Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2014/10/27 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the October 27, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, October 27, 2014 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 Christoff, Jay Kennedy and Kevin Lewis Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Plonsker 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 September 22, 2014 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The minutes of the September 22, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a front yard setback variance for a rear addition to the residence located at 995 Woodbine Place. Owner and Representative: Mary Ann and Thomas Wells 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. Ms. Wells introduced the petition stating that the residence was constructed prior to zoning regulations and as a result, the house, in its existing condition, violates the current setbacks. She asked for the Board’s support for the project which will allow the house to be made livable for her son’s family. She explained that the proposed project involves removing the rear addition and reconstructing a new, larger addition in its place. She stated that even though the addition is at the rear of the home, it will encroach into the setbacks. She added that the roof over the one story elements on the south side of the house will be modified and a front porch is proposed both of which will also require variances. She noted that a garage is proposed as part of the project and will meet all of the required setbacks. Ms. Czerniak stated that house is located in a unique neighborhood and was originally Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 2 constructed as an outbuilding on an estate. She noted that the road, Woodbine Place, used to be a service road on the estate and provided access to the various outbuildings. She noted that all of the structures in this area are very close to, and in some cases, even on or over the property line. She stated that variances are requested for three components of the project now proposed: the rear addition which encroaches into the front yard setback, modification of the flat roof over the south addition which encroaches into the side yard setback, and the addition of a covered front porch which would will encroach further into the front yard setback than the existing house. She explained that the existing house is about 14 feet from the front property line at the point of furthest encroachment. She stated that the required front yard setback is 50 feet. She noted that because of the unique placement of the structure on the property which resulted from the subdivision of the estate and parceling off of the existing buildings, the proposed rear addition, even though it is behind the house, encroaches into the front yard setback. She noted that the flat roof on the one story element on the south side of the house leaks and is proposed to be replaced with a gable roof. She explained that because the house encroaches into the front and side yard setbacks in its current conditions, the change in roof form requires variances to allow the modification in shape. She clarified that the new roof will not encroach any further into the setback than the existing conditions. She explained that the third variance is for a new, covered front porch. She stated that the proposed front porch will extend further into the front yard setback than the existing house. She noted that on the north side of the property, there is an existing garden shed which is located in the side yard setback. She stated that a “lean to” on the north side of this building is proposed for removal and will lessen the extent of the encroachment in this area. She stated that no Board action is needed on that component of the project. She stated that this project is scheduled for review by the Historic Preservation Commission later this month and any approval by the Board will be subject to approval by the Commission and ultimately, the City Council. She stated that given the unique aspects of the property and the street, findings in support of the requested variances are provided in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Kennedy, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the portion of the rear of the house planned for removal is in the front yard setback since the entire house is in the front yard setback. She confirmed that because of that situation, the proposed rear addition also requires a front yard setback. She noted that the new rear addition will extend further to the east than the existing house, but that extension does not require a variance because it conforms to the setbacks. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak clarified that since the existing one-story element on the south side of the house encroaches into the front yard setback and what would be the side yard setback if the setback line was extended into the front yard setback, technically, both variances should be considered. She emphasized that on the south side of the house, the building footprint is not changing; the roof is being modified from a flat roof to a gable roof to address roof leaks. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 3 In response to comments and a question from Board member Christoff, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that just about any work on the house will require a variance. She added that the new garage that is proposed as part of this project fully conforms to the setback requirements. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the potting shed will remain but a non-historic “lean to” on the north side of the shed will be removed reducing the extent of the existing encroachment. Chairman Franksen stated that this is a unique and wonderful neighborhood. He noted that the Board recently considered a request for a variance from the front yard setback requirement for the property across the street to allow a replacement garage to be constructed in the footprint of the existing non-conforming garage. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Wells stated that improving upon the existing house is proposed given the historic significance of the neighborhood and the existing structure. She stated that as a result, variances are required to allow the improvements desired. She acknowledged that if the house was demolished, a new house could be constructed in conformance with the current setbacks. She confirmed that on the south side of the house, only the roof will be modified, the building footprint will not increase. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Wells reviewed the proposal to extend the front porch and create a covered entrance. She explained the relationship of the porch to the interior space. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Robert Pasquesi, 1040 Woodbine Place, stated that he lives across the street from this property. He stated support for the proposal noting that the house is the only one on the street without a garage. He stated that the property only has a small circular driveway in the parkway, about 5 feet from the roadway. He stated that removing the cars from the driveway along the street will be a safety improvement. He stated that the addition of a covered front porch will improve the appearance of the front of the house. John Dick, 900 Woodbine Lane, the neighbor to the east, agreed that the streetscape will be improved as a result of the project and that providing a garage on the site will improve the safety of the street. He asked that consideration be given to landscaping to screen his property noting that the house is getting significantly larger in the rear. He questioned whether the landscaping is an issue for the Zoning Board or for the Historic Preservation Commission. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 4 Chairman Franksen noted that the landscaping is an issue that the Historic Preservation Commission will focus on to a greater extent than the Board. He noted that the Board’s focus is on the setbacks. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, he invited further questions from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Wells stated that a row of 8- foot tall arborvitae will be planted along the east property line. She acknowledged that they will take some time to grow and fill the gaps. She stated that with respect to the porch, reducing the length of the porch will result in an awkward appearance. Board member Lewis commented that it is unclear how the porch element will integrate with the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Christoff, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the exact distance of the proposed porch from the property line is not specified on the plan. She acknowledged that the house to the north, Ms. Well’s property, is located very close to or on the property line. Ms. Wells commented that the front porch is an important element of the project and the upgrades planned to the house. She stated that to the extent possible, they are trying to minimize any further encroachment. Board member Christoff stated support for the rear addition noting that the condition already exists. He acknowledged that the proposed front porch will result in a further encroachment into the front yard setback but noted that the porch could be an improvement to the front elevation. He pointed out that the house directly to the north appears to encroach even further into the front yard setback than what is proposed with this project establishing a pattern along this street. Board member Kennedy stated if the porch does not extend beyond the house, the roof element will be asymmetrical. Chairman Franksen questioned whether the project goal could be accomplished with a shorter front porch and suggested that some further exploration could be worthwhile. Board member Lewis stated support for the rear elevation and the modification of the roof on the south side of the house. He stated that the need for the variances is driven by the assumption that the house needs to be saved and noted that he questions that assumption. He stated that the front porch appears to completely change the front façade and he questioned whether the front porch will function properly. He stated more due diligence on the porch element would be helpful. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 5 Chairman Franksen reiterated that this is a unique neighborhood. He stated that his initial reaction to the plans was that there is a great deal proposed. He summarized that it appears that the Board needs additional definition before making a decision. He acknowledged that there is probably a good reason to save the house and stated that the Historic Preservation Commission will weigh in on that aspect of the project. He stated that the front porch appears to be the issue that needs further discussion. He questioned whether there are options for a front porch that would reduce the extent of the encroachment. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the Board to continue the matter to allow additional information to be presented by the designer or architect. He invited further comments from the Board or a motion. Board Member Kennedy made a motion to continue the petition to allow review by the Historic Preservation Commission and to allow further information to be presented on the front porch. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was approved by the Board in a 4 to 0 vote. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a side yard setback variance for a replacement detached garage at a new location on the property at 111 W. Westminster. Owners: ATG Trust CO L010-194, Liam and Francesca Connell Representative: David Poulton, 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. Poulton introduced the petition noting that this residence was part of a 40 acre estate that was subdivided into several parcels. He reviewed the various buildings that comprised the estate noting the original relationships of the buildings to each other. He stated that the subdivision overall was thoughtfully planned and retained the original relationships between the various buildings and original gardens. He stated that although the parcels are in various ownerships today, there is not a sense that the property was subdivided. He noted that there is cooperation between the owners and a shared interest in preserving the original character of the estate. He reviewed the location of the property lines of the subject property noting that the original large manor house is located on this site. He noted however that as a result of the subdivision, none of the outbuildings remained with the manor house and the house was left without a garage. He noted that previous owners constructed a garage on the site in the 1980’s which still exists today. He reviewed photos of the existing garage noting the inappropriate design and materials and pointing out its location up against the historic manor house. He pointed out that the garage blocks the windows of the manor house and limits natural light into the house. He reviewed the locations that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 6 were considered for a replacement garage noting that there are limited possibilities due to the grade change on the west and south portions of the property and the original gardens and tennis court located in those areas. He reviewed the proposed location for the replacement garage, along the east property line. He acknowledged that the existing garage is conforming to the setbacks but again noted that it compromises the integrity of the historic property. He reviewed the proposed replacement garage, its location, design and materials. He acknowledged that a smaller garage could be proposed but noted that the large manor house dictates an outbuilding of a significant size. He reviewed the east property line noting a jog in the line and explained that the neighbors to the east are willing to adjust the property line and are in full support of the project as proposed. He explained that the project was carefully designed to improve upon the existing conditions for both the petitioner and the neighbor. He reviewed floor plan and stated that in his opinion, this is the correct place for a garage to support the manor house. He reviewed the proposed configuration of the driveway and motor court noting that those elements will be changed very little. He explained that the existing stone wall along the east property line, and the pillars that serve as an entry into the drive court, will be retained and the new garage will be integrated with those elements. He confirmed that the garage will be within one foot of the property line. He reviewed sections of the building noting that the garage conforms to the 25’ height maximum for accessory structures. He stated that outbuildings often served to delineate boundaries noting that the proposed garage will serve that function. He reviewed the landscape plan. He concluded noting that since purchasing the property, the Connell’s have taken on a multitude of restoration projects as stewards of this property. He stated that the proposed project will enhance the property, improve the function of the property and restore the historic integrity by removing the inappropriate garage. He asked for Board support for the variance required to make the project possible. Ms. Czerniak stated that the petitioner’s presentation was very complete. She confirmed that the Connell’s have worked diligently to restore the property in an historically accurate manner since taking ownership. She noted that as stated by Mr. Poul ton, unlike many other estates that were subdivided over the years, this estate retains the feel of a 40-acre estate despite subdivision. She agreed that the existing garage is not appropriate for the property. She stated that the staff report provides findings in support of the variance. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as a result of the subdivision of the property and the architectural design of the manor house, the property exceeds the square footage that would be permitted for a property of this size today. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of a building scale variance. In response to questions form Chairman Franksen, Mr. Poul ton confirmed that if the Board recommends approval of the variance, the petitioner’s will finalize the transfer Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 7 of property along the east property line with the neighbors. He confirmed that this is required before permits could be obtained for the project. Mr. Connell confirmed that all of the legal agreements have been prepared and that the closing of the property transfer is pending City approvals. He confirmed that the project cannot proceed without the agreement of the neighbors. Board Member Christoff noted that the neighboring property owners involved in the property transfer submitted a letter of support for the project. Chairman Franksen invited public tes timony. Hearing none, he acknowledged the historic significance of the property, the original layout of the estate and the relationships between the various buildings and landscape elements. He agreed that the existing garage appears to be inappropriate. He stated that the proposed garage will celebrate the estate and is in keeping with the manor house. He acknowledged that the garage will be located at the property line, but noted that due to the nature of the large estate, the extensive setback from the neighboring home and setback distance from the street, this property is clearly unique. Board member Kennedy agreed that the existing garage does a disservice to the property. He stated that the project is well thought out. Board member Lewis agreed with the comments of the other Board members and stated that the presentation was thorough and helpful. He noted that various options for locating the garage were explored before putting forward the petition. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Lewis made the motion to recommend approval of the variance as requested based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following condition.  The property line shift reflected in the materials presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals must be finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was approved by a vote of 4 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 5. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 27, 2014 Page 8 6. Additional information from staff. The Board approved the 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals’ meeting schedule. The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development