Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/09/23 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the September 23, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 23, 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: Chairman Robert Franksen and Board members: Sam Ciccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson, Stewart Dixon, Jay Kennedy, Richard Christoff and Richard Plonsker Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and 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. Approval of the minutes of the August 26, 2013 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on August 26, 2013, were approved as submitted. Special Use Permit 3. Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, with a delayed effective date, to allow the establishment of the Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship at 1045 Walden Road. The future Krebs Center would be under the ownership and direction of Lake Forest College. Owners: Robert D. and Anne Krebs Representatives: Robert D. Krebs Stephen Schutt, President, Lake Forest College Chairman Franksen introduced the agenda item and reminded everyone of the Board’s procedures noting that the Board is interested in hearing all comments on this petition. He stated the Board’s intention is to conduct a respectful and professional public hearing and asked that all parties be allowed to speak without disruption such as clapping or commenting. He asked the members of the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he noted that most members of the Board had the opportunity to tour the Krebs property one or two members at a time, with City staff, as background for consideration of this petition. He swore in all Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 2 members of the public intending to speak on this petition. He invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krebs introduced Ms. Krebs and expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to come before the Board. He stated that as owners of the property, they want to do the right thing. He stated his intent to make opening comments before turning the podium over to President Schutt. He provided a brief review of the property noting that it was created through the Beidler Subdivision. He noted that he played an important role in the Beidler Subdivision and the successful effort to preserve the character of Walden Road. He noted that his property was originally proposed as two buildable lots however, to preserve the area; he offered to purchase the lots and develop the site with one home. He stated that he and Ms. Krebs care about Walden Road and the surrounding area. He stated that they also care about the house which they built and the gardens. He described the house explaining that it is a replica of an Italian villa with gardens based on a design that dates back to the Renaissance period. He stated that the best way to preserve the house and grounds in the current form is to donate the property and the contents of the house to Lake Forest College. He stated confidence that the College will make good use of the property and will be a good steward . He stated that there are several conditions and limitations offered that attest to the intended use. He noted that this petition was initially scheduled to be heard by the Board in February but after hearing questions from the neighboring property owners, he pulled the matter from the agenda so that he could reach out to the neighbors. He stated that he contacted the neighbors and offered tours of the house and property. He expressed disappointment that few neighbors visited the property. He stated that seeing the property is important pointing out that there are not areas inside or outside that could accommodate very large events. He stated his hope that as neighbors toured the property, they would have a better understanding of the intended use. He stated that he has been involved with Lake Forest College since the mid 1980’s when he moved to Lake Forest. He stated that in his opinion, small, liberal arts colleges are the backbone of American education. He stated that it is his desire to strengthen Lake Forest College and distinguish it from other similar institutions. He stated that strengthening and supporting the College is good for the community. He stated his support of President Schutt and his influence on the College to date . He stated an interest in hearing the neighbor’s comments and concerns and a willingness to address issues that are raised. He asked President Schutt to comment on the proposed use in greater detail. President Schutt stated that in the 156 years of the College’s history in the community, there has never been as unique an opportunity as the one presented to the College by the Krebs. He stated that historically, the community has fostered growth and change at the College and noted that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 3 support has allowed the College to become an established institution in the community. He stated that today, the College is in a place of strength but stated that it is very important for the College to try to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity. He stated that the proposed Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship will strengthen the College’s art history, literature and cultural history programs, distinguishing them from similar programs at other Colleges. He stated that this opportunity will position Lake Forest College well to compete with other colleges and universities. He noted that new majors and minors in medieval and renaissance studies and in museum studies will also benefit from this opportunity. He noted the importance and strength of the College’s art history program over many decades and commented on the prominence and accomplishments of various professors at the College in the art history fields. He stated however that competition for students is constant noting continuous efforts to recruit and enroll high quality students nationally and internationally. He stated that no single aspect of the College will enhance recruitment ability like the opportunity offered by the Krebs. He stated that to his knowledge, the opportunity for private study of the Renaissance period, in a unique setting, is not offered by any other college or university. He pointed out that this is a special opportunity for the College to exercise stewardship and be a good institutional citizen for the benefit of the community. He stated that the College cares deeply about being a good citizen. He stated that the College is in a position to assure the preservation of the property, a primary goal as stated by Mr. Krebs. He stated that the home is an authentic replica of an Italian Villa from the Renaissance period and is filled with art brought back by the Krebs from their travels overseas. He presented several images of the interior and exterior of the house and of the gardens. He noted that the images of the interior are intended to begin to convey the artwork inside the house. He noted that the house received an award from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation in 2012. He reiterated that the goal is to preserve the home inside and out, exactly as it is today, noting that would be possible with the resources that will be provided to the College by the Krebs. He stated that establishing the College as the steward of the property is the best strategy to achieve the preservation of the property, residence and contents. He stated that if the property is sold to a private owner the property could potentially be changed, divided or used for other purposes and the gardens might be destroyed. He noted that many activities could take place in the house in private ownership without the restrictions proposed as part of the Special Use Permit. He summarized some of the restrictions that would be imposed on the property by the Special Use Permit including no further subdivision, limits on external signage and lighting, limits on parking and outdoor events and a prohibition on students residing in the house. He discussed the intended use of the property noting that two categories of use are proposed. He stated that classes in art history are proposed to be conducted in the residence. He stated that the College is intentionally a small Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 4 institution, with small classes. He stated that the average size of classes is 17 students and commented that upper level art history classes may have even fewer students. He stated that there will not be large groups of students coming to the residence. He stated that based on this term’s class schedule; there are two classes, each meeting twice a week for an hour and half to two hours; that would be the type of classes that would be conducted in the Krebs residence. He stated that the classes would be held inside the house and the activity would be invisible from the outside. He stated that there would be no after class activity on the property. He invited some brief comments from Michael Orr, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty, noting that he is a Renaissance and Art Historian. Professor Orr spoke to the benefit of the property with respect to the teaching art history. He noted that Renaissance art was never designed to be viewed in a museum or an antiseptic stetting. He stated that it was designed to serve a specific purpose, for private homes and villas. He stated that the Krebs residence is an opportunity to offer students a chance to experience Renaissance art in a setting as originally intended and as it would have been seen in the 15th Century. He referred to the images presented by President Schutt noting the opportunity to see the conjunction of paintings, ceramic work, textiles and stained glass in a three dimensional environment. He stated that this type of opportunity is not available elsewhere. He noted that the Renaissance produced a new form of architecture noting that the Krebs residence is a remarkable replica and offers the ability to experience a Renaissance Villa. He stated that the best way to experience this unique architectural space is by walking through the house, understanding the space in relation to human scale, understanding the proportions and experiencing the well thought out space and artwork as an environment. He stated that this opportunity will allow students to experience the art as intended to be experienced originally. President Schutt continued his comments noting that the second intended use of the Krebs property would be to periodically host visiting scholars, scholars of the Renaissance and Medieval periods, and bring these experts together to share each other’s company and work jointly on scholarly projects. He noted that as presented, the conditions of the Special Use Permit would limit the number of visiting scholars staying at the residence to no more than 5 at any one time. He stated that exactly how often the residence might be used in this way is not known, but the residence, once in the ownership of the College, would present an opportunity for this type of limited use as an enhancement and part of the whole campus offerings. He stated that any scholar that is invited into the residence would be there for a limited period of time and would be under the supervision of the College. He clarified that all activity that would occur on the property would be the responsibility of the College. He stated that the opportunity to bring scholars to the College Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 5 would provide a unique opportunity for students and would be noted world- wide. He concluded reiterating that nothing exists that would compare to the opportunity being offered to the College by the Krebs. He thanked the Board for its time. Chairman Franksen asked for staff comments. Ms. Czerniak stated that she will offer comments in three areas: a review of Special Use Permits generally, the specifics of this petition and a review of the process to date. She reminded the Board that historically, Special Use Permits have been used in the community to authorize or recognize institutional and other non-residential uses in residentially zoned areas. She reviewed that most of Lake Forest is zoned for residential use. She noted that the City has not established zoning categories that permit institutional uses by right, but has instead relied on the Special Use Permit process to provide the opportunity for public comment and to permit non-residential uses, in residential areas, subject to specific conditions and restrictions. She reviewed that Special Use Permits have been granted for private clubs, churches, schools, the hospital, Gorton Community Center, Grove Cultural Campus, Ragdale and Elawa Farm. She stated that this practice has allowed residential neighborhoods and non-residential uses to have unique relationships. She stated that in every case, the process for consideration of special uses is controversial and many good questions are asked and compromises are made throughout the process. She stated that the Special Use process has proved to be successful. She clarified that the Board is a recommending body to the City Council and not the final decision maker but added that the Council relies on the Board to fully vet the petition. She stated that in the case of most Special Use Permits, limiting conditions are incorporated into the approving ordinance. She stated that Special Use Permits are granted to a specific property, a specific use and a specific property owner and are not transferable. She acknowledged that not often, but from time to time there are conflicts with approved special uses. She stated that staff follows up on complaints or conflicts that arise and works with all parties to assure compliance with the conditions of the Special Use Permit and works to resolve any issues. She stated that process is most often successful. She noted however that the City Council retains the right to revoke a Special Use Permit if the use is not being carried out consistent with the approving ordinance. She discussed the Krebs petition noting that this request is part of a pre-planning effort by the property owners. She stated that the Krebs desire to gain approval of a Special Use Permit but to have the effective date delayed until sometime in the future when they are no longer able to live in the house. She noted that the staff report recommends that before the Special Use Permit could take effect, the College would need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager that 1) the property is ownership of the College, 2) that an endowment to support ongoing maintenance of the property is in place and 3) that operating policies and Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 6 procedures are in place consistent with the approving ordinance. She reiterated that the approving ordinance for the Special Use Permit would be clear that if the property is not in the ownership of the College, the Special Use Permit would be null and void. She clarified that the property today remains in the ownership of the Krebs and stated that the City does not have any approval rights over or play a role in the donation of property. She stated that most often, the City does not receive advance notice of intentions to donate property to not for profit institutions as has occurred in this case. She stated that the property can be donated to the College without any City approvals and without a Special Use Permit. She noted if that occurred, the property could be used by the College in a manner consistent with the R4 zoning district without any further restrictions or conditions. She noted for example that without a Special Use Permit, up to three visiting professors or other people could reside in the house. She stated that the house could also be occupied by the College President or faculty or staff members and their families. She noted that events could be held on the property as allowed in any other home. She noted that the Special Use Permit would allow the City to place limitations on the use of the property beyond those in place for the residential neighborhood. She stated that the staff report includes 12 recommended conditions of approval. She stated that the conditions are intended to retain the residential character of the property and preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. She noted that although this property is historically significant due to the design, materials and quality, it is not within the City’s historic district and modifications to the residence or gardens would not require review and approval by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission. She reviewed the process to date for consideration of this petition noting that the petition was submitted to the City late in 2011 for review by the Board in early 2012. She stated that after objections and questions were raised by some neighboring property owners, the petitioners asked that the Board’s hearing of the matter be postponed to allow them to talk with neighbors. She noted that the Krebs invited neighbors to tour their property and residence and to talk with them about the intentions for the property. She noted that the correspondence received on this matter was provided to the Board. She noted that just prior to the meeting, staff was handed three additional signatures for the petition that was included in the Board’s packet. Chairman Franksen invited questions from the Board stating his expectation that the Board’s consideration of this petition will be very thorough. He acknowledged the number of people in attendance and the obvious concern. Board member Culbertson acknowledged the generosity of the proposal made by the Krebs and the fact that the donation would provide a unique benefit for the College. He stated that he does not question the worthiness of Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 7 the cause, but noted the Board’s charge to review the petition and how it will impact the neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson about traffic and circulation, President Schutt stated that there are only a limited number of classes that would be appropriate to hold at the Krebs residence. He reiterated that looking at the current term, there are two courses that would be appropriate. He stated that these classes, in combination, meet Monday through Thursday, once a day for a period of 1 to 2 hours each. He stated that classes meeting at the residence would have 15 to18 students and stated that the students could travel from campus to the property by shuttle bus or by car. He stated that given the distance and the need to get back to campus for other classes, students would not likely walk to the property. He stated that at a maximum, there could be up to 4 to 5 courses per week that meet at the Krebs residence, up to two classes per day, one in the morning and one in the early afternoon. He stated that courses typically start no earlier than 9 a.m. and end by 4 p.m. He stated that the site can accommodate cars in the front motor court and in an underground garage. He stated that depending on the wishes of the City, the traffic circulation pattern into and out of the site could be directed in a particular way. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, President Schutt stated that students could get to the Krebs’ residence for class by a single shuttle bus from campus, upper level students may have their own cars or some students may ride their bicycles to the residence. He stated his expectation that a shuttle bus would leave campus; travel along Sheridan Road, turn left on Ringwood Road and enter the Krebs property from either Walden Road or Ringwood Road depending on the City’s preference. In further response to Chairman Franksen’ s and Board member Culbertson’s questions, Mr. Krebs pointed out that his property is the first property on Walden Road noting that cars entering the site will not pass by other homes on Walden Road. He stated that the front courtyard can comfortably park 10 cars. He stated that he has held cast parties after Ravinia events every year on his property and that on some occasions, the events have continued until 2 a.m. and no one has noticed. He pointed out that based on the recommended conditions of approval, once in the ownership of the College; outdoor events on the property will need to conclude by 10 p.m. He stated that in the past, he has offered valet service and cars have been parked on Ringwood Road. He noted that based on the recommended conditions of approval; parking on Walden or Ringwood Roads would not be permitted. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, President Schutt stated that absolutely there will not be any parking on either Walden or Ringwood Roads in association with any classes held at the residence. He stated that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 8 the number of outdoor receptions would be limited to four per year. He stated that for any events that might require more parking, guests would be shuttled from the College campus or with permission from the neighbors and the City, park on Ringwood Road for a limited period of time. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, President Schutt stated that in addition to limited outdoor events, indoor receptions might be held to provide an opportunity for invited students or guests to meet with a visiting scholar. He stated that events would not be open to the public. He stated that parking or shuttling for these events would be handled in the same manner as for outdoor events. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Krebs stated that the house can accommodate 50 people noting that dinner would need to be served in multiple rooms. He acknowledged that if both indoor and outdoor spaces are used, more people could be accommodated. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, President Schutt confirmed that over the course of a year, the College offers lectures. He stated that the lectures are held either in the late afternoon or in the evening. He committed that lectures at the Krebs residence would not occur more than five times a year and would depend on the availability of scholars. He stated that some years it is possible that no lectures would be held. He noted that the total number of events that would likely be held at the residence would be limited due to the number of courses realistically offered at one time, the availability of scholars and the College’s limitations in managing multiple events. He stated openness to further restrictions on the number of total events permitted on the property. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Krebs acknowledged that he has heard the comments that the proposed donation is merely a convenient and rewarding tax planning measure. He stated that he and Ms. Krebs have been in the community since the mid-1980s and believe in supporting good causes and local institutions including the College and Lake Forest Open Lands. He stated that to date, they have donated about 15 million to important causes and noted that the donation now proposed to the College will be worth at least that amount. He stated that when they die, no one will pay taxes on what they have already given away. He stated that they are making gifts to benefit causes in which they believe. He stated that they have been blessed and spoke personally noting that the proposed gift to the College constitutes about half of their current assets. He stated that he has heard concerns about removing the property from the tax rolls noting that based on the information he has received, taxes will increase by about 7/100th of 1 percent to make up for the loss of taxes from this property after donation to the College. He stated that the increase would be a miniscule amount. He Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 9 noted that tax rolls and rates change continuously. He stated that this is not a fair reason on which to make a decision on this request. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Schutt stated that depending on their schedules, visiting scholars might stay at the residence for several weeks or if possible, a full semester. He stated that if it is important to the Board, he is willing to limit the length of the stays as part of the approval. He stated that the vision is to have scholars stay at the property for short periods to allow joint work on projects and to benefit the College by offering a master class in their areas of expertise. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the residence was donated to the College and no Special Use Permit was issued, resident scholars could still stay at the house. She noted that regular classes could not be scheduled at the residence however; special events such as lectures or receptions could be held at the residence on occasion as they could be held at other private residences. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, President Schutt clarified that requesting the Special Use Permit at this point in the process is an effort to get information about the proposed use out in advance of the donation to allow everyone to better understand what is contemplated. He stated that as Professor Orr described, offering classes in the residence would be a unique experience, one that is important to the College and one reason why this opportunity is so attractive to the College. He added that today, the College has no opportunity or reason to invite global scholars in art history to the College. He stated that the Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship would be a unique attraction to bring scholars to the campus. He stated that for students considering Lake Forest College and for those around the world interested in art history, the Krebs residence would raise the reputation of the College in the eyes of the world in an important way. He stated that is the reason why the Special Use Permit is necessary and important even though many of the expected activities could occur without it. He stated that a final Donor Agreement between the Krebs and the College has not yet been prepared pending the outcome of the discussions on this petition. He pointed out that if the Special Use Permit is approved and the property is sold to another party, it will be of no effect and the property would be governed solely by the regulations of the R-4 zoning district. In response to questions from Board member Kennedy, President Schutt reviewed that without the Special Use Permit, the College as owner of the property could allow up to three unrelated people to reside in the house. He noted that the people could be scholars, faculty, staff, students or others. He stated that parties or receptions could be held at the house without a limit on the number of events per year. He stated that the exterior or interior of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 10 house could be changed and the garden could be removed. He stated that the Special Use Permit as proposed would prohibit those types of changes. He stated that the Special Use Permit will allow upper level classes to be held in the residence and will allow up to five people to reside in the house for short periods of time, rather than three people for an unlimited period of time. He stated that importantly, the Special Use Permit will recognize the property as the Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship and will place restrictions on the use and activities permitted. In response to questions from Board member Franksen, President Schutt acknowledged that “college kids are college kids” and noted that College students can saunter up Sheridan Road now, and sometimes do. He stated that security measures would prohibit students from lingering at the Krebs property after classes or in the evenings. He stated the intent to patrol the property and noted that the conditions speak to security measures. He stated that the risks of inappropriate off campus student activities are not increased with this proposal. He added that the types of lectures and events that might be held at the residence will likely attract students who will respect and appreciate the unique opportunity they are being offered. He reiterated that as proposed, the Special Use Permit prohibits students from living at the property. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, President Schutt stated that the outward appearance of this property will not be changed and will retain the single family character and the appearance of a single family home. He stated that there will be no exterior signage and that exterior lighting and parking will be consistent with the neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Mr. Krebs provided background on the long process of subdividing the Beidler property noting that initially, five lots were proposed. He stated that the neighbors were opposed to the development and in an effort to preserve the area; he went to the neighbors and proposed that he would buy two lots and that he and the others would contribute money to Lake Forest Open Lands to allow the purchase of development rights for one additional lot. He stated that those efforts reduced the number additional buildable lots along Walden Road to two. He stated that he constructed his house on two of the lots originally proposed noting that his house fits into the neighborhood and received a preservation award after construction was completed. He stated that his mistake was leaving open the potential for construction of a house on the property west of the Suter's house, across Walden Road from his property. He noted that during the height of property values, Mr. Beidler informed him that a developer was interested in the property and planned to construct a large home on the site. He stated that he again brought the neighbors together and received contributions of $150,000 from each, and an in kind contribution Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 11 from the Beidlers to support preservation of the lot. He noted that his contribution to that effort was 1.65 million dollars to make up the difference. He stated that all of his efforts were focused on preserving Walden Road and the private and residential character of the area. He stated that he would not do anything to destroy the character of the area he worked so hard to preserve. He stated that he cannot live in the house forever noting that the house could be sold or could be given to the College. He stated that the house has five bedrooms and could support a large family. He added that the garden could be removed and replaced with a swimming pool where parties are held all summer long. He stated that the proposed use, limited by the Special Use Permit, is the best way to preserve the private quality of the neighborhood. He noted that the Special Use Permit will subject the property to significant limitations which the College is willing to accept to establish this unique use. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that there are many special uses throughout the community and to date, no evidence has been presented that the values of the houses in the vicinity of the special uses have been negatively impacted. She noted that in comparison to some special uses, what is proposed at the Krebs property is more private and more restricted. She stated that no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be a reduction in the values of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of the requested Special Use Permit. She noted that the conditions recommended in the staff report focus on maintaining the residential appearance and character of the property. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the request for a delayed effective date is unusual. She confirmed that she reviewed the request with the City Attorney and determined that the delayed effective date does not cause a legal problem. She stated that the ordinance authorizing the Special Use Permit would detail the conditions that need to be met prior to the effective date. She stated that the donation of the property to the College would need to occur prior to the effective date. She stated that putting the approvals and limitations in place now would provide certainty for all parties with respect to the future use. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Krebs stated that he and Ms. Krebs intend to live in the house long as they can. He stated that he does not want to put the donation of the property to the College in his will only to find out later that there is confusion over the use of the property. He stated that he believes that through the Special Use Permit process the surrounding residents will have more certainty than if he simply donates the property to the College without any restrictions. He stated that a $5,000,000 endowment will accompany the donation. He stated his intention to make sure that once donated, the house and property is used appropriately. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 12 In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Czerniak offered Grove Cultural Campus as an example of a special use located in a residential neighborhood. She stated that use was very controversial and commented that in that case, there was not much certainty around how the site would be used. She noted the Winter Club as an example of a private club that has existed for decades very close to its residential neighbors. She added that several churches are located close to neighboring homes. In response to questions from Commissioner Plonsker, President Schutt acknowledged that the Board must evaluate the request based on the criteria in the Code pertaining to impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that he has tried to paint a picture of the number of classes that could be held at the residence and how they would be managed. He stated that he likely has exaggerated the scope of what might occur at the site noting less activity is likely. He acknowledged that on occasion an evening seminar class is held although most often in other disciplines, not in art history but stated that could be a possibility. He stated that with an uncertain start date, he is not able to give specifics of class times or numbers. He stated however that the College is not intending to grow beyond what exists today. He stated that he is willing to entertain further restrictions on the use of the property. The Board took a brief recess. Bob Moulton-Ely, 420 E. Woodland Road, asked whether students will be allowed to study and do research at the residence noting that if so, that will result in additional traffic in the neighborhood. He asked whether students would be allowed to study at the house all night and whether College staff would be on site at all times to monitor activity. He questioned whether students from other local institutions would be allowed to study at the house. Jack Preschlack, 820 Westminster, stated that the establishment of the Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship with give the College a significant competitive advantage over other similar institutions. He stated that the establishment of the Center requires a Special Use Permit but noted that many of the uses that would occur are already permitted in the R-4 zoning district. He reviewed the importance of the College to the community noting that it is one of the City’s largest employers and brings students, parents, teachers and visitors into Lake Forest to support the community. He commended the generosity and vision of the Krebs. He stated that this petition should be supported and stated confidence that the use will occur in a manner that will be compatible with the community. He urged the Board to consider the big picture and the opportunity presented to the community. He pointed out that Barat College is an example of an institution of that was not Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 13 able to sustain itself and as a result, the community lost an important institution. He stated that today, Lake Forest College is strong today and well managed but pointed out that it needs every competitive advantage the community can offer to allow it to continue to thrive. He stated that this petition should be forwarded to the City Council with a strong recommendation of support. Jennifer Neubauer, 302 N. Western Avenue, stated that her mother lives in the Havenwood Subdivision. She reviewed the Code criteria for a Special Use Permit noting that the petitioner must show that the special use will not negatively impact surrounding residences. She stated that it is not the burden of the neighbors to demonstrate that they will be harmed. She stated that the parameters for use of the property presented are too loose. She stated that the delayed effective date of the Special Use Permit is troublesome. She questioned how the Board could grant a permit with uncertainty as to when the use would begin. She requested that the project be denied. David Craigmile, 1041 Havenwood Lane, stated that he has lived in Lake Forest for 43 years. He stated that he is astounded that a request of this type would even come before the Board for consideration. He noted that presenting this request shows an absence of an understanding of moral obligation on the part of the governance noting that this is common today. He stated that every citizen has the obligation to think about how they would feel if this proposed use was located in their neighborhood. He stated that a petition stating strong opposition to the proposed special use was submitted with 29 signatures from people on Havenwood and Keith Lanes and Ashley Road. He stated that the neighbors oppose the petition because they do not believe that their property values would increase as a result of the proposed use. He stated that staff’s comparison of this petition to Grove Campus is ridiculous noting the difference in the ambiance of the neighborhoods in the two areas. He added that the proposed use cannot be compared to churches that have been grandfathered into their locations for many years. He stated that there is an obvious bias in the comments offered by staff. He suggested that the Board ask if there are Federal government obligations or requirements that would be triggered by the proposed use. He stated that the Board should consider in great detail the social problems that could result. He stated that the Board does not have an obligation to forward this petition to the City Council unless the Board feels the proposed use is in the best interest of the community. He cautioned that once the use is approved, the community will not be able to “unring a bell”. He stated that the future of any college cannot be predicted. He stated that it is unclear how a future Lake Forest College President or Board would feel about the proposed use. He stated that the residents have an understanding of what is permitted in the R- 4 zoning district. He stated that there are many unknowns with the proposed use that are not the fault of the President of the College or Mr. Krebs. He Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 14 stated that all that is known is that the property will be part of a College, a for profit business, and will no longer be a residential property. He stated strong objection to the proposal and asked that the Board reject it. Dave Matthis, 770 Barberry Lane, stated that he graduated from Lake Forest College and met his wife there. He stated that the College is a unique part of Lake Forest and has been in existence as long as the City itself. He stated that the Krebs are presenting a wonderful opportunity to the College and he expressed his hope that it be carefully considered and approved. He stated that the proposed Krebs Center gives the College an opportunity to be distinctly different from other colleges. He stated that he is a lifetime member of the Board of Trustees of Lake Forest College and stated his belief that the College will live up to its promises long after the current President has left. He stated confidence that the College will be a good community citizen. Prue Beidler, 20 Stonegate Road, stated that she represents herself, her husband Frank and the Beidler family. She urged the Board to support the petition. She stated that the proposal is good for the neighborhood and for the community at large. She stated that her husband grew up in what is today the Suter’s house. She stated that the Krebs’ generosity made possible the preservation of open space and the character of the area and stated that they are the reason that the area is what it is today. She stated that the Krebs’ residence is beautiful and that this petition presents the opportunity for the community to assure that the house and property remain intact. She stated that from the exterior, no one will have a sense of the property being anything but a private residence. She stated that approval of the petition offers the neighborhood stability. She stated that she is frequently on Walden Road and commented that the proposed use will add further security to the area. She commented on the uncertainty that exists as properties change hands noting that she has first-hand experience that neighborhoods change and properties are not always maintained as expected when ownerships change. She stated that she trusts the College noting her family’s long history with the College and stating that she served on the Board of Trustees. She stated that she uses Sheridan Road frequently and considers it to be part of her neighborhood. She stated that she has had a positive connection with the College and with College students noting that many were her babysitters. She reiterated that this is her neighborhood and stated confidence that the proposed use is a good idea. She noted that when her husband was growing up on Walden Road, there was a Franciscan monastery in the neighborhood and there was never a sense that it negatively impacted property values. She stated that property was subdivided and became the Havenwood Subdivision. She stated that this community has always thought through what is good for the community going forward and stated that this proposal should be carefully considered. She stated that there is a history of institutional use in this neighborhood. She stated that she respects the community’s history of Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 15 planning for the future and the leaders who think through what happens in this community. She asked that this petition be forwarded to the City Council with the full support and enthusiasm of the Board. Alice Mouton-Ely, 420 Woodland Road, asked that the petition be turned down. She noted that the Walden Road neighborhood is a quiet area and would be severely disrupted if the proposed use is allowed. She stated that if approved, the neighborhood will be impacted by visiting scholars, buses, flood lights and groups of people coming into a bucolic area. She asked the Board to imagine the impact of buses in the neighborhood. She noted that today, deer and fox are in the area. She stated that an institutional use at this location is inappropriate and asked that the petition be denied. Don Suter, 1050 Walden Road, stated that he bought the home across the street from the Krebs property, the home in which Frank Beidler grew up. He noted that he submitted a letter to the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that the generosity of the donation proposed by the Krebs is unquestioned. He acknowledged that there are potential benefits to the College if the proposed use moves forward and that the College has an impact on Lake Forest. He noted that he is not debating the generosity of the Krebs offer or whether the donation would be great for the College. He stated that his concern is the impact the proposed use would have on his right to a quiet, private neighborhood. He stated that bringing College students into the area every day would change the neighborhood. He stated that proposed use will change the feel of the neighborhood and impact property values. He asked the Board to call real estate brokers and ask whether property values would fall or rise if a College building goes in next door. He stated that his family bought into this neighborhood because it is remote and quiet. He stated that neighborhood character will help to sell properties in this area in the future. He stated that if the proposed use is established, potential buyers will be turned away. He stated that the proposed use will impact his family’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property and will impact property values. Jim Cathcart, owner of 1000 Walden Road, stated that his mother lives in the house on Walden Road. He stated that the Krebs have been great neighbors from the day his father approached them to play a role in preserving the Walden Road area. He stated that Walden Road is special because of the pedestrian bridge which brings pedestrians and bicyclists on to the road seven days a week. He noted that there are no sidewalks on Walden Road and pointed out that as cars come on to the site for classes during the day, there will be conflicts with kids on bikes and students and families walking. He stated that the likely increase in traffic by 10 to 20 cars a day and buses is a hazard. He noted that people coming into the neighborhood will be unfamiliar with the streets and will be rushing to and from classes. He stated that the proposed use will be a public safety hazard. He questioned what a Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 16 future College President might allow on the site. He questioned whether the lighting on the property will stay the same and suggested that if an incident occurs with a student, there may be interest in increasing the lighting to protect students. He stated that any agreements put in place today for a future use can be easily changed as circumstances change. He stated that the proposed use is beneficial to the College, but not to the community. He asked that the request be turned down. David Gorter, 555 Woodland Road, stated that he is a Trustee of the College and a 1980 graduate. He stated that what is proposed is unbelievably generous on behalf of the Krebs. He stated that the proposed use will be beneficial to the College, making the College very distinctive. He noted that the question has been raised of whether the students and the neighbors can coexist. He stated that the process of discussing the proposed use has been transparent noting that the Krebs held several open houses to allow neighboring residents to view the home and the uniqueness of the property. He noted the precedent of Ragdale as a good example of a use that initially raised questions among the neighbor but overtime, has added value to the community. He stated that most people do not even know that Ragdale exists. He suggested that the proposed use would likely be the same. He stated that this is a rare opportunity and must be looked at from every angle. He stated that he has friends with interests on both sides of the issue and stated that he sees both the merits and the concerns. He stated that based on what he has read so far, the Krebs, College and City have all looked at the proposed use carefully. He acknowledged that further study and refinements are needed. He expressed his hope that the College and the neighbors can coexist in a way that meets the needs of all parties. Henry West, 300 Bluff’s Edge Drive, stated that he is a 30 year resident of Lake Forest. He stated that there appears to be fear about what will happen if this request is not approved. He stated that he has faith in the Zoning Code and noted that a significant home in his neighborhood was recently purchased and restored. He stated that if someone spends significant dollars to purchase the property, they will preserve it. He noted the past efforts of the City government in preserving the community and stated that he would not expect that if sold, anything inappropriate would be permitted to happen. He stated confidence that any future owners will take proper care of the property. Neil Donnelley, 1121 Ringwood Road, stated that he is a proud alum of the College and lives next to the Krebs property. He stated that he has concerns about the proposed use of the Krebs house as a recruiting tool. He stated that in addition to students coming to the site for classes, prospective students may tour the property. He stated that he has observed that there are security vehicles and service trucks at the College President’s house and stated that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 17 those types of activities at the Krebs house will change the character of the property. Ms. Mueller, 1057 Walden Road, stated that although the proposed gift is lovely, the issues of traffic are not irrelevant. She noted a current issue with a neighbor regarding a driveway on Walden Road that was unforeseen pointing out that there is no way to predict what will happen in the future. She stated that Walden Road is a very private area. She stated that she has serious concerns about traffic with 15 to 18 students coming to the site once or twice a day. She stated that she comes and goes on the street and stated she would notice a change. She asked the Board to consider how this project will impact the neighborhood and the quality of lives for the residents. Sam Tartamelle, 1028 Havenwood Lane, stated that he has lived on the street for 8 years. He noted that before he purchased the property he asked about the chances for change in the neighborhood or a school coming into the area. He stated that he has owned several properties near schools and will never own another. He stated that he walks his dog on Walden Road every day and agreed that the street is unique. He stated that he cannot walk his dog on Ringwood Road anymore due to the traffic evidence by the fact that the police often put a speed tracking device on the street. He stated that there will be 90 to 100 people that will see the proposed use every day and be impacted by it, people who did not buy into the neighborhood to have the College nearby. He stated that he is angry and did not spend what he did on his home to have a school next door. He asked that the project be rejected. Jeff Wallman stated that he is a new resident of the area and is torn noting that when he first heard about the proposal, it sounded like a good idea. He stated that the more he talked to others and heard their concerns, the more questions he had. He stated that he previously lived in Green Oaks and stated that it was his passion to live in Lake Forest. He stated that he did not want to live by the College. He noted that today, the College does not have a presence in his neighborhood. He stated that now that he lives in Lake Forest, he does not want the community to change. He stated that he does not want to be a negative, but as a homeowner, it seems like the proposed use will change the area. Joe Cadillac, 1075 Ringwood road, stated that he attended the open house offered by the Krebs and commended them on the magnificent structure. He stated that the property is more of a museum than a school. He stated that museums and the treasures in them should be on the College campus. He questioned the intent to try to accommodate class schedules, traffic and college students at the site. He stated that the neighborhood is very dark. He noted that there is a dog in the house across from his home that barks at passing cars noting that with additional traffic, this will increase. He stated Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 18 that the home and the artifacts should be moved on to the Campus where it belongs. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Franksen returned the matter to the Board and invited additional questions. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Krebs stated that if the Special Use Permit is not granted, it is possible that the property would still be donated to the College. He stated that he and Ms. Krebs will need to discuss the matter further. He stated that he is perplexed at the concerns raised but stated appreciation for the way in which the comments were presented. He stated that if the property is given to the College, the College could use the property in many ways without a Special Use Permit. He stated that he thought that by agreeing to the restrictions and conditions of a Special Use Permit, the community would benefit because there would not be any uncertainty. He stated that he and his wife want to give the property to the College to provide certainty over what will happen to it. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, President Schutt spoke to the traffic concerns. He put the expected traffic volumes into the context of current traffic in the neighborhood noting that he has been at the site often. He noted that one morning, 10 cars drove by on Ringwood Road in 10 minutes. He stated that the College has a lot of control over the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use. He stated that the College could strictly limit the number of cars permitted at the Krebs residence. He stated shuttle buses could be used but noted that some neighbors have expressed concern about the use of shuttle buses. He stated that the College is willing to limit cars, use shuttle buses or both to minimize impact on the neighborhood. He expressed openness to placing more controls on the property and more explicit limits on traffic to and from the site. He stated however that he is not sure that the concern it is warranted. He stated that on a busy day, under the current plan, there could be a class in the morning and a class in the afternoon. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, President Schutt stated that the donation of the former President’s house on Rosemary Road to the College occurred before his time. He stated that he is not aware of issues with the residence now that it is in the ownership of the College. Chairman Franksen invited final comments from the petitioners and from staff. President Schutt stated that all of the comments from the neighbors have been important. He stated that he believes the controls that have been negotiated will address the concerns raised but stated a willingness to consider additional controls. He stated that the existing lighting on the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 19 property will remain and that exterior lighting will be consistent with the lighting permitted in the R-4 zoning district. He stated that there will not be any flood lights. He stated that parking on the property will be limited to what can be accommodated today. He stated that the College can easily put controls in place that would not allow students to study or do research on the property all night long. He stated that he believes that the conditions offered by the Krebs and the College have gone a long way to address the concerns but acknowledged that there may be more that can be done. He agreed that there is no way to predict the future but noted that the Special Use Permit, with conditions and restrictions, is the best predictor of the future for this property far better than the uncertainty of what might happen otherwise. Mr. Krebs noted the conditions of approval in the staff report which provide limitations that would be specific to this request. He acknowledged that there are aspects that would need to be worked out if the Special Use Permit is granted noting that the donation agreement would address an operating plan and specify an endowment to support the property going forward. He pointed out that the staff report recommends that the use be evaluated after a year to review the effectiveness of the conditions and consider modifications, if necessary, to assure that the intent of the approval is met. Ms. Czerniak stated that a lot of information and a number of questions have been presented to the Board. She stated that if the Board is interested in further discussion of this petition, the matter could be continued with direction to the petitioner and staff to consider the testimony and questions and re-look at the recommended conditions of approval to see if there is a way to strike a balance and address some of the concerns. Chairman Franksen thanked all parties present stating that good testimony was presented. He invited Board discussion to assess where the Board is on this matter. Board member Plonsker stated that there is no question about the generosity and significance of the proposed gift by the Krebs to the College. He stated however that he is not ready to make a decision and that he needs time to consider all of the comments presented. He stated his intent to carefully consider the comments and proposed conditions to try to determine the best decision for everyone. Chairman Franksen noted that this is not a normal house and the concept of the proposed gift is a great proposition. He noted that the conditions offered by the College are limiting on the uses that could occur on the property. He acknowledged that many good comments were presented to the Board for consideration. He noted however that some of the comments need to be set aside because they do not directly fall under the Board’s purview. He noted Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 20 for instance the removal of the property from the tax rolls is not a matter that should be considered by the Board. He clarified that the Board’s job is to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the criteria for Special Use Permits. Board member Culbertson stated agreement with Board member Plonsker’s comments and acknowledged the generosity of the proposed gift and the benefit to the College. He stated however that this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood noting that his wife did not have a positive response to the idea of the College establishing a use next door to their home. He suggested that it may be possible to tighten the conditions of approval to address concerns about traffic. He suggested that the petitioner and staff consider refinements to the conditions to help move this petition forward. Board member Ciccarelli pointed out that the Krebs have a right to donate the house to the College without City approval. He stated that a balance needs to be reached noting that the Special Use Permit will define the uses that will be permitted on the site. He agreed that the matter should be continued for further study. Chairman Franksen reviewed the criteria that need to be evaluated for Special Use Permits. He stated that in his opinion, based on the information available to date, criteria #’s1, 3, 4 and 5 are met, criteria #’s 2 and 6 need further discussion and he noted that criteria #7 addresses the use overall. He stated that the main issues for discussion in his opinion relate to criteria #’s 2 and 6. Board member Culbertson stated his opinion that criteria #1 relating to comfort and general welfare of the neighborhood requires further consideration. Board member Dixon agreed with other Board members that further discussion is needed and suggested that information on other properties that have been donated to the College or other entities be provided to the Board. He stated his expectation that many of the same concerns were raised in those discussions. Board member Christoff agreed with the comments of the other Board members. Board member Kennedy stated that at this time, he is unsure of the impact the proposed use would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion to continue consideration of this matter. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 21 Board member Ciccarelli made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to allow time for further study and consideration of refinement to the conditions of approval in an effort to strike a balance between the various interests. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved. The Board took a brief recess. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance to allow the addition of a dormer within the rear yard setback area at 334 Chiltern Drive. Owners: Louis Petrizzi and JoAnn Johnson Representatives: Henrik Enqvist, Enqvist Homes Miguel Lara, architect Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petition and swore in all those planning to testify on this petition. Mr. Enqvist introduced the petition and provided some background noting that the petitioners purchased the home in June of this year. He stated that the house is a ranch style house, constructed in 1943. He stated that most of the house is located in what is today the rear yard setback. He pointed out that the two bedrooms upstairs do not have egress windows. He stated that providing for a means of escape is important since the owners plan to have grandchildren stay in the rooms and he stated that it is important for resale value. He stated that the owners thought that the house had three bedrooms when they purchased it. He reviewed the site plan noting the location of the existing dormers and reviewed the plan to expand the dormers into the bedrooms. He reviewed the existing rear elevation noting that the middle dormer would be extended at both ends. He provided various photos of the home noting that the site is heavily wooded. He noted that there is a thick line of trees along the property lines that prevent views on to the site. He stated that the dormers would not be visible from off of the site and should not impact neighboring properties. Ms. Neuman stated that the property is unique in that the house was constructed almost entirely within the current rear yard setback. She stated that any modification at the rear of the house requires a zoning variance. She stated that the change proposed is the minimum necessary to achieve the owners’ goal of providing a means of egress from the second floor bedroom. She stated that no change in the footprint of the house is proposed. She stated that as noted, the proposed dormer expansion would allow proper Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 22 egress and ventilation. She stated that the extent of the current encroachment into the rear yard setback will not be increased with this project. She stated that the dormers do not encroach into the side yards. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Neuman explained that a variance is needed because the mass of the house within the setback is increasing even though the extent of the encroachment is not increasing. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public comment. Ray Lohmann, 300 Chiltern, strongly urged the Board to support the variance. Board member Christoff stated support for the variance noting that the proposed change is important for the house. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow expansion of the existing dormers within the rear yard setback. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and stated that the presentation and comments of staff and the Board are incorporated as additional findings. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved by the Board. 5. Consideration of a request for variances to allow an addition to the residence within the side yard setback area and a replacement, detached garage within the rear and side yard accessory structure setback areas at 707 Woodlawn Avenue. Owner and Representative: Patrick Lindemann Chairman Franksen asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he stated that he is a neighbor of the property but stated that he would be able to rule on the matter objectively. He swore in all those planning to testify on this petition. Mr. Lindemann introduced the petition stating that he is requesting approval of a variance to allow the construction of a new garage within the rear and side yard setbacks and an addition to the house within the side yard setback area. He stated that he purchased the house in 2003 and in 2006, constructed a second floor addition to the home. He stated that at that time, a new garage was approved, but never built. He stated that the project complies with the lot coverage and building scale requirements. He reviewed the proposed site plan. He noted that the existing garage is not useable. He noted that a new garage, 24 x 24, is proposed and is located at the southwest Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 23 corner of the property. He stated that efforts were made to keep the project away from the mature oak tree. He stated that the new garage is sited consistent with the setbacks of the existing garage. He described the addition to the house noting that the existing mudroom is dangerous because the door opens over the stairs to the basement. He stated that to correct that situation, a side yard variance is requested for the addition. He reviewed various options for the project that were considered. Ms. Neuman confirmed that this is a two part request, an addition to the house and construction of a replacement detached garage. She noted that variances are required for both projects. She stated that from conversations with the petitioner, staff understands that the primary goal is to address the unsafe condition at the rear of the house. She stated that the majority of the proposed addition to the house does not require a variance. She pointed out that the one story portion is original to the house but the second floor was constructed based on a previously granted zoning variance. She stated that the other part of the request is for construction of a replacement detached garage. She noted that the existing garage is a one car garage and the proposed garage is larger than the size required for a two car garage. She stated that a two car garage is reasonable for this neighborhood but suggested that a 22 x 22 two car garage may be more appropriate given the tightness of the site as opposed to the larger size proposed by the petitioner. She noted that there are several limitations on the site including the size of the existing house, mature trees and the need to minimize drainage impacts on neighboring properties. She noted that staff recommends approval of the petition subject to conditions detailed in the staff report in particular, a reduction in the size of the garage and work with a Certified Arborist to protect the mature trees during construction. In response to questions from Board member Chirstoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed that City engineering staff reviewed a preliminary drainage plan for the site and confirmed that no grade change is planned as part of the project. She noted that downspouts will need to be directed away from neighboring properties. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that City engineering staff took the increase in the amount of impervious surface into consideration. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Lindemann confirmed that drainage has been a problem in the past and noted that he and the neighboring property owner worked together to mitigate the problems. He stated that before the new garage is built, further work will be done to improve the drainage. He stated his preference for a larger garage, 24 x 24, but stated that he would be agreeable to reducing the footprint to 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 24 x 24 if necessary. He stated that the proposed garage will be further away from the trees than the existing garage. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman stated that the staff recommendation is to move the front face of the garage back from the tree. She stated that a garage with the dimensions of 24 wide and 22 deep would likely address the City’s Arborist’s concerns. She suggested that the final decision on the exact size of the footprint be subject to the City Arborist’s review. She suggested that a condition requiring pre and post construction tree protection measures will be important. Board member Culbertson noted that a 24 foot wide garage would accommodate two cars and 24 x 22 is larger than initially recommended by staff. He stated that a 22 foot depth keeps the garage further from the tree. Chairman Franksen suggested that staff could work with the City’s Arborist to finalize the garage size and with the City Engineer on drainage and impervious surface to find workable solutions. He invited public testimony. Hearing none, he summarized the Board’s discussion noting that with some reduction in the size of the garage footprint, to 24 wide by 22 deep, seems to be the direction that the Board is going. He stated that the reduction in size will minimize the impact on the mature tree. He added that the City’s Certified Arborist could be involved in determining the final size as the project moves forward. He questioned whether a two foot difference is significant. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Neuman stated that given the tight site and the increase in the amount of impervious surface proposed, two feet may be important to give the tree a better chance at survival. She pointed out that most garages in this neighborhood are 18 x 20 to 20 x 20. She stated that the garage as proposed is larger than most in this neighborhood. Mr. Lindemann stated that he will do everything he can to protect the tree and asked for consideration of a 24 x 24 foot garage with the approval of the City’s Arborist. Board member Culbertson suggested that the a maximum garage size of 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep splits the difference between the petitioner’s request and the staff recommendation. Board member Dixon added that appropriate review by the City’s Arborist should be required as a condition of approval. Board member Christoff made a motion to recommend approval of setback Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 25 variances to the City Council for two projects at 707 Woodlawn Road. Approval of variances from the accessory structure setback requirements to allow a replacement 2-car garage of no larger than 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep to be located no closer than 5 feet to the south property line and 2.5 feet to the west property line and to allow the modified roof form of the house to be located no closer than 3 feet to the east property line. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings presented in the staff report and noted that the presentation, deliberations of the Board and comments from staff are incorporated as additional findings. He added that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. Architectural Design and Site Plan 1. The size of the detached garage shall be a maximum of 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep subject to final approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. Landscaping 2. A pre and post construction tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted along with the landscape plan outlining the steps that will be taken to protect mature trees in proximity to the proposed construction including the large Oak in the rear yard. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. Drainage 3. The City Engineer is directed to carefully review the drainage plan taking into account the increase in impervious surface and assure that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate any increase in drainage impacts on neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was unanimously approved by the Board. 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 presented by City staff. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 26 The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development