ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/08/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the August 26, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on
Monday, August 26, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220
E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Acting Chairman Sam Ciccarelli
and Board members: Lloyd Culbertson, Stewart Dixon, Jay Kennedy, Richard
Christoff and Richard Plonsker
Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Robert Franksen
Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of
Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli reviewed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals
and asked members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves.
2. Approval of the minutes of the July 22, 2013 meetings of the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on July 22, 2013, were
approved as submitted.
NEW PETITIONS
3. Consideration of a request for a variance to allow modifications to a front
porch within the front and side yard setbacks at 840 Oakwood Avenue.
Owner: Paul Cummings
Representative: Michael Hrusovsky, contractor
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex
Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this
petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Hrusovsky introduced the petition noting that the property is located in the
West Park neighborhood which was recently designated as a National Historic
District. He noted that the neighborhood was designed by Howard Van
Doren Shaw in the late 1800’s and that homes were built in the area in the
early 1900’s. He stated that the neighborhood has a traditional, historic
character. He reviewed the location of the house proposed for renovation
noting that the homes in this area, mostly two-story homes, were all built prior
to the current zoning regulations and prior to the City’s adoption of a Zoning
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 2
Code. He stated that as a result, most houses in this neighborhood are
nonconforming in one or more respects to the current Code regulations. He
described the proposed project explaining that the owners propose to
renovate the existing front porch within the existing footprint. He stated that
this house was built around 1910 -12 and was constructed with balloon
framing. He reviewed that based on available records; the house was
renovated in the 1950’s including enclosing of the front porch and the
installation of small windows in the porch in a manner inconsistent with the
architectural style of the house. He added that as part of that earlier
renovation, the entry to the house was moved to the side of house and
located at grade. He stated that today, the front porch is not functional
noting that when someone is sitting on the porch, it is not possible to see out of
the small windows. He added that the porch is not aesthetically pleasing. He
stated that the owners propose to modify the porch by reconfiguring and
lowering the window openings and installing new windows that are consistent
with the style of the house and neighborhood. He noted that a portion of the
front porch will be opened up and a front door will be re-constructed to make
the porch functional. He stated that there will be little demolition noting that
the existing roof, walls and foundation will all be reused. He reviewed other
front porches in the neighborhood noting the consistency of the proposed
porch with the existing streetscape. He revie wed the floor plan of the existing
and proposed porch. He noted that a 12” spruce tree located near the
porch will be removed noting that it is overgrown, too close to the house and
limit s sunlight to the house. He added that a maple tree will also be removed.
He noted that a paver brick walkway is planned to the front porch. He noted
that the front porch will not encroach any further into the setbacks than the
existing porch noting that the porch is located 2 feet from the side property
line and 21 feet from the front property line. He reviewed the proposed front
and side elevations and reviewed the proposed exterior materials. He
concluded noting that the project will create a more functional front porch,
more pleasing entrance to the house and will be an improvement to the
streetscape. He requested approval of front and side yard variances to allow
the partial reconstruction and renovation of the front porch.
Ms. Neuman confirmed that the house was built in the early 1900’s, prior to the
adoption of the Zoning Code. She stated that the nonconforming status of
the house is the result of regulations adopted since it was constructed. She
stated that although it is the intent of this petition to preserve the existing
porch structure, the staff report acknowledges that due to the age of the
structure, it is likely that some reconstruction of the porch may be required
and that the extent of reconstruction required will only be known once work
on the project begins. She noted that regardless of the extent of the work
that is ultimately required, no changes are proposed to the foot print, height
or overall mass of the porch. She stated that several neighbors have
contacted staff expressing support for the project and support for the removal
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 3
of the large trees in the front yard. She stated that if the variance request is
approved, staff will work with the petitioner on replacement landscaping in
the areas of tree removal to achieve consistency with the character of the
streetscape. She stated that staff recommends approval of the request
noting that findings in support of the request are provided in the staff report.
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli invited questions from the Board. Hearing none,
he invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final questions and
comments from the Board. Hearing none, he invited a motion on the petition.
Board member Kennedy made a motion to recommend approval of
variances from the front and side yard setback requirements to allow
renovation and reconstruction of the front porch. He noted that the
recommendation is based on the findings detailed in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was approved by
the Board by a vote of 6 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for a variance to allow a portion of a new single
family residence to encroach into the front yard setback and to allow
construction of a detached garage within the rear yard accessory structure
setback at 296 Mills Court.
Owner: Adam Grabowski, G. Holdings, Inc.
Representative: Richard Swanson, architect
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex
Parte contacts.
Board member Culbertson stated that he is acquainted with the property
owner and stated that he is able to consider this petition objectively.
Board member Kennedy stated that he is acquainted with the architect for
the project and stated that he is able to consider this petition objectively.
Hearing no further declarations from the Board, Acting Chairman Ciccarelli
swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation
from the petitioner.
Mr. Swanson introduced the project. He noted that the property is currently
vacant explaining that several years ago the house on the property was
demolished for life safety reasons as a result of a roof collapse. He stated that
the property owner is requesting setback variances from the front and rear
property lines to allow a new house and garage to be constructed in a
manner consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. He noted that
this is a neighborhood of small homes. He stated that as proposed, the new
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 4
house is just under the allowable square footage for the lot and noted that
the design of the house and garage were recently approved by the Building
Review Board. He reviewed an air photo of the neighborhood, photos of the
streetscape and the surrounding homes and reviewed the proposed site plan
for the new house. He provided a photo of the property showing the staked
footprint of the new house pointing out that the house is sited 15 feet back
from the staked property line, in line with other homes on the street. He noted
that the new garage is sited 2 feet from the rear (north) property line. He
reviewed the various elevations of the house and garage and described the
proposed exterior materials. He presented a graphic showing the areas of the
structures that will be located within the setback areas and requested
approval of the variances.
Ms. Neuman noted that she is presenting staff comments on behalf of
Planning Intern, Ariel Stouder, since she was not able to attend the meeting.
She confirmed that the previous house on this lot was demolished due to a
partial collapse. She stated that the new owner of the property is proposing a
new house and garage and requesting setback variances to site the
structures consistent with others in the neighborhood. She noted that the new
house as proposed aligns with other houses on Mills Court. She explained that
this neighborhood was developed prior to current setback requirements. She
confirmed that this project was presented to the Building Review Board and
noted that the Board strongly supported the proposed siting of the house
noting that it is consistent with and helps to preserve the character of the
streetscape. She noted that the garage is sited to maximize the yard area
and to provide as functional a garage as possible on this small lot. She noted
that complying with the setbacks results in a garage that is not functional. She
noted that nonconforming, detached garages are common throughout this
neighborhood. She noted that due to the dead end street, narrow width of
the street and small lots, a plan will need to be developed for construction
traffic and staging of materials. She stated that access will need to be
maintained to other homes on the street during construction. She stated that
staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings detailed in
the staff report.
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli invited questions from the Board.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Swanson stated
that the owner will work with the City Arborist and take appropriate measures
to protect the evergreen tree near the northwest corner of the lot. He noted
that he believes that tree is on the neighboring property. He noted that there
is a City easement along the east property line for the City’s stormwater
system and as a result, the garage is not pushed further to the east.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the City Arborist
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 5
reviewed the plan and will be involved, if the project is approved, in directing
tree protection measures as the project moves forward.
In response to further questions from Board member Culbertson regarding a
letter from a neighboring property owner, Mr. Swanson stated that the
dilapidated fence will be replaced as part of the project. He confirmed that
the property owner is building the house to sell it. He confirmed that to the
extent possible, the utility lines to the house will be buried.
Board member Culbertson expressed concern about the tightness of the
driveway noting that it appears that it will be difficult to pull into or out of the
garage and that when backing out of the driveway, cars may need to back
into the neighbor’s driveway to exit. He questioned whether an alternative
layout would be better noting that one of the criteria for evaluating requests
for variances is whether the variance will cause congestion.
In response to Board member Culbertson’s comment, Mr. Swanson agreed
that the property is limited by the hardship of the narrow dead end street. He
acknowledged that the street does not end in a cul-de-sac which would
provide room for maneuvering at the end of the street.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Neuman clarified that shifting the
house to the east and locating the driveway on the west side of the property
is limited due to the City easement for the stormsewer system along the east
property line. She stated that construction cannot occur over the easement
area. She noted that the proposed siting of the house and driveway is
consistent with that of the previous house on this lot.
In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Neuman stated
that the land to the east of this property is the backyard of a house that fronts
on Edgewood Road. She confirmed that an earlier shed shown on the plans is
no longer there.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Swanson stated
that a shared driveway would only be possible with the agreement of a
neighboring property owner. He agreed that a shared driveway would
impact the marketability of a home. He reiterated that the stormsewer
easement limits the siting of the house. He noted that the location of the
driveway as proposed showcases an attractive elevation of the house.
Board member Dixon noted that the properties at 282 and 290 Mills Court
already share a driveway so the potential for this property and 290 to share a
driveway does not exist.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak noted that
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 6
driveway aprons are located in the parkway, on City right-of-way. She
acknowledged that a neighbor could choose to barricade a driveway at the
property line. She also acknowledged that the right-of-way width for Mills
Court is narrower than the width of a right-of-way that would be required for a
street constructed today.
In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed
that the previous two car garage was located in approximately the same
location as the detached garage now proposed.
Board member Dixon provided an aerial image to other Board members to
illustrate the specifics of the site.
Board member Culbertson reviewed the relationships of the end of the road
and the driveway aprons in that area.
Mr. S wanson noted that there appears to have been a history of shared use of
the driveway aprons among properties at the end of Mills Court.
Board member Plonsker noted that if he was developing property he would
not want to create a situation where a problem could develop in the future
with a neighbor.
Mr. Swanson agreed that if flipping the house was practical and would not
conflict with the stormsewer easement, the owner would be open to locating
the driveway on the west side of the property.
Mr. Culbertson reviewed variance criteria #4 noting that a finding must be
made that approval of the variance request will not lead to increased traffic
congestion.
Board member Kennedy questioned whether the driveway apron could be
widened acknowledging that would require encroachment on to a
neighboring property.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Neuman stated that City
engineering staff would need to review and approve any proposal that
impacted the stormsewer easement.
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli noted that the property at 299 Mills Court has a
similar problem with backing out of their driveway because there is no turn
around area on the property. He stated that the neighbors in this area will
need to continue to work together given the tightness of the area.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 7
takes a strong position against allowing construction within an easement
noting that she would not expect engineering staff to approve shifting the
location of the house and basement into the easement area. She noted that
in this case, the easement is narrower than the width of an easement that
would be required today. She noted that when repair work is needed within
the easement, it is important that the work can be completed with minimal
impact to private property. She stated that the siting of the house as
proposed is the result of discussion and consideration of the lot and
easement. She added that this neighborhood is limited by the fact that it was
developed prior to today’s development standards being in place. She
noted that the development and home prices in the neighborhood reflect
the limitations that exist in this small lot, older neighborhood.
In response to questions from Board members Christoff and Kennedy, Mr.
Swanson reviewed the options that were considered for siting t he garage. He
noted that shifting the garage to the west makes it more difficult to get into
the garage than the current plan. He stated that the garage was originally
located further east on the property, but was moved to the west to respect
the stormsewer easement and the side yard setback. He stated confidence
that as sited, the garage is workable.
In re sponse to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Swanson
acknowledged that the artist took liberties with the landscaping shown in the
rendering. He stated the intention to provide landscaping to the extent
possible given the limited size of the site. He noted that staff review and
approval of an appropriate landscape plan was an important part of the
Building Review Board’s approval of the project.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Neuman reviewed the
recommendations from the Buildin g Review Board on the landscape plan
noting that additional plantings were recommended along the west property
line between the homes and as space permits, along the east property line.
She noted that the Board acknowledged that the property is too small to
support any substantial plantings.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak noted
other neighborhoods with narrow streets which have limited maneuverability.
She noted that these neighborhoods are older parts of town and that people
buying homes in these neighborhoods are usually aware of the limitations.
Board member Kennedy observed that in his opinion, the garage may be
difficult to use.
In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Swanson stated
that he has not heard any concerns from residents on the street about the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
August 26, 2013 Page 8
project.
Acting Chairman Ciccarelli invited public comments, hearing none; he invited
comments from the petitioner and the Board.
Board member Culbertson stated concern that in the future there may be a
conflict with a neighbor regarding the use of driveway to maneuver on to Mills
Court. He stated that if that happens, it will be a difficult situation.
Board member Plonsker stated that the property owner is taking the risk that a
conflict may occur in the future. He questioned whether the issue is the
Board’s responsibility and stated a concern that someone could come back
to the Board at a future time and question why the project was approved.
Board member Christoff stated that he has concerns about the driveway and
about getting in and out of the garage. He stated support for the house as
proposed noting that the Building Review Board approved the design. He
stated that the property is in a difficult location.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak
confirmed that it is the Board’s role to determine how the criteria should be
applied to each unique variance request.
The Board members acknowledged that similar difficulties affect other
properties in the neighborhood.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Ciccarelli invited a motion
from the Board.
Board member Dixon made a motion to recommend approval of front and
rear yard variances as requested to allow construction of a new house and
garage. He noted that the recommendation is based on the findings
detailed in the staff report and that the deliberations of the Board are
included as additional findings.
The motion was seconded by Board member Plonsker and was approved by
a vote of 5 to 1 with Board member Culbertson voting nay for the reasons he
previously stated.
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
August 26, 2013 Page 9
6. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by City staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7: 35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development