Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/11/05 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 1 of 13 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of November 5, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, November 5, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Charlie King and Board members Mike Bleck, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve, Ted Notz and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: Board member Fred Moyer Staff members present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman King Chairman King 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. Consideration of the minutes was postponed. 2. Consideration of a request for demolition of the residence at 690 Oakwood Avenue and approval of a replacement residence, conceptual landscape plan and modifications to the existing garage. Owner: Representative: Jeff Letzter, Project Manager Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Letzter introduced the project noting that initially, consideration was given by the developer to reusing the existing house which was constructed in the 1930’s. He noted however that the floor plan has limitations and the ceiling height in the basement is less than 7 feet. He stated that the work needed to update or expand the existing house would basically result in demolition and reconstruction of the house. He noted that the existing house is close to Oakwood Avenue and does not conform to the current front yard zoning setback requirement. He noted that a structural report was completed and submitted to the Board. He stated that the structural report found that the house would need to be modified as part of any rehabilitation. He stated that the basement has evidence of cracks in the foundation and some dampness. He stated that after considering options for working with the existing house, the decision was made to request approval of demolition and a replacement house. He reviewed the site plan noting that Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 2 of 13 initially, the plan was to demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage however, after input from the City Arborist, a decision was made to keep the garage in its present location to avoid impacting a heritage tree. He stated that the existing garage will be rehabilitated with new siding and a roof to match the new house. He reviewed the proposed replacement house noting that a simple design and simple massing are proposed in a Colonial Revival style. He noted that an open porch is proposed consistent with other houses in the area. He showed photos of other houses in the neighborhood. He reviewed the elevations and exterior materials. He reviewed sections of the proposed house. He reviewed the site plan noting that the existing house is sited on the south side of the lot but the new house is centered on the lot to balance the streetscape. He reviewed the grading plans and noted that the driveway is proposed at 10 feet wide. He reviewed the conceptual landscape plan. He stated that the project meets the applicable criteria. Ms. Czerniak noted that the first part of the petition is the request for demolition of the existing residence. She noted that a letter regarding the structural condition of the house was submitted, but not a full structural report. She noted however that staff considered the letter and other evidence presented and found that the house has likely lived out its useful life. She acknowledged that the house is representative of the type of residences that were historically built close to the Central Business District. She stated that efforts to expand or significantly renovate the house would likely result in significant demolition and a compromised end product given the limitations of the existing house. She stated that the staff report presents findings in support of the demolition. She commented on the siting of the replacement residence noting that the existing house is located closer to the street than current setbacks allow because if was constructed prior to the current zoning setbacks. She stated that the setback of houses along the street varies. She stated that the replacement house as sited complies with the current front yard setback requirement adding that the increased setback from the street from the existing house is appropriate given the fact that Oakwood Avenue is busier today than in the past. She noted that the replacement residence is more centered on the lot than the existing house and pointed out that the driveway running along the north side of the property belongs to a house to the west and is not part of this property. She stated that initially, a new detached garage was proposed on the site, near the northwest corner of the lot. She stated that after review by the City’s Certified Arborist, the petitioner agreed to leave the garage in its existing location to avoid impact to significant trees that are located in the northwest corner of the lot. She stated that the petitioner now plans to rehabilitate and reuse the existing garage. She suggested that in the event that it is determined that the existing garage is not structurally sound; the Board authorize staff to approve a replacement garage of the same size, height and character. She stated that the trees in the northwest corner of the property are significant to the property, the surrounding homes and to the streetscape. She commented on the proposed replacement house noting that the selected architectural style is appropriate for the streetscape, the massing is simple and that natural materials are proposed. She added that simulated true divided lites are proposed for the windows and an open front porch is shown on the plans. She asked for Board input on a few details including the large windows on the front façade, and the large unbroken wall on the south elevation. She suggested that the south elevation could Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 3 of 13 be softened with the addition of windows or landscaping. She stated that findings are provided in the staff report in support of the replacement residence and the overall plan with suggested conditions of approval. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Letzter reviewed the front elevation and discussed the placement of the windows. He stated that second floor ceiling is 8 feet and explained the placement of the windows in relation to the frieze board. He noted the larger overhang and noted that the overall height of the house is kept down. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that there is a large Cottonwood tree in the northwest corner of the lot. He confirmed that the driveway is proposed as asphalt and reviewed the color palette for the house. He confirmed that the front porch will be wood and the siding a synthetic product. He stated that the chimney will be brick. He reviewed a streetscape graphic noting that the new house will meet the front yard setback with the open front porch setback 40 feet from the front property line. He noted that the setbacks of the houses on the block vary. He stated that the siting of the house as proposed is far enough from Oakwood Avenue to allow the front porch to be used. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Letzter stated that concrete will be used below the front porch and that the concrete will be screened with landscaping. He reviewed the width of the house acknowledging that it is wider than the existing house by about 18 feet. He stated that centering the house helps to balance the increase in width. He confirmed that a narrower, deeper house was considered, but stated that the current approach was pursued instead. He stated that consideration was given to requesting a front yard setback variance to pull the house closer to the street but setting the house back from the street is preferred. He noted that other houses to the north and south are similar in width to the proposed house. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Letzter reviewed the south elevation explaining that the windows are limited due to the mudroom in that location. He stated that there is about 8 feet between the house and the driveway for landscaping. He stated that the air conditioner is proposed along the south side off the house and will be screened with landscaping. He stated that consideration can be given to adding windows and landscaping on the south side of the house. He reviewed the rear elevation and agreed that further work can be done to try to align the windows. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Letzter stated that the developer is open to suggestions about the size of the windows on the front elevation and downsizing the dormers. He agreed that if the master bedroom can be flipped to the other side of the house, the windows on the rear elevation could be more consistently placed. He acknowledged that the windows are aligned better on the north elevation. He stated that he can be creative with the south elevation and break up the large expanse of solid Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 4 of 13 wall. He explained the inspiration for the ornate window above the front door and some of the reasoning for the design of the front elevation. In response to a question from Chairman King, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the patio will be brick. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Letzter stated that the increased height of the windows benefits the house. He agreed that the windows could be reconfigured to be consistent. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that 10”, prefabricated columns are proposed. He stated that round columns are consistent with the architectural style of the house. Chairman King invited public comments. Steve Goldman, 720 Oakwood Avenue, stated that he lives north of the proposed development, at the corner of Oakwood Avenue and Westminster. He noted that due to the siting of the existing house, there has always been an inconsistency in the streetscape. He stated that the proposed siting of the new house, in the middle of the lot, will remedy the gap in the streetscape. He stated that the proposed house appears to be generally consistent with the neighborhood. He stated concern that the height of the garage does not increase significantly. He noted the importance of landscaping on the site, particularly in the front yard, to soften views from the streetscape and for consistency with other homes along the street. He asked that consideration be given to locating the AC equipment in the rear of the house, rather than on the side of the house. He commended the plan noting that the project will be an improvement to the streetscape. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman King invited final comments from staff and the petitioner. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Zoning Code allows AC units to be located on the side of the house as long as it is out of the required setback. She confirmed that the height of the garage is expected to remain consistent with what exists today. She stated staff support for locating the house in conformance with the front yard setback noting that someday; the east side of Oakwood Avenue could be developed for commercial or multi-family uses and the setback will provide a buffer for the single family home. She stated that staff will work with the petitioner to obtain a detailed landscape plan paying particular attention to assuring that there is sufficient landscaping and trees added to the front yard. Mr. Letzter clarified the proposed location of the AC unit noting that it will be located a significant distance away from the house to the south. In response to a question from Chairman King, the Board indicated support for the demolition. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 5 of 13 Board member Grieves stated that the project is designed in keeping with the neighborhood. He observed that this is an area in transition noting that it is safe to assume that other changes will occur on this street. He suggested that the project would benefit from further consideration of some of the details as the final plans are developed. He suggested that the front dormer be shortened or the roof pitch modified noting that it appears large on the north. He suggested that refinement of the window placement on the rear elevation be considered as well. Board member Friedman stated support for the massing of the front elevation and the window proportions. He suggested further study of the window muntins. He agreed that the dormer appears bulky from the side elevation. He suggested that consideration be given to pulling it back or down. He noted that refinement of the window placement on the south side and rear elevations, and the addition of a window or windows in the mudroom will improve the appearance and consistency. He stated that landscaping will be critical to help the new house fit into the streetscape. He stated that the house will fit nicely into the neighborhood. Board member Notz stated that in addition to the comments of the other Board members, if the base of the front porch is to be left as concrete, it should be landscaped. He complimented the overall project. Board member Bleck agreed that the project will fit well into the neighborhood. He agreed with the comments of the other Board members about the areas where refinement is needed. Board member Reda also agreed with the comments of the other Board members. Chairman King agreed that the design of the house is appropriate for the neighborhood. He commended the proposed materials and the understated elegance of the project. He stated that the project will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the existing residence based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved by the Board in a 6 to 0 vote. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the replacement house, landscape plan and overall site plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence and overall property must be provided in a digital form, subject to City approval, to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and Historical Society archives. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 6 of 13 2. The final plans shall reflect all modifications and refinements made to 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. a. The window size and placement shall be refined on all elevations. b. The size and placement of the front dormer shall be refined. c. Windows shall be added on the south elevation to break up the expanse of wall. d. Recognizing that the existing garage may be found to be in poor condition once work is undertaken, if determined to be necessary, a new garage may be reconstructed in the footprint of the existing garage without further Board review as long as the new garage is consistent in height and design with the garage plans presented to the Board. e. Exterior lights on the house and garage shall be shielded from view through the use of fixtures that direct lighting downward and away from neighboring homes and the streetscape given the small lot nature of the neighborhood. No landscape lighting is proposed. 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. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts on adjacent properties. 4. A final landscape plan, drawn on the drainage plan, shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The City’s Arborist shall evaluate the plan to confirm that: a. Any exposed concrete at the base of the front porch shall be screened from view from the street with adequate landscaping. b. Sufficient trees and other vegetation are located in the front yard to maintain a landscaped streetscape. 5. 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. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 7 of 13 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. a. Parking of construction vehicles on Oakwood Avenue will not be permitted since this is a route for commuter buses and other traffic related to the Central Business District. b. Off-site parking may be required and permits for parking in the public lots may be purchased from the City. c. On an ongoing basis, any damage or rutting of the parkway in front of the property, on neighboring lots and across the street shall be repaired during construction and after completion of construction; City inspectors shall verify that the parkway is restored at the time of final inspection. 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 Friedman and approved by the Board in a 6 to 0 vote. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of partial demolition, modification of the roof and significant alterations to the residence at 1177 Estate Lane. Owners: Prairie Garden Development Group, LLC (Partners: Kenneth S. Hazlett, Anderson S. Hazlett, Rise Barkhoff, Audrey and David Johnson, Joanna Kelesza, Joyce and Rich Allen, Evan Luscher) Representative: Kenneth S. Hazlett, Architect Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Hazlett introduced the project noting that he is the architect and also a partner in the group that owns and plans to renovate the property. He added that he lives in this neighborhood. He stated that this is a good house to renovate, rather than tear down because it is structurally sound, built of masonry construction. He noted that the first floor is precast, concrete planks. He stated that the house is a good size but noted that the ceilings are only 8 feet. He explained that the roof will be torn off and raised to achieve 10’ ceilings. He stated that a second floor will be tucked under the roof. He stated that with the exception of the addition of two fireplaces, no change is proposed to the footprint of the house. He stated that this property is at the edge of the Lasker Estate and noted that the renovations are planned in the character of the estate, but not intended to be a copy of a David Adler structure. He stated that the house is proposed to be white stucco with trim in keeping with the estate and to provide uniformity around the house. He stated that the roof will be asphalt shingles. He noted the changes proposed to the window sizes and placement and stated that simulated, true divided lite windows are proposed. He stated that the front door and garage doors will be mahogany and the Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 8 of 13 chimneys will be stone veneer. He noted that a series of dormers are proposed and will be stucco with a copper roof. He stated that all of the interior walls will be demolished noting that none of them are load bearing. He reviewed the floor plans. He stated that the driveway will be replaced with new asphalt, in the same location. He stated that a solid fence is proposed to enclose the rear yard with an open fence and gate providing access from the front yard to the rear yard. He stated that there are about two dozen legacy oak trees on the site that will be preserved. He noted that some of the trees need pruning and that two are dead and will need to be removed. He stated the intent to protect and preserve the trees. Ms. Czerniak stated that a key issue with this project is to confirm that only a partial demolition will occur. She stated that as proposed, all of the exterior walls will remain but will be reconfigured with new fenestration. She stated that at the time the construction plans are reviewed, the extent of demolition will be verified to assure that the scope of demolition does not exceed the plans presented to the Board. She added that City staff will look carefully at how the wall is proposed to be extended to verify structural stability with the increase in height of the house. She stated that generally, the alterations proposed are appropriate, but cautioned that the intent should not be to create a copy of the Lasker Estate structures. She noted that additional information on some details is needed in particular, the decorative columns shown at the front entrance and the chimneys which appear too narrow to visually support the proposed height. She added that it is unclear how the chimneys engage with the roof. She stated that on the north elevation, the glass block window remains but appears inconsistent with the new windows that are proposed. She stated that protection of the trees on the site is important. She stated that retaining the wooded character of the property is more important in this case than a re-landscaping plan. She commented that the proposed modification of the garage, to break up the two car garage door into two single doors, softens the front elevation. She stated that findings in support of the project are included in the staff report along with suggested conditions of approval. Board member Reda noted that most other homes in the neighborhood are ranch style homes and he stated that it is important that the house, with the proposed changes, will be in keeping with the neighborhood. He noted that the front door appears out of character with the house and neighborhood noting that the roof line appears too high. He noted the importance of making sure that the streetscape remains consistent. He complimented the color palette. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hazlett, discussed the height of the house as proposed noting that it is under the allowable height. He commented that the height overall does not increase significantly and is generally in keeping with a neighboring home. He agreed that consideration could be given to reducing the height. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Hazlett agreed that the glass blocks on the north elevation could be modified to achieve greater consistency with the other windows. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 9 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Hazlett reviewed the concept for the front entrance noting that currently, the side entrance, near the garage, is the most visible entrance. He stated the intent to make the main entrance more prominent with the use of the columns. He stated that the columns will be a synthetic material and will be painted white to match the stucco. He agreed that a sidelight could be considered. He stated that landscaping will be used to screen the side entrance which enters into the mudroom. He confirmed that the main entrance is proposed as a 36” door, 8’ tall. He explained that the chimneys push into the house because of the side yard setback limitation. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hazlett explained that two chimneys, rather than one larger chim ney are proposed because the fireplaces are located in two different rooms, one informal, and the other more formal. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hazlett stated that the front door and garage doors will be stained mahogany. He agreed that the window in the laundry room can be adjusted and agreed to do some further study of the massing and scale of the chimneys. Board member Friedman stated agreement with the other Board members about the massing of the roof at the south end of the house noting there could be a drop to create an appropriate transition. He commented that the property benefits from the large oak trees noting that they give the property a sense of place. He stated support for taking inspiration from the buildings of the Lasker Estate. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Hazlett reviewed the existing foundation and basement. He stated that the intent is to leave the existing precast flooring in place. He stated that it would be much more expensive to tear the house down and build a new house on the site. He stated that if the budget allows, a cedar roof will be considered. In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Hazlett explained that the intent is not to copy the buildings in the Lasker Estate but to give the illusion that there may be some connection. He stated that selecting a trim color similar to the Lasker buildings provides that connection. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Hazlett stated that the house is intended to be in the English, picturesque style. He clarified that only the dead limbs and dead trees will be removed. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Hazlett agreed to consider sidelights for both doors. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comments. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 10 of 13 The resident at 1191 Estate Lane stated that he has lived in his house for 32 years. He stated that he is speaking to ensure that the estate of his former neighbor, an amazing woman you died at 103 years old, is looked after properly. He stated that he and the other neighbors tolerated the fact that the former owner could not maintain the property properly. He stated that after her death, they worried what would become of the property. He stated that he has witnessed many property upgrades on Estate Lane and noted that this street is one of the prettiest in Lake Forest. He stated that the developer presented plans to the neighbors. He stated support for the proposed project noting that it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. He stated that the comments offered by the Board are logical. He stated that the improvements to the house will be consistent with the standard of the neighborhood. He stated that he has one request: that special effort is taken to protect and preserve the large oak tree near his property line. He stated that he has lost several large oak trees and cautioned that more could be lost if the water table changes. He urged that care be taken with heavy equipment. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City will work with the petitioner to protect the oak trees during construction. Chairman King invited final comments from the Board. Board member Reda commended the reuse of the house, foundation and walls. He stated continued concern about the height of the house as proposed but noted that the petitioner stated that the height is in line with other homes in the neighborhood. He noted that the neighbor supports the project. He stated that with the modifications as discussed by the Board to the glass block window, the mudroom and front entry doorways, the chimneys on the south side of the house and with the commitment to protect the oak trees, he can support the project. Board member Bleck stated that the plan is well thought out and stated support for the project with the minor refinements as summarized by Board member Reda. Board member Notz stated that he is comfortable with the roof height. He stated that if a cedar roof can be accommodated in the budget; it would enhance the project given the significant amount of roof that will be visible. Board member Friedman urged that cedar shingles be used for the roof noting that it would add value to the project. He urged careful coordination between the City and the petitioner to protect the trees. Board member Grieve concurred with the comments of the other Board members. He commented that the property is pleasing and that the project will enhance the neighborhood. He stated that as presented, the project appears to be in keeping with the other properties in the neighborhood. He encouraged the removal of the glass block window noting that it is out of place and not consistent with the stated intent for the project. He stated support for the massing of the dormers but questioned whether the Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 11 of 13 duel dormers are appropriate or whether a single dormer is more appropriate. He added that changing the scale and configuring them as three dormers may also be workable with the pitch of the roof playing into the design. He commented that the landscaping could be enhanced with higher plantings and a trellis with ivy to soften the views of the house. He stated that the house should settle into the landscaping. Chairman King stated that he is impressed by the design noting that the project is a very creative reuse of the existing residence and commended the exterior materials. He stated that the project will fit well into the neighborhood. He reiterated the direction from the board noting that refinement is needed at both entry doors. He agreed that the addition of a cedar shake roof would be a plus for the project. He stated concern about the southern elevation noting that the chimneys appear too narrow. He stated appreciation to the architect for taking the comments of the Board to heart. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the partial demolition, roof modification and various alterations to the existing residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Detailed demolition plans and a calculation of the percentage of the structure that will remain must be submitted with the application for building permits. Demolition of more than 50% of the structure is defined by the Code as a complete demolition. If the work constitutes a completed demolition, the required processes and fees shall be applied to this petition. 2. The plans shall be modified consistent with the Board direction and as detailed below. Any additional modifications made to the plans presented to the Board 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. The glass block window on the garage shall be removed and replaced with a window that is consistent with the windows around the house. b. The front door shall be modified to remove the decorative columns and add sidelights. c. The mudroom door shall be refined as discussed by the Board. d. The flared roof shall be reflected on the plans. e. Consideration shall be given to refinement of the configuration of the dormers into a single dormer, or three dormers. f. Consideration shall be given to increasing the mass of the chimneys. g. The plans submitted for permit shall reflect details of all elements including, but not limited to the dormers, window trim, eave, entry and how the chimneys engage with the roof. h. The plans shall detail all exterior materials. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 12 of 13 i. The plans shall provide detail on all exterior lighting on the house and information on proposed fixtures. Fixtures should screen the source of the light and direct light downward to avoid impacts on neighboring homes and the streetscape. 3. 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. a. All heavy equipment must be kept away from the oak trees. b. Off-site parking may be permitted on the street but shall be limited to parking directly in front of the 1177 Estate Lane property. c. On an ongoing basis, any damage or rutting of the parkway in front of the property, on neighboring lots and across the street shall be repaired during construction and after completion of construction; City inspectors shall verify that the parkway is restored at the time of final inspection. 4. A tree protection and landscape plan shall be submitted. a. A tree protection fencing plan shall be submitted along with details of pre and post construction tree protection treatments, if proposed. The plans and treatments shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. b. The landscape plan shall reflect materials with some height along the south side of the house to help mitigate the increased height and further encroachment of the chimneys given the proximity of the house to the property line subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. 5. 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 Notz and was unanimously approved by a vote of 6 to 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. Chairman King asked for review and approval of the meeting calendar for 2015. Ms. Czerniak noted that the meeting during spring break may need to be re-scheduled. Board member Reda made a motion to approval the Building Review Board meeting schedule for 2015. Building Review Board Minutes – November 5, 2014 Page 13 of 13 The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by a 6 to 0 vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development