BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/06/07 Minutes
Page 1 of 8
June 7, 2017
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of June 7, 2017 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on
Wednesday, June 7th, 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: Chairman Ted Notz and Board
members: Jim Diamond, Peter Dunne, Ross Friedman and Chris Bires
Building Review Board members absent: Robert Reda and Fred Moyer
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 May 3rd, 2017 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
The May 3rd meeting minutes were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a partial demolition, additions and
alterations to the existing residence located at 1137 N. Griffith Road.
Owner: Barbara J. Stephens
Contract Purchaser: Lauren McCracken
Representative: Jeff Letzter, Aspect Design Group
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Letzter introduced himself and Joshua Crow, an intern at his firm. He stated
that approval of a partial demolition of the existing house is requested. He
explained that his clients are in the process of purchasing the home which is a
small ranch constructed in the 1940s. He stated that the house was constructed
prior to current zoning regulations and as a result, the home is located within the
front and north side yard zoning setbacks and variances are required to allow the
proposed additions and modifications. He stated that the Zoning Board of
Page 2 of 8
June 7, 2017
Appeals recommended approval of the variances. He stated that the existing
foundation and exterior walls appear to be in good condition, but noted that the
home is modest in size at just over 1100 square feet. He stated that the buyers
desire more space and updates to the home. He stated that a full demolition was
considered, but since significant portions of the house are usable, an alternative
to complete demolition is proposed including a 2nd story addition. He stated that
there is a dropped gable element on the north elevation that conforms to the
established setbacks. He noted that the house is well below the allowable height.
He reviewed the front elevation and stated that only a small overhang is
proposed over the entry to minimize any further encroachments into the front
yard than what exists today. He noted that the overhang will be supported by
brackets and stated that simple trim is proposed around the windows and doors.
He reviewed the proposed floor plans noting that the interior is proposed to be
entirely reworked. He explained that the location and size of the existing window
openings will remain unchanged. He stated that one tree is proposed for
removal, not because it will be impacted by the project but because of its
location very close to the house and driveway. He stated that removal was
recommended by the City’s arborist since it is damaging the driveway. He
reviewed images of the neighborhood and adjacent homes. He noted that there
is an accessory structure on the neighboring property to the north which sits very
close to the property line. He stated that the property is not rectangular and
tapers toward the rear. He explained that the second floor addition steps back
from the existing first floor on the north elevation in order to conform to the current
zoning setback requirement. He stated that the exterior will have white
clapboard, Hardie siding, cedar trim, aluminum gutters and architectural asphalt
shingles and he noted that the color palette will be very similar to the colors of the
existing house. He stated that the existing garage will remain and will be resided.
Recognizing that the neighbor was present with a small chil d, Chairman Notz
invited public comment in advance of staff comments.
Henson Robinson, 285 Rose Terrace, explained that he lives directly to the north of
the subject property. He complimented the overall project however, he
expressed concern about the loss of privacy due to the proposed addition of a
second story. He noted that the 2nd floor windows on the north elevation will have
direct views to his pool and deck. He stated that his garage and small pool house,
both one-story, are located near the property line, but will not block views from
the second floor windows. He confirmed that he is not concerned with the rear
elevation windows, only the 2 windows proposed on the north elevation. He
stated that there is a slight grade change between the two properties that
contributes to the privacy concerns. He noted that the 1137 Griffith Road
property sits slightly higher than his property.
Page 3 of 8
June 7, 2017
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Robinson stated that there is
very little space on either property to add additional plantings.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Letzter noted that the rear portion of the
second story on the north elevation steps back from existing north wall of the
house which may mitigate views somewhat. He stated that there are functional
and aesthetic reasons why windows are proposed on the north elevation.
In response to public testimony, Board member Friedman suggested that frosted
glass could be required in the 2nd story windows.
Chairman Notz agreed that frosted glass could provide for greater privacy for all
parties and suggested that in addition, the windows on the north elevation be
fixed if they are not needed for egress purposes.
In response to the Board’s discussion, Mr. Robinson stated that proposed
requirements should help to address his privacy concerns. He offered to provide
photos from his property to illustrate the potential impact of the windows on the
north elevation.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter agreed that frosted
glass could be used for the bedroom window. He noted that the bathroom steps
back away from the neighbor’s yard and may be less of a concern. He stated
that he does not believe either window is needed for egress. He stated that a
new window type should not be introduced since double hung windows are used
around the home. He suggested that the fixed window should be detailed to give
the appearance of an operable window.
In response to a question from Board member Bires, Mr. Letzter stated that it will
be difficult to see the windows from the street due to the angle of the house in
relation to the street and the proximity to the neighboring property. He stated that
the existing house is 3.51 feet from the property line at the closest point. He
reiterated that the second floor is pulled back from the existing north wall of the
house to meet the current zoning setback.
Ms. McManus stated that based on the information provided by the petitioner, 44
percent of the existing structure will be removed and as a result, the proposed
work is considered a partial demolition. She stated that a detailed demolition plan
will be required as part of the submittal for a building permit to allow for staff
verification that the extent of demolition is consistent with the representation
made to the Board. She recommended that a structural evaluation of the existing
foundation be completed and submitted along with the application for a
building permit to verify that it is adequate to support the proposed 2nd floor
addition. She confirmed that the City’s recommend s removal of the tree that is
Page 4 of 8
June 7, 2017
adjacent to the driveway. She stated that the proposed design and exterior
materials for the house are appropriate for the neighborhood. She noted an
awkward condition of the massing at the northwest corner of the house and
requested input from the Board on the projection proposed in that area.
In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. Letzter stated that as
proposed, the siding is Hardieboard with a 6 inch reveal. He noted that all trim will
be cedar.
Board member Dunne stated that he is supportive of staff’s recommendation to
require a structural engineer’s report to verify the condition and adequacy of the
existing foundation and he noted that the proposed house is a vast improvement
over the existing house.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter reviewed the
landscape plan noting that additional landscaping is proposed primarily along
the front of the house.
Board member Friedman stated that landscape screening should be enhanced
on the north side to the extent possible. He stated that the proposed plantings
are too sparse.
Mr. Letzter reviewed the plat of survey noting the location of the neighbor’s fence
and trees and the limited space available for plantings . He stated that additional
landscaping will be limited to a radius of plantings around the northwest corner of
the house and to the area directly in front of the house. He agreed that the
landscaping at the northwest corner of the house can be embellished. He
confirmed that the driveway is asphalt and will remain asphalt. He explained that
the garage is in decent condition, but will be resided and reroofed to match the
house.
Board member Bires stated that in his opinion, the proposed second floor addition
is appropriately setback. He agreed that additional landscaping is needed and
will help soften the north elevation.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Letzter stated that the
front steps and stoop are concrete and he confirmed that the location of the
entry will not change. He explained that because the project required zoning
variances, the contract purchaser did not want to invest in a structural engineer’s
report on the foundation until it was clear whether the required variances would
be granted. He noted that the foundation appears to be in good condition. He
stated that the landscape plan will be modified to address the Board members’
comments. He confirmed that there is an existing crawl space under the northern
portion of the house, and a full basement under the portion of the house located
Page 5 of 8
June 7, 2017
closest to the driveway. He confirmed that all mechanicals and the electrical
system will be replaced.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter stated that the contract
purchaser is satisfied with the size of the bedroom closet along the north wall of
the addition. He reiterated that the addition is set back to conform to the zoning
setback and to be sensitive to the neighbor to the north.
In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. McManus explained that
enlarging the closet in the proposed location would require a modification to the
zoning variance that was recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She
stated that as proposed, the projection on the north elevation to accommodate
the closet creates an awkward element and a more complicated north elevation
than would normally be found on a house of this type of design. She noted that
to remain true to a selected architectural style, generally, the interior floor plan
should not dictate the exterior massing or window placement.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak explained that the
Zoning Board of Appeals did not specifically discuss the closet size, but noted that
the Board did express appreciation that the second floor addition is designed to
step back and conform to the required setbacks particularly given the proximity
of the existing house to the property line.
Mr. Letzter explained that the closet projection helps to create symmetry of the
front gables. He stated that if the closet is relocated or enlarged, the front
elevation would be negatively impacted.
Ms. Czerniak offered that additional landscaping at the northwest corner of the
house, as recommended by Board member Friedman, should help to soften the
projection proposed on the north elevation.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the
exterior materials on the garage will match the materials on the house. He
agreed that adding a window on the north elevation of the garage would help
to break up that elevation.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited final
comments, Hearing none, he invited a motion.
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. Approval is recommended
subject to the following conditions:
Page 6 of 8
June 7, 2017
1. The plans shall be modified to address the items listed below. If any further
modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to
Board discussion, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall
be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plan originally provided to the
Board shall be included with the plans submitted for a building permit 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.
a. Frosted glass shall be permanently installed on the north facing windows on the
second floor given the proximity of the addition and views from the windows
directly to the pool and deck of the neighboring yard.
b. The north facing windows on the second floor shall be fixed, so long as all
applicable codes are met. The fixed windows shall be detailed to appear as
double hung windows.
c. The landscape plan shall include enhanced plantings along the north side of the
property and around the northwest corner of the house to provide screening and
to visually break up and soften the north elevation.
2. A structural evaluation of the existing foundation and walls shall be completed by a
licensed engineer and shall provide a conclusive opinion on whether or not the
existing foundation and framing, in its present condition, can support the proposed
additions.
3. A detailed demolition plan shall be submitted clearly indicating the areas proposed
for demolition including any exterior walls, interior walls, foundation, roof,
mechanicals, windows and doors so that staff may verify that the extent of
demolition in consistent with the representations made to the Board.
4. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree
maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted, prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit, outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the
mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and
approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the
satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the
Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the
issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. All tree
protection fencing shall remain in a sturdy and upright position throughout the
project and until removal, or partial removal, is approved by the City’s Certified
Arborist.
5. 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 from off the property.
Page 7 of 8
June 7, 2017
6. 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 is limited to two cars
immediately in front of this property due to the narrowness of the street.
7. Prior to the partial demolition, 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.
8. Until a permit is obtained, the house, property and yard must be maintained in good
condition consistent with the requirements of the Code.
9. 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 5
– 0.
OTHER ITEMS
4. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
5. Additional information from staff.
Staff agreed to poll the Board to determine availability for upcoming meetings
and for the bus tour proposed with members of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Chairman Notz suggested that consideration be given to including members of
the Zoning Board of Appeals on the bus tour.
Members of the Board suggested that consideration be given to holding the Lake
Forest Institute more often.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 8 of 8
June 7, 2017
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner