Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2016/03/28 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the March 28, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 28, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Robert Franksen and Board members Richard Plonsker, Kevin Lewis, Louis Pickus, Lloyd Culbertson and Mark Pasquesi Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Kennedy. Staff present: Michelle Friedrich, Planning Technician and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Franksen reviewed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes from the February 22, 2016 meeting. The minutes of the February 22, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for a variance from lot-in-depth setback requirements to allow construction of an addition to the residence located at 460 Washington Road. Owners and Representatives: Stephen and Laura Douglass Chairman Franksen introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from Mr. Douglass and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Douglass introduced the petition. He provided a history of the property and house noting that the house was constructed in the 1930s. He noted the addition will create a more functional and up to date kitchen and mudroom. He stated this is a lot in depth and that nearly the entire structure is in the lot in depth setback. He stated that the house is in the East Lake Forest Historic District. He described the distances from the neighboring residences and noted the existing landscaping and fencing that will screen the proposed addition from the neighboring properties. He provided details on the elevations of the proposed addition. He noted the project’s adherence to the variance criteria. He provided a brief history of the subdivision noting the location of the original main house and explaining that the surrounding homes, including his, were Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 2 originally built as summer cottages. He noted the restricted building area on the property to the south of his property which was put in place through the subdivision. He noted that as a result of the setbacks established through the subdivision plat, the property to the south of his house will remain as open space. Ms. Friedrich noted the uniqueness of the property due to its origin as summer cottages around a main house and the restrictions on the subdivision plat. She noted that the current setbacks were put in place after the house was constructed. She noted that this request is for a modest addition to the home and pointed out that the addition will not encroach further into the setbacks than the existing house. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Douglass explained that he is a licensed architect in Massachusetts and has a degree in architecture from Harvard. He stated that he will have the drawings stamped by an Illinois architect, in compliance with the Code, when submitted for permit. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Hearing none, Chairman Franksen turned the discussion back to the board. He noted that the only property owner that will see this addition is the owner to the east and that there are several letters from neighboring property owners in support of the addition. Board member Pickus noted that the petition is straight forward and indicated his support for the variance. Chairman Franksen invited a motion from the Board. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of variances to allow construction of the addition no closer than 10 feet to the north property line and no closer than 24 feet to the east property line, consistent with the site plan provided in the Board’s packet. The motion was seconded by Board member Pickus and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the front yard setback for a new single family residence and variances to allow the installation of gutters, within the setback areas, on an existing detached garage at 682 Oakwood Avenue. Owners: 682 Oakwood Avenue LLC (Peter Childs and Jamie Childs) Representative: Laszlo Simovic, architect Chairman Franksen introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 3 Board member Pasquesi recused himself from the matter as Peter Childs is an agent in his office. He left the Council Chambers. Chairman Franksen swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Simovic introduced the petition to the Board, a new single family residence. He stated this this project was heard earlier in the month by the Building Review Board. He noted the intent is to keep the existing detached garage and add gutters to divert the run off to the north, away from the neighboring property. He noted that the new home is in the same location as the existing house to maintain access to the existing detached garage. He noted that an open front porch is proposed to reduce the appearance of mass on the streetscape. He explained that the setbacks of the existing homes in the neighborhood vary, some in compliance with current setbacks, and some not. He noted the compatibility of the setback with the existing house to the south. Ms. Friedrich described the property and noted that it was created by a subdivision in 1925. She noted that the Building Review Board recommended approval of the demolition and replacement house and the restoration work planned for the existing detached garage. She noted that in the past, the Board has supported front yard variances, such as this, in established neighborhoods, when it is supported by the existing streetscape. She explained two other unique circumstances of the property that include the non-conforming minimum lot width and lot size. She noted that the staff report recommends support of the front yard variance request and a variance to accommodate the addition of 4 inch wide gutters on the existing detached garage. She noted the petitioner added gutters in response to drainage concerns raised by the neighbor to the south. She noted the staff report recommends a condition of approval requiring the front porch to remain open to mitigate the massing of the structure. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Simovic explained that the alternative site plans presented indicate the difficulty in accessing the existing detached garage if the new house is moved further back on the property. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Friedrich explained that the petitioners explored various siting options and those were provided to the Board for information. She clarified that the site plan presented for approval requires a variance to allow an encroachment into the front yard setback as shown on the plan. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Childs explained that a variance is requested to allow a portion of the house, including the open porch, to be located in the front yard setback. He indicated that that the new house is located in approximately the same location as the existing house however, the proposed porch is open and the existing porch is enclosed. He stated that the proposed front porch is Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 4 7 feet deep and the front wall of the house will be about 25 feet from the front property line. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Friedrich explained that the distance from the property line is 18 feet, but the encroachment into the front yard setback request is 22 feet. Board member Culbertson clarified that the house encroaches into the setback 22 feet and the dimension to the property line from the front of the house is 18 feet which together equal 40 feet, the required front yard setback. In response to a question from Board member Pickus, Mr. Childs stated that staff advised him that it was more important to adhere to the required side yard setback requirement, than to meet the front yard setback requirement due to the fact that other homes in the neighborhood already encroach into the front yard setback. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Childs explained that the neighbor to the south requested that gutters be installed on the south and west sides of the garage to direct stormwater to the north side of the garage. In response to a question from Board member Lewis, Mr. Child confirmed that the preliminary engineering work for the project has been completed. He explained that the drainage will be routed to the north side of the garage, into the center of the rear yard. He explained from that point, water can either go to west east, down the driveway. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Friedrich explained that during the permit review process, the City Engineer will verify that the drainage questions and concerns are addressed appropriately. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Hearing none, he asked the Board for any final question or comments. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich explained that the newly constructed house to the north is on a larger lot than the property in question and meets the minimum lot width requirement creating a better opportunity for redevelopment within the current setback requirements. Ms. Czerniak added that at the time redevelopment on the property to the north was proposed, there was a significant tree on the front portion of the lot which was intended for preservation. She acknowledged that without the tree, it would have been more in keeping with the streetscape to site the house closer to the street. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Friedrich agreed that nearly all of the homes on the block encroach into the 40 foot setback, except for the house to Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 5 the north. She noted that in the Board’s packet there is an illustration of existing setback patterns in the neighborhood. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Childs stated that he is open to shifting the house to the north to the extent allowed by the side yard setback. In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the side yard setback is 6 feet. She stated that the house, as proposed, is sited 10 feet from the north side yard property line. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff encouraged the petitioner to conform to the side yard setback requirement. She stated that in the past, the Board has supported front yard setback variances in older neighborhoods to allow consistency with the existing streetscape. Ms. Friedrich added that the neighbor to the south spoke at the Building Review Board meeting and stated support for the siting of the house as proposed. Chairman Franksen noted that the GR-3 district is difficult due to the small size of the lots. He noted that Oakwood is a highly visible street. He stated that is it reasonable to consider a setback that is consistent with other homes on the street. Board member Lewis stated that the petitioner is creating the hardship due to the length of the proposed house. He stated that if a setback closer to the average setback found on the street could be achieved, he would be more comfortable with the variance. He suggested that the shape of the house in the rear could be modified, and the house shifted west, to provide more space for turning into the garage. Board member Pickus suggested that the house could be moved to the north slightly which could allow the encroachment into the front yard setback request to be reduced. However, he stated support for the request as presented. Board member Culbertson stated agreement with Board member Pickus. Chairman Franksen stated support for the request noting that it is consistent with the neighborhood. He noted his appreciation for the discussion and comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a replacement tree will be required in the front yard of the neighboring house. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Childs indicated that there is no cost difference based on where the house is sited. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 6 Board member Lewis stated concern about the precedent that may be set if a variance of this magnitude is approved where alternatives exist. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Simovic confirmed that the design of the house would need to change significantly to conform to the setback or significantly reduce the encroachment into front yard setback. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Pickus made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report relating to the front porch remaining open and confirmation by the City Engineer that drainage issues are properly addressed. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was approved by a vote of 4 to 1 with Board member Lewis voting nay. Chairman Franksen called a five minute recess. Board member Pasquesi rejoined the meeting. 5. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for Lake Forest College as it relates to Farwell Field, 250 Washington Road, to allow the use of temporary lighting on the field annually for three weeks after the end of daylight savings time. Owner: Lake Forest College Representative: Jackie Slaats, Director of Athletics Chairman Franksen introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, ne invited a presentation by the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Ms. Slaats, Director of Athletics and Senior Advisor to the President of Lake Forest College, introduced the petition. She stated that in October, 2013, the College was presented with a hardship relating to the availability of practice fields for student athletics. She stated that the College has worked to find a way to address the neighbor’s concerns while meeting the needs of the students. She stated that the College took into consideration the concerns and comments heard at the September 2015 Board meeting and comments received during the use of lights last fall. She stated that the College made every effort to respond quickly to comments received from neighbors and to situations observed by College staff during the trial period. She noted that College staff walked the neighborhood during the nights the lights were in use and tried to engage the neighbors and invite input. She said that the College staff tried to look at the lighting and noise from the neighbors’ perspective. She stated that during the use of the lights last fall, various light configurations were tried to Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 7 evaluate the impacts on surrounding homes. She stated that the request now presented is consistent with the request presented last fall with respect to the limited time period and the hours. She stated however that a different site plan for the locations of the lights is presented. Mr. Siebert, Director of Facilities, introduced the revised site plan. He presented a rendering of the bleachers noting the height of the bleachers as they exist today in relation to the height of the proposed lights. He reviewed the proposed placement of the lights and the baffling proposed around the generators used to operate the lights . He noted that sound mitigation fabric is proposed around the generators located at the base of the lights to enclose the sound producing area. He noted that the actual use of the lights last fall was 27 hours over the 3 weeks. Ms. Slaats noted at the maximum, lights would be used a total of 60 hours over the course of the three week period if the College teams win all of the post season games. She noted that last year, baffling was purchased as part of the trial for two of the generators. She added that College staff walked the neighborhood frequently to observe the light and sound impacts. She stated that the College tried various lighting configurations in an effort to find the layout that has the least impact on the neighbors. She stated that the various lighting configurations were evaluated to determine which was most effective in keeping the light directed on to the field and away from the neighbors. She stated that the proposal presented directs all lights away from Illinois Road. She stated that all of the generators will be baffled. She acknowledged that the current proposal affects the residents on Rosemary Road the most. Mr. Siebert described the existing landscaping around the perimeters of the field. He stated that the College is obligated to maintain the landscaping in the parkway along Illinois Road as a condition of the Special Use Permit. He acknowledged that a few trees were lost and will be replaced in the next few weeks, when the weather permits the planting. He reiterated that College staff walked the neighborhoods during the trial period for the lights last fall. He added that the College held two open houses for the neighbors during the time the temporary lighting was in place last fall. He acknowledged that the College has not been able to address every concern raised by the neighbors, but stated that they have tried to be responsive while at the same time, providing practice fields for teams after the end of daylight savings time. Ms. Slaats noted that some of the Rosemary neighbors came to meetings and have continued the conversation with the College about landscaping and enhanced fencing along the north property line. She emphasized that the College is not requesting approval to install permanent lights, but only requesting the ability to bring lights on to the field for up to three weeks each year to accommodate football and soccer team practices if they are in the playoffs after the end of daylight savings time. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Czerniak noted that this matter was before the Board in September and at that time, the neighbors and the Board had questions about the impacts of the sound and light. She stated that after discussion, the Board recommended that the use of lights be authorized only for fall 2015 to allow more information to be gathered on the actual impacts. She added that the Board directed that if the College wished to continue the use of lights in later years, the matter must be brought back to the Board well before the fall 2016 season and asked that neighboring residents be invited to comments on the 2015 trial period. She explained that staff requested that the College maintain a log documenting how and when lights were used during fall, 2015. She stated that the City sent two letters to neighboring residents requesting feedback on the use of the lights. She stated that the City sent letters in February and again about two weeks ago to 117 surrounding properties. She reviewed some history noting that in 2013, due to changes in policies and practices of the NFL and the Chicago Bears, it was no longer feasible for the College to use the Payton Center for practices at the end of the season. She added that the Chicago Bears’ Special Use Permit does not authorize rental of their facilities to outside groups not affiliated with their organization. She noted that several conditions are recommended in the staff report including: a prohibition on the installation of infrastructure to support permanent lights, a requirement for sound baffling on all of the generators for the temporary lights, a requirement that the light poles be fully extended only during practices and a requirement that music played during practices must not have an unreasonable impact on neighbors. She reiterated that the request is for temporary lights that would be used for up to three weeks, each year, after the end of daylight savings time. She pointed out that the full three weeks will be necessary only if the football or soccer teams make the playoffs. She stated that other institutions and private clubs have requested and in some cases received approval for permanent lights at their facilities. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the College looked for other fields, both inside and outside of Lake Forest, in an effort to find a workable alternative. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen and Commissioner Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff understands that the Bears’ facility is not a workable alternative for the College or for the Bears. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Brian Bruha, Director of Athletic Facilities at the College explained that LED lights were explored by not available to the College for rent, as temporary lighting. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Slaats confirmed that the lights proposed for future use will have the same lumens as the lights used in 2015. She stated that the lumens could be reduced if the light level provided creates safe conditions for the athletes. She confirmed that sound baffling will be purchased and installed on the generators for all of the lights. She confirmed that last fall, one light Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 9 was broken and could not be lowered during one day. She explained that they contacted the rental company and it was fixed and lowered the next day. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the conditions of a Special Use Permit are not followed, the permit can be revoked by the City. She stated that the City’s practice is first to notify the holder of the permit of any violations and allow the opportunity for correction. She stated that the City received a complaint that one light was not lowered, staff contacted the College and learned that the light was not functioning properly and could not be lowered. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the condition regarding daylight savings time can be crafted in a way that it is adjustable if daylight savings time changes. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker about a letter received by the Board, Ms. Slaats explained that she was not aware of a noise compliant or what activity or level of noise was occurring on the field on the day of the complaint. She clarified that the baffling that was in place last fall was only on three sides of two generators. She confirmed that if future use of temporary lights is approved, all four sides of all six generators will be baffled. In response to a question from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak explained that the recommended conditions prohibit the College from hard wiring the lights in response to the neighbors’ fear that the next step would be a request for permanent lighting on the field. In response to questions, Mr. Siebert explained that the lights that are rented are made for use on athletic fields. He stated that permanent cabling could be installed, but could start to resemble infrastructure for permanent lights. He explained that temporary lighting of this type is often used on athletic fields. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that this is a request to amend the existing Special Use Permit to allow temporary lighting. In response to a question from Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Slaats stated teams are off the field by 7 p.m. prior to the end of daylight savings time. She explained however that once daylight savings time ends, only one field is proposed to have temporary lights. She stated that giving each team adequate playing time is challenging and as a result, the single field must be used past 7 p.m., the normal end time for practices. She explained that during daylight hours, and good weather, there are other fields on campus that are used concurrently for team practices. She stated that the College is only requesting approval of temporary lighting for one field. She reiterated that the full three weeks would only be needed if all three teams make the playoffs. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 10 In response to a question from Board member Pickus, Ms. Slaats stated that the various rental companies that were contacted offered the same lights as those used on the field last fall. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Bob Pasquesi, 172 Washington Road, stated that he has lived four doors south of Halas Hall for the last 63 years. He asked the Board members to consider whether they would want lights next to their houses. He asked the Board to be fair in its consideration of this request. He questioned why music needs to be played on the field. William Gilcrest, 525 Rosemary Road, stated that he lives at the northwest end of the football field. He stated he spoke with Ms. Slaats several times and found her to be very professional. He stated that he did not attend the earlier meetings and now, the College is directing the lights toward his house. He stated that this is a residential area and the College is asking for a Special Use Permit to allow practices for football and soccer teams, with lights, in addition to the noise that comes from the games that already occur on the field. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated that he has lived in his house for 40 years and similar to Mr. Pasquesi, lives four doors south of the field. He stated that his house was not affected by the lights but he did see them when he was driving north on Wildwood Road. He stated that the lights appeared similar to the new lights on Western Avenue, near Jewel. He noted he is a retired member of the Library faculty at Lake Forest College. He noted this is a unique situation with an athletic field in a residential neighborhood. He noted that the field was at this location as early as 1903, before the neighboring homes were built. He stated that institutions evolve over time and the neighbors who move into homes nearby need to realize that the institution may have changing needs over time. He explained that the College property was owned by Senator Farwell and the educational institution that he started was the framework on which the City was founded. He acknowledged that the music can be troubling but noted that is likely the easiest thing to change to reach an agreement among the parties. Kevin Bry, attorney representing Locke Walsh, stated that experimenting with the location of the lights last fall was not authorized in the approvals granted by the City. He noted that in the presentation by the College, the College representative’s used words like, “still in the progress” and “trying to experiment.” He stated that the College has not yet completed its due diligence and has not presented a plan that meets the applicable standards for an amendment to the Special Use Permit. He noted that a one-time administrative approval was granted in 2014 and approval was granted for another one year trial in 2015. He noted that now, the Board is asked to approve a lighting plan that is differs from the plans previously approved. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 11 Locke Walsh, 595 Illinois Road, stated that he has been a resident of the neighborhood for 43 years. He stated that he has appeared before the Board in the past, when other requests for lights at Farwell Field were considered. He explained that two past requests for l ights on the field were turned down and noted that the College President was involved in those requests. He stated that in those discussions, 90% of the issues were resolved after discussion. He stated that in the past, the process was better because problems were resolved and the Special Use Permit was approved without lights. He noted that the first approval of the temporary lights in 2014 was followed by a Court Order to consider any future requests for lights at a public hearing. He stated that the minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals’ September, 2015, were not given to the City Council. He stated that this past fall was the third test of lighting on the field noting that the first test was many years ago and involved four lights, with diesel generators, that were very loud. He stated that the lighting plans approved for one time use in the fall 2015 were a quick failure which is why the College moved the lights around on the field to try to find a better solution. He stated that another test is needed before any ongoing approval is granted. Mark Mathieson, 555 Illinois Road, stated that the 2014 experiment was awful from his perspective adding that he wrote letters to the City Manager about the situation. He acknowledged that the impact on his house has been resolved with the shifting of the lights, but as a result, the neighbors on Rosemary Road are now impacted. He stated that the College has known about the need for practice fields in the fall for two years but only came before the Board in September 2015. He stated that City staff and the City Council have not responded to his complaints. He said the lights were to be directed down, but they were not. He noted that the lighting configuration changed throughout the trial period last fall. He noted the noise pollution was terrible. He stated that there appears to be shifting reasons for why the lighting is needed. He stated that he reached out to the Bears and to NCAA representatives and stated that he does not believe that this request is driven by those organizations. He stated that he is frustrated that the College did not act more quickly over the last two years to try and resolve this issue and instead, waited until the last minute, last fall to request approval of temporary lights. Floyd “Bud” Turner, 190 Wildwood Road, explained that in 2014, the temporary lights shined in his windows. He said that he did not receive notice of the meeting in September 2015, but did receive notice of this meeting. He said that when the lights were turned on last fall, his house was impacted and he talked with a representative of the College and the lights were relocated, solving his problem. He acknowledged that the problem is not resolved for other neighbors who live in other directions. Patrick Story, 577 Rosemary Road, stated he has lived in his house for 34 years. He stated that the lights as now proposed impact his house. He stated that his house was not impacted when they were directed toward Illinois Road. He stated that he would like to talk with the College about the direction of the lights. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 12 Fran Peese, 181 Wildwood Road, stated that she is an employee of Lake Forest College and works in academics, not in the athletic departments . She noted that her experience with the lights was positive last fall noting that she felt no negative impacts from lighting or sound. She stated that she believes that the College has explored other options. She stated that playing music is not part of the current request. She stated that in situations like this, those against a petition have a lot of passion, but noted that given the number of letters sent out, not many residents have expressed concern or are in attendance at the meeting. She said that residents who support the request do not feel the need to attend the meeting. Mike Peese, 181 Wildwood Road, stated that he is a volunteer football coach at Lake Forest College. He stated objection to some of the public testimony. He stated that no music is played during practices, only during games which are not the subject of this discussion. He said that he coaches special teams and noted that those teams do not have much opportunity to get on the field. He stated that he was on the sidelines for the practices that occurred under the lights last fall and was next to the players and the generators. He stated that he did not need to speak any louder than he is speaking now to be heard. He explained that the coaches and team members wish they could continue to practice at the Walter Payton Center. He stated that last year, they tried practicing on the fields behind Deerpath School but noted that the football players were running and tackling in goose waste. He stated that the College tried renting a golf dome and had 35 minutes for 100 players to practice. He explained that this request is for two and a half weeks a year. He said that he walked the neighborhood and stated that on Illinois Road, the sound was like a clothes dryer and no lights were visible. Judy Turner, 190 Wildwood Road, stated she lives about 200 feet from the field. She stated that she believes that there are more residents opposed to the lights than are at the meeting. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Franksen thanked all who spoke and noted that Mr. Bry submitted a request to cross examine and noted that opportunity will be offered next on the agenda. The Board took a brief recess. Chairman Franksen reconvened the Board and invited cross examination from Mr. Bry. In response to cross examination by Mr. Bry, Ms. Slaats confirmed that from 20 feet away, the sound from the generator for one light pole sounds like an air conditioner and from 100 feet away, the noise level is similar to a vacuum cleaner. She agreed that 555 Illinois Road is the closest house to the field and 524 and 525 Illinois Road are within 100 feet of the end zone. She explained that the other fields on the campus are grass fields, not artificial turf and stated that grass fields cannot always be maintained to assure the safety of the athletes at the end of the season. She acknowledged that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 13 there is a grass field near the fieldhouse that the College could try to maintain but noted that it may not be usable after rain and noted that lighting would be needed on that field as well if it is going to be used after the end of daylight savings time. She confirmed that lights on the field near the ice rink would not impact the neighbors near the football field, but would impact other neighbors. She explained that it is most beneficial for the students to practice on the same type of field on which the games are played. She stated that the field at Halas Hall is a field where games are played. She explained that practicing at the Bears facility was similar because that field also has artificial turf . She said that the request for temporary lights was prompted by the Chicago Bears telling the College in September, 2013 that the Bears facility would not be available to the College. She stated the College received a follow up email from the Bears in October, 2013 stating that the field was available, but only for one week due to a change in polices. She stated that the College football team used the Payton Center for practice in 2011 and 2012. She stated that at that time, the soccer teams used Farwell Field for practice. She agreed that 2013 was the first year the College became aware that the Bears’ facility was not available. She explained that the College contacted Lake Forest High School, but learned that the fields may or may not be available depending on the high school playoff success and schedule. She confirmed that the College used the fields behind Deerpath Middle School on a limited basis and tried to arrange for practice time at many other facilities in the area. She said that other teams took priority depending on playoff schedules. She agreed that in 2014, a Settlement Agreement was reached with Mr. Walsh that required the College to request approval of temporary lights through a public review process in future years. She confirmed that the request is to amend the Special Use Permit that was previously granted to the College. In response to further cross examination by Mr. Bry, Ms. Slaats referred to an e-mail dated September 25, 2013, from John Bostrom of the Chicago Bears. She stated that it reads in part “please make plans elsewhere”. She continued reading from an email dated October, 2013 that conveyed that after further research, the College could rent the Bears’ facility but only for limited dates. She stated that the College requested the dates they needed, but the Bears could not accommodate the College. She stated that in 2014, both soccer teams qualified for post season play and no other practice fields could be found and that was the reason temporary lights on Farwell Field were requested. She stated that the College did not request use of the Bears’ facility in 2015. She explained that on February 12, 2016, the College received an e-mail from the Bears stating that based on current policy, the Bears do not rent it’s facility to high school or college sports teams. She confirmed that she understands that the Ordinance passed last fall had conditions of approval and did not give permission to move the lights around the field. She added that the lights were moved in response to impacts on neighbors. She confirmed that they realized quickly that three lights on each side of the field, did not work well for the neighbors. She stated that some neighbors provided feedback about the location and direction of the lighting. She responded to questions about music and confirmed that there are mid-week soccer games and warm up music is played at those regular season games. She stated that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 14 the College would agree to a prohibition on playing music while the lights are in use. She confirmed that no additional landscaping has been planted by the College since this petition was before the Board in September but noted that trees were purchased and will be planted when the weather permits. She explained that the College is considering removing some lower bushes and replacing them with arbor vitae. She confirmed that the field near the ice rink is used during the fall season, while daylight is available. She responded that the lights were moved around last fall to proactively work to find ways to minimize impacts on the neighbors. She agreed that the light configuration proposed today is based on the last lighting configuration used last fall. She explained that the College invited the neighbors to come to the field to view and provide input on the light configuration. She stated some of the complaints from neighbors voiced this evening were not previously shared with the College. In response to continued cross examination by Mr. Bry, Ms. Slaats responded that the plan presented tonight is the one that seems to have the least light spillover on to neighboring properties. She said that the light configuration presented directs no light into windows of the homes to the south of the field based on her observation. She confirmed that during the 2015 usage, acoustical material was put around two generators to see how effective it would be. She confirmed that the College did not invest in acoustical material for all of the generators in 2015 noting that it was cost prohibitive to make that investment until a determination was made on whether it was effective and until it was known whether approval would be granted for future years. She stated that the College invited the neighbors to come to the field and stand next to the generators and see the acoustical material and provide feedback on the approach used. She stated that she believes that the lighting layout presented is the best scenario and she confirmed that if the use of lights is approved, the College will buy acoustical material for all of the generators and will install more landscaping. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City sent out notification of this meeting and a request for feedback on the use of lights on the field in the fall to 117 neighbors. She stated that the notices were sent on February 29th and again on March 17. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Slaats reiterated that music is not played during practices. She explained that practices end by 7 p.m. prior to the end of daylight savings time. She explained that during daylight savings time, while there is daylight, one team practices on Farwell Field and the other team practices on the field near the ice rink. She stated that if there were temporary lights on two fields, the practices could end by 7 p.m. She stated however that the condition of the grass field, near the ice rink, is not reliable at the end of the season creating a potential safety hazard for players. She added that Farwell Field is artificial turf making it more usable toward the end of the season. She explained that practices cannot start until 4 p.m. because school is in session. She stated that because this is a small College, many classes are only offered once a semester. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 15 In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Slaats confirmed that football practices have to be on the artificial turf. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Slaats explained that after the end of daylight savings time, there are two more weeks of regular season football . She explained that if the soccer teams are in post season play, those teams could have up to three weeks of play which corresponds with the three week request for lights. She stated that this year the women had one week of play and the men had two weeks of play and as a result, the lights were not used for the full three weeks. In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City did not take any sound readings during the use of the lights last fall. In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Ms. Slaats stated that the College did not take any sound readings. She stated that she understands that a neighbor may have taken readings but said that she was not provided with that information and does not know when or where the readings were taken. Chairman Franksen invited the College representatives to respond to public testimony. Ms. Slaats stated that President Schutt is very involved and invested in this process and attended both neighborhood meetings. She stated however that he trusts his staff to make the presentations to the Board and find the best possible solution. She reiterated that the high school fields cannot be guaranteed until it is known whether or not those teams are in the playoffs. She said the fields at Deerpath Park have some availability, later in the evening, at 8:30 or 9 p.m. but noted that the condition of the fields are not optimum. Chairman Franksen invited response to public comment from staff. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that the public review process last year did not allow much time for consideration of the request and as a result, the Zoning Board Appeals recommended approval of the lights for only fall 2015. She stated that during the trial use period, some members of the Board, some Aldermen and City staff visited the neighborhood to view for themselves the off site impacts. She stated that staff understood last fall to be a fact finding opportunity and a good way to see the impacts first hand before further consideration of the request. She confirmed that the President of the College has been involved in this effort and responsive to neighbor concerns. She said that based on the concerns, suggestions and questions raised tonight, the Board could consider continuing this matter to allow further work before taking action. She said that if the Board desires to move forward with action, a number of conditions are offered for consideration in the staff report and, based on the discussion, the Board may want to consider the following additional conditions. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 16 1. In the event that daylight savings time is extended, the use of lights shall be reduced accordingly. If daylight savings time is adjusted to end sooner, the use of lights for more than 3 weeks shall not be permitted unless a further amendment to the Special Use Permit is approved by the City after consideration through the standard public review process. 2. The intensity of the lights shall not be increased above the lumens stated in the materials presented to the Board. 3. All generators must be fully baffled at all times. 4. During times when lights are in use, no music shall be played. 5. Maintenance and enhancement of landscaping around the field shall occur on an ongoing basis and gaps left by dead or diseased trees shall be filled with new plant materials. The perimeter landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist on an ongoing basis to assure that a substantial vegetative buffer is maintained. Chairman Franksen clarified that the minutes from the Zoning Board’s September, 2015 meeting were not approved prior to the Council meeting because there was not a Board meeting during that time. Board member Plonsker stated he is not ready to take action on the request and stated that the College has some further due diligence to complete in response to the concerns raised. He stated that more information is needed reading the sound level and the effectiveness of the proposed baffling. He stated that he believes a middle ground somewhere between what the College needs and the concerns raised by the neighbors can be found. Board member Pasquesi agreed and noted that last September, a decision was critical due to the timing. He stated that there is time now to consider solutions that might be available. He acknowledged that the plan presented may not be the best solution. Board member Pickus agreed with the comments made by the other Board members. He suggested that a parameter for acceptable sound levels at the property lines around the field be established to set a standard for sound coming from the field. Board member Lewis agreed that the matter should be continued. Board member Culbertson stated his agreement with the other Board members and encouraged the College to work to answer the questions so that this matter can be returned to the Board in a month. He stated that he also believes there is an answer to the problem somewhere. He suggested that the College explore ending practice earlier and lighting a second field. Chairman Franksen explained that he lives in the general neighborhood, but not across the street from the field. He stated that during the first week in November, he Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 17 walked along Illinois Road when the lights were on. He said that in his opinion, the lights change the nature of the neighborhood. He stated that he did not find it objectionable, but acknowledged that he does not live across the street from the field. He stated support for the College but questioned whether the request meets the standards for a Special Use Permit. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the Board votes to deny a petition, the recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Board member Plonsker stated that if the item is continued and in the interim the College and neighbors cannot work out a solution, he would be inclined to vote against the petition at the next meeting. Board member Culbertson explained that he wants to support the College and understands the need for a field to allow teams to practice but also wants to support the neighbors who have expressed concerns. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Plonsker made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the College to make modifications to the request; to the lighting, sound and hours, in an effort to address the neighbors’ concerns. The motion was seconded by Board member Pasquesi and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There was no other public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle E. Friedrich Planning Technician