Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2015/07/27 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the July 27, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, July 27, 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: Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Plonsker, Kevin Lewis and Mark Pasquesi Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board members Jay Kennedy and Louis Pickus 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 May 26, 2015 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Consideration of the minutes of the May meeting was postponed. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a front yard setback variance for a garage addition at 1020 Breckenridge Avenue. Owners: Gerardo Di Leo and Julie Bauer Representative: Michael Breseman, architect Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any 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. Breseman introduced the project noting that the home was built in 2003. He noted that the current owners are the fourth owners in three years and suggested that the turnover of the property may be due, in part, to the limited functionality of the garage. He reviewed an air photo of the property noting surrounding properties. He stated that the variance is requested to allow the garage to be expanded, to the front, to make it functional. He explained that only a 4’, single story addition is proposed. He stated that new and existing landscaping will provide screening to soften views from the streetscape. He explained that a variance is needed for only a portion of the four foot addition. He reviewed the standards for a zoning variance noting that the house is unique due to the short garage that was originally constructed. He reviewed a site plan noting the footprint of the proposed addition. He presented photos of other Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 2 homes in the neighborhood and of the house on which the addition is proposed. He pointed out that currently, the garage is only visible from the street from directly in front of the garage door. He pointed out that even though the garage is configured as a three car garage, due to the protrusion of the mud room into the garage, it cannot accommodate three vehicles. He stated that the proposed addition will allow the garage to function as a three car garage as originally intended. He reviewed a rendering of the garage with the proposed addition. He noted the architectural elements that help reduce the appearance of mass. He presented an elevation of the proposed addition noting that the massing is kept low. He reviewed a section and a roof plan pointing out again how the size of the addition is minimized to the extent possible. He reviewed a landscape plan noting the existing landscaping that will remain and areas where infill plantings will occur. Ms. Friedrich noted that the petitioner highlighted the key elements of the project well. She confirmed that the proposed addition is minimal in size, with a minimal encroachment into the front yard setback, just enough to allow the garage to accommodate present day vehicles. She noted that the lot does not meet the minimum lot size for the R-2 district which is part of the hardship affecting the property. She noted that as presented by the petitioner, some landscaping will be added to provide further screening of the garage from the streetscape. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Breseman confirmed that the hardship is that the garage is simply too short to accommodate today’s cars. He noted that cars have gotten larger over the years and the garage was undersized at the time of the original construction. Hearing no questions from the other Board members, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Hearing no requests to speak, he invited final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Culbertson stated that the addition as proposed is modest and is appropriate given the circumstances. Chairman Franksen commented that the roof form of the addition helps to soften the appearance of the structure. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Breseman explained that the existing garage is uncharacteristically short. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of a variance from the front yard setback to allow construction of a one story addition at the front of the garage as detailed in the plans in the Board’s packet. He noted that findings in Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 3 support of the recommendation are detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Lewis and approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a height variance for an addition to the Johnson Science Center on Middle Campus at Lake Forest College, 555 N. Sheridan Road. Owner: Lake Forest College Representatives: Michael Orr, Krebs Provost and Dean of the Faculty Ryan McNutt, architect Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any 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. Orr commented on the importance of this project to the College. He noted that today, about 40% of students major in the sciences and pointed out that Lake Forest College has a long standing tradition of excellence in science education and has top faculty in this field. He noted that the current science facility was built in the 1960’s and has had no substantial renovation since that time. He stated that a substantial upgrade of the existing facility is planned concurrent with the proposed addition. He noted that earlier in the month, the City’s Historic Preservation Commission approved and enthusiastically endorsed the project. He noted that the existing facility is three stories above grade and he explained that the addition must maintain the three stories to provide synergy and connections with the older buildings. He noted however, that on the upper floor, to accommodate current technologies, the floor to ceiling height is increased which, along with the need for updated mechanical equipment on the roof, trigger the need for a height variance. Mr. McNutt noted that he represents Stantec, a nationally known design firm with expertise in the design of science facilities. He said that a state of the art facility is planned. He reviewed an air photo of the existing campus noting the location of the science center internal to the campus and away from the streetscape and neighboring homes. He reviewed a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition which will link the existing science buildings. He noted that the mechanical penthouse is located on the existing building, away from the building façade, to minimize the appearance of increased height. He noted that other buildings on the Campus, Young Hall and North Hall, are taller than the proposed addition and penthouse. He noted that the C wing, a small building that is part of the existing science facility, will be demolished. He stated that the addition will be constructed in its place, and will be constructed with materials that are consistent with those on the existing buildings. He provided photos of the existing buildings noting how the proposed addition references various elements on those buildings. He provided conceptual renderings of the science center with the proposed addition. He noted Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 4 that the use of metal panels help conceal where the penthouses start and stop. He noted that in response to comments from the Historic Preservation Commission, the scale of the windows was brought down in an effort to reduce the appearance of mass. He reviewed images of how the building and the penthouse will be viewed from various locations on and off the campus. He provided height comparisons with other buildings on the campus. He explained that efforts are being made to minimize the overall height and the appearance of height by raising the parapet and having custom air handler units made. He stated that the overall height proposed is 63 feet. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that this petition received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission after some revisions were made to the plans in response to the Commission’s comments. She stated that the Commission commended the project and recognized that the location of the science center, away from the street and away from views from off the site, make the increased height of the addition and mechanical penthouse, acceptable. She noted that the College predated the City and the current zoning requirements. She stated that the College today is authorized by a Special Use Permit as an institutional use in a residential district. She stated that the height of the structure at the highest point is 63 feet. She noted that there may be some slight variance in the final number as the plans are prepared for construction. She stated that there are findings in support of the request in the staff report accompanied by recommendations for conditions of approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Lewis, Ms. Czerniak stated that the maximum building height permitted in residential districts is 40 feet. She noted that a variance is in part justified because the College, an institutional use, is permitted as a Special Use in the residential district. She reiterated that there are other buildings on the campus that exceed 40 feet in height. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. McNutt stated that today, there are six buildings on the Campus that are taller than 40 feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the recommended conditions of approval noting that they are intended to address any unanticipated light or noise impacts resulting from the project. She noted that measures are taken in the plans to mitigate both light and noise impacts. She noted for instance that the type of glass selected minimizes the visibility of interior lights from outside the buildings. She noted that there is a history of cooperation between the City and the College in addressing issues that come up. She noted that light spillover from the recently constructed Sports Center on the Campus was resolved through the installation of automated interior shades. She stated that the proposed penthouse will mitigate noise from the roof top air handler units. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. McNutt stated that the custom air handlers are designed to minimize sound and he added that the penthouse will be fully enclosed, not just screen walls, which will further mitigate any Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 5 off site sound impacts. He confirmed that the College is willing to work with the City to address any unintended light or noise impacts. Chairman Franksen pointed out that the conditions, as recommended by staff, gives sole discretion to the City in determining whether there is an off site negative impact. In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Mr. McNutt stated that the closest neighbors to the building are to the north, across the ravine. He reviewed an air photo and pointed out the homes located closest to the Science Center. He noted that the separation distance is significant. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. McNutt stated that a baseline sound measurement will be taken prior to the start of construction. He reiterated that an acoustical engineer will be part of the project team and will direct appropriate measures to reduce sound levels. He stated that there will be no exhaust impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that any exhaust will be only minimally visible, if visible at all. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. McNutt confirmed that the generator for the building will be enclosed and any vibrations will be mitigated. He confirmed that the activities inside the science facility will only be those common to campus science and laboratory buildings. Chairman Franksen invited public testimony, hearing none; he suggested that language giving the City “sole discretion” be incorporated into both conditions #1 and #2. He stated that he lives about the same distance from the athletic building as some residents do to the Science Center. He stated confidence that with current technology, noise issues from the air handling equipment can be addressed so long as the conditions provide the City with the ongoing authority to direct enhanced sound mitigation if necessary. He invited final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Lewis noted the importance of having clear standards and conditions that are enforceable by the City. Board member Culbertson noted that the addition is proposed internal to the Campus. He stated that it is clear that thought was given to the massing and to mitigating impacts from the mechanicals on the neighboring properties. He stated that as long as the City retains the ability to address any unintended lighting or noise issues, he is supportive of the variance. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Lewis made a motion to recommend approval of a height variance for the Johnson Science Center on Middle Campus at Lake Forest College to allow Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 6 construction of an addition as detailed on the plans included in the Board’s packet. He noted that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report and is conditioned upon the following: 1. An inspection of off site lighting impacts shall be conducted by City staff after completion and occupancy of the building. If the lighting is determined, at the sole discretion of the City, to cause off site impacts or interfere with the “right to night” concept, the City shall direct that appropriate measures be taken by the College to mitigate off site light impacts. (Possibly through the installation of shades, modification of light intensities, use of an alternate fixture or other options as may be determined to be appropriate.) 2. All appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate sound from the roof top mechanical equipment. If the sound from the roof top equipment or generator is determined, at the sole discretion of the City, to cause off site impacts, the City shall direct that appropriate measures be taken by the College to mitigate the impacts to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Continued consideration of a request for approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit for the Winter Club, 956 N. Sheridan Road to allow the addition of a paddle court, modification of on site parking and the incorporation of an adjacent property into the boundaries of the Club. Owner: Winter Club Representative: Robert O’Donnell, attorney Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any 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. The waived the initial presentation and deferred to staff noting that the conditions now presented as a follow up to the Board’s discussion and direction at the last meeting are acceptable to the Club. Ms. Czerniak stated that as a follow up to the last meeting, enhanced conditions of approval were drafted for the Board’s consideration. She added that as requested by the Board, copies of the previous Special Use Permits granted to the Winter Club over the years are included in the Board’s packet. She noted that the previous approvals carried with them few conditions or limitations on activities at the Club and she explained that historically, such approvals were permissive, without many limitations. She reviewed that at the last meeting, the Board directed that consideration be given Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 7 to conditions that address not only the improvements now proposed, but also the ongoing activities at the Club. She noted that the conditions were drafted after listening and receiving input from the Club and the neighbors with the goal of imposing reasonable limitations that could make the Club a better neighbor. She explained that the request before the Board is for an amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow the addition of a fourth paddle court, modifications to the existing parking on the site and the incorporation of an adjacent residential property into the Club boundaries. She noted that correspondence received since the last meeting, both in support of and in opposition to the petition, was included in the Board’s packet. She noted that at the request of one property owner, a meeting was arranged between that resident, the resident’s attorney and the City attorney. She noted that the City attorney confirmed that the City is properly processing and considering this petition and does not have the ability to deny the Winter Club’s request that the petition be heard. She stated that from the staff perspective, including the Police Department, the conditions as proposed give the City more ability to monitor and control the activities at the Club than exists today. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the changes made to the recommended conditions since the last meeting. She stated that the conditions now speak more generally to the operations of the Club. She noted that seasonal time restrictions are imposed on the use of the paddle courts and the lights on the courts. She explained that usage is more limited during the summer months when neighboring residents are more likely to be outside and have their windows open. She noted that a requirement for a parking management plan was added with the requirement that the Club is responsible for communicating the requirements and limitations of the plan to its employees, members and guests. She noted that limitations were added for amplified sound limiting the number of events at which amplified sound is permitted and limiting the placement and direction of speakers. She stated that the conditions recommended pertaining to the property proposed for incorporation into the Club boundaries have not changed since the last meeting. Chairman Franksen summarized that the changes made to the conditions since the last meeting include limitations on the hours of activity and lights on the paddle courts, particularly during the summer, development of a parking management plan and limitations on amplified sound. He invited questions from the Board members. Board member Culbertson stated that he is impressed with the operations manual prepared by the Club. He stated that it speaks well to the Club’s good intentions. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the lights on the paddle courts can be turned off independently of each other. He confirmed that there is a master timer that shuts all of the lights off on the courts at 10 p.m. He stated that when an individual court is not in use, the lights are usually turned off on that court. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 8 that language in the previous Special Use Permit stated that an additional court could not be requested unless there was a substantial change in conditions. She noted that the petitioner’s statement of intent speaks directly to the change in conditions. She added that the earlier condition did not clarify whether the substantial change in conditions pertained to changes in the use of the Club, the overall community, demographics or interest in paddle tennis. She noted that the City is obligated to bring the petition forward for consideration by the Board and that consideration includes whether or not there has been a substantial change in conditions. She noted that paddle courts have recently been added at other clubs in the community and the case has been made that the addition of a paddle court could actually reduce overall playing time. Chairman Franksen pointed out that the previous condition noted that the addition of any future paddle court could be approved at the sole discretion of the City. Board member Plonsker noted that any time there is a non-residential use in a residential neighborhood; there is the challenge of balancing the impacts of the use on the neighboring property owners with the interests and needs of the non-residential use. He noted the importance of maintaining the character of the neighborhood and limiting the chaos created by the non-residential use. He noted that the Board has received letters from neighbors both in opposition and in support of the proposed changes. He stated that he understands the concerns of the neighbors and stated that the petitioners need to be very sensitive to the neighbors given the tightness of the site to the neighboring homes. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Smith, General Manager of the Club, stated that when amplified sound is used, he monitors the sound at the edge of the property and adjusts the volume as needed. He confirmed that parking guards are employed by the Club during special events. He confirmed that there is Club staff on the site until the Club closes. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the conditions of a Special Use Permit are not adhered to, ultimately, the Permit can be revoked if there is a consistent pattern of violations. She stated that the City’s practice is to make a courtesy contact if a violation occurs. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak stated that the 1991 condition did not strictly prohibit an additional court, but requires that the Club demonstrate that a “substantial change” has occurred. She stated that City staff did not have the ability to simply reject the petition. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Witmer stated that the typical play is four teams. He stated that today, only three teams can play at one time and the fourth team plays after one of the teams finishes. He confirmed that today, play ends at 10 p.m. He stated that in his opinion, the impacts on the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 9 neighbors from the paddle courts should be no greater with a fourth court than it is today. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak stated that through the recommended conditions, more restrictions will be put on the Club and City staff will have specific parameters to measure the activities against. Chairman Franksen invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Mr. Smith stated that he received one complaint about a life guard parking on Church Street last summer. He stated that over the last year, he has received no complaints about lighting or noise. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that in recent years, the Club has made significant improvements in response to concerns raised in 2012. She stated that to her knowledge, the City has not received complaints over the past several years about activity at the Club. Board member Culbertson stated that in his opinion, the petitioner has done a commendable job listening to the Board and the neighbors. He noted that the Club has revised its operations, developed an operations manual to guide activities at the Club, established parking rules, lighting limitations and sound limitations. He stated that the entire situation at the Club has improved regardless of whether a fourth court is constructed or not. He acknowledged that the language of the condition from 1991 might have been worded differently by a different Board but regardless, he believes that conditions have changed sufficiently and stated that he can support the request subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Chairman Franksen noted that the Board is now in the comment portion of its consideration of the petition. He stated that he is somewhat conflicted on the petition. He stated that the concerns of the neighbors do not revolve around kids activities at the Club, but instead, the late night vulgarity or raucousness from adults at the Club which is not consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that on the other hand, the Club will have more restrictions and conditions limiting activities with this approval than exist today. He stated that the logistics of playing four paddle games at once and finishing the games together makes sense. Board member Plonsker stated that the 1991 approvals might have been the beginning of the push and pull of the greater impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the Club activities have changed due to the increasing number of adults using the Club. He stated that as a result, the Club members need to be sensitive to the rights of the neighbors. He stated that given the proximity of the neighboring homes, the Club needs to be careful not to push too hard even though with this project, the Club is accepting more regulations. He stated that all parties Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 10 need to work to get along. Chairman Franksen commented on the 1991 condition noting that there has been a change in conditions 25 years later. Board member Lewis stated that he is struggling with the 1991 condition noting that some of the same concerns that were raised in 1991 are being raised again. He agreed that the Club has responded by establishing some additional regulations for its operations. He expressed concern about whether the proposed conditions will be able to be enforced. He noted that the Board needs to look to the future when the parties involved may be different. He stated that the Board needs to feel comfortable that the regulations will be followed and will be effective. Chairman Franksen summarized that in addition to the conditions proposed, the Board wants to be certain that the City has the ability to enforce the conditions. Board member Culbertson stated that once the Ordinance is in place, it is enforceable if the City has the will to do so. He stated that he would not hold it up due to concerns about enforcement. Board member Pasquesi stated that he does not have any concerns about the interpretation of the 1991 condition. He noted that the condition could have been written more strictly, but it allowed an opening for future consideration. He stated that in his opinion, it appears that there has genuinely been the intent on the part of the Club to work with the neighbors. He pointed out that going through this process has opened up the Club to more scrutiny and provisions have been put in place to allow the Club to be a better neighbor. He stated that it is reassuring to hear that there have not been constant nuisance complaints about the Club from the neighbors. He stated that he has taken the neighbors’ comments into consideration and believes that the Winter Club is taking steps to be a better neighbor. He stated that he is supportive of the petition. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit for the Winter Club to allow the addition of a fourth paddle court, modifications to the parking on the site and the incorporation of an adjacent property into the Club’s boundaries as detailed on the site plan in the Board’s packet. He stated that the recommendation is based on the finding presented in the staff report and noted that the recommendation is subject to the 12 conditions listed below. Paddle Courts 1. Use of the paddle courts shall be limited as follows: a. Labor Day through Memorial Day (fall, winter, spring season) i. Use of or activity on the paddle courts is permitted 7 days a week only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 11 ii. All paddle court lights must be turned off no later than 10 p.m. b. Memorial Day through Labor Day (summer season) i. Use of or activity on the paddle courts is permitted Monday through Thursday only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Paddle lights must be turned off at 10 p.m. ii. Use of or activity on the paddle courts is permitted on Friday and Saturday only from 8 a.m. until dusk. No use of paddle lights is permitted. iii. Use of or activity on the paddle courts is permitted on Sundays only from 10 a.m. until dusk. No use of paddle lights is permitted. Parking 2. Parking for employees, members and guests is prohibited on the surrounding residential streets. 3. The Winter Club is responsible for developing a parking management program (which may include for example on site parking attendants, offsite parking in permitted areas and shuttle service), communicating the program to employees, members and guests; and enforcing the program. Amplified Sound 4. No amplified sound system is permitted to be installed on the Winter Club grounds. 5. A temporary, portable sound system may be used at the Winter Club for up to, and not more than, 12 events per year and for no more than three consecutive days. A portable sound system may be used only for the following events: Winter Carnival, Big Splash, Last Dance, hockey tournaments and swimming meets. All speakers must be directed internal to the Club and may not be located within 25’ of any property line. A sound system may only be used for the above named events between the hours of 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. 6. No daily use of an amplified sound system is permitted. Use of the 936 N. Sheridan Road Property 7. The overall amount of pavement on the 936 N. Sheridan Road parcel shall not be increased and the existing pavement shall not be replaced unless and until drainage and grading plans, and any other materials normally required for a parking lot, are submitted along with a permit application. The plans shall be subject to review and a determination by staff, including the City Engineer, that all applicable engineering requirements are met prior to the issuance of a permit. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 27, 2015 Page 12 8. No lights shall be installed on the parking lot. 9. A sight obscuring fence, a minimum of 6’ in height shall be installed along the common property line with the house to the east, access to the employee parking area and the house at 936 N. Sheridan Road shall be from the Winter Club driveway to the north. The fence shall be landscaped on the east side, on the 944 N. Sheridan Road property, which is also owned by the Club. 10. The house shall continue to be used for residential purposes unless otherwise approved through a future amendment to the Special Use Permit. 11. The Club acknowledges that the residences at 936 and 944 N. Sheridan Road are identified as Contributing Structures to the Local Historic District and that the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over these structures. No exterior modifications are permitted without the required approvals. 12. The mechanical equipment on the roof of the walk-in cooler shall be installed with sound attenuation materials or screening structures subject to review and approval by the City and the issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded by Board member Pasquesi and was approve by a 5 to 0 vote. 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 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development