ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/04/02 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the April 2, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on
Tuesday, April 2, 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 Rosemary Kehr and
Board members Robert Franksen, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff, Stewart
Dixon and Jay Kennedy.
Zoning Board of Appeals Board members absent: Sam Ciccarelli
Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of
Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures
Chairman Kehr 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 January 28, 2013 meeting
The minutes of the January 28, 2013 meeting were approved with a correction
as requested by Board member Franksen.
NEW PETITIONS
3. Consideration of a request for a variance from the setback requirements
for accessory structures to allow construction of a new detached garage
at 460 Washington Road.
Owners and Representatives: Stephen and Laura Douglass
Chairman Kehr asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte
contacts. Hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this
petition.
Mr. Douglass introduced the petition stating that he and his wife are 25 year
residents of Lake Forest. He stated that his home was built in 1930 and was
part of a larger property which came to be known as “Brownsville”. He
explained that eight homes were built by the original family with one used as
a primary residence and the others rented out for summer homes. He noted
that his family is the first owner occupant of the home. He stated that the
property is in the R-3 zoning district and is a lot-in-depth. He explained that he
proposes to construct a new garage at the same location as the existing
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 2
garage. He noted that the garage is not very visible from the streetscape or
from surrounding homes due to the location of other garages near his garage
and due to vegetation on his properties and on other properties. He
reviewed a site plan of his property and the surrounding properties. He
reiterated that his lot is a lot-in -depth and pointed out that the house and
garage are nonconforming with current setback requirements. He pointed
out a 10 foot utility easement on his property near the garage noting that
electric lines serving the neighborhood are buried in the easement, on his
property. He reviewed diagrams illustrating the massing of the existing and
proposed garage. He stated that the new garage is proposed at about 11”
taller than the existing garage to accommodate standard garage doors. He
reviewed photos of the existing garage. He reviewed the reasons why
replacement of the existing garage is necessary explaining that the sill plate
was rotted away before he purchased the property in 1992. He pointed out
the temporary bricks and jacks he is using to support the structure because
the current structural framing is undersized noting that the roof is framed with
only 2 x 4’s and some have broken. He provided photos of the surrounding
properties noting the location of various structures in relation to his garage.
He noted in particular a grouping of garages near his garage. He pointed out
the evergreens which further shield views of the garage noting that they will
remain. He reviewed the plan for the new garage noting that it will be the
same as the existing garage except that the size of the shed on the north side
of the garage will be increased slightly so it can be used as a potting shed.
He noted the simple roof planned for the shed. He reviewed each elevation
of the replacement garage noting the detailing and reviewing the proposed
garage doors. He stated that letters in support of the project from surrounding
neighbors are included in the Board’s packet. He reviewed the criteria for
variances noting that the new garage will be consistent with, but a vast
improvement over, the existing garage and as a result, the project will not
alter the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the utility easement
and significant tree both located near the garage together create a unique
condition. He added that the tree will be protected throughout construction
in consultation with the City’s Certified Arborist. He noted that to protect the
tree, the shed is being shifted slightly to the west from its present location. He
noted that the current setback requirements were put in place by the City
after the construction of the residence and garage and after creation of the
lots. He stated that the new garage, unlike the existing garage, will be in
compliance with the current building Codes with respect to structural framing.
He stated that the proposed project will have no negative impact on
surrounding property values.
Ms. Neuman acknowledged that the existing garage is in serious disrepair and
would essentially require complete rebuilding to restore it. She noted that the
proposed garage will be more functional for the property owner primarily
because of the slight increase in height to allow vehicles to enter. She stated
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 3
that current building Codes require a deeper foundation for new construction
but stated that steps will be taken to protect the significant tree to the north of
the garage. She clarified that the new garage will be no closer to the west
property line than the existing garage noting that the distance is
approximately 4 feet but the exact distance from the property line still needs
to be verified. She added that the only changes from the existing garage
include a slight increase in height to accommodate standard height garage
doors and the shifting of the potting shed slightly further to the west, along the
north wall of the garage, to protect the tree.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Douglass
confirmed that after construction of the garage is completed, a new fence
will be constructed along the west property line. He noted that the existing
fence is in disrepair and currently is attached to the garage. He stated that
the new fence will be setback from the garage.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman
explained that the City Arborist, in consultation with an independent
consultant, will require protection measures for the tree to the north of the
garage. She confirmed that replacement trees could be required if the tree
does not survive. She stated that the City’s Arborist did not raise any concerns
about the tree on the south property line.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Douglass stated
that if the tree to the north of the garage is endangered, he will find another
solution for the project. He stated that he does not want to lose the tree. He
confirmed that the new garage will be detailed consistent with the house
noting that the clapboards will have the same exposure, casement windows
will match the house, the garage doors will have the appearance of carriage
house doors and the roof will be cedar shingles.
In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Douglass stated that at the
time that he purchased the property, the garage was already in a state of
disrepair. He stated that the garage is usable on a limited basis at this time
noting that not all of the garage doors work and that there are concerns
about the stability of the structure. He added that currently, there is no power
to the garage. He explained that he talked with contractors about repairing
the garage, rather than replacing it, but commented that replacing the
garage was determined to be the best approach. He stated that the new
garage doors will be 8 feet in height but noted that the detailing of the
header above the door and the rafters keep the height of the roof down
resulting in an overall increase in height of only 11 inches.
Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she invited final
questions or comments from the Board.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 4
Chairman Kehr commented that in another jurisdiction an owner allowed a
house to become dilapidated to circumvent current zoning requirements
noting however that the effort was not successful. She stated that in this case,
the garage was in poor condition when the petitioners bought the property
and the proposal is to replace the garage with a very similar new garage.
She distinguished the present situation from one in which an owner allows a
structure to deteriorate.
Board member Franksen stated support for the petition agreeing that a new
garage is appropriate in this situation. He noted that the minimal changes will
allow the garage to be more functional given today’s needs.
Board member Dixon complimented the petitioner on the thoroughness and
detailed nature of the presentation.
Chairman Kehr stated appreciation for the petitioners’ efforts to talk to
neighbors and the letters of support presented to the Board.
Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of a
variance to allow construction of a replacement garage and potting shed
within the required setback from the west property line, but no closer to the
west property line than the existing garage, consistent with the plans
presented to the Board. He noted that the recommendation is supported by
the findings presented in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and was unanimously
approved by the Board.
4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the setback requirements to
allow modifications to the roof structure for a portion of the existing two story
residence at 441 E. Westminster.
Owners: Jim and Maureen Goodwin
Representative: Bob Gebelhoff, designer
Chairman Kehr asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte
contacts. Hearing none, she noted that she met Ms. Goodwin briefly when
she visited the site. She swore in all those intending to speak on this petition.
Mr. Goodwin stated that his family purchased this house in February and since
then have done cosmetic work and repairs as required in any house
constructed in the 1930’s. He explained that one of the issues they want to
address is the addition made to the home in 1960. He explained that the
addition is not in conformance with the zoning setbacks and is not in keeping
with the Tudor style of the house. He explained that the Historic Preservation
Commission was not in existence at the time the addition was done. He stated
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 5
that the intent is to try to re-work the addition to make it more consistent with the
house and surrounding neighborhood. He explained that the proposal is to
replace the existing flat roof with a gable roof. He noted that photos of the
existing house are included in the Commission’s packet. He requested approval
of a side yard variance, on the western side of the property, to allow the
change in roof form. He explained that the change will actually reduce the
amount of the encroachment into the setback from what exists today. He
stated that no change is proposed to the footprint of the house. He pointed out
the western property line and the location of the setback which cuts through
the house.
In response to a request from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Gebelhoff reviewed the
existing and proposed roof forms. He stated that the aluminum siding on the
1960’s addition will be replaced with stucco and the flat roof will be replaced
with a gable to match the existing gable to the east. He stated that the
detail ing on the existing addition will be brought more in line with the details of
the original house. He pointed out the zoning setback noting that it angles
through the existing house. He noted that no square footage will be added as a
result of the proposed change explaining that in fact, the roof will be lowered to
line up with the existing eaves on the house reducing the extent of the
encroachment of the mass into the setback. He reviewed the west elevation
and provided an overlay of the existing conditions and proposed plans. He
noted the windows that will be changed.
In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, He confirmed that the area of the
reduced encroachment is reflected in the packet.
Ms. Neuman reviewed that the existing structure is nonconforming with the side
yard setback and is located 4.5 feet from the property line at the closest point.
She repeated that no change is proposed to the footprint of the house and that
the change to the roof mass will decrease the mass within the setback area. He
noted that the eave line will be lowered a couple feet and the mass of the roof
will slope away from the property line. She noted that this project was before
the Historic Preservation Commission on March 20, 2013 and received approval.
She stated that the intent of this project is to preserve and enhance the historic
character of the home by modifying the earlier rear addition. She noted that
letters of support from neighboring property owners are included in the
Commission’s packet. She added that a concern was raised in a letter about
protecting the fence located on the property line during construction. She
noted that in discussions with the petitioners, staff learned that due to the
tightness of the site, the type and size of construction equipment used for the
project will be limited. She stated that staff recommends approval of the
variance.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 6
In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed
that the Historic Preservation Commission approved the proposed change to
the roof mass and architectural detailing. She noted that one change was
made to the windows as a result of the Commission’s review.
In response to questions from Board member Franksen, Ms. Neuman confirmed
that the existing house is non-conforming. She confirmed that no change in the
footprint of the house is proposed, only a change to the roof line as noted in the
plan. She explained that the proposed change reduces the extent of the
encroachment by reducing the mass of the roof and improves upon the design
of the 1960’s addition.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Gebelhoff
confirmed that the footprint of the house will remain exactly the same.
In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Neuman explained that the
house is in the City’s Local Historic District, that it was built in the 1930’s and is
identified as a Contributing Structure to the District. She explained that
Contributing Structures are properties that are unique, have architectural or
social significance, are designed by significant architects or due to other
factors, are noteworthy to the community. She explained that not all structures
in the Historic District are identified as Contributing Structures. She commented
that in this case, the 1960’s addition is not an element that contributes to the
property’s significance. She stated that the project as proposed will result in a
more cohesive design and enhance the property.
Board member Christoff commended the project and thanked the petitioner for
bringing it forward.
Board member Kennedy also commended the project and asked that care be
taken during construction to be sensitive to the neighbors and the fence due to
the tightness of the site.
Board member Franksen agreed that the project will be a good change.
Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she invited final
comments from the Board, hearing none, she invited a motion.
Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of a variance
to allow alterations to the 1960’s addition including modification of the existing
roof form to reduce the mass within the setback area. He clarified that the
project does not include any change to the footprint of the house and that the
new construction shall be located no closer than 4.5 feet to the west property
line as depicted on the site plan presented to the Board. He added that the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
April 2, 2013 Page 7
recommendation includes a condition requiring that care be taken to avoid
impact to the neighboring properties given the tightness of the site.
The motion was seconded Board member Dixon 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 provided by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development