.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Wickwire explained his intent to
keep the band above and below the windows consistent at 3-1/2 inches. He noted
that the drawings more accurately reflect the intention than the rendering.
Board member Moyer commended the change made to the corner office windows
noting that the space will enjoy a nice view.
Board member Dune commented that the changes made since the last meeting
reflect significant improvements.
In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Wickwire stated that a
drainage swale extends across the front of the property. He stated that to his
knowledge, there are no existing drainage problems on the site. He pointed out that
the sunroom and kitchen will be built on the existing foundation noting that in the areas
where the footprint will be expanded, the ground is flat. He noted that the overall site is
fairly fl at except for the area near the garage which drops down.
Acting Chairman Reda complimented the project as now proposed. Hearing no further
questions from the Board, he invited public comment. Hearing none, he returned the
matter to the Board.
In response a question from Acting Chairman Reda, Mr. Wickwire confirmed that the
intent is to preserve a significant part of the existing residence to the extent possible. He
confirmed that the structural report supports that approach. He added that they intend
to keep the existing brick and cover it, rather than pull it off.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Wickwire stated that the
house was likely constructed in the mid-1950’s.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Reda invited a motion on the
demolition.
September 6, 2017 Page 7 of 9
Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of demolition of
significant portions, or the entire house, depending on the results of the structural
engineering report and the conditions found on the site once construction begins.
The motion was seconded by Board member Dunne and approved by the Board in a
vote of 6 to 0.
Board member Friedman commented that the petitioner addressed the Board’s
comments sufficiently and noted that although the home is unique, it is tastefully
designed and the palette is interesting. He added that it is a standalone home and it
speaks to the owners’ personalities.
Board member Diamond stated support for the project and commented that it will be a
great addition to the neighborhood even though no one will ever be able to see it.
Acting Chairman Reda thanked the petitioners for responding to the Board’s requests.
He invited a motion on the replacement house.
Board member Friedman made a motion to recommend approval of the petition
based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as
presented, and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the
design standards and requirements of the City Code. He noted that approval is
recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. All exterior materials shall be consistent with the approved plans and the samples
presented to the Board.
2. If any modifications are made to the plans, either in response to Board direction,
or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly
called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the plan originally
provided to the Board shall be attached, with areas of change highlighted, 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 approvals prior to the issuance of
any permits.
3. A structural evaluation of the existing foundation and walls shall be completed by
a licensed engineer if the petitioner intends to reuse portions of the existing
structure, to document that the existing structure elements can support the
proposed additions and alterations. Alternatively, the structure may be
completely demolished and the replacement structure constructed consistent
with the approved plans.
4. If portions of the structure are to remain, a detailed demolition plan shall be
submitted clearly indicating the areas proposed for demolition and those
September 6, 2017 Page 8 of 9
planned to remain including, but not limited to, exterior walls, interior walls,
foundation, roof, mechanicals, windows and doors.
5. 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.
6. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be submitted with the plans
submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the
light shall be fully shielded from view.
7. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for
review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City
Engineer and Director of Community Development. On street parking on Everett
Road is not permitted. Offsite parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be
required.
8. Comprehensive photo documentation of the exterior of the residence, the overall
property and the streetscape must be provided to the City in a digital form
determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is
to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake
Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives.
9. Until a permit is obtained, the property and yard must be maintained in good
condition consistent with the requirements of the Code.
10. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions
of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
rules, and regulations.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 6 to
0.
OTHER ITEMS
7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
8. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
September 6, 2017 Page 9 of 9
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development