Architectural Control Commission

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF THE 3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 4 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 5 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 6 7 NOVEMBER 14, 2012 8 9 Commissioners Present (6) 10 Chairman Schwall 11 F. Dirk Heidbrink 12 Lori Jordison 13 Robert Katz 14 David Menn 15 Cliff Town 16 17 Commissioners Absent (1) 18 Mike Rubenstein 19 20 Village Staff Present 21 Lynne Coleman, Building Official and Licensed Architect 22 Nick Desario, Assistant Director/Building and Development, Development and Planning Services 23 Corey Friedman, Electrical and Mechanical Inspector 24 Tom Poupard, Director, Development and Planning Services 25 William Reupert, Certified Plumbing Inspector 26 27 1. Call to Order 28 Chairman Schwall called the meeting to order in the Development and Planning Services Conference 29 Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 5:45 PM. A quorum was present. Chairman Schwall noted that 30 the November 8 meeting had to be rescheduled due to a lack of a quorum. 31 32 2. Public Comments 33 There were no comments from the public. 34 35 3. Review of Minutes 36 Commissioner Katz moved, seconded by Commissioner Menn, to approve the minutes of the October 4 37 and October 11, 2012 Architectural Control Commission (ACC) meetings without corrections. On a voice 38 vote, the motion carried. 39 4. 1921 Raymond (Permit #12-G-002) - Unpermitted Occupancy – Discussion 40 Director Poupard introduced this topic indicating that he could not recall a situation where work had 41 progressed to this point without calling for inspections. The Municipal Code does not establish fines 42 that deal specifically with this situation and he asked for guidance form the commission on how to 43 proceed. Nick Desario described the situation at 1921 Raymond Drive and how the space was occupied 44 without calling for inspections or obtaining an occupancy permit. 45 The business owner Brett Stein and General Contractor, Ben Neuberg apologized to the commission and 46 gave their explanation of the events that led to this situation. Village staff also provided their 1 1 perspective on the work that had occurred on the premises. They explained in detail the work that had 2 and had not been inspected. There was also a discussion of the details of the building construction, the 3 walls that were constructed without inspection and the exposed celling. 4 The Commission decided to continue discussion of the topic to the December meeting. 5 5. Commission Findings – Issues Raised by Resident (3405 Prestwick) Concerning Regulation of Major 6 Building Additions 7 Director Poupard noted that during the October 14, 2012 meeting, the ACC reviewed comments from 8 the residents of 3405 Prestwick (the Spangler family) concerning the Village’s standards for home 9 construction. He noted that the Board of Trustees had asked the ACC to consider their comments and 10 make a recommendation on whether the code standards they mention need to be amended. Although 11 the Commission spent a great deal of time on the topic, they did not make any specific conclusions 12 regarding the points made by the Spangler family. 13 Mr. Poupard noted that his most recent memo asked that the ACC make findings concerning the 14 following points: 15 1. Should construction fencing be required for second floor additions, or should the Village 16 maintain the current practice of requiring fencing only when major foundation work is involved? 17 2. Should the specifications for construction fencing be changed to be a solid fence versus chain 18 link? 19 3. Should venting into side yards towards a neighboring home be allowed? 20 4. Does the Village need more strict standards for covering and emptying dumpsters on 21 construction sites? Likewise, do location standards and duration standards for dumpster need 22 to be established for construction sites? 23 5. Does the Village need to establish location standards for “porta-johns”? 24 The Commission then began discussing each of the points. 25 Concerning item 1, the Commission agreed that construction fencing is required to prevent injury and 26 that fencing should be required whenever a deep exaction is involved. It is not necessary in the case of 27 a second story addition. 28 With respect to item 2, the Commission did not believe solid fencing is appropriate and would ultimately 29 be more visually intrusive. 30 Concerning item 3, the commission noted that this is a matter already addressed in the mechanical 31 codes and manufacturer’s specifications. There are separation standards from windows. The 32 Commission did agree that when the 2012 mechanical codes are reviewed, they should examine the 33 standards for venting high energy furnaces and water heaters. 34 Concerning item, 4, the Commission felt that dumpsters should not be in required side yards, but often 35 need to be in the driveway, so they should be allowed in a front yard. 36 With respect to item 5, the ACC felt that portable toilets should be located similar to dumpsters, and not 37 allowed in a side yard. 38 2 1 6. Continued Review of 2012 International Residential Code and Possible Local Amendments 2 The Commission continued discussing Chapter 3 of the 2012 International Residential Code with the 3 staff. Director Poupard noted that during the special ACC meeting held on October 4, the commission 4 and staff discussed Chapters 1 and 2 of the IRC, as well as Sections 301 through 309 of Chapter 3. We 5 were about to begin a discussion of window wells and exiting requirements when we concluded the 6 October 4 meeting. He noted that the tables showing climate data and code amendments have now 7 been updated to include data from the Village of Deerfield. A set of their local amendments was also 8 R310.2.2 - Window Well Covers. 9 The Commission discussed the merits of the existing local amendment: “Window well covers or a 3-foot 10 railing shall be installed where located within 36 inches of a finished walking surface and be designed to 11 support a two hundred pound load.” 12 Director Poupard noted that the 2012 IRC includes some more language on window wells; however, 13 there is nothing that specifically deals with the local amendment. The IRC does have the following 14 general requirement in R312.1.1: Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including 15 stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the 16 floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. 17 Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard. 18 The Commission had a lengthy discussion of the hazards associated with open window wells, as well as 19 some of the problems that can be associated with requiring them in all instances. A majority, but not all, 20 of the commission agreed that some type of protection should be required, but they asked staff to 21 return with alternate language based on what other communities have done. 22 R311.2 - Egress Door. 23 Director Poupard noted that Northbrook has a local amendment that reads as follows: “Not less than 24 two exit doors shall be provided for each dwelling unit with the primary door measuring 36 in width. 25 The secondary door may be a sliding or swing door of not less than two feet, eight inches in width with a 26 two foot, six inch clear opening.” The IRC simply requires one egress door. He noted the important 27 distinction between a door and an egress door, as an egress door must also have a suitable landing. This 28 has been a problem for architects unfamiliar with the Northbrook code. He questioned whether this 29 was necessary since sprinklers are now required. 30 The Commission determined that a local amendment was no longer necessary. 31 SECTION R313 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 32 Director Poupard noted that a major change in the 2009 and 2012 IRC was a requirement for sprinklers, 33 which Northbrook required separately. Many of our local amendments concerning sprinklers for single 34 family homes will no longer be necessary since the sprinkler standards are integrated into the IRC. 35 R314.3 Smoke Alarm Location. 36 Director Poupard noted that Northbrook has an existing local amendment that requires smoke alarms 37 “In the general location of all heating equipment." Director Poupard asked the Commission if this local 38 amendment was necessary. 39 The Commission discussed in detail issues associated with venting of high efficiency furnaces and water 40 heaters and how this was going to be a major challenge. 41 The Commission determined that a local amendment for smoke alarms was no longer necessary. 3 1 R315.1 Carbon monoxide alarms. 2 Director Poupard noted that Northbrook has an existing local amendment that reads as follows: 3 "Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed – 1 per floor and within 15 feet of bedroom. Power 4 source same as smoke detectors." 5 He questioned whether or not the local amendment was still necessary since the 2012 IRC now requires 6 detectors near each bedroom. MS. Coleman also noted that there is also a state carbon monoxide 7 detector law. 8 The Commission determined that a local amendment was no longer necessary. 9 Existing Local Amendment 10 R325.1 Private Residence Elevators. 11 Director Poupard noted that it was getting late and this topic could require extensive discussion. He 12 suggested the IRC discussion end at this point. Chairman Schwall noted that he has installed several 13 elevators in homes and would look into the question of whether Northbrook standards were needed. 14 7. New Single Family Elevations: 15 The Commission considered six new single family home elevations. Member Katz motioned, seconded 16 by Member Menn, to allow staff to review and process the appropriate paperwork for the following 17 elevations: 18 a. 925 Hawthorne Lane – Town Studios – architect 19 b. 1915 Alexandra Court – OKW - architect 20 c. 2406 Illinois – Aspect Design, Inc. – architect 21 d. 3963 Walters Ave. – Karson and Assoc. – architect 22 e. 2028 Maple Ave. – D+K Architects – architect 23 f. 1156 Greenbriar – JMB Architects - architect 24 8. New Business 25 There was no new business. 26 9. Old Business 27 There was no old business. 28 10. Adjournment 29 There being no further business, Member Menn moved, seconded by Member Katz, to adjourn the 30 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. 31 Respectfully submitted, 32 33 /s/ T. Poupard___ 34 Recorder 35 36 4