Board continues sprinkler exemption request for two North Avenue three‑unit buildings to May 6

The Village of Lake Bluff Architectural Board of Review on April 1 continued to May 6 a request from the North Avenue condominium association for a full fire‑sprinkler retrofit exemption for two adjacent three‑unit buildings at 15 and 17 East North Avenue.

Brady Anderson, speaking for the North Avenue Condo Association, said the two three‑unit buildings are essentially townhouse‑style units that have not undergone substantial remodels and said retrofitting would be disruptive and costly. Anderson said the association had obtained an estimate from USA Fire Protection of $104,715 for an NFPA 13D system but that the board's consultant, Seth Sommer of Fire Safety Consultants (FSCI), told the applicants that the appropriate code system for the buildings is NFPA 13R and that the 13R system would likely be significantly more expensive and could require new water service to the site.

"The required suppression system is an NFPA 13R system which would cost significantly more as it would likely require new water service to be able to handle the fire sprinkler requirements as well as the domestic water loads," Anderson said, reading his association—omments. Anderson told the board the estimate did not include required plumbing check valves in each unit, electrician wiring for devices, drywall/painting to restore interior finishes, or sidewalk/courtyard work to install new service lines.

Seth Sommer told the board the two three‑unit buildings are classified as R‑2 (multifamily) and that installing an NFPA 13R system would be invasive and disruptive; he noted, however, that the buildings appear to have substantial party‑wall separations (potentially equivalent to an hour rating) and likely meet many existing egress requirements. Sommer also advised that the "most important function" of a residential alarm setup is to sound in sleeping areas and wake occupants; monitoring to a central station is optional but provides redundancy and automatic dispatch to the fire department.

Board members discussed tradeoffs: several members expressed concern about displacing tenants and the scale of interior work needed for a full sprinkler retrofit, while others pressed for at least a monitored alarm system as a compromise. One member said proximity to the fire station reduces response time; another member said past applicants who complied with retrofit requirements deserved equitable treatment. Some board members recommended that the applicants obtain competitive bids and quotes for monitored alarm systems and for contractor schedules showing how long units would be displaced.

With only four board members present (a seven‑member board; four affirmative votes are required to grant an exemption), the board chose not to take final action and instead voted to continue the application to the May 6 meeting so the association could return with additional cost and schedule proposals, and (if desired) monitored alarm options. Roll call for the continuance recorded Member Daubman — aye; Member Stradiv — aye; Member Wex — aye; Chair Hunter — aye. The motion to continue passed.

The association and board agreed on follow‑up items the applicants said they would provide: competitive quotes for monitored/central‑station alarm systems (hardwired or wireless monitored), a contractor schedule that shows phased installation and displacement durations for a 13D/13R retrofit, and clarification of current detection (hardwired vs. battery) and maintenance practices. The applicant also requested confirmation that an exemption, if granted, remains with the property so long as use and occupancy remain unchanged; staff confirmed exemptions apply to the property and that a future major remodel or change of use could trigger retrofit requirements under the International Existing Building Code pathways.