ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2015/01/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the January 26, 2015 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday,
January 26, 2015 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: Jay Kennedy, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Plonsker, Louis Pickus and Kevin
Lewis
Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None, one position vacant
Staff present: 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 of the December 8, 2014 meeting of the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
The minutes of the December 8, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a side yard setback variance for an
addition to the residence at 425 Illinois Road.
Owners: James and Laura Duggan
Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect
Chairman Franksen recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition
due to a personal and professional association with the petitioner. He appointed
Board member Culbertson to serve as Acting Chairman for this item and left the
Council Chambers.
Acting Chairman Culbertson asked the Board for any other conflicts of interest or Ex
Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore
in all those intending to speak on this petition.
Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition explaining that an addition is proposed at
the rear of the residence. He stated that a variance from the side yard setback is
requested to allow the addition to conform to the footprint of the existing house. He
noted that the existing house encroaches into the side yard setback. He presented
photos of the house, a two story colonial. He reviewed the location of the proposed
one story addition, above the existing garage. He stated that the garage will remain.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 2
He noted that the existing arbor and chimney will be removed and noted that the
addition constructed in their place will have a sloping roof. He pointed out that the
proposed addition will encroach into the side yard setback 3 feet on north side of the
property. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials and detailing noting that the
addition will match the original 1909 residence. He noted that a new chimney will be
constructed to work with the family room addition. He stated that the addition will not
extend into the side yard setback any further than the existing garage. He presented
streets cape photos noting the evergreen trees that will screen the addition from the
streetscape and from the property to the north. He stated that the property owners
contacted the neighbors to the north and south and both submitted correspondence
in support of the project. He reviewed the site plan noting that the property is 1.2
acres in size and over 600 feet deep and only 90 feet wide. He reviewed the floor plan
of the addition noting some adjacent existing rooms that will be reconfigured to work
with the addition. He reviewed the proposed location for the replacement chimney
noting that the existing chimney projects further into the side yard setback than the
proposed chimney. He explained that the 3-foot variance will allow proper
construction in that the wall of the addition will be placed over the existing lower wall.
He explained that constructing the addition in a manner that meets the current
setbacks is not possible and would not be architecturally appropriate. He noted that
the only area where there is an encroachment into the setback is on the north side, in
the area of the existing encroachment. He explained that the hardship is the fact that
the Zoning Code was enacted well after the house was built. He noted that in its
present configuration, the house has only a small kitchen and family room not in
keeping with the overall size of the house. He noted that these short comings resulted
in the house remaining on the market for an extended time. He stated that the
proposed addition will have minimal impacts to the area. He stated that the house,
with the addition, is in compliance with the allowed square footage.
Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the hardship results from the creation of the lot and the
construction of the house well before the City adopted a Zoning Code. She explained
that when constructed, the house was in conformance with all applicable
requirements. She noted that although the size of the lot is in conformance with
today’s Code, the width of the lot is not. She stated that the proposed encroachment
into the side yard is minimal and consistent with the foot print of the existing house.
She noted that two letters in support of the project were provided to the Board. She
stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report.
In response to questions from Acting Chairman Culbertson, Mr. Krasnodebski clarified
that the wall of the addition encroaches 2.3 feet into the setback and the fireplace
encroaches 3.8 feet. He reiterated that the replacement chimney will encroach into
the setback a lesser extent than the existing chimney.
In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed the
roof and the extent of the overhang on the roof. He confirmed that the overhang will
encroach into the setback almost as far as the chimney.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 3
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited
public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Kennedy stated that the request is reasonable noting that the
addition will not encroach any further than the existing residence. He stated that
the addition is an improvement to the existing residence and stated support for the
request.
Board member Pickus agreed with the points made by Board member Kennedy.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited
a motion.
Board member Kennedy made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to
allow the encroachment of an addition at the rear of the house and a
replacement chimney into the side yard setback as detailed on the plans
presented to the Board. He added that the encroachment does not extend
beyond the line of the existing house. He stated that the recommendation is based
on the findings in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Plonsker and was approved by the
Board in a 5 to 0 vote.
Chairman Franksen rejoined the Board.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of a steep slope setback variance for a
screen porch addition to the residence at 367 Bluffs Edge Drive.
Owners: Arlington and Karen Gunther
Representative: Scott Streightiff, Architect
Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those
intending to speak on this petition.
Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition noting that a variance is requested to allow the
construction of a 468 square foot screen porch within the steep slope setback. He
stated that the project complies with all other zoning requirements. He described the
existing house noting that it was built in the 1950’s prior to the steep slope setback
requirement. He noted that about 70% of the existing residence is within the steep
slope setback. He pointed out the stone terrace and retaining wall near the edge of
the bluff, within the steep slope setback, noting that they are remnants from the
McCormick Estate built in the 1940’s. He stated that these elements provide support
for the bluff. He stated that the current owners have lived in the house for two years
and stated that their intent is to preserve the character of the home and the property.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 4
He stated that the screen porch is desired by the owners to allow use of the yard
noting that there are many mosquitos due to the heavy tree cover. He stated that the
screen porch is a modest project. He explained that alternate locations were
considered for the screen porch however, no better alternatives were found. He
explained that since most of the house is in the steep slope setback, a variance would
be required for the screen porch at almost any location. He presented photos of the
proposed location of the screen porch and noted the proximity of the house to the
bluff. He stated that the proposed porch will be located 30 feet from the top of the
bluff and will be constructed on a frost foundation anchored as directed by the City
Engineer. He explained that the piers will mitigate any lateral pressure from the frost
foundation. He stated that the porch will set on an unexcavated slab on grade. He
noted that the porch will be further away from the edge of the bluff than the existing
residence. He summarized the findings in support of the variance noting that the
historic terrace re-enforces the bluff, the bluff shows no indication of instability, and the
porch will be less non-conforming than the existing residence.
Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board does not often hear requests for steep slope
setback variances but noted that in this case, the pre-existing conditions on the
property support this request. She noted that the site is heavily wooded and the
owners desire a screened outdoor area to allow them to enjoy the property. She
stated that the addition is proposed as a screen porch, no solid walls are proposed.
She stated that the lightweight, screen nature of the porch is an important
consideration. She noted that the staff report recommends a condition requiring that
the porch not be enclosed with solid walls in the future without reconsideration of the
steep slope issue. She noted that the City Engineer carefully reviewed this project and
agreed that as proposed, the project does not appear to impact the stability of the
bluff. She stated that at present, the bluff does not show any signs of instability. She
stated that prior to the issuance of a building permit; final engineering plans and a
plan for construction access; staging and storage of materials will be required and will
be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. She stated that findings in support of
the requested variance are detailed in the staff and conditions of approval are also
offered for the Board’s consideration.
In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Streightiff reviewed the
proposed construction noting that the frost wall will be supported by helical piers that
will be drilled into the ground. He explained that a frost foundation is required by the
Building Code for any structure with a roof. He added that the foundation will
preserve the structural integrity of the porch over time. He confirmed that the screen
porch will generally align with the footprint of the existing patio.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Streightiff stated that one
tree will be removed to allow construction of the screen porch. He stated that several
replacement trees will be planted to provide an inch for inch replacement of the tree
removed. He confirmed that a landscape plan will be submitted to the City for the
project.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 5
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak stated that based
on review of stability studies and visual inspection by City Engineering staff, the bluff in
this area appears to have been stable over an extended period of time. She stated
that with the construction as proposed, including the use of helical piers, the City
Engineer believes that the stability of the bluff will not be impacted. She explained
that prior to the issuance of a building permit, detailed construction plans will be
submitted to review and approval by the City Engineer along with construction access
and staging plans. She noted that during construction, City inspectors will monitor the
site and added that an as built drawing will be required and will be kept on file at the
City for future reference.
In response to questions form Board member Pickus, Mr. Streightiff stated that the
helical piers will extend about 10 feet below the foundation.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the
staff recommends a condition requiring the screen porch to remain as a lightweight,
open element unless in the future an additional variance is granted allowing the
element to be enclosed with solid walls. She noted that if such a request is made, the
stability of the bluff would be re-examined and the City Engineer would evaluate
whether the frost foundation under the screen porch would need to be modified to
support a solid structure.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Streightiff stated that the
frost foundation as proposed may be sufficient to support an enclosed structure in the
future noting however, the petitioners are not proposing an enclosed structure.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public
testimony. Hearing no requests to speak from the public, he stated support for a
condition, as recommended in the staff report, requiring that the open nature of the
screen porch be maintained and the structure not be enclosed without further review
by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the surrounding area is wooded and
acknowledged that no concerns were raised by neighboring property owners. He
invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Pickus noted that the screen porch will be generally in the footprint of
the existing patio.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion.
Board member Lewis made a motion to recommend approval of a variance from the
steep slope setback to allow the construction of a screen porch addition as detailed
in the plans presented to the Board. He stated that the motion is based on the
findings in the staff report and subject is to the following conditions.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 6
1. The screen porch shall not be enclosed with walls, partial walls or glass but
shall remain as a lightweight, screen element intended for seasonal, not year
round, use.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans for the screen porch shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. All requirements of
the City Engineer pertaining to the foundation, piers and slab shall be
satisfied.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan for construction access,
parking and staging of materials shall be submitted and will be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer. As part of the construction access
plan, information on the type, size and weight of equipment that will be used
during construction shall be provided.
The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was approved by a
vote of 6 to 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval of a front yard setback variance for a
second floor addition over an existing first floor at 1450 W. Old Mill Road.
Owners and Representatives: Frank and Becky Ponterio
Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those
intending to speak on this petition.
Mr. Ponterio stated they have owned the property and lived in the house for 14 years.
He explained that the house was originally a gate house, constructed in the 1920’s as
part of the Lasker Estate. He noted that since it was a gate house, it was sited very
close to the road. He pointed out that at the time the structure was built, this area was
not part of Lake Forest. He noted that under the current zoning regulations, most of
the house is located within the front yard setback. He stated that a variance is
requested to allow the construction of a second floor addition over an existing one
story element of the house. He introduced the project architect to provide more
details about the proposed addition.
Steve Rugo, project architect, presented photographs of the property. He noted that
the front, one-story portion of the house, the original structure, is perpendicular to the
road and is setback 22 feet from Old Mill Road. He reviewed the site plan and
identified the area where the addition is proposed, above the dining room and
kitchen. He noted that the addition will replicate the roof pitch and the dormer on the
existing two story portion of the house. He reviewed the existing and proposed
elevations. He noted that the exterior materials of the addition will match the wood
siding and stucco on the existing house. He provided an overview of the surrounding
properties.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 7
Mr. Ponterio explained that the hardship of the existing house is that there is only one
bathroom on the second floor and they have a teenage daughter. He explained that
since purchasing the house, they have completed a significant amount of restoration
and repair. He stated that they have spent considerable time thinking about how best
to expand the house in a manner that is sensitive to the architecture and in keeping
with the character of the property. He explained that the entire Lasker Estate,
including this property, was designed in a European farm vernacular. He stated that
the proposed addition does not expand the building foot print and in his opinion, is the
option that has the least impact on the property and best preserves the historic
integrity of the building.
Ms. Czerniak stated that this structure was originally on an estate of over 500 acres and
was one of many outbuildings several of which remain and are adaptively reused as
residences today. She explained that as the estate was subdivided, most of the
structures became non-conforming with zoning setbacks. She stated that the
petitioners are proposing a creative way to update the structure to make it more
functional for them as a single family house. She acknowledged that the addition is
proposed on the streetscape side of the structure but noted that the design and
massing are consistent with the overall compact character of the structure. She
stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report.
In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak stated that the
property is not in a local historic district and is not individually landmarked so the
project is not under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson about the size of the dormers,
Mr. Ponterio pointed out that the proposed dormers reflect the exact pitch and height
of the existing dormers. He stated that the dormer allows for head room given the
intimate nature of the second floor. He reviewed the existing dormers and compared
them to the dormers proposed as part of the addition.
Board member Culbertson questioned whether the project should be reviewed by the
Building Review Board, if not by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public
testimony, hearing none; he invited final comments from the Board.
Board member Lewis noted his initial concern was that the proposed addition is very
close to the road. He added that the history of the structure as a gate house located
on the road; is a mitigating and unique circumstance. He expressed concern that the
proposed increase in mass is significant and that the addition may tower over the
street. He acknowledged that the roofline steps back from the front of the property.
He expressed hesitation but noted that requiring the addition to be set back further
from the street does not seem be a reasonable idea.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 8
Chairman Franksen stated that based on the history of the structure he can support
the variance.
Board member Plonsker stated if the Board does not support unique projects like this
one, people will be hesitant to invest in historic properties and as a result, the
properties will deteriorate.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Ponterio said that he has
had success in finding common brick of the exact size and color for the restoration
and repair work completed to date. He reviewed other details of the exterior
materials noting that the addition will be indistinguishable from the original materials.
He reviewed the front elevation noting that the roof ridge is 25 feet back from the front
plane of the addition.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Rugo stated that the scale
of the proposed addition is relatively modest. He confirmed that the addition will not
impact existing trees or utility wires.
Mr. Ponterio stated that he would support undergrounding of the utilities if that
opportunity was offered by the utility companies.
In response to a question from Board member Pickus, Mr. Ponterio confirmed that the
pitch of the roof on the addition matches the pitch of the roof on the existing
structure.
Chairman Franksen stated that in his opinion, this petition meets the criteria for a
zoning variance noting that the proposed addition will not change the character of
the neighborhood. He noted that the hardship is the location of the house close to
the front yard setback.
Board member Plonsker agreed stating that he is inclined to support the request. He
observed that with roof pitching away from the front of the house, the impact on the
streetscape may be mitigated.
Board Member Kennedy stated that the proximity of the house to Old Mill Road is a
condition that exists today.
Board member Lewis agreed noting that if the roof did not recede back, away from
the streetscape, the impact would be different. He stated that the proposed addition
is a good use of space.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion.
Board member Pickus made a motion to recommend approval of a front yard
variance to allow a second floor addition consistent with the plans presented to the
Board and not extending closer to the property line than the existing structure. He
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 26, 2015 Page 9
stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the
following conditions.
The motion was seconded by Board member Lewis 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 7: 25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development