CITY COUNCIL 10/02/2023THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, October 2, 2023, 6:30 p.m.
220 E. Deerpath
Lake Forest, IL 60045
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:30 p.m.
Honorable Mayor, Stanford R. Tack
Nancy Novit, Alderman First Ward Jim Preschlack, Alderman Third Ward
Joseph R. Waldeck, Alderman First Ward Ara Goshgarian, Alderman Third Ward
Edward U. Notz, Jr., Alderman Second Ward Eileen Looby Weber, Alderman Fourth Ward
John Powers, Alderman Second Ward Richard Walther, Alderman Fourth Ward
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS
1. COMMENTS BY MAYOR
2. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER
A. Community Spotlight
-Dickinson Hall
- Tricia Schwall, Manager
-Deerpath Community Park Update
- Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works
3. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5. ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION
1. Approval of September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes
A copy of the minutes can be found beginning on page 10.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes
2. Approval of the Check Register for the Period of August 26 – September 22, 2023
1
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Holleb, Finance Director (847-810-3612)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: City Code Section 38.02 sets forth payment procedures of the
City. The Director of Finance is to prepare a monthly summary of all warrants to be drawn on
the City treasury for the payment of all sums due from the City (including all warrants relating
to payroll and invoice payments) by fund and shall prepare a detailed list of invoice payments
which denotes the person to whom the warrant is payable. The warrant list detail of invoice
payments shall be presented for review to the Chairperson of the City Council Finance
Committee for review and recommendation. All items on the warrant list detail
recommended for payment by the Finance Committee Chairperson shall be presented in
summary form to the City Council for approval or ratification. Any member of the City Council
shall, upon request to the City Manager or Director of Finance, receive a copy of the warrant
list detail as recommended by the Finance Committee Chairperson. The City Council may
approve the warrant list as so recommended by the Finance Committee Chairperson by a
concurrence of the majority of the City Council as recorded through a roll call vote.
The Council action requested is to ratify the payments as summarized below. The associated
payroll and invoice payments have been released during the check register period noted.
Following is the summary of warrants as recommended by the Finance Committee
Chairperson:
The amount listed as “All other Funds” includes $298,188 in Medical/Dental plan expenses.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Check Register for the Period of August 26 – September 22,
2023
3.Grant Final Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, titled "City
Administrative Hearing System," and creating Chapter 79, titled "Recreational
Powered Devices," of the City Code
STAFF CONTACT: Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police (847-810-3803)
Fund Invoice Payroll Total
101 General 951,401 1,766,019 2,717,421
501 Water & Sewer 257,824 209,599 467,423
220 Parks & Recreation 157,658 459,399 617,057
311 Capital Improvements 3,512,083 3,512,083
202 Motor Fuel Tax 1,008,076 1,008,076
230 Cemetery 177,783 46,612 224,396
210 Senior Resources 13,469 29,958 43,427
510 Deerpath Golf Course 12,299 2,545 14,845
601 Fleet 71,457 61,047 132,504
416 - 434 Debt Funds 475 475
248 Housing Trust 0
201 Park & Public Land 0
All other Funds 679,710 194,416 874,125
$6,842,236 $2,769,595 $9,611,831
Check Register for August 26- September 22, 2023
2
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests approval of the changes to Chapter 11 and
the creation of Chapter 79, which will prohibit the use of Recreational Powered Devices in the
Central Business District and allow members of the police department to enforce violations of
said Ordinance. A copy of the Ordinance can be found on page 14
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At the Monday, September 5, meeting of the City Council, staff
was directed to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the wide array of electronic devices
currently being ridden on sidewalks within the central business district. Working with City
prosecutors LaLuzerne & Smith, staff believes they have created an ordinance flexible enough
to apply to a wide array of current and future devices.
PROJECT REVIEW/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reviewed Date Comments
City Council 9/18/2023 First Reading granted
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Staff expects additional salary expenditures in both straight time and
overtime over the first few years of initial enforcement, followed by lower expenditures in
succeeding years.
COUNCIL ACTION: Grant Final Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, titled "City
Administrative Hearing System," and creating Chapter 79, titled "Recreational Powered
Devices," of the City Code
4. Approval of a Purchase of Three Replacement Police Department Vehicles to
Morrow Brothers Ford and the Advancement of Fiscal Year 2025 Capital
Improvement Program Funding in the Amount of $126,000
STAFF CONTACT: Jim Lockefeer, Assistant Director of Public Works (810-3542) &
Kevin Zelk, Deputy Chief
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: City staff requests City Council approve of a purchase of
three replacement Police Department vehicles to Morrow Brothers Ford, in the amount of
$126,000. City staff also requests the advancement of Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement
Program funding in the amount of $126,000 to secure purchase of these vehicles.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: There are three Ford Interceptors police vehicles that will be
recommended for replacement as part of the FY25 recommended Capital Equipment
Replacement Plan. It has been standard procedure, that once the Police Department’s Ford
Interceptors police vehicles have accrued 100,000 miles, they are moved into the Community
Development Department, the Engineering Section or the Police Investigations for
administrative use and inspection services. The vehicles will accrue an additional 20,000–
25,000 miles before they are placed out to bid and sold to the highest bidder.
The replacement Ford Interceptor is an all-wheel drive vehicle with sufficient space for the
police officers accompanying gear. The vehicle itself sits up higher and provides the officer
improved visibility when driving amongst many large SUV’s. The vehicle has been designed
3
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
specifically for police operations and offers many factory installed police options. It has
evolved into the most popular police vehicle on the market today and is assembled in
Chicago.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: Typically, at their November meeting, the Public Works Committee
reviews and recommends to City Council approval of each piece of equipment included in
the upcoming fiscal year capital equipment budget. Due to ongoing supply chain issues and
microchip shortages, no contracts are currently being offered through governmental joint
purchasing programs for the purchase of these vehicles. Ford Motors, like many other vehicle
and equipment manufacturers, have drastically narrowed the window for government fleet
ordering to several weeks and for some models less than 48 hours. This has negatively
impacted the public bidding process.
City Council last approved three FY24 Police Department replacement vehicles on December
5, 2022, to Morrow Brothers Ford.
Morrow Brothers Ford recently contacted City staff to share that they had additional
opportunity to purchase additional vehicles at the same FY24 price. As this market continues
to face uncertainty, City staff recommends moving forward with this purchase opportunity.
Has City staff obtained competitive pricing for proposed goods/services? Yes
Dealer Interceptor Vehicle
Bid
Morrow Brothers Ford $42,000
Sutton Ford* $44,280
*State bid contract holder
The City has purchased police vehicles from Morrow Brothers Ford in the past and has not had
any problems with the dealership nor the delivered vehicles. All warranty work is completed
by a local Ford authorized dealer.
The FY25 capital equipment budget will include the needed funding for the replacement of
these three marked squad vehicles. If necessary, a supplemental appropriation ordinance will
be submitted for City Council approval at the end of the fiscal year.
Below is an estimated summary of Project budget:
FY2025 Funding Source Amount
Requested
Amount
Budgeted
Budgeted?
Y/N
Capital Fund
311-5003-475-75-02 $126,000 $126,000 Y*
* To be included in proposed FY25 Capital Equipment Budget.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of a Purchase of Three Replacement Police Department Vehicles
to Morrow Brothers Ford and the Advancement of Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement
Program Funding in the Amount of $126,000
4
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
5. Consideration of Adoption of Updated Versions of Previously Adopted State and
National Life Safety and Building Codes Used by the City. (First Reading)
STAFF CONTACT:
Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development (810-3504)
In 2004, the City Council adopted State and National Building Codes to provide a strong and
consistent framework for all construction activity in Lake Forest. Since that time, updated versions of
the various Codes have periodically been released. In 2018, the City Council adopted updated
versions of State and National Codes. Further updates of the Codes are now available, and
adoption of updated Codes is again recommended again for the following reasons.
To allow the City to remain current as construction methods, materials, and building and
life safety regulations evolve.
Adoption of the updated Codes aligns the City with surrounding municipalities, and the
County which is important given long standing contractual and shared service
relationships through which the City provides fire protection services, annual life safety
inspections, building plan reviews, and inspections for nearby communities.
The periodic Code updates continually strive to clarify and eliminate ambiguity in the
earlier versions of the Codes.
City staff is well prepared for this transition having attended training sessions on a
continuing basis to keep current with changes to construction methods, materials and
State and Federal requirements. In particular, new requirements relating to energy
efficiency and life safety are incorporated into the updated Codes.
Most architects and builders are familiar with the new versions of the Codes and are
already designing to the updated standards.
Importantly, as the City has done in the past, a transition period will be provided to assure that
projects currently in the design process are not delayed or forced to make mid-project changes.
Until January 1, 2024, plans designed to the current Codes will be accepted. All architects, design
professionals, and contractors on file with the City will be notified of the updates if adopted by the
City Council and will be made aware of the timeline for implementation.
A memorandum prepared by Community Development Department staff Matt Goodman,
Inspection Supervisor and Code Enforcement Officer; Josh Hucker, Life Safety Plan Reviewer and
Inspector; and Amias Turman, Residential Plan Reviewer, is included in the Council packet (page 20)
explaining, from the perspective of staff who work with contractors from various trades and
architects on a daily basis, the value of adopting the updated Codes.
The following Code updates are proposed for adoption. The Ordinance also reflects minor changes
to titles of the various Codes for consistency with the updates.
National Fire Protection Association Codes (NFPA)
• 101 Life Safety Code – 2021
• Fire Sprinkler Codes 13, 13D, 13R - 2019
• Fire Alarm Code - 2019
• Fire Code - 2021
International Mechanical Code IMC 2021
International Residential Code (IRC) 2021
International Building Code (IBC) 2021
5
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
International Fuel Gas Code IFGC 2021
National Electrical Code NEC - 2020
Following the adoption of the Code updates, staff will continue to review existing local Codes and
bring amendments forward on an incremental basis to eliminate duplication and take full
advantage the technical framework provided in the State and National Codes. As appropriate,
local, more restrictive Code provisions will be retained. All proposed Code amendments are
presented to the City Council for adoption.
The Ordinance approving the adoption of the updated Building and Life Safety Codes is included in
the Council packet beginning on page 22.
COUNCIL ACTION: Grant first reading of the Ordinance adopting updated versions of the
State and National Building and Life Safety Codes.
6. Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Recommendation from the Building
Review Board. (First Reading, and if Desired by the City Council, Final Approval)
STAFF CONTACT: Catherine Czerniak,
Director of Community Development (810-3504)
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: The following recommendation from the Building Review Board is
presented to the City Council for consideration as part of the Omnibus Agenda along with the
associated Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
1825 Amberley Court – The Building Review Board considered a request for approval of
modifications including minor changes to the roofline and building footprint and changes to the
proportions and placement of some of the windows. The Board recommended approval of the
proposed modifications subject to some refinement. There was no public testimony presented to
the Board on this petition. (Board vote: 6-0, approved)
An Ordinance approving the petition as recommended by the Building Review Board, with key
exhibits attached, is included in the Council packet beginning on page 27. The Ordinance,
complete with all exhibits, is available for review in the Community Development Department.
COUNCIL ACTION: If determined to be appropriate by the City Council, waive first reading
and grant final approval of an Ordinance approving the petition in accordance with the
Building Review Board’s recommendation.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the six (6) omnibus items as presented
6. OLD BUSINESS
6
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
7. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to
Deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Allow Replacement of a Cedar Shingle Roof
with A Synthetic Roof Product in the Historic District. (Action by Motion)
PRESENTED BY: Catherine Czerniak,
Director of Community Development (847-810-3504)
PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of an appeal filed by Mary Therese and Greg
Williams the owners of the property at 333 Woodland Road.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Historic Preservation Commission is charged with evaluating petitions based on the 17
Standards detailed in Chapter 155, Historic Preservation, of the City Code. The Commission
has, on an ongoing basis, reviewed exterior materials on structures in the City’s Historic Districts
based on the Standards. As new materials, construction methods, and design trends come
forward, the Commission diligently conducts evaluations, directs research, holds work sessions,
and utilizes the 17 Standards in determining whether to grant approval through the issuance of
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
In response to recently renewed discussions about the use of various types of synthetic exterior
products in Historic Districts, on June 21, 2023. The Commission held a work session and invited
a panel of six architects to offer their views on exterior materials. There was general
acknowledgement that the visual qualities such as texture, sheen, thickness, and profile of
some synthetic products, siding in particular, has improved while synthetic products for roofing
have not yet evolved to the same extent to satisfy the Standards that the Commission must
apply. Although there was agreement that quality wood for cedar shingles is becoming more
difficult to find, the synthetic roof products currently available do not have the same visual
qualities as cedar or other historic and traditional roof products. The Commission
acknowledged that synthetic roof products have been approved by the Building Review
Board and are used in the City, outside of the Historic Districts. Summary minutes of the
Commission’s work session are included in the Council packet beginning on page 200.
On June 28, 2023, the Commission opened a public hearing to consider a request from Ms.
and Mr. Williams for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow replacement of the deteriorating
cedar shingle roof on their home at 333 Woodland Road with a synthetic roof product that is
intended to imitate cedar shingles. The Commission raised a number of questions and
continued the petition to allow the petitioner to provide additional information. The
Commission’s packet, correspondence received, and the minutes of the meeting are
included in the Council packet beginning on page132.
On August 23, 2023, at the request of the petitioner, the Commission continued consideration
of the Williams’ petition and the additional information provided. The Commission granted a
Certificate of Appropriateness approving replacement of the existing cedar shingle roof with
either cedar shingles or asphalt shingles recognizing that the house was originally roofed with
asphalt shingles and later reroofed with cedar shingles. The Commission noted that asphalt
shingles are an historic roof material traditionally used on homes in the Historic District including
on homes in the immediate area of the petitioner’s home. The Commission voted to deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness to allow replacement of the cedar roof with synthetic roof
7
Monday, October 2, 2023, City Council Agenda
shingles and adopted findings to support that decision based on the 17 Standards. Both votes
of the Commission were unanimous. The Commission’s packet, correspondence received,
and the minutes of the meeting are included in the Council packet beginning on page 54.
Guidelines for Appeals to City Council are included in the Council packet beginning on page
37.
COUNCIL ACTION: Options for Council action are offered below in the form of possible
motions.
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness to allow replacement of a cedar shingle roof with a
synthetic roof product at 333 Woodland Road, in the Historic District.
OR
2. Grant the appeal and overturn the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision and
direct that written findings in support of the City Council’s decision be prepared and
presented to the Council for final action.
OR
Remand the matter to the Historic Preservation Commission for further consideration,
public testimony, and action.
8. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
9. ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the Decision-Making Parameters is included beginning on page 9 of this packet.
Office of the City Manager September 27, 2023
The City of Lake Forest is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require
certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting,
or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities, are required
to contact City Manager Jason Wicha, at (847) 234-2600 promptly to allow the City to make
reasonable accommodations for those persons.
8
^Qtu^^C^'NA<WA£BT-<^^.Scie^^t^wS^'X.§.. ^..,,.e-..^f-l&ff"^
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
DECISION-MAKING PARAMETERS FOR CITY COUNCIL,
AND APPOINTED BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Adopted June 18, 2018
The City of Lake Forest Mission Statement:
"Be the best-managed, fiscally-responsible and appealing community and promote a community
spirit of trust, respect and citizen involvement. "
The Lake Forest City Council, with the advice and recommendations of its appointed advisoryBoards and Commissions, Lake Forest Citizens, and City Staff, is responsible for policy
formulation and approval. Implementation of adopted strategy, policy, budgets, and other
directives of Council is the responsibility of City Staff, led by the City Manager and SeniorStaff. The Mayor and Aldermen, and appointed members of Boards and Commissions should
address matters in a timely, deliberate, objective and process-driven manner, making decisionsguided by the City of Lake Forest Strategic and Comprehensive Plans, the City's Codes,
policies and procedures, and the following parameters:
. Motions and votes should comprise what is in the best long-term interests of all Lake
Forest citizens, measured in decades, being mindful of proven precedents and new
precedents that may be created.
. All points of view should be listened to and considered in making decisions with thelong-term benefit to Lake Forest's general public welfare being the highest priority.
. Fundmg decisions should support effectiveness and economy in providing servicesand programs, while mindful of the number ofcidzens benefittmg from such
expenditures.
. New initiatives should be quantified, qualified, and evaluated for their long-tenn merit
and overall fiscal unpact and other consequences to the community.
. Decision makers should be proactive and timely in addressing sto-ategic planning
initiatives, external forces not under control of the City, and other opportunities and
challenges to the community.
Community trust in, and support of, government is fostered by maintaining the integrity of these
decision-making parameters.
The City of Lake Forest 's Decision-Making Parameters shall be reviewed by the City Council on anannual basis and shall be included on all agendas of the City Council and Boards and Commissions.
9
The City of Lake Forest
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Proceedings of the Monday, September 18, 2023
City Council Meeting – City Council Chambers
220 E Deerpath, Lake Forest, IL 60045
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mayor Tack called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., and City Clerk Margaret
Boyer called the roll of Council members.
Present: Mayor Tack, Alderman Novit, Alderman Waldeck, Alderman Notz, Alderman Powers, Alderman
Preschlack, Alderman Goshgarian, Alderman Weber, and Alderman Walther
Absent: Alderman Goshgarian
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was recited by all.
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS
COMMENTS BY MAYOR
Mayor Tack thanked members of the community for attending the recently successful “Coffee in the Parks”
with the Alderman.
COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER
A. Community Spotlights
-The American Legion, McKinlock Post No. 264
- Jim Holmes - Post Commander, Lake Forest American Legion Post No. 264
-Tom Marks - President of The American Legion, McKinlock Foundation
City Manager Jason Wicha introduced both Jim Holmes, Post Commander and Tom Marks, President of the
American Legion McKinlock Foundation. Mr. Marks invited the City Council along with the community to the
Monument Dedication at Veterans Park on Sunday, September 24 at 1:00 pm. Jim Holmes presented the City
with a check for repayment of a promissory note in conjunction with the monument. City Manager Wicha
thanked all those involved in bringing this project forward and congratulated the Legion on all the efforts.
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION
1. Approval of September 5, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes
10
Proceedings of the Monday, September 18, 2023
City Council Meeting
2. Waive the Bidding Process and Authorize the Office of the City Manager to enter into a
Contract for Consulting Services with Baker Tilly US, LLP to Conduct an Organizational
Workload Analysis for the amount of $60,000
3. Replace Existing Section 152.30 of the City Code with the Lake County Watershed Development
Ordinance as Approved by the County of Lake on July 11, 2023 with its Adoption by Reference
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the three (3) omnibus items as presented
Mayor Tack asked members of the City Council if there were any items that they would like removed or taken
separately. Seeing none, he asked for a motion.
Alderman Notz made a motion to approve the three (3) Omnibus items as amended, seconded by Alderman
Preschlack. The following voted “Aye”: Alderman Novit, Waldeck, Notz, Powers, Preschlack, Weber and
Walther. The following voted “Nay”: none. 7-Ayes, 0-Nays, motion carried.
Information such as Purpose and Action Requested, Background/Discussion, Budget/Fiscal Impact,
Recommended Action and a Staff Contact as it relates to the Omnibus items can be found on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Consideration of a Resolution Directing Conversion of Bank Lane from Deerpath to Illinois
Road, to One Way south along with Reconfiguration of the On Street parking as a Limited Time
Trial. (Approve by motion.)
Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development stated that the City Council approved an updated
chapter of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan relating to the Central Business District at its August meeting. As
part of that approval, the Council identified priorities for the short term and the next three to five years. The
Council provided specific direction to focus on opportunities to enhance Bank Lane as a pedestrian corridor.
The concept of converting Bank Lane, between Deerpath and Illinois Road to one way south came up several
times during the almost year long discussion of the Central Business District. A real time pilot project will offer
valuable insights into whether the one-way concept could offer benefits from safety, aesthetic, pedestrian
experience, and business opportunity perspectives. This initiative will position the City well to plan for the
future of Bank Lane. Ms. Czerniak noted, any future permanent change would come back to the City Council
via Ordinance.
Ms. Czerniak reviewed the steps that would be taken in facilitating this pilot project include but not limited to
communications with residents, businesses, signage, and curb stops to avoid vehicles parking in the diagonal
parking spaces from overhanging the sidewalk.
The City Council had lengthy discussion on the Bank Lane parking structure, potential redevelopment, traffic
impact on Deerpath, a survey and data collection. Mayor Tack noted this is an experiential study, meaning
living and working with it to get a feel.
Mayor Tack asked if there were any members of the public who would like to comment.
Rommy Lopat offered her opinion to the City Council on how the planning should be done for this project and
that it will inconvenience the town.
11
Proceedings of the Monday, September 18, 2023
City Council Meeting
Mayor Tack asked if there were any other members of the public who would like to comment. Seeing none, he
asked for a motion.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve a Resolution by motion directing the conversion of Bank Lane, between Deerpath
and Illinois Road, to one way south and reconfiguration of the parking to diagonal spaces along the west side
of the street.
Alderman Preschlack made a motion to approve a Resolution by motion directing the conversion of Bank Lane,
between Deerpath and Illinois Road, to one way south and reconfiguration of the parking to diagonal spaces
along the west side of the street, seconded by Alderman Powers. The following voted “Aye”: Alderman Novit,
Waldeck, Notz, Powers, Preschlack, Weber and Walther. The following voted “Nay”: none. 7-Ayes, 0-Nays,
motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of a new Ordinance, Chapter 79, prohibiting the use of Recreational Powered
Scooters in the Central Business District (First Reading and, if appropriate, final approval).
Karl Walldorf, Chief of Police introduced the changes to Chapter 11 and the creation of Chapter 79, which will
prohibit the use of Recreational Powered Devices in the Central Business District and allow members of the
police department to enforce violations of said Ordinance. He also stated that the ordinance was flexible
enough to apply to a wide array of current and future devices.
The City Council had lengthy discussion that included the topics of pedestrian safety, Police, SRO, School and
Parent education, boundaries, signage, licensing, the bike path, enforcement, statistical data on accidents or
lack thereof, helmets and issuance of tickets.
Mayor Tack then asked if there were any members of the public who would like to comment.
Jeff Page offered his comments to the City Council on how many scooters he recorded in the Central Business
District and offered an ordinance proposing no bikes and larger signs.
Katie Manley offered her opinion to the City Council on the divide in the community stating kids need
education and asked what is the City doing to educate.
Rommy Lopat offered her opinion to the City Council on previously licensing bikes, and an education
campaign.
Mayor Tack noted that the issues of scooters has been a priority since day one. The City has taken great effort
to educate and sign the central business district. Everyone’s safety is an issue at hand. This item will be heard
for first reading only this evening.
Mayor Tack asked if there were any other members of the public who would like to comment. Seeing none, he
asked for a motion.
COUNCIL ACTION: If deemed appropriate by the City Council, waive the first reading of an Ordinance
amending Chapter 11, titled "City Administrative Hearing System," and creating Chapter 79, titled
"Recreational Powered Devices," of the City Code, and grant final approval.
12
Proceedings of the Monday, September 18, 2023
City Council Meeting
Alderman Notz made a motion to approve first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11, titled "City
Administrative Hearing System," and creating Chapter 79, titled "Recreational Powered Devices," of the City
Code, seconded by Alderman Weber. The following voted “Aye”: Alderman Novit, Waldeck, Notz, Powers,
Preschlack, Weber and Walther. The following voted “Nay”: none. 7-Ayes, 0-Nays, motion carried.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION/COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Alderman Waldeck noted that Lake Forest College ranked # 27 in the Wall Street Journal. Alderman Powers
asked the community to help [kindly] educated the children who are riding their scooters in the Business
District.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Tack asked for a motion to adjourn. Alderman Walther made a motion
to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Novit. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margaret Boyer, City Clerk
A video of the City Council meeting is available for viewing at the Lake Forest Library and on file in the Clerk’s
office at City Hall. You can also view it on the website by visiting www.cityoflakeforest.com. Click on I Want To,
then click on View, then choose Archived Meetings Videos.
13
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE FOREST CITY CODE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL POWERED DEVICES
Adopted by the City Council
of the City of Lake Forest
this day of 2023
Published in pamphlet form by direction
and authority of The City of Lake Forest
Lake County, Illinois
this day of 2023
14
2
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-_____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 CITY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM AND
CREATING CHAPTER 79 RECREATIONAL POWERED DEVICES
OF THE LAKE FOREST CITY CODE
WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest is a home rule, special charter municipal
corporation; and
WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest has enacted certain ordinances relating to the
use of numerous types of vehicles; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, it is appropriate to review, update, and modify the
City of Lake Forest Code to ensure that it appropriately reflects current practices and
complies with state law; and
WHEREAS, The City of Lake Forest desires to update the current provisions of the
City Code as set forth in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council, having considered the recommendation
for amendments to the Code as it relates to the regulation of vehicles in the Central
Business District, have determined that adopting this Ordinance and creating Chapter
79 as hereafter set forth, will be in the best interests of the City and its residents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
FOREST, COUNTY OF LAKE, AND STATE OF ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION ONE: Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted by this
reference as the findings of the City Council and are hereby incorporated into
this section as if fully set forth.
15
3
SECTION TWO: Amendments to City Code. Chapter 11, entitled "City
Administrative Hearing System," is hereby amended and a new Chapter 79,
entitled "Recreational Powered Devices," is hereby added to the Lake Forest City
Code, as set forth in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the
manner provided by law.
Passed this ____ day of _________________________, 2023.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved this __ day of _________________________, 2023.
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
16
4
Exhibit A
Proposed text is shown in bold, double underlined, stricken text in strikethrough.
Section 100.02, entitled “Establishment of an Administrative Hearing System’ of
Chapter 11, entitled "City Administrative Hearng System," of the Lake Forest City
Code is hereby amended as follows:
§ 11.02 ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM.
There is hereby established and created within the City a Code Hearing
Unit (as more fully described in § 11.04) that will administer an
administrative hearing system to enforce and adjudicate violations
("violations") of the following chapters of the city code, as amended from
time to time (the "code"), and all subchapters within such chapters, as the
same have been, and may from time to time hereafter be, amended:
(A) Title VII, Traffic (except for moving violations under this chapter);
(B) Chapter 75, Bicycles;
(C) Chapter 79, Recreational Powered Devices;
(D) Chapter 91, Animals and Fowl;
(E) Chapter 94, Fire Prevention;
(F) Sections 95.001, 95.110 through 95.112, 95.125 through 95.133, 95.145
through 95.147, 95.160, 95.161 and 95.195;
(G) Chapter 111, Alcoholic Beverages;
(H) Chapter 117, Peddlers, Solicitors and Canvassers;
(I) Title XIII, General Offenses;
(J) Chapter 150, Buildings; and
(K) Such other city ordinances and code provisions as the City Council
may, from time to time, designate in accordance with applicable law.
17
5
A new Chapter 79, entitled "Recreational Powered Devices," is hereby added to
the Lake Forest City Code, as follows:
Chapter 79 RECREATIONAL POWERED DEVICES
§ 79.01 Definitions:
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition shall apply unless
the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
Recreational Powered Device- A device with one or more wheels that can
be stood upon or sat upon while riding, that is powered by a motor or a
combination of a motor and human power. Recreational powered
devices are typically intended for one or two riders and may, or may not,
have pedals or handlebars. This definition includes, but is not limited to,
electric bicycles, electric scooters, and electric skateboards.
"Recreational Powered Device" does not include mopeds, motor-driven
cycles, motorcycles, or motor vehicles.
Central Business District- Such district shall include all streets, sidewalks,
and public ways within the area bounded by, and including, the streets of
Illinois Road on the south, Wisconsin Avenue on the north, Oakwood
Avenue on the west, Western Avenue on the east, and the length of
Western Avenue extending from Westminster Avenue north to Woodland
Road
§ 79.02 It is unlawful for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to
perform any act required in the chapter.
Penalty, see § 79.99
§ 79.03 Operation of Recreational Powered Devices
(A) Every person operating a recreational powered device in any street,
sidewalk, or public way in the City shall be subject to the provisions of all
state vehicle laws and all traffic ordinances. If there is a conflict between
this chapter and a state law, the stricter regulation shall control. It shall be
unlawful for any person operating a recreational powered device to fail or
refuse to comply with any order, signal or direction of a police officer, or
18
6
to disobey the instructions of any official traffic sign, signal or other traffic
control device.
(B) Use prohibited on sidewalks inside the central business district. It shall
be unlawful for any person to operate a recreational powered device
upon any sidewalk in the central business district. Recreational powered
devices shall be walked only, in a dismounted manner, by those
operators of recreational powered devices in the central business district.
(C) Only a licensed motor vehicle operator with a valid motor vehicle
operator's license in their possession may operate a recreational powered
device upon any street in the central business district.
(D) Due and proper care shall at all times be exercised by the
recreational powered device operator for the pedestrian(s). Under all
circumstances, recreational powered device operators riding or walking
their recreational powered devices shall yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians.
§ 79.04 Exceptions
(A) The restrictions contained in this chapter do not apply to any
personal assistive mobility device or to any motorized wheelchair.
(B) The restrictions contained in this chapter do not apply to Police, Fire,
or Public Works employees in the performance of their duties.
§ 79.99 Penalty
(A) Unless otherwise specified herein, any and all persons convicted of a
violation of any provision of this chapter may be punished by a fine of not
less than $100, nor more than $300, for each such offense. The Police
Department may notify the parents or legal guardian of any minor who
receives a warning or charge of violating any provision of this chapter. In
addition, any cost of collection of fines or other amounts due to the City
under this section may be assessed in accordance with § 10.99
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
8 8 9
265
11 0 0
350274293307374 436293-297343333-3351 0 6 0 3909 8 5
1087
3272941 0 8 8
1038
1129
4 5 0
1165
1 0 7 7
3062923522882842753121078322308290316300338-3409 2 1
254
1 0 8 0
11551150276
355883
8 7 7 9012
8
3
2
8
1 410269
1110
1137
363
3671170299
341
882440
3421005
3851 0 5 0
1 0 8 3
3
9
5 4201 0 9 1
2793053599 91
1118
3293153492441133
370
305-30733132137611518 9 6
8813263043341161
10 90
3303483661119
9 7 7981
3561 0 6 9
380373
1101
9 2 031911263772
8
21107
1 0 9 6
3331 0 6 6
1175
11 6 0 2854259 9 7 301366290299300
3151100
2843743064103 0 7
390359
E W O O D L A N D R D
N MCKINLEY RDE SCOTT ST N GRIF
FI
TH RD N EDGEWOOD RD8 9 0 32811 7 0
E WISCONSIN AVE E WISCONSIN AVE E GRANBY RD
E ROSE TER
E R O S E TE R
N CHURCH RD N WESTERN AVE93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 1 of 12
Historic Preservation Commission
Proceedings of the August 23, 2023 Meeting
A meeting of the Lake Forest Historic Preservation Commission was held on
Wednesday, August 23, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E.
Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Historic Preservation Commissioners present: Chairman Maureen Grinnell and
Commissioners Lloyd Culbertson, Elizabeth Daliere, Tina Dann-Fenwick, Geoffrey
Hanson, Robin Petit and Leif Soderberg.
Commissioners absent: None
City staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
Jennifer Baehr, Planner
***
6. Continued consideration of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow
the existing cedar shingle roof to be replaced with a synthetic material on the
residence located at 333 Woodland Road.
Property Owners: Mary Therese and Greg Williams
Project Representative: Mary Therese Williams
Chairman Grinnell asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. Hearing none, she invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Ms. Williams stated that she and her husband purchased the home several years ago
with the knowledge that the roof needed to be replaced. She stated that over the
past four years she has researched different roofing options and ways to address moss
accumulation and rodent invasion. She stated that she also consulted a contractor
who works on historic homes and her insurance broker. She stated that she
concluded that replacing the roof with another cedar shingle roof is not an option
she wants to pursue. She explained that the DaVinci roof product she is proposing is
in keeping with the beauty the home and will not adversely impact the
neighborhood. She stated that replacing the cedar shingle roof with asphalt shingle
in her opinion, will not add to the appearance of her home. She reviewed the
questions and comments raised by the Commission about the roof product at the last
meeting. She presented images of a newer hotel in Montana with a DaVinci roof
noting that the roof blends in well. She pointed out the keyways, end caps, and the
roof cap in the images. She noted that the images reflect how the DaVinci roof
product can be installed in three tiers to have the appearance of randomness. She
noted that composite roofs were installed on homes on Symphony Street in Lake
Forest but were not installed properly and as a result, present an even look that does
not look natural. She stated that she contacted roof supply companies across the
120
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 2 of 12
Country, and they stand behind the DaVinci synthetic product. She noted that she
learned about another composite roof product, CeDUR and stated that she was told
by three supply companies that CeDUR is a bad product. She stated that three years
ago, she replaced a portion of the garage roof with cedar shingles and noted that
the shingles are very thin and are lifting already. She presented images of homes in
the community with cedar shingle roofs and composite roofs and acknowledged that
there is a distinguishable difference but stated that the integrity of the surrounding
neighborhood is not negatively impacted. She noted that as a cedar shingle roof
ages, it changes colors. She stated that the proposed roof product looks like an
aged wood shingle. She explained that the DaVinci brand roof product has more
dimensionality and character than an asphalt shingle roof. She stated that she needs
to replace the roof by October and will be disappointed to replace it with asphalt
shingles. She stated that her hope that is that the Commission can reach a decision
now and noted that the Commission originally heard her request at the end of June,
Ms. Czerniak stated that the Commission has identified this issue as an important one
and to date, has devoted time to it and has committed to continued consideration
and study. She noted that this is not the first time that the Commission has been
faced with evaluating new materials for consistency with the Commission’s standards
adding that each time, the Commission has very diligently and thoughtfully
considered whether the new products warrant moving away from the requirements
for traditional and historic materials in the Historic Districts. She reviewed that there
was a time when the Commission required true divided lite windows and after much
study, due diligence, and after the evolution of simulated divided lite products to an
acceptable quality and character, the Commission approved the use simulated
divided lite windows going forward. She noted that the Commission concluded that
the quality of simulated divided lite windows evolved to a point that they offer
shadow, depth, and profiles that all closely match the quality and historic
appearance of true divided lite windows. She explained that the same due diligence
occurred before the Commission ultimately moved away from requiring all wood
windows to approving aluminum clad wood windows after the product evolved to a
point where it satisfied the applicable standards. She reviewed that the Commission
held a workshop in June to get information about the various synthetic/composite
products now available for siding, trim and roofs. She stated that the Commission
invited six architects who frequently work in the Historic Districts in Lake Forest and
other North Shore communities to talk about their experiences with and opinions of
the different products available in the context of historic districts. She reviewed that
the Commission has committed to continuing to continue to evaluate new materials
that become available and to conduct a follow up workshop to view various roof
installations in the context of different neighborhoods. She stated that the
Commission has discussed the possibility of identifying characteristics of different roof
products that could satisfy the 17 Standards. She stated that to date, the Commission
has raised concerns that the synthetic roof products have not evolved to a point
where they meet the applicable standards. She noted that the Commission raised
concerns about the product attempting to imitate a natural product instead of
having a texture and finish that create a distinct material with characteristics that are
121
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 3 of 12
compatible with the Historic District. She reviewed that the petition was previously
considered by the Commission at the June meeting and was continued to allow
further study. She stated that the petition is back before the Commission now, before
the Commission completes further study, at the request of the petitioner. She
provided background on the house that is the subject of this petition noting that the
home was originally roofed with asphalt shingle and was reroofed with asphalt shingle
in 1964. She added that in 2001, a previous owner removed the asphalt shingle roof
and replaced it with cedar shingles. She noted that either asphalt or cedar shingles
are appropriate and commonly used on residences of this architectural style. She
added that both asphalt and cedar shingles have traditionally been used in the
Historic Districts and that both roof types are found on homes surrounding the
petitioner’s home, on the same block. She noted that the Commission has
acknowledged that because old growth wood is not readily available for cedar
shingles and despite the fact that many homes are still being reroofed and built with
cedar shingle roofs, it is timely for the Commission to spend additional time studying
and evaluating the various alternative roof products that are available. She noted
that cedar roofs require maintenance as with any element of an historic home. She
stated that there is a recommendation in the staff report to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness approving replacement of the roof with cedar or asphalt shingles
and a recommendation to deny the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
allow a synthetic roof to be installed based on the information reviewed to date by
the Commission and pending further study by the Commission.
Commissioner Dann-Fenwick noted that she visited homes outside of the Historic
District with synthetic roofing and found that many of the homes have a more
modern look or are new construction. She noted that there is a significant difference
between the areas in which synthetic roof products have been installed and the
Historic District. She noted that cedar shingles are thinner and less durable than cedar
shakes and suggested that the problems experienced by the petitioner with the
current cedar roof likely revolve around past maintenance practices and the
expected longevity of cedar shingles.
In response to questions from Commissioner Dann-Fenwick, Ms. Williams stated that
she considered various types of cedar roof products. She stated that has learned
that many insurance providers no longer insure cedar roofs. She stated that her roof
contractor told her that about 40 percent of the roofs he installs are composite roofs.
She stated that in her opinion, either cedar shingles or shakes are an inferior product
adding that the longevity of wood cannot be guaranteed.
Commissioner Dann-Fenwick stated that she recently replaced her roof and prior to
doing so, did quite a bit of research. She stated that certified cedar shingles are
available and noted that cedar shingles are available in thicknesses up to three
quarters of an inch which protects against level four hail damage.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that to
date, the Commission has not approved the use of synthetic roofing. She noted that
122
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 4 of 12
recently, the City issued a permit for a cedar roof replacement however, the roofer
used a synthetic product instead. She stated that as in any case where work is not
consistent with the approval granted, the matter is being pursued from an
enforcement perspective. She noted that prior to approving the use of a synthetic
siding product on a new house in the Historic District, the Commission viewed a side
by side mock-up of natural and synthetic products and identified characteristics of
the synthetic product that aligned with the Commission’s standards and noted that
the product did not attempt to imitate a natural material. She stated that the
Commission does not specify specific manufacturers of products, but instead
identifies characteristics of products and determines whether or not given the
characteristics, the standards are satisfied. She noted that given the fact that there
are varying qualities of products, identifying key characteristics could clarify what
types of new products may be acceptable to the Commission based on the
standards that must be applied.
Commissioner Petit noted that the Commission previously expressed concern about
the treatment at the edges of the synthetic product and noted that the Williams’
home has front facing gables which will display that edge, which is distinctly different
from the profile of a cedar roof, prominently to the street. She noted that the images
of cedar roofs presented by the petitioner are primarily hip roofs, without prominent
front facing edges. She expressed concern about the Commission establishing
guidelines or identifying characteristics until there is a better understanding of the
product and its performance. She expressed concern about a decision that could
allow an inferior product to be used.
In response to questions form Commissioner Hanson, Ms. Williams noted that the
randomness found on a cedar roof can be achieved with a synthetic product
through installation methods such as layering. She stated that her selected product,
DaVinci, has a more random multi-width product than other similar products but
noted that in her opinion, the random product appears engineered. She confirmed
that the synthetic shingles are available in various widths, four, six, eight and ten
inches. She stated that her roof contractor is recommending the eight and ten inch
widths which is a standard installation.
In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Williams confirmed that the
garage will also be reroofed.
Commissioner Daliere noted that many of the images shown in the petitioner’s
presentation are of newer buildings, rather than historic buildings.
In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Williams stated that there are
many historic districts that allow synthetic roof products. She stated that she has seen
the CeDUR product and thought it looked great however she noted that she has
heard from roofers that they believe that manufacturer produces an inferior product.
123
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Daliere reiterated that the Commission cannot dictate a specific
manufacturer but can identify visual characteristics that need to be met.
Ms. Williams noted that the Commission has the ability to consider each petition on its
own merits regardless of previous approvals without concern for setting a precedent.
in response to questions form Commissioner Soderberg, Ms. Czerniak explained that
the Commission could choose to identify particular physical or visual characteristics
that potentially could allow a synthetic roof product with certain visual qualities to
satisfy the 17 standards. She noted that the visual qualities could include sheen, finish,
texture, thickness, or the fact that the product does not imitate a natural material.
She noted that the Commission may determine that certain products may be
appropriate on new construction in the Historic District, but not on historic structures.
She stated that it is important that the Commission maintain some consistency in how
petitions are evaluated. She confirmed that if a homeowner proposes to replace a
cedar shingle roof with another cedar shingle roof, no Commission review is required.
She stated that as part of the permitting process, specifications of the proposed
material are considered and after installation, the roof is inspected to verify that
installation occurred consistent with the approved plans and the permit that was
issued. She stated that if a significant change is proposed, staff refers the petition to
the Commission. She suggested that after the Commission determines that it has
enough information to do so, the Commission will need to take a position on the use
of various types of synthetic products. She noted that this topic will not go away.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
natural slate has been approved on some historic houses even if it was not the
original roof material. She noted that the Commission consistently requires that the
elements of a structure, fenestration, entrances, pillars, roof forms, or exterior
materials, are consistent with and appropriate for the architectural style of the
structure.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Williams stated that
natural slate is not an option due to cost.
In response to questions from Commissioner Dann-Fenwick, Ms. Czerniak stated that
she believes that the cedar roofs in the vicinity of the Williams’ home are primarily
shingles rather than shakes.
In response to questions from Commissioner Dann-Fenwick, Ms. Williams stated that
the ridge caps and end caps for the synthetic roof can be cut on site, so the edges
are clean.
Commissioner Dann-Fenwick noted that the synthetic roof products are thin and
hollow underneath and as a result, an end piece is needed at the gable ends to
cover the exposed edge of the synthetic shingle. She stated that a significant
concern with the synthetic product is how the ends are finished. She noted that the
124
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 6 of 12
cedar shingles overlap slightly and have a thickness that is not found and is visually
different than the synthetic product. She stated that it is unclear to her how the
synthetic product manufacturers will manage to eventually overcome the problem at
the edges without adding the extra end cap.
Commissioner Soderberg stated that many of the homes in the Gloucester Crossing
development were reroofed with a DaVinci synthetic roof product and have end
caps. He stated that he is unsure if the end cap is required for installation reasons, or
it the end cap is required for certain types of shingles. He observed that different
products have different styles and may use different technologies and installation
methods.
Ms. Williams stated that she is unsure if the product she is proposing is hollow
underneath.
Commissioner Petit noted that when the Commission considered a synthetic siding
product the petitioner prepared a side by side mock up on the site and effectively
demonstrated the visual qualities after installation of both the natural product and the
synthetic product. She suggested that a mock up could be helpful in allowing the
Commission to evaluate roof products adding that it is difficult to review the product
based on pictures.
Commissioner Daliere suggested that the petitioner allow the Commission to
complete its study of roof materials and then return to the Commission for a decision.
Commissioner Culbertson noted that it is his understanding that the petitioner wants
to replace the roof before October.
Chairman Grinnell noted that the Commissioners are hesitant to act quickly on an
important issue that will have broad implications. She stated that the Commission
wants to do the right thing. She noted that the Commission recognizes that the
petitioner has concerns about cedar shingles and has found a solution that seems to
her to address those concerns. She explained that the Commission is obligated to
consider the request based on the 17 Standards and stated that the Commission’s
evaluation has identified several Standards that are not met which is a concern. She
pointed out that the home originally had an asphalt roof and noted that asphalt is an
appropriate material for the style of home.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hanson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the
Commission considers color palettes for new construction but noted that for a roof
replacement, unless the color is determined to be incompatible with the house or
neighborhood, the project would be approved administratively by staff.
Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grinnell invited public
comments.
125
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 7 of 12
Bob Moulton-Ely, 420 Woodland Road, stated that the quality of the DaVinci product
has already been addressed since it has already been installed in the community
outside of the Historic District. He stated that the CeDUR roof product has negative
reviews. He stated that unless the City is willing to subsidize the installation and
maintenance of cedar and slate roofs, asphalt or synthetic roofs manufactured by
DaVinci are the options. He stated that he would rather see a DaVinci roof product
than an asphalt roof on the home. He stated that his home is also in the Historic
District and stated that he would prefer the DaVinci product over an asphalt product.
Alice Moulton- Ely, 420 Woodland Road, stated that she and her husband strongly
support the petition to reroof the home with DaVinci brand roof shingle. She
explained that she visited homes in the community with synthetic roofing and stated
that she could not tell the difference between the synthetic roofing and natural
cedar shingle roofs. She stated that she and her husband lived in a 1730 house in
New Jersey, and it had original windows and a wood shingle roof that was installed
correctly, meaning that the shingles were nailed to horizontal laths or sheathing
boards spaced several inches apart. She stated that she asked a roofing contractor
about cedar shingle roofing, and he said that long lasting heartwood shingles are not
available except as special orders from Canada and even then, they are in short
supply. She stated that she has confirmed this fact through research. She stated that
today, cedar shingles are installed with sheets of plywood underneath to prevent
water leaks, but as a result, the wood shingles do not dry out. She questioned how
the petitioner can be expected to use cedar shingles, which are, in her opinion, an
inferior product that will be installed using a questionable method which will cause
the roof to fail prematurely. She stated that she installed 30 year asphalt shingles on
her garage, and they started cracking and falling off within ten years. She stated that
the particular asphalt shingle product she used was later recalled. She stated that
regardless of durability, in her opinion, an asphalt shingle roof would not look right on
a Colonial Revival home. She stated that asphalt shingle is not a historic material.
She stated that that the best solution to a durable, long lasting and appropriate roof is
a synthetic product that looks like wood shingles like the one exhaustively researched
by the petitioners. She stated that she and her husband are ardent historic
preservationists adding that her husband fully restored a mid-19th Century church in
Missouri. She noted that until a few years ago she was on the Lake Forest Preservation
Foundation Board and served as secretary, treasurer and president. She urged the
Commission to support the petition.
Jason Ackerman,1087 Edgewood Road, stated support for the petition. He stated
that both the Commission and the petitioner are in unenviable positions. He stated
that the petitioner has done exhaustive research to find the right solution for the
home. He commented that unfortunately the petitioner is the first to bring this issue
before the Commission but noted that moving to synthetic products appears to be
the direction the industry is moving. He recognized that this is an opportunity for the
Commission to decide whether to pivot and change with the evolution of a new
product. He stated that the Commission has studied and approved new products in
the past and acknowledged that maybe synthetic roof products have not evolved
126
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 8 of 12
enough or maybe it has. He stated that someone has to be first and commended
the petitioner for the research that was completed and for bringing the issue forward.
He added commended the Commission for going through the process of trying to
find the right solution and acknowledged that it is not easy. He encouraged the
Commission to make a decision so the petitioner can move forward one way or
another. He added that if synthetic roof products are not approved, it would be
disappointing as a neighbor and homeowner. He encouraged the Commission to
complete its study and if appropriate develop characteristics or standards under
which synthetic roof products could be acceptable. He encouraged a decision
sooner, rather than later.
Marcy Kerr, Executive Director, Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, noted that the
Foundation provided written correspondence to the Commission. She thanked the
petitioner for the stewardship of the beautiful residence noting that it contributes to
the Historic District. She stated that it is obvious that the petitioner cares deeply about
the home and its historic character. She stated that the Foundation believes that the
proposal does not adhere to the Commission’s Standards. She urged the Commission
to think carefully about making a commitment to accept synthetic roof products
noting that once the Commission grants approval, it will be difficult to regulate the
various types of synthetic products that are available. She acknowledged the need
to be progressive when considering projects in the Historic Districts but noted that
decisions require careful thought and consideration. She acknowledged that
guidelines on synthetic materials could be helpful in evaluating future requests and
providing direction to petitioners. She thanked the Commission and the petitioners for
the efforts and study to date. She stated that the Foundation agrees that there
needs to be more research and asked the Commission to continue the petition.
Jan Gibson, 59 Franklin Place, acknowledged that the petitioner has done quite a bit
of research but stated that more research is needed. She noted that the National
Park Service outlines four circumstances that warrant the consideration of substitute
materials and suggested that those be considered in evaluating this request. She
stated that the first circumstance is important and relates to this petition because
speaks to whether the historic material is unavailable. She noted that if the historic
material is not available, then other materials can be considered. She
acknowledged that Redwood forests which were once plentiful are now depleted
but noted that Alaskan Yellow Cedar trees are prevalent in the Northwest and
provide wood for cedar shingles. She stated that the second circumstance that
warrants consideration of substitute materials is whether or not craftsmen are
available to work with the historic materials. She noted that the third circumstance
under which substitute materials are allowed is if there are inherent flaws in the
original materials. She stated that the fourth circumstance under which substitute
materials are allowed is if the building codes require different materials. She noted
that it is very important that cedar shingles be installed properly with strapping
underneath and proper nails. She stated that asphalt shingle would be acceptable
in this case because of the use on the original home, or cedar shingles. She stated
127
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 9 of 12
that based on the discussion, it does not seem like the Commission is ready to
approve synthetic roofing.
Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Grinnell invited final questions.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Williams stated that cedar
shingles are not an option and stated that asphalt shingles do not offer the character
or the look she wants to achieve.
In response to questions from Chairman Grinnell, Ms. Williams stated that the roofing
season ends in October. She asked how a mock up could be done. She stated that
when she looked at the synthetic roof product up close, it does not look good, but
noted that it looks better up on the roof, at a distance.
In response to questions from Commissioner Daliere, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the
Commission decides to establish standards on which synthetic roof products would
be evaluated, staff will draft the standards based on the Commission’s discussion and
direction and present them for review. She noted that the Commission has requested
a tour to view various roof products as installed adding that the Commission could, as
part of that workshop, discuss standards or desired characteristics that would be
needed in a synthetic product.
Chairman Grinnell stated that the Commission’s challenge is the desire to make the
best possible decision, as quickly as possible, but noted that there are a number of
repercussions when the Commission starts approving non-traditional materials in the
Historic Districts. She stated that approving non-traditional materials will be a big
change for the Commission and for the properties in the Historic Districts.
In response to questions from Commissioner Petit, Ms. Czerniak stated that approval of
synthetic roofing in this case could set a precedent for future Commission
considerations. She stated that in issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness, the
Commission must make findings in support of the decision. She stated that although
the Commission considers the specific facts of each petition individually, there is
consistency in the Commission’s decisions overall. She stated that it is important that
the Commission is clear on what is being approved and how the standards are
satisfied.
Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Grinnell invited final
comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Dann-Fenwick stated that she understands that synthetic roof material
is intended to last for 40 years but noted that plastics degrade over time. She noted
that at this time, it is unknown for instance how the plastic material will be affected by
prolonged exposure to the sun. She noted that the oldest synthetic roof referenced in
the materials provided by the petitioner was installed in 2013. She stated that the end
caps and ridge caps are distinctly different in appearance from a cedar roof and
128
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 10 of 12
noted that it is unclear how those elements will affect the overall appearance of the
house particularly on the front facing gables.
Commissioner Soderberg stated that he believes that synthetic products are
becoming more widely available but questioned how the Commission can embrace
this direction to the satisfaction of all constituencies and from a balanced point of
view. He stated concern about the unknowns related to the aging of the synthetic
product and the precedent being set with approval at this time. He acknowledged
that there may be data demonstrating how the product ages but noted that the
Commission has not yet seen that information. He stated that the Commission has to
be prepared to stand behind the decision because more petitions will come forward.
He questioned the visual compatibility of a synthetic roof product on older homes
and on homes of different architectural styles. He questioned whether, at this time,
the Commission is confident that the right framework is in place in terms of being able
evaluate synthetic roof products each time this type of request comes before the
Commission. He stated that in his opinion there is more work to be done to be able to
evaluate synthetic roof materials in a disciplined fashion.
Ms. Williams stated that with respect to the question about how the synthetic roof
product ages, she stated that a coating of some type can be applied.
Commissioner Daliere thanked the petitioner for bringing the topic forward and
initiating the Commission’s deliberations. She stated that to date, the Commission has
not yet developed a list of characteristics that may make a synthetic roof product
acceptable. She referenced Standards 7 and 9 noting that in her opinion, the
product presented does not satisfy those standards. She stated that going forward,
synthetic roof manufacturers may be able to address the end caps and ridge caps
which appear to be visually incompatible with the historic home. She agreed that
little is known about how the product may degrade over time. She noted that
Standard 15 refers to replacement of historic materials adding that originally, the
house was roofed with asphalt shingles.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the materials provided by the petitioner were well
written and well researched. He noted that there are homes in his neighborhood with
synthetic roof products and stated that he approached the petition with a bias
toward finding reasons to approve the petition and in the spirit of approaching the
petition with an open mind. He stated that his opinion changed when he visited
various homes with synthetic roofs. He stated that he was disappointed with what he
observed. He stated that the synthetic product was clearly distinguishable as such.
He stated that one of the hurdles that the Commission has to overcome is more
procedural in nature, setting a precedent with this decision with respect to future
requests to use synthetic products in the Historic District. He explained that the
Commission has to parameters and set predictable standards for use of new materials
so that residents are informed as they make plans to improve their homes. He stated
that in his observations, there is real visual difference between the synthetic product
and traditional roof products with respect to two attributes, uniformity and sheen. He
129
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 11 of 12
stated that in the Historic District, there is a higher standard. He explained that as
much as he would have liked to approve the petition, Standards 7 and 12, are clearly
not met. He stated that he cannot support the petition.
Commissioner Culbertson commended the Commissioners for offering excellent
comments which speak to the complexity and difficulty of the issue. He stated that
he lives in a neighborhood, outside of the Historic District, with some homes that have
synthetic roofs that were original to the homes when they were built several years ago
and commented that in his opinion, the roofs do not look very good. He
acknowledged that synthetic roof products have likely evolved since those homes
were constructed. He stated that in his opinion, the synthetic roof products do not
match up visually to natural cedar. He stated that the synthetic roof products may
ultimately evolve to a point where they could be acceptable in Historic Districts. He
stated that the Commission is required to apply the Standards in the Code. He stated
that it is difficult to imagine finding that a synthetic roof on an historic David Adler
home would satisfy the standards. He reiterated that the synthetic roof product may
evolve to a point where it meets the standards but noted that it is not there yet to
allow use in the Historic District.
Commissioner Dann-Fenwick stated that Standard 15 is the most relevant to this
petition in her opinion because what is proposed is a repair/replacement of a
deteriorated feature, so the Commission is bound by this Standard. She pointed out
that Standard 15 states that in the event that replacement is necessary, the new
material need not be identical, but should match the material being replaced in
composition, color, texture, and other visual qualities. She stated that the synthetic
roof product does not meet the standard. She also acknowledged that the product
may evolve in the future.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
the Commission could take two votes if desired, one to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness for either a cedar or asphalt shingle roof and a second vote on the
request for a synthetic product. She acknowledged that the Commission has the
ability to continue the petition to allow time for continued study but noted that the
petitioner has requested clear direction.
Commissioner Culbertson stated that he is not sure that the Commission will be able
to come to a resolution on whether or not the use of synthetic roof products is
consistent with the standards before October when the petitioner wants to replace
the roof.
Commissioner Soderberg stated interest in a mock up but acknowledged that based
on the products currently available, he does not believe a mock up will change his
evaluation. He stated that the Commission has visited many homes with synthetic
roofs outside of the Historic District over the past couple months.
130
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2023
Page 12 of 12
In response to a question from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Williams stated that she
does not want the petition to be continued.
Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Grinnell invited a
motion.
Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
approving the replacement of the existing roof at 333 Woodland Road with either
cedar or asphalt shingles.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daliere and approved by a vote of 7 to
0.
Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the installation of a synthetic roof at 333 Woodland Road at this time.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soderberg and was approved by a vote
of 7 to 0.
***
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205