BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/02/03 Minutes1
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of February 3, 2016 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
February 3, 2016, 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:
Fred Moyer, Mike Bleck, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond.
Building Review Board members absent: Robert Reda
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 January 6, 2016 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
The minutes of the January 6, 2016 meeting were approved with a correction as
requested by Chairman Notz.
3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the
residence and garage at 236 Park Avenue and approval of a replacement
residence, detached garage, overall site plan and landscape plan.
Owner and Representative: U.S. Shelter LLC (Jack Sorenson)
Representatives: John Sorenson, project manager
Matthew Kerouac, 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. Sorenson introduced himself and the architect and explained that the petition is
before the Board for the second time. He reviewed the changes made based on the
Board’s comments including simplifying the roof forms, modifying the flared gutter
2
detail and front door, reducing the driveway width, adding chimney pots, adjusting
the eyebrow dormer and changing the casement windows to double hung
windows. He provided samples of the exterior materials to the Board noting that the
color palette consists of gray tones and white trim. He stated that the windows are
now double hung Marvin Integrity windows. He reviewed the revised site plan noting
that the driveway width was reduced to 10.5 feet. He stated that the l andscape plan
includes more landscaping between the driveway and the house than the original
plan. He reviewed the modified elevations and a simplified roof line. He noted that
the roof is a lower pitch hip roof and the two front-facing gables were eliminated
from the plan. He stated that the windows are now double hung and the door was
adjusted to appear less narrow. He stated that clay pots were added to the
chimney. He stated that he has received positive feedback from neighbors and
emphasized that high quality building materials are proposed.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Kerouac stated that the
dormer windows are fixed Marvin Integrity windows and the gutters will be white
aluminum.
In response to a question from Board member Grieve, Mr. Kerouac confirmed that
consideration can be given to using asphalt shingles on the porch roof for
consistency with the roof of the house.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sorenson presented a
sample of the bronze standing seam metal roof that is proposed for the porch.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Kerouac added that 16
inch panels are proposed for the metal roof and reiterated that the trim and gutters
will be white. He stated that the front stoop is bluestone and the patio is constructed
of pavers.
Chairman Notz requested the comments from City staff.
Ms. McManus stated that the revised deign appears to respond to the Board’s
comments and concerns expressed at the previous meeting. She clarified that at
the last meeting, the Board indicated support for the demolition of the existing
residence but formal Board action is needed on both the demolition request and
the replacement structure. She noted that the roof line was simplified and pointed
out some continuing concern that the projecting bays on the front elevation are
inconsistent with the Four Square style. She also noted continuing concern about
the bay on the rear elevation above the porch and noted that a
recommendation is included in the staff report that it be eliminated and replaced
with a traditional window. She also stated that staff recommends that
consideration be given to using asphalt shingle on the porch roof in place of
standing seam metal to reduce the number of exterior materials. She stated that
3
staff recommends approval of both the demolition and replacement structure ,
subject to conditions.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sorenson stated that the
Unilock retaining wall will tie into the foundation and wrap the skirt of the porch.
In response to Board member Friedman’s concerns regarding the mudroom window,
Mr. Kerouac suggested eliminating window altogether because there may not be
enough space to separate the window from the door.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Kerouac stated that the bays
on the front façade create interest and add character.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Sorenson noted that at the
prior meeting, the Board requested that the bays be modified, not removed.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Kerouac showed examples of
the “Prairie Box” style noting that there is historic precedent for the bays. He added
that the bays create a more unique façade. He added that cedar shingle is
proposed for the dormer sides.
Board member Moyer stated that he was not present at the previous meeting, but
noted that the changes made are very positive and stated support for the bay
windows on the front façade. He commented that a flat window would lessen the
quality of the building.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Kerouac confirmed that the
dormers will be clad in shingles. He stated that he prefers the change in material on
the bays to ties into the massing of the screen porch.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sorenson stated that the
garage slab will be level with the point of entry and will be supported by engineered
fill. He noted that the plant materials along the east wall are yews to provide year
round cover.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Richard Biondi, 220 Park Avenue, stated that he is excited about the project, but
requested additional information on when construction will begin, the permitted
hours of construction and how mud on the street will be addressed.
Mr. Sorenson stated that construction will begin based on when the permit is issued
and the weather. He stated that they will comply with the City’s permitted
construction hours which allow construction to begin at 7a.m. He noted that the site
4
will be fully fenced and locked and silt fencing will be installed. He added that a
superintendent will be on the site daily and will be responsible for seeing that the
road is cleaned regularly. He stated that the existing driveway will remain during
construction for trucks.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited final questions and
comments from the Board.
Board member Diamond complimented the revisions made and stated that he is in
favor of approving the petition.
Board member Grieve stated that he is supportive of the demolition and noted that
the changes made to the new house successfully simplified the forms, but did not
overly simplify the design. He noted that he is supportive of the detailing and
suggested that the front porch roof material be reconsidered with the final approval
on that item delegated to staff. He added that if metal is used, the wider seam is
appropriate so that it does not look too busy. He noted that the color palette is
appropriate for the architectural style and emphasized the importance of keeping
the palette consistent with the information presented to the Board. He suggested
that a narrow window could be appropriate for the mudroom to allow for some
natural light and to break up the wall .
Board member Friedman stated that the house was simplified, but the character
retained. He complimented the revisions. He added that in his opinion, the standing
seam roof is a nice feature. He stated that the rear of the home is his main concern.
He stated that the box bay above the porch does not work and encouraged the
petitioner to reconsider that element.
Board member Bleck stated that he is in agreement with his colleagues and thanked
the petitioner for their responsiveness.
Board member Moyer stated that he is in support of the project.
Chairman Notz stated that the detailing on the side of the bays should be clarified
on the final plans and the rear bay should be modified and could be subject to final
approval by staff.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing
structure.
The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved by a vote of 6 - 0.
5
Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the replacement structure
based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of
approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional
modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development
or in response to Board direction, the modifications 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.
a. High quality, natural materials should be used consistently on all elevations
and should be clearly indicated on the plans submitted for permit.
b. Consideration shall be given to using shingle siding on the sides of the bay
windows on the front elevation.
c. The bay window over the rear porch shall be eliminated and replaced with a
simpler, flush window.
d. The mudroom window on the rear elevation shall be adjusted to be separate
from the door.
2. 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.
3. Tree Protection Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan to
protect any trees identified for preservation and to protect trees and
vegetation on neighboring properties during construction must be submitted
and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist.
4. The final landscape plan shall, at a minimum, reflect replacement inches for
trees removed as determined to be required by the City Arborist consistent with
the Code requirements. The plan shall also provide for plantings along the
driveway.
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 shielded from view.
6
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction
vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be
subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the
neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended
for preservation. On street parking is not permitted due to the narrowness of
the street and the proximity to the high school. Offsite parking for workers and
shuttles to the site may be required.
7. 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 Bleck and approved by a vote of 6 - 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing residence
and garage at 172 N. Ridge Road and approval of the replacement residence,
attached garage, overall site plan and landscape plan.
Owners Stelios and Helen Logarakis
Representative: Scott Renken, 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. Renken introduced himself and the owner and provided a massing model of
the proposed replacement structure to the Board. He reviewed the location of
the home noting that it is between Deerpath and Route 60, west of Highway 41.
He noted that the property is almost an acre in size and the lot is 133 feet wide.
He showed an aerial photo of the neighborhood noting that the property is a
typical lot size for the neighborhood. He noted that neighboring homes are one
to one and a half stories in height and are of various architectural styles. He
showed the existing site plan explaining that the house is setback 48 feet from the
street and that the front yard has little vegetation. He stated that the City arborist
recommended removal of a diseased tree on the north side of the lot. He
explained that the existing house has poor drainage and that the owner has
been before the Board twice previously with plans for a replacement house. He
showed images of the existing ranch house and reviewed the demolition criteria.
He showed the proposed site plan noting that the replacement home is sited
further back from the street than the existing house to mitigate the increased
massing of home and to accommodate a circular driveway and double curb
cuts. He added that the proposed parking area on the driveway is out of the front
yard setback. He stated that 3 trees are proposed for removal noting that the
City’s arborist acknowledged that the trees are not significant. He noted that the
14 inch maple tree, southwest of the existing house, will be saved. He stated that
7
the owner desires a double curb cut and showed a map of other curb cuts in the
neighborhood. He stated that an inlet structure is proposed in the backyard to
direct drainage subject to the approval of the City Engineer. He stated that
landscaping will be added to the front yard to soften the new circular drive. He
added that the trees in the rear yard will not be impacted, but noted that the
vegetation may be cleaned up a little. He showed the streetscape elevation of
the proposed residence acknowledging that the property is bounded by long low
ranches on either side and noting that there are other 2 stories homes along
Ridge Road. He stated that the owner desires a master suite on the first floor so a
one and half story home is proposed that tapers down on either end. He added
that efforts were made to mitigate the mass of the house. He noted that the
houses are spaced out on the lots along the streetscape. He reviewed examples
of Shingle Style residences and summarized the defining characteristics of the
style including a stone base, sweeping roofs, rambling forms, grouped windows
and cottage style muntins. He reviewed the proposed home and the roof forms
noting that primarily, hip forms are used. He provided samples of exterior
materials and stated that the color palette will consist of a Cape Cod gray. He
stated that the stone is Eden buff gray stone and the driveway will be asphalt
edged with pavers.
Ms. McManus stated that the petition is a request for the demolition of the existing
residence and approval of a replacement structure. She noted that in 2007, the
Board approved the demolition of this house and approved a replacement
residence, subject to refinements, but the owner did not proceed with that
project and the approvals expired. The owners returned to the Board in 2014 with
the same petition and the Board voted to continue the petition to allow
refinement of the design as originally approved. She stated that the request now
before the Board is a new design noting that the project is under the direction of
a different architect. She noted that the request appears to meet the demolition
criteria. She stated that the City’s arborist has reviewed the preliminary landscape
plan and has approved the proposed tree removals. She noted that a double
curb cut is proposed for the site noting that this aspect was a point of discussion
for the Board in 2014. She added that a double curb cut is permitted on a lot of
this size and referred to the map provided by the petitioner showing the location
of other homes with double curb cuts in the area. She noted that the
replacement house is overall consistent with the chosen style and added that the
staff report calls out some areas of concern, particularly the complex roof forms
on the side elevations. She noted that staff received a piece of correspondence
from a neighbor stating no objections with the new home, but expressing concern
about construction traffic. She stated that the City Engineer and other City staff
will determine the most appropriate route for construction traffic to minimize
impacts on the neighborhood.
8
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Renken confirmed that the
scale of the rear elevation as depicted in the drawing is incorrect.
Board member Moyer stated that the main issue is that the proposed home is larger
than other homes in the area, but acknowledged that the petitioner has done a
good job of addressing the issues and challenges presented when a neighborhood is
in transition.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Renken stated that the
owner is willing to consider the use of shingles for the roof, in place of shakes. He
confirmed that the surface of the front porch will be similar to bluestone, with a
similar thickness and the color of Durango tile. He stated that the soffit material is
plywood and will have a one foot depth. He confirmed that all the roof pitches are
12:12 with exception of the shed dormer on the rear. He stated that he would have
to defer to the owner as far as considering using beaded or tongue and groove for
the soffits due to the cost. He noted that the front door is mahogany stained dark
walnut and the garage doors are metal with a wood-like appearance. He confirmed
that as proposed, the downspouts swoop over the stone bump out and agreed that
mitered downspouts are more graceful and will be used instead.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Renken confirmed that the
dormers on the model are the same size as what is depicted in the drawings. He
stated that the driveway width was reduced from 14 to 12 feet in response to early
discussions with staff. He stated that the shed dormer on the rear will only be visible to
the owners and is more accurately reflected on the model than in the drawings.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus stated that the
proposed residence is just under the allowable square footage so no variance is
requested.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Renken stated that it was an
aesthetic decision to add paired brackets to the main gable. He agreed to consider
different bracket styles or reducing the number of brackets.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Renken commented on the
space that is reserved for a future elevator noting that it could be used as a closet.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairm an Notz invited public comment.
Pamela Engle, 187 N. Ridge Road, expressed concerns about the size of the
proposed replacement residence noting that there the open space between the
new house and the neighboring homes will be reduced. She expressed concern
about the circular driveway and the potential for significant drainage problems due
to the old sewers in the neighborhood. She added that elevating the new home and
9
adding a circular drive will worsen the drainage issue. She stated that the owner has
rented the home for at least 8 years and that he is likely planning to sell the new
home. She asked for clarification on the condition and ownership of the trees. She
stated concern that the new home will change the character of the neighborhood.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Renken stated that more landscaping can be
added to mitigate the size of the house and circular driveway. He added that the
front yard does not currently have much landscaping. He stated that the drainage
will be subject to approval by the City’s Engineer. He stated that the drainage
situation will be improved, not worsened by the project.
In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that existing trees on
the site provide a canopy, but are failing to thrive. She added that the City arborist
determined that the trees are high quality and should not dictate the siting of a new
house. She acknowledged that in reviewing the earlier petitioner presented for this
property, the Board expressed concern about the circular drive but at that time, a
front loaded garage was proposed adding to the expanse of pavement in the front
yard. She stated that a side located garage is now proposed to minimize the visual
impact of the garage. She confirmed that there is another circular drive on the block
and commented that due to landscaping, it does not have a negative impact on
the streetscape. She added that the proposed siting of the replacement house is
pushed back on the property to allow for more landscaping. She acknowledged
that the neighborhood is in transition.
Hearing no public testimony, Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments
from the Board.
In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Ms. McManus confirmed that
there are conditions of approval addressing the drainage concerns and requiring
inch for inch replacement for the trees removed.
Ms. Czerniak added that the condition of approval requires grading to be kept to
the minimum required to meet good engineering practices and confirmed that the
City will verify that the house is not artificially elevated.
Mr. Renken stated that the existing house sits too low, causing drainage problems
and noted that the new house will be brought up to the appropriate level.
Chairman Notz commented that setting the new house at the appropriate grade will
improve the drainage on the site.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak stated that
staff can request that the City engineer consider connection of the downspouts to
the storm sewer if conditions allow.
10
In response to a question from Board member Moyer, Mr. Renken clarified the stair
width on the floor plan explaining that the stair was pushed back to allow for better
alignment of the windows on the exterior elevation.
In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Ms. Czerniak stated that no
volume studies were completed, but streetscape studies were provided offering a
comparison of the proposed structure to massing of the neighboring homes.
Board member Friedman acknowledged that the neighborhood is undergoing a
transition, but noted that the proposed home will dominate the block. He added
that the design is well detailed and well proportioned, but not in keeping with the
current neighborhood.
Board member Bleck stated that although there is a ranch house on either side of
the property, the new design respects the neighboring structures by stepping down
in those areas. He agreed that it is a transitional neighborhood.
Board member Grieve stated that he is supportive of the design observing that it
shows deference to the neighboring homes. He stated that typically, the Board sees
replacement homes that are much larger than the homes being demolished. He
asked that the petition consider separating the long shed dormer into 2 separate
dormers.
Board member Diamond complimented the design noting that it will be a nice
addition to neighborhood. He added that drainage issues should be addressed and
followed up closely by City staff.
Chairman Notz stated that the petition is a significant improvement over the previous
plans presented for this property. He added that although the neighboring homes
are ranch homes, there are a variety of styles and sizes of homes along the street. He
stated that the design and massing of the proposed home is sensitive to the ranch
homes. He stated support for the circular drive. He suggested that pavers or gravel
alternatives be considered for the driveway to alleviate the drainage concerns.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Bleck made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing
structure.
The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 6
– 0.
Board member Bleck made a motion to approve the replacement structure based
on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11
1. The plans shall be refined consistent with the items detailed below. If any
other modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either
in response to Board direction, 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
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. During final design
development the following aspects of the design identified by the Board
shall be considered.
a. Options for breaking up the long shed dormer on the rear elevation
shall be studied and as appropriate, reflected on the plans
submitted for permit.
b. Consideration shall be given to reducing the number of brackets to
simplify the front elevation.
c. Consideration shall be given to using cedar shingles in place of
cedar shakes for the roofing material.
d. Alternative material s for the driveway surface shall be explored in an
effort to reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the lot.
2. Photo documentation of the model presented to the Board should be
provided as part of the permit submittal to allow verification that the
plans submitted for permit accurately reflect the design intent presented
to the Board.
3. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading
and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
proper drainage and that the overall height of the residence, when
measured from the lowest point of existing adjacent grade, is consistent
with the information presented to the Board. Additional information, as
determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to
verify whether the project is consistent with Code requirements and good
engineering practices.
a. The City Engineer shall consider whether connection of the
downspouts and sump pump to the storm sewer is feasible and
consistent with good engineering practices.
4. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and
drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist.
a. The landscape plan shall note the replacement tree inches that will
be planted and at a minimum, the replacement inches shall equal
12
inch for inch replacement for the three Maple trees and one
evergreen that will be removed from the site.
b. Sufficient trees and lower vegetation shall be reflected on the plan
in front of the house to soften the appearance of the increase d
pavement in the front yard from the circular driveway and to
provide some mitigation of the mass and height of the house for
compatibility with the overall streetscape.
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 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.
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 shielded from view.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction
vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be
subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the
neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended
for preservation. On street parking is limited to two cars immediately in front of
this property due to the narrowness of the street.
General
7. Prior to demolition, two copies of comprehensive photo documentation
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 for demolition of the house and until demolition
activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be
maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the
Code.
9. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of
construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be
13
continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the
neighborhood.
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
- 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of an addition and alterations to the
existing residence located at 20 N. Western Avenue.
Owners: Peter and Sara LaCasse
Contract Purchasers: Zac and Megan Zarling
Representative: Michael Hrusovsky, designer
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Hrusovsky introduced himself and his daughter explaining that she is under
contract to purchase the home. He reviewed the history of the property. He
stated that the property is a half-acre and is developed with a small house which
is flanked by larger houses. He stated that he has a passion for older homes noting
this house has not changed much over time. He explained that he consulted with
Art Miller on the history of the property and he concluded that the home may be
older than he originally thought. He added that a front porch of this type, given
the age of home, would likely not have had porch railings. He showed an image
of the historic plat of the City. He showed renderings of existing house noting that
the 2nd story and rear wing were likely later additions. He showed an excerpt from
the 1876 atlas of Illinois showing historic precedent for a two story farm house with
a one story extension.
Ms. McManus stated that the petition is for approval of a 2nd story addition and
modifications to the front porch and exterior materials. She noted that staff is
recommending some refinement of the side elevations with respect to the
window alignments and in order to break up the large expanses of wall. She
stated that neighbors have expressed concerns about the condition of the site,
the adequacy of the structure of the house and drainage ponding in the back
yard. She added that upon applying for permit for the new garage, a grading
and drainage plan will be required and will be reviewed by the City’s Engineer.
She stated that the staff report recommends a condition of approval requiring a
maintenance plan for the site given the history of the property as unkempt. She
14
suggested a condition be added requiring an investigation of the adequacy of
the existing foundation and structure to verify that the proposed addition can be
supported. She stated that staff is recommending support of the petition subject
to the conditions.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that
there are divided lites in the patio door on the rear elevation. He stated that the
intent is to restore the original windows which have true divided lites and added that
the new windows will have simulated divided lites.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus clarified that
a grading plan is not required for the addition because the footprint of the home is
not changing. She added that when the new garage is submitted for permit, a
grading pl an will be required.
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that the
existing large window on the rear elevation is inconsistent with the rest of the house
and agreed that consideration could be given to replacing it.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that
the plan is to complete the second floor addition and alterations on the home, move
into the house, and build the detached garage in the future. He stated that
eventually, a rear addition may be considered. He noted that he has worked with
older homes in the past, some as old as from the 1850s. He stated that he anticipates
making very few modifications to the house other than moving a few internal walls
and rebuilding the 2nd floor framing and roof. He stated that currently, water drains
onto the lot from Green Bay Road to the west and the ponding occurs in a low spot
in the rear yard. He stated that these drainage concerns can be addresses during a
later phase of construction.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the
rendering depicts the shutters slightly different than those on the existing house. He
stated that the intention is to achieve consistency between the new and existing
windows and shutters. He stated that the goal is to achieve a similar appearance to
what is shown on the rendering.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that the
small windows on north elevation are proposed. He stated that he wanted to add
some fenestration, but agreed to consider refinements to achieve greater
consistency with the rest of the house. He explained that the driveway will be
extended when the garage is constructed.
Board member Moyer suggested adding a turnaround space for vehicles due to the
difficulty of backing out on to Western Avenue.
15
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Hrusovsky clarified that there was
asbestos siding on the house which was removed and replaced with vinyl siding. He
stated that he believes that the original wood siding is underneath the vinyl siding
and added that once the vinyl is removed, they intend to patch, repair and replace
the wood siding, where needed.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Hearing no public testimony, he invited final questions and comments from the
Board.
Board member Diamond commended the petitioner for restoring the house and
requested that the drainage concerns can be addressed with a condition of
approval.
Board member Grieve stated that he is very supportive of retaining the home’s
architectural integrity and is comfortable with approval of the petition subject to the
conditions of approval and further refinements discussed by the Board.
Board member Friedman stated that he is supportive of the project and agreed that
a vehicle turnaround should be installed.
Board member Bleck complimented the petitioner on the project.
Chairman Notz added that the addition is compatible and appropriate and
suggested that the configuration of a driveway turn around be delegated to staff for
final approval. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited
a motion.
Board member Friedman made a motion to approve the petition based on the
findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If additional
modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design development
or based on the Board’s discussion, the modifications 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 representations made to the Board
and the Board’s direction and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
a. The window openings on the side elevations shall be refined to
break up the expanses of wall and achieve greater consistency
with the rest of the house.
16
b. Consideration shall be given to expansion of the driveway to
accommodate a turnaround area due to the difficulty in backing
out of the driveway on to Western Avenue and the proximity of the
at grade railroad crossing. The revised driveway configuration shall
be subject to review and approval by City staff.
c. Detailed information on the condition, adequacy and integrity of the
existing foundation and structure shall be provided to allow staff to
evaluate whether the existing structure is viable and able to support the
proposed addition.
2. A cleanup and maintenance plan for the overall property should be
submitted within 30 days of approval given the recent unkempt condition of
the property.
3. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed,
shall be submitted and must be in full compliance with the City Lighting
Guidelines. Fixtures shall direct light down and all light sources shall be
screened from view. The dark sky, right to night concept shal l be followed.
4. 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.
5. A landscape plan for the immediate area in front of the porch shall be
provided and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified
Arborist.
6. Tree Protection Plan – 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.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and
construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review
and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage
impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts
on trees intended for preservation. Due to the location of the property near
an at grade railroad crossing and given the narrowness of the Western
Avenue roadway, no on street parking or staging of construction vehicles or
contractor vehicles are permitted.
17
8. 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 Moyer and approved by a vote of 6 -
0.
6. Consideration of a request for approval of an alternate material for an existing
residence located at 1340 N. Waukegan Road.
Owner: Paula Polk Lillard, Trustee
Representative: Keith MacNaught, Cedar Roofing Company
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. MacNaught introduced himself and reviewed the location of the property
noting that it is set back from Waukegan Road, accessed by a half mile driveway
and is covered by trees. He stated that the house is 20 years old and the existing
cedar roof has mold and fungus growth. He explained that the owner would like
to use a synthetic roofing product with the appearance of cedar. He stated that
using real cedar is problematic because today’s cedar is low quality wood and
very difficult to get. He added that it has become more and more difficult to
stock cedar and the wood from new growth trees has a different cell structure
than from old growth trees. He stated that the decision is not based on a cost
concern because the synthetic shake is more expensive than cedar. He stated
that there are other products that imitate cedar, but DaVinci produces the
product that most closely imitates cedar. He stated that the product is installed
like cedar and comes in the same dimensions. He noted that the product is
stained a light gray color and showed an example of a home with the same
product installed. He added that it has the triple life span of true cedar. He
reviewed Chapter 150.147 of the City Code and stated that the DaVinci product
is a high quality material, appropriate for the intended use and stated that it is
consistent with the architectural style of the home. He explained that the
description of materials submitted to the Board incorrectly notes that the product
is intended to imitate slate. He added that the product is durable and useful and
reiterated that the cedar is getting more difficult to obtain and that synthetic
alternatives are becoming more popular.
Ms. McManus stated that the house was approved by the Building Review Board
in 1994 and the approval specifically included wood shakes for the roofing
material. She added that the request is for a change to previously approved
materials. She added that the City’s Design Guidelines state that imitation and
synthetic products should be avoided. She stated that the request is inconsistent
18
with the Code. She noted that, based on research, in the past, the Board has
approved the use of a synthetic roof material in one case. She stated that staff is
recommending that cedar be used for the roof consistent with the previous Board
approval and the design guidelines. She added that if the Board is inclined to
approve the material requested for reasons specific to this property, very specific
findings could be developed to support the recommendation and a variance
from the requirements in the Code. She acknowledged that the house is not
visible from the road or neighboring properties.
In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. MacNaught provided a
sample of the material proposed for use to the Board and explained that it is Class A
fire rated and impact resistant. He stated that it has been tested by Underwriter’s
Laboratories and noted that an under product must be installed to achieve the fire
rating.
In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. MacNaught stated that the
first installation of the product was in 2001.
Paul Grogan, DaVinci sales manager, stated that the company began in 1997 and
the first roof installed in the area was in 2006. He added that there are 7 homes in
Lake Forest with the synthetic roofing material that he is aware of to date.
Ms. Czerniak clarified that to staff’s knowledge, as stated by Ms. McManus; the use of
the synthetic product was approved by the Board in one case. She noted that
based on staff research, in the other 6 cases, the permit applications submitted to
the City incorrectly identified the roof material as slate or cedar and the permits
were approved based on that information. She stated that in those cases, the City
was unaware that a synthetic product was being used. She offered that the Board
could grant a variance for this property with clear findings as reviewed by Ms.
McManus. She clarified that approval would apply only to the use of a specific
synthetic product as presented in this petition. She stated that an amendment to the
Code would be required to allow general use of synthetic materials. She added that
a Code amendment would need to address an entire class of materials and could
not be limited to a specific manufacturer.
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. MacNaught stated that the
product comes in a variety of colors and virtually any color is possible. He added that
people generally want a natural appearance and the shingle color does not
change over time.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. MacNaught stated that
stainless steel nails are generally used and the product is installed like a cedar shake
roof with synthetic felt underneath. He added that the product is a lighter weight
than a wet cedar shake.
19
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. MacNaught stated that
there is no water absorption so organic material will not grow on the material.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. MacNaught stated that
product is flame retardant with a Class A rating. He noted that the product will burn
out. He noted that the Lake Forest Train Station true slate roof is Class B rated. He
added that other suburbs require at least a Class B rating on residential buildings.
In response to a question by Chairman Notz, Mr. MacNaught confirmed that the
sample is the color requested by homeowner. He added that other communities
have approved the DaVinci product, such as Lincolnshire. He added that Vernon
Hills has approved it for residential properties. He stated that the cost of fire treating
cedar is higher than the proposed material.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Jim Reemer, contractor for Reemer Construction, stated that he has worked with the
homeowner who has had problems with the existing cedar roof due to the heavy
tree cover on the site. He recommended the material to the owner because the
product is maintenance free and appropriate for this location.
Hearing no further public testimony, he invited final questions and comments from
the Board.
Board member Moyer stated that the issue goes beyond this specific request and
involves setting a precedent for the use of synthetic, imitation materials throughout
the community. He added that Lake Forest prides itself on authenticity and historical
accuracy and the concern is that the product is a substitute or imitation of
something else. He stated that changing the Code would require City Council
approval and it would open the door to every other possible substitution. He stated
that he has investigated the claims made by the petitioner that the product is better
than cedar and stated that he does not agree with those findings based on his own
research. He concluded that buildings that use imitation materials are not quality
properties.
Board member Bleck stated that he is concerned about setting a precedent for the
use of imitation materials.
Board member Friedman agreed with notion that old growth trees are running out,
but expressed concern about setting a precedent for the use of synthetic materials.
He added that part of the beauty of natural cedar is the patina that is achieved
over time. He stated that the synthetic product may evolve over time and may
eventually appear more natural looking, but he stated that the product as
presented does not look like cedar. He acknowledged the maintenance benefits of
20
a synthetic product, but concluded that he is not in favor of it visually nor
comfortable with setting a precedent for the broad use of synthetic materials.
Board member Grieve stated that he may consider granting a variance as was
brought up by staff because the home is not historic and not visible from the road or
neighbors. He noted that in this particular situation, the product may be acceptable.
He added that the variance should be contingent on presentation to staff of
information on other comparable products to determine that the DaVinci product is
the best option for this site.
Board member Diamond stated that he is split over the comments. He agreed that
the product does not look like cedar, but looks plastic. He noted however that this
house is set so far back that the owners are the only people that will see the roof. He
added that he does not want to set a precedent and is leaning towards not
recommending approval.
Chairman Notz noted that asphalt roofs are prominent throughout the City and have
set a precedent for artificial materials. He stated that the house has tremendous
amount of privacy, but agreed that the product looks like plastic and has no natural
appearance or character. He stated that he is uncomfortable with setting a
precedent for this material.
Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board could grant a variance with findings that clearly
state that the Board’s action is not intended to set a precedent for use of synthetic
materials. She offered that the findings could include 1) the fact that the house is
located ‘X’ feet from the nearest public street and ‘X’ feet from the nearest private
street and ‘X’ feet from neighboring homes, 2) the house is not visible from off of the
property, 3) the site is heavily wooded, 4) minimal sunlight reaches the roof due to
heavy tree cover, and 5) the property is located partially outside the City limits. She
added that conditions of approval could be added requiring documentation of the
existing deteriorating roof, a review of the propose material by the Fire Department
to assure they know the characteristics of the product under fire conditions, further
study of the structural requirements and a comparison of the proposed product to
other similar products.
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
the Board could grant a variance with specific criteria, so a precedent is not set. She
added that the Board cannot amend the Code.
Chairman Notz requested that the fact that the house is not historic should be
added to the findings.
Ms. Czerniak stated that if the motion is made to grant a variance, the motion should
clearly state that it is a variance and the Board is not supportive of the broad use of
synthetic materials.
21
Board members Moyer and Diamond stated support for the approach being
discussed.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Bleck made a motion to recommend approval of a change from the
previously approved materials noting that due to the unique set of circumstances
surrounding this property, the Board is supportive of the change. He noted that the
following findings, not individually but in combination, are offered in support of the
Board’s recommendation.
1. The house is located more than 2,800 feet from the nearest public street.
2. The house is located more than 800 feet from the nearest private street.
3. The house is located more than 400 feet from the closest neighboring home.
4. The house is not visible from off of the property.
5. The site is heavily wooded and as a result, minimal sunlight reaches the roof at all
times of the year.
6. Serious and unusually rapid deterioration of the roof material was demonstrated
due to the conditions on the property.
7. The property is located partially outside of the City limits.
8. The house is not historically significant.
He noted that the motion includes the following conditions of approval:
1. The color of the material shall match the color of weathered cedar as close as
possible.
2. Information on alternative, similar products shall be presented to allow a
comparison of quality and character and a determination of the most
appropriate product.
3. Information shall be submitted regarding fire rating, installation materials and
process and off gassing from the material during a fire to allow a review by the
City’s Fire Department and life safety inspectors and to allow preparation in the
event public safety staff is called to respond to a fire at the site.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 6
- 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.
22
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner