Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/04/05 Minutes Page 1 of 13 April 5th, 2017 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of April 5, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, April 5th, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members: Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Mike Bleck and Fred Moyer Building Review Board members absent: Peter Dunne Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 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 March 1st, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The March 1st meeting minutes were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for revisions to a previously approved petition due to conditions found as work got underway at 20 N. Western Avenue. (Partial demolition, alterations, additions) Owner: Zac and Megan Zarling Representatives: Michael Hrusovsky, designer Adam Lyons, architect Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Zarling thanked the Board for their time and explained that they were before the Board in February 2016 and received approval for an addition and modifications to the existing home. He stated that he never anticipated that they would need to return to the Board but noted that unexpected conditions were discovered once work got underway. He acknowledged that the house is not designated as a local landmark, but stated that it is historic and was owned by Page 2 of 13 April 5th, 2017 the Ryan family, early settlers of the community and the namesake of Ryan Place. He stated that he and his wife feel that the home is worth preserving and noted that the home’s history is one of the reasons they purchased the property. He stated that they have no intention of demolishing the house. He noted that at the request of the City, engineering reports and analysis of the structure were provided. He stated that the project to date has been difficult for all parties involved and noted that they are expecting a 2nd child soon and intend to bring the child home to the house. He asked that the Board approve the proposed demolition of the rear wing (section C) of the house which was found to not be structurally sound and approve a replacement 2 story rear addition. He acknowledged that the home is in disrepair and noted that they are anxious to move the project forward. Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the home dates to the Civil War era and he reviewed the location of the property. He stated that at the time the home was built, Lake Forest was predominantly Irish. He noted that the property was originally 7 acres and was owned by the Ryan family, a family prominent in the founding of St. Mary’s Church. He reviewed newspaper articles on the history of the home. He reviewed a plan of the home and stated that he assumed that areas A and B were part of the original home and area C, the rear wing, was thought to be from the 1950s. He stated that the plan previously approved by the Board called for demolition of the interior of the house. He explained that when the interior of area C was demolished, it was discovered that element of the house did not date from the 1950s but instead, may have actually predated the other 2 parts of the house. He stated that stable balloon frame construction exists in areas A and B but acknowledged that there are structural issues with area C. He noted that when this project was originally presented to the Board, it was noted that in the future, the owners would likely construct an addition to the rear of the home. He stated that given the conditions found in area C, the owners are seeking approval of a rear replacement addition now. He stated that when structural issues were discovered in area C, the City issued a stop work order. He stated that he has been working with the City for 6 to 7 months to resolve the issues related to the project. He stated that it is his expectation that the City will issue a permit to allow work to proceed in areas A and B. He noted his intention to provide a temporary kitchen in areas A and B to allow the house to be occupied in the interim until a replacement and expanded rear addition can be constructed. He provided a massing model and explained that the owners considered several options for the rear addition. He stated that the proposed 2 story rear addition will replace the existing one story element, generally in the same foot print. He stated that the massing of the 2 story rear addition is broken up. He stated that the addition will contain a family room, kitchen, mudroom and a second floor master suite. Page 3 of 13 April 5th, 2017 Ms. Czerniak stated that the house is not located in a historic district and is not a designated as a Local Landmark. She acknowledged that the City supports and encourages the preservation of historic structures. She stated however that in cases where the safety, design or long term viability of the end product is compromised as a result of working within the constraints of an existing structure or where structural issues exist, the Board has approved complete demolitions. She reviewed that the Board saw a petition for this property in February, 2016 for a partial demolition, a second floor addition and alterations. She noted that during the discussion of that petition, City staff and the Board raised the questions regarding the structural integrity of the house. She noted that at that time, the petitioner provided assurances that the necessary investigations were completed. She stated that after Board approval, construction began in July and soon after, it was discovered that demolition work at the site exceeded the scope of the approvals and that the condition of the existing house was found to be different from the information reflected on the plans presented to the City for review. She confirmed that a stop work order was issued and documentation of the structural conditions and revised plans were requested. She noted that at that point, staff again raised the question about whether a complete demolition should be considered given the conditions found at the side. She stated that staff met with the petitioner several times and requested a report or plans stamped by a licensed structural engineer given the structural concerns identified. She stated that it is the City’s responsibility to not only take into account the needs and safety of the current owners, but also of future buyers and the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the City has been in communication with property owners and their attorney, and the project designer. She stated that given the concerns and disagreement about the structural integrity of the existing structure, the City hired an outside building code consultant to provide an independent opinion. She noted that the consultant also raised concerns about the structural integrity of the existing house. She added that if the project moves forward as proposed, the permits will be issued based on the owners’ engineers verification of the structural integrity and adequacy of the house to support the alterations and additions planned. She acknowledged that with many projects, issues arise in the field, as construction progresses. She noted however that work must proceed consistent with the approved plans or with revised plans that are submitted based on a change in conditions subject to review and approval by staff. She noted that work cannot proceed on an as needed basis as conditions are discovered at the site. She stated that the petition is now before the Board for approval of modifications to previous approvals. She stated that the current request seeks approval of the demolition of the existing one-story element and approval of a 2 story rear addition. She stated that staff understands that work on areas A and B is intended to proceed consistent with the previous Board approval. She noted that the sequencing of the overall project is unclear. She noted that last Thursday, staff received revised floor plans reflecting a proposed temporary kitchen in areas A and B. She stated that basic Code requirements Page 4 of 13 April 5th, 2017 must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. She acknowledged that the owners have stated that they do not wish to demolish the house, but noted that the proposed work results in the demolition of considerable portions of the house and noted that staff still questions whether attempting to work around the remaining portions of the house is in the best interests of the owners, the neighbors and the community. She stated that with respect to the proposed rear two-story addition, the massing appears to diminish the original residence and noted that the roof of the proposed addition rises above the main structure. She stated that if main structure is being preserved due to its historic significance and in the interest of preserving its character, the rear addition should be subordinate to the original structure and should not negatively impact the front façade. She stated that this property has been in disrepair for a long time, prior to the current ownership. She stated that it is the City’s goal to move the project forward to a positive conclusion, in a reasonable time frame. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that he is limited to what he can say due to the involvement of an attorney representing the petitioners. He stated that he does not believe the work completed to date has exceeded the prior approvals from the Board. He stated that it is typical to demolish the interior of a structure to investigate the conditions. He stated that the window openings and walls of areas A and B were modified and construction of the second story addition are consistent with the prior approvals. He stated that the work only exceeded the approvals as a result of trying to evaluate the safety and structure of the building. He stated that areas A and B have balloon framing. He stated that he has met with staff on numerous occasions and protested the stop work order because work has not exceeded the approvals granted. He acknowledged that there are complexities of the project and stated that the City has suggested demolishing the house. He stated that the house is in great shape and that a rear two story addition was always planned. Chairman Notz reviewed the Board’s purview for the benefits of all parties. He noted that the Board does not deal with litigation matters or make findings with respect to compliance with the technical aspects of the building codes. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hrusovsky clarified that a temporary kitchen is proposed in the dining room to allow the owners to reside in the house until area C is constructed. He stated that the goal is to allow the owners to move into the house as soon as possible. Board member Moyer pointed out that the drawings provided to the Board do not reflect the proposed kitchen and commented that overall, the drawings are unclear. He requested clarification on what aspects of the project are before the Board for consideration. Page 5 of 13 April 5th, 2017 Mr. Hrusovsky stated that complete drawings were not submitted because it was anticipated that the petition would be continued. He explained that the intent is to complete work on areas A and B. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the image presented in the Board packet is not consistent with the model. He stated that the image is of the project as previously approved. He clarified that the second floor addition for area B was previously approved. He explained that area A is the original front portion of the house and area C is the rear one story mass that is now proposed for demolition. Board member Reda stated the proposed two story rear addition modifies the previous approvals dramatically. He expressed concern that the massing and roof lines on the proposed addition and the elevations now presented are not consistent with the historic portions of the structure intended for preservation. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that the future garage is shown in the background of the image but is not proposed for construction at this time. He stated that area C is depicted in the image as it was previously approved, not with the two story addition that is now proposed . In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that the intention is to build the proposed rear, two story addition in 2018. He stated that the owners would like to move forward with construction on areas A and B now. He stated that the rear addition is a second phase and he acknowledged that the design of that element has not yet been fully thought out. He stated that older farmhouses were originally constructed as relatively small structures with later additions. He stated that the massing of additions should be broken up so as to not overwhelm the original structure. He stated that approval of the demolition of area C is requested. He stated that a detailed plan for the rear two-story element will be presented to the Board at a later date. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the basement/foundation plan only indicates the foundation for area B. He stated that there were only minor changes to the walls in area A and noted that the foundation in area A is older concrete, 8 to 9 inches thick, with 18 inch thick foam around the foundation. He stated that he drew an outline of a brick wall of sorts on the plan. He stated that there are 8 x 8 timber beams sitting on 9 brick piers. He stated that the house is post and beam construction which is not allowed in Lake Forest today. He stated that the standards for new construction differ from standards for historic homes. He stated that he took 10 yards of concrete plaster out of the structure thereby reducing the dead load. He stated that as a courtesy for City staff, he provided load transfer calculations stating that it is reasonable to conclude that the structure can support the reduced loads Page 6 of 13 April 5th, 2017 now proposed. He stated that he did not dig up the ground to investigate the foundation or depth of the brick piers because it is not required by code and could compromise what is there. He stated that he is working with the City to understand the interpretation of the building codes used to evaluate historic structures. Board member Bleck questioned how areas A and B will be protected during the construction of section C. He noted that there will likely need to be significant underpinning for the proposed rear addition that could impact the foundation or piers of the original structure, areas A and B. He stated that investigation and information on how construction would proceed should be made available prior to construction. He stated that the engineer’s report does not assess the existing foundations, the size or depth of footings or piers, or discuss how the existing structure would be supported during excavation for a rear addition. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak explained that the petition is before the Board for consideration of changes proposed to the plans as previously approved by the Board. She stated that originally the petition was presented to the Board due to the significant demolition proposed, second floor addition and overall alterations. She noted that the extent of demolition that has occurred and is planned exceeds that previously approved by the Board. She clarified that the City has many historic homes that do not conform to current building code requirements and that full conformance with current building code requirements is not expected. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the photos provided to the Board were submitted by a neighbor as public testimony. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the plans presented to the Board last year were for the renovation of areas A, B and C. He stated that section C was thought to be newer and the goal was to work with the existing structure. He stated that the intent for future phases of work, including a new rear addition were mentioned to the Board as part of the original presentation. He stated that in retrospect, he should not have proceeded with work on area C and instead, should have just slapped some lipstick on it. He confirmed that he completed more demolition than what was proposed in the previous presentation to the Board. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that his specialty is working with older homes and noted that full demolition is costly. He stated that in his opinion, remodeling the home will ultimately cost less than demolishing the home and building a new home. He stated that his experience with completing similar projects gave him the confidence to determine that renovation was the appropriate route. Page 7 of 13 April 5th, 2017 In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the plans provided to the Board do not include the temporary kitchen now proposed for areas A and B. He stated that the previous plans approved by the Board located the kitchen in area C. He stated that his goal was to have a conversation with Board about the approach now intended. He stated that he did not expect to receive an approval of the project and the replacement addition for area C at this time. He stated that he expected a continuation from the Board to allow the plans to be further developed. He stated that the owners would like to proceed with areas A and B at this time. Board member Reda and Chairman Notz stated that if the desire is to proceed with areas A and B as a discrete project, complete plans for areas A and B should be presented to the Board for action at the next meeting. Board member Friedman stated that there appears to be building code issues but noted that the technical aspects of the construction are not under the Board’s purview. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak stated that complete information on areas A and B should include a floor plan that reflects a kitchen and a west elevation since the existing area C is proposed for demolition and a replacement rear addition is not proposed at this time. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that areas A, B and C are intended to be one project, not phased. Board member Reda stated that he is confused and requested clarifications from the petitioner on the present request. He stated that the plans presented to the Board do not appear to accurately or fully reflect what is being requested by the petitioner at this time. He stated that clear, consistent plans should be presented at a future meeting. In response to comments from Mr. Hrusovsky, Chairman Notz reiterated that the structural issues and technical building code requirements are not in the Board’s purview. Board member Friedman reiterated Chairman Notz’s comments noting that the code compliance issues are handled by City staff. In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hrusovsky acknowledged that there is some rotting wood evident on the exterior of the residence, but stated that is not an uncommon condition for older houses. He Page 8 of 13 April 5th, 2017 confirmed that both the architect and engineer visited the site. He stated that the rot will be remediated. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Randy Tack, 8 N. Western Avenue, stated that he is an Alderman for the City, but is speaking on his own behalf. He stated that he lives adjacent to the property and noted that he has resided in Lake Forest for 20 years and for 18 of those years, the property at 20 N. Western Avenue has not been maintained. He stated that the house was sold several years ago as a tear down. He noted however that the demolition did not proceed and the owners removed the asbestos siding and covered the house with vinyl siding and resold it again, with the expectation that it would be demolished. He provided some photos of the property to the Board. He stated that the property is unkempt with garbage, appliances and debris in the yard. He stated that trees were cut down and burned on the property. He stated that when he observed the work going on at the property, he prompted the inspection by the City. He explained that he has concerns that the structure is not structurally sound and questioned whether it can support the planned work. He stated that the property is not properly maintained. He stated that neighbors have invested in their properties and desire a modern and safe property without power lines in the yard that are within reach. He stated that Lake Forest is often criticized for stringent policies, but stated that he holds an opposing view and asked that the City enforce the Code in relation to the upkeep of the property. He stated that due to his position as alderman, he usually avoids these types of discussions but given the seriousness of this issue is asking that standards be reasonably applied to this property and the Code be enforced. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the Foundation is generally supportive of supporting petitioners that preserve the historic character of the community, but stated that there should be a balance between preserving a house and designing something compatible with the neighborhood. Adam Lyons introduced himself as the architect of record for the project. He stated that it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected conditions with a structure of this age. He stated that he has worked closely with staff on a number of other projects. He stated that the City had concerns regarding the structure . He stated that investigative inspections were done and it was discovered that area C was not suitable for remodeling. He stated that they obtained an engineer’s report that was stamped and sealed which concluded that identified areas A and B as structurally sound. He acknowledged that they do not know what is supporting those area below grade, but stated that no areas of structural failure were found. Page 9 of 13 April 5th, 2017 He stated that sections A and B are sound pieces of architecture and good candidates for renovation. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City has encouraged the petitioner to clean up the site. She noted that as a matter of standard practice, when a stop work order is issued, and corrective action is not completed within a specified time frame, daily fines begin to accrue. She stated that in this case the City has not yet accessed any daily fines in an effort to work with the petitioners to get the project moving forward to completion. She stated that the City is trying to support the petitioners and has met with the owners and their representatives on several occasions. She stated that if the petitioners wish to proceed only with work on areas A and B and demolition of area C, then clear plans should be submitted to the Board reflecting that scope of work. She noted that staff understood that the petitioners were seeking approval of a rear two- story addition. She noted that although the technical aspects of compliance with the building code is not the Board’s purview, it is the Board’s purview to evaluate whether the proposed end product will be compromised as a result of working within the constraints of the remaining portions of the existing structure. She added that significant demolition has already occurred at the site and questioned whether the historic integrity of the property will remain at the end of the project. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Board’s purview includes consideration of whether the design is compromised as a result of efforts to save portions of the existing house. She stated that projects propose significant demolition or significant additions require Board review. She acknowledged that the Board does not require owners to demolish structures, but that in some cases, the required demolition may be so extensive that a full demolition may result in a more viable structure. Chairman Notz summarized that the Board recommends that full demolition and construction of a replacement residence be considered as an option. Hearing no further public testimony, he invited final comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that he is the general contractor and is responsible for maintenance of the site. Board member Friedman encouraged the petitioner to evaluate all options noting that at this point, there are no mechanicals or exterior materials in place yet. He noted that the project as proposed is significant in scope. He stated that it may be more costly to renovate the structure than to start over. Page 10 of 13 April 5th, 2017 Board member Bleck requested that complete plans for areas A and B be submitted for Board review if the petitioner intends to limit the scope of work for those areas. Board member Moyer commended the owners for their efforts made to preserve the structure. He stated that he has no issues with moving forward with renovation of areas A and B, but stated concerns regarding the proposed rear addition. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to prepare plans that reflect the scope of the project as now proposed, addition and alterations to areas A and B and demolition of area C. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and passed by a vote of 6 – 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new entrance sign at Lake Forest Academy located at 1500 W. Kennedy Road. Owner: Lake Forest Academy Representatives: Lake Forest Academy students: Joe Alexander, Tyler Grumhaus, Jack Zhang Lake Forest Academy Representative: Mike Reidy, CFO Larry Kilpatrick, Fast Signs Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Board member Bleck recused himself due to his firm’s involvement in various projects at the Academy and left the Council Chambers. Chairman Notz invited a presentation from the petitioners. Ms. Kerry, Lake Forest Academy faculty member and advisor to the Senior Class, introduced members of the senior class to present the petition. Joe Alexander, member of the senior class, stated that the senior class gift to the school is a new entrance sign. He stated that 100% of the members of the senior class participated in helping to fund the new sign. He asked the Board for approval of the new sign. Tyler Grumhaus, member of the senior class, stated that the proposed sign is more colorful and attractive than the existing sign and portrays the historic identity of the school. He noted that the proposed graphic consists of the formal seal of the school which contains a bell and a book. He explained that the bell represents the bell from original campus. He stated that the sign is orange and black, the Page 11 of 13 April 5th, 2017 school colors. He stated that the location and lighting of the sign will remain the same as the existing sign. Jack Zhang, member of the senior class, stated that the signage at Woodlands Academy was used as a reference noting the graphic symbol on that sign. He provided images of the proposed sign and of the Woodlands Academy sign. Ms. McManus stated that the petition is before the Board because a graphic is proposed as part of the replacement sign. She stated that the graphic is 15 percent of the overall square footage of the sign, consistent with the Code. She stated that a synthetic material is proposed for the sign, rather than wood, the material of the existing sign. She asked for the Board’s input on the proposed material. She added that the Code states that signs should be constructed of a natural material. She stated that no changes are proposed to the sign post, location or lighting and noted that findings in support of the petition are detailed in the staff report. Board member Moyer stated that the existing sign is simple, understated and more elegant than the proposed replacement. He stated however that he understands the desire to match the sign with the school ’s colors and graphic. He noted that the proposed sign appears less historic in character than the Woodlands Academy sign noting that the font appears almost moderne in style. He stated that since a graphic is proposed, it should be readable to traffic passing by. He suggested that the cutouts at each corner of the sign could be emphasized to give the sign character. He suggested consideration of removing the black border if it is not integral to the school ’s established graphic. Board member Reda thanked the students for raising funds for the sign. He recommended reconsideration of the material proposed for the sign and encouraged consideration of a natural material for the sign. He noted that his eye is drawn to the graphic rather than to the school name. Board member Friedman stated that although he supports the use of natural materials in general, given the location of the sign along Route 60, a synthetic material may be appropriate in this case. He noted that the color of the graphic jumps out and may appear somewhat stark along Route 60. He complimented the graphic but suggested consideration of a more subdued orange color. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Kilpatrick, the sign vendor, stated that the sign post is a 10 foot tall 8x8 wood post and will be reused. He provided the Board a sample of the synthetic material proposed for the sign and provided chip of the orange proposed for the graphic which is as close to the color used by the school as possible. He confirmed that the sign is proposed to be made of sandblasted HDU (High Density Urethane). He explained that the Page 12 of 13 April 5th, 2017 synthetic material is recommended because the sign is large and HDU is a very light weight material. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the new sign will be slightly thicker than the existing sign. He explained that the sign will be constructed of 2 panels, sandwiched together, with a structure in between to support the I-bolts. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the sign is the same size as the existing sign, but the material, thickness and design differ. He stated that the border and cutouts are proposed to be very similar to the existing sign. Board member Diamond support for the synthetic material given the circumstances. Chairman Notz stated that generally he encourages the use of natural materials however, in this case he is supportive to the petition as proposed . Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, suggested that the address should be more visible. He stated that the proposed sign is consistent with other signs in Lake Forest and said that the Foundation is supportive of the sign as proposed. Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Kilpatrick confirmed that Woodlands Academy’s colors are black and red and Lake Forest Academy’s colors are orange and black. He stated that the orange color is better represented in the pantone color sample than in the rendering. Board member Reda stated that because the sign is located on Route 60, the material and color are acceptable. Board member Friedman stated support for the sign but recommended consideration of a slightly darker orange for the graphic to avoid detracting from the school name. Mr. Reidy stated that the orange tone selected is a distinctive color and is important to the school’s identity. He stated that the intent was to match the sign to the school’s color. Page 13 of 13 April 5th, 2017 Board member Moyer stated that in his opinion the ideal solution is to retain the existing sign at the existing location and to install the new s ign within the campus. Mr. Reidy stated that the current sign is worn and needs to be replaced. He stated that the school wishes to replace the sign with the new design. Chairman Notz acknowledged that the orange color and graphic are integral to the school’s identify. He stated support for the petition. He invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report subject to the following condition: 1. 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 passed by a vote of 6 – 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. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner