Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2014/03/31 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the March 31, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 31, 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: Lloyd Culbertson, Stewart Dixon, Richard Christoff and Jay Kennedy Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Richard Plonsker and Sam Ciccarelli Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner 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 Approval of the minutes. Approval of the minutes was postponed. 3. Consideration of a request for a variance for the reconfiguration of an existing bay within the side yard setback at 255 Maple Court. Owners: Steve and Susan Felker Representative: Austin DePree 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. DePree introduced the project noting that the property is in the historic district and as is required, the project was recently reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. He stated that the house was constructed prior to the application of the R-4 zoning and the current setback requirements. He stated that as a result, the existing house encroaches into the current side yard setback. He stated that the proposed project will reduce the square footage of the existing house. He reviewed the site plan and presented photos of the existing house. He provided more detailed views of the portion of the house where work is proposed. He described the portion of the project within the setback area noting the intent to modify the opening on the existing bay and install French casement windows that are sympathetic to the existing windows in the house. He noted that the lattice Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 31, 2014 Page 2 work will be eliminated. He presented photos of the surrounding neighborhood. He presented a diagram comparing the area of the house that currently encroaches into the setback with area of encroachment that will result from the proposed project. He stated that the square footage of the bay is reduced by 15 square feet. He reviewed the floor plan showing the remodeled kitchen with the breakfast bay, the area of the work that encroaches into the setback. He presented the elevations of the house with the proposed changes. He requested approval of the variance as required for the project. Ms. Neuman confirmed that the existing bay is currently within the side yard setback and noted that the modifications proposed will reduce the area within the setback. She added that the project also reduces the height of the bay. She stated that the existing non-conforming situation was caused by the City initiated rezoning of the east side of the City to R-4. She stated that the project really is a cosmetic change to the bay. She confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission approved the design aspects of the project at a recent meeting. She stated that staff recommends approval of the project noting that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report. In response to a question from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Neuman clarified that the existing bay encroaches into the required setback area. Chairman Franksen invited questions from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. DePree stated that the amount of impervious surface on the site is not changing and as a result, there will be no change to the drainage patterns or grading on the property. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff, hearing none, he summarized the petition noting that the square footage of the bay is reduced, the architectural detailing is enhanced, the structure will appear less boxy and the yard is well landscaped in this area. He asked for any final comments from the Board. Board member Christoff noted that the project will result in less of an encroachment than exists today. He added that the existing non-conforming condition was caused by City initiated rezoning of the neighborhood. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 31, 2014 Page 3 project as presented authorizing the project to be located no closer than 7- 1/2 feet to the north property line consistent with the site plan presented to the Board. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings as detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was approved by the Board by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance for a replacement garage located within the front yard setback at 1002 Woodbine Place. Owner: Scott and Natalie Rempala Representative: Bob Roloson 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. Roloson introduced the petition noting that this project was recently before the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and received approval. He stated that this property and the existing house were originally part of a larger estate. He reviewed a map pointing out the location of the original estate house and noting that this house was originally a coach house, living quarters for the gardener and other employees of the estate. He noted the location of the original tool shed and stable on the property and the location of the existing garage which is not one of the original estate buildings. He reviewed the official plat of survey and noted the area that is the subject of the request. He reviewed the location of the front and side yard setbacks noting that the existing garage encroaches into both the front and side yard setbacks. He reviewed the proposed plan noting that the replacement garage conforms to the side yard setback and encroaches into the front yard setback to a lesser extent than the existing garage. He stated that the garage is sited to maintain a connection to house and to avoid disturbing the historic garden in the back yard. He reviewed photos of the house, garage and grounds. He noted that due to the heavy vegetation on the site, the existing garage is only visible from Woodbine Place noting that the replacement garage will be equally screened. He stated that the structure, which today is a single family home, was originally built in 1907. He stated that at the time of construction, since the structure was an outbuilding for the estate, Woodbine Place was really a service road and there was no concern for setting structures back from the street. He noted that none of the structures in the neighborhood conform to the setbacks. He presented the elevations noting that the historic tool shed was used as a reference for the new garage. He noted the use of the trellis work on the garage consistent with the historic elements of the property. He provided an overview of some alternative concepts that were considered for the garage and explained the benefits of the preferred option that is presented for approval. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 31, 2014 Page 4 Chairman Franksen commented that Woodbine Place is a great character street and the neighborhood is interesting. Ms. Neuman agreed that the Woodbine Place neighborhood is unique due to the history of the area. She acknowledged that a request for a front yard setback variance to allow a garage is not the typical type of request the Board hears, but noted that the character of the area, the history of the property and the adaptive reuse of the various outbuildings to the historic estate as single family homes together support approval of this request. She pointed out that the existing garage encroaches into the side yard setback and the front yard setback. She noted that as proposed, the replacement garage will conform to the side yard setback and will encroach into the front yard setback to a lesser extent than the existing garage. She clarified that only a front yard variance is requested. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission approved the project noting that the increase in the height of the garage is appropriate to allow the garage to better relate to the house. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Roloson confirmed that the replacement garage will be 12’ further to the west, 12’ further from the street, than the existing garage and will encroach 12’ less into the front yard setback than the existing condition. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Roloson confirmed that a 2-1/2 car garage is proposed. He stated that the proposed garage is narrower than the existing garage, but noted that it is deeper, 36’ as opposed to the 29’ depth of the existing garage. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman stated that the increased height of the garage will not impair light or ventilation to neighboring properties. She noted that today, heavy vegetation exists along the property line and she noted that utilitarian structures on the neighboring property are located in the vicinity of the replacement garage. Chairman Franksen noted that although the replacement garage is taller than the existing garage, it is not excessively tall noting that the existing garage is only 13’ tall and the new garage is 20-1/2 feet in height. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Neuman clarified that a side yard variance is not requested for the replacement garage even though the existing garage encroaches into the side yard setback. She confirmed that although the replacement garage encroaches into the front yard setback, it does so to a lesser extent than the existing garage. Board member Dixon stated that the removal of the replacement garage Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 31, 2014 Page 5 from the side yard setback should be noted as part of the Board’s consideration of the present variance request. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he summarized the discussions to date noting that the project will result in an improved garage, an increase in the setback from the street and no encroachment into the side yard setback. He acknowledged that the project results in a bit more height for the garage but noted that the additional height improves the functionality. He stated support for the variance. Hearing no further requests to speak from the Board members, he invited a motion. Board member Kennedy made a motion to recommend approval of the variance authorizing construction of a replacement garage no closer than 33’ to the east property line consistent with the plans presented to the Board. He noted that the recommendation is supported by the findings detailed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was approved by the Board by a vote of 5 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. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information from City staff. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Franksen at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development