ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/05/28 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the May 28, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 28,
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
Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff, Stewart Dixon and Jay Kennedy, Sam Ciccarelli
Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None (one vacant position)
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. Recognition of former Chairman Rosemary Kehr.
Chairman Franksen noted that former Chairman Kehr recently completed her 5 year term on the
Zoning Board of Appeals. He recognized former Chairman Kehr for her contributions as a
member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He not ed that the City benefits from many volunteers
but rarely finds someone who is such a perfect fit for the position to which they are appointed.
He noted that former Chairman Kehr’s educational background and professional experience
made her a perfect fit for the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that it was his honor to serve
with her .
Other Board members acknowledged former Chairman Kehr for her dedication noting that they
learned from her and that they appreciated the meetings running smoothly and her ability to keep
the Board on track. They expressed appreciation for her service.
Chairman Franksen presented former Chairman Kehr with a plaque in appreciation for her
service.
3. Approval of the minutes.
The approval of the minutes was postponed.
NEW PETITIONS – REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES
4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the front yard setback requirements
to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at 499 Washington Road.
Owners: Scott and Ciara Frost
Architect : John Krasnodebski, Architect
Chairman Franksen asked the Board members to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte
contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this petition.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 2
Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition and the property owners. He explained that the
owners are requesting a variance from the front yard zoning setback to allow an existing porch
to be enclosed for additional living space. He stated that the porch is not visible from the
street due to the heavy vegetation noting that the proposed project will not result in a change
to the streetscape. He provided photos of the house and explained that the project will
maintain the roof structure and round stucco columns while creating an all season space. He
stated that there will be no change to the existing foot print of the house. He stated that the
openings in the porch will be in filled with glass creating a transparent appearance and
minimizing any visual change to the massing of the house. He explained that the thick
columns are a feature that reoccurs throughout the home and retaining them with the infill will
assure that the enclosed porch remains integrated with the rest of the home. He reviewed the
site plan review noting the row of tall and dense evergreens that screen the house and the
porch from the street. He reviewed the floor plan and the foot print of the porch explaining
how enclosing it will allow the size of the kitchen to be increased. He provided some history
of the house noting that originally, it was a coach house to the larger home to the north, on
College Road, and was built in 1903. He stated that the property was subdivided in 1987 prior
to the current zoning requirements. He explained that today, the house is nonconforming due
to the date of construction and the subdivision of the property prior to the current Code
regulations. He stated that the hardship created by the new zoning regulations; together with
the lack of impact to the streetscape or neighboring properties, justify the variance.
Ms. Neuman confirmed that the project as proposed requires a variance from the front yard
setback requirement. She affirmed that the structure predates the adoption of the Zoning Code
in 1923. She reviewed the unique aspects of this request noting that an existing porch is
proposed to be enclosed with mostly glass. She stated that there will be no change to the
existing footprint or area of the roof. She explained that a zoning variance is required because
a change is proposed to an element that is nonconforming with the current setback
requirements. She added that this project is scheduled for review by the Historic Preservation
Commission later in the week. She stated that the enclosure of the porch with glass will, in
general, preserve the openness of this element of the house. She stated that findings in support
of the variance are included in the staff report.
Board member Kennedy acknowledged that the project is proposed for an element of the
house that is close to the street but noted that the work proposed will not add to the appearance
of bulk of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Krasnodebski discussed drainage on
the site noting that the roof line will not change with the proposed project. He stated that the
gutter and downspout s will be maintained as they currently exist and will continue to splash at
grade. He added that the project will not result in an increase in the amount of impervious
surface on the site.
In response to a question from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed that to date,
staff has received no contacts or correspondence on this petition.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Krasnodebski explained that the
enclosure of the porch will allow expansion of the kitchen without changing the foot print of
the house. He confirmed that no mechanicals will penetrate the roof or be visible from the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 3
outside.
In response to Chairman Franksen, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that there will be no change
in the foot print of the building and explained that about three quarters of the infill of the
porch will be glass. He presented an elevation and reviewed the detail of the windows noting
that the transparency of the area will be consistent with the use as a breakfast area.
Chairman Franksen invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited final comments from
the petitioner and staff. Hearing none, he invited final questions or a motion from the Board.
Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of a fro nt yard variance to
permit infill of the existing nonconforming open porch to create enclosed space. He noted that
the project does not include any change to the existing footprint and no encroachment into the
setback beyond what presently exists. He stated that the recommendation is supported by the
findings as presented in the staff report for this petition.
The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved by the
Board.
5. Consideration of a request for variances from the front and side yard setback
requirements to allow an addition at 375 Washington Road.
Owner: Ann-Louise Brown
Architect: Robert Roloson
Chairman Franksen 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. Roloson introduced the petition and reviewed the existing conditions on the site. He noted
that the property is zoned R-4 stating that the zoning district requires a 50 foot front yard setback
and a 20 foot side yard setback. He noted the existing nonconforming condition explaining that
the house as it exists today is setback 33’-10” from the front property line and 3’-7” from the
side property line. He noted that buildable area on the property is very limited based on the
present zoning on the property. He explained that the proposed second floor addition is limited
to the area above the garage. He reviewed the proposed elevations pointing out the height of the
existing garage to the proposed height of the addition. He reviewed the floor plan. He explained
that two bedrooms are being added to accommodate an expanding family. He reviewed other
locations that were considered for expansion but noted that the garage element is lower than the
existing house and as a result, location of the addition as proposed allows the addition to be kept
lower. He noted that adding to the house at other locations would require a new foundation and
expansion of the foot print of the house. He pointed out that the addition is designed to help
break up the appearance of mass. He noted that the house was designed by Stanley Anderson
and explained that the proposed addition was considered and well received by the Building
Review Board. He reviewed photos of the existing home and over all site. He explained that the
existing garage was not part of the original Stanley Anderson design and was tacked on to the
house without careful thought. He noted the proposed addition helps to better integrate the
garage into the original design. He reviewed neighboring homes and discussed the character of
the streetscape. He reviewed the intended architectural detailing and requested approval of the
variances required for the project.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 4
Ms. Neuman reviewed that the house is located on the corner of Rosemary and Washington
Roads confirming that it is in the R-4 zoning district. She affirmed that the house is
nonconforming with respect to all current zoning setbacks. She explained that the house was
constructed prior to the establishment of the current zoning requirements. She reviewed that the
addition as now proposed requires variances from the front and side yard setback requirements.
She noted that the petitioner and architect explored various options for expanding this residence
which was originally designed by Stanley Anderson. She explained that some alternatives
studied resulted in less encroachment into the required setbacks that the present plan, but had a
greater impact on the character and massing of the residence. She stated that the plan as
presented has minimal impact on the original design and improves upon the earlier garage
addition. She confirmed that the Building Review Board reviewed and recommended approval
of the project. She clarified that the extent of the variance was adjusted to include the full extent
of the eave into the side yard. She stated that to date, staff has not received any correspondence
or any contacts on this petition. She stated that findings in support of the variance are included
in the staff report for this petition.
In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Roloson stated that only the roof
structure of the garage will be demolished. He explained that the addition will be built on top of
the existing white brick walls and on the existing foundation. He reviewed the expected impacts
on trees noting areas where lower branches may need to be removed. He noted that care will be
taken to protect the trees on the site. He discussed how the roof will be reconfigured and noted
that the existing windows that will be removed are planned for reuse on the front facing wall
above the garage. He confirmed that the brick on the addition will be painted white to match the
existing brick. He confirmed that the addition is part of a larger renovation project but only the
addition requires a zoning variance. He reviewed some other updates planned to the house
stating the intent to repair areas as needed and return elements to the original Stanley Anderson
design where appropriate.
In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the Building
Review Board recommended approval of the design of the addition. She confirmed that no
change to the footprint of the house is proposed.
In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Roloson confirmed that new copper
gutters will be installed to properly direct runoff from the new roof area. He confirmed however
that the area of the roof does not increase with this addition.
In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Roloson confirmed that the footprint of
the house and roof of the original house will remain the same. He explained that the additional
encroachment into the side yard setback is necessary to align the addit ion architecturally with the
original Stanley Anderson design and to work with the existing walls. He explained the extent of
the eave overhang and noted the concrete keystone that will be repeated. He confirmed that the
proposed design cannot be accomplished without the further encroachment into the setback area.
Cha irman Franksen invited public testimony, hearing none. He invited final comments from the
petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments or a motion from the Board.
Board member Culbertson offered that since the addition is being constructed, this is an
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 5
opportune time to spruce up the existing home to avoid a stark contrast between the old and the
new. He acknowledged that the larger scope of the project is beyond the scope of the Board.
Chairman Franksen agreed with the comments of Board member Culbertson. He observed that
the proposed addition will have little impact on the streetscape and will in fact result in an
improved appearance of the house from the street. He stated disappointment that a further
encroachment into the side yard setback is required, but recognized the recommendation for
approval from the Building Review Board based on the architectural design which necessitates
the further encroachment .
Board member Christoff made a motion to recommend approval of front and side yard variances
to allow construction of the addition as presented no closer than 2’-9” to the side yard property
line and no closer than 33’-6” to the front property line as reflected on the site plan presented to
the Board. He stated that findings in support of the Board’s recommendation are detailed in the
staff report on this petition.
The motion was seconded by Board member Ciccarelli and was unanimously approved by t he
Board.
6. Consideration of a request for a variance from the side yard setback requirements to
allow a second story addition over an existing first floor at 1251 Winwood Drive.
Owners: Annette Carroll and John Rowan
Architect: Jonathan Clair
Chairman Franksen asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts.
Hearing none, noted that Mr. Clair has done some preliminary work on a possible project at
this house but stated that he is able to rule on this petition impartially. He swore in all those
intending to speak on this petition.
Ms. Carroll introduced the petition noting that before she bought the house, it had been expanded
twice . She explained that the residence was originally a coach ho use for a larger home and noted
that the structure is built on a slab and has no basement. She stated that additional space is
needed for family and gathering space. She stated that a modest addition is proposed as a second
floor over an area of the house that appears as though it was never finished. She stated that the
project will address an awkward chimney situation and will add a gable roof to enhance the
house.
Mr. Clair reviewed a plat of survey noting the unusual shape of the lot and the location of the
house 175 feet back from the street. He pointed out the heavy landscaping on the property. He
discussed the area of the proposed addition above an existing family room. He noted the areas
wher e the house as it exists today encroaches into the zoning setbacks noting that the structure
was constructed prior to the establishment of the zoning setbacks. He stated that the proposed
addition will not be visible from the street. He noted that the ho use is an elegant Colonial
structure and pointed out the swimming pool and garage areas. He pointed out the “hanging ”
chimney and explained that it meets Code requirements for height and separation. He described
the proposed addition not ing the intent to extend the gable that now stops at the flat roof out over
the flat roof portion of the house. He reviewed photos of the property noting the wooded nature
of the s ite . He reviewed the floor plan and noted the limited storage areas available. He
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 6
reviewed the proposed elevations and reviewed the changes that will occur on each with
construction of the addition. He explained that today, the flat roof area is a maintenance problem
due to leaking. He confirmed that the roof however is framed in a manner that is suitable for
floor framing. He requested approval of the variance noting that the project will have little
impact on neighboring properties.
Ms. Neuman stated that no change in the foot print of the existing house is proposed and
explained that a variance is required because an increase is height is proposed on a portion of the
home that currently encroaches into the required setback. She stated that this project was
reviewed by the Building Review Board and the Board recommended approval of the required
building scale variance and architectural design noting that the proposed addition is in scale with
the existing house and with surrounding properties. She confirmed that this structure was
originally a coach house to a larger estate and that the various additions all occurred prior to the
application of the current zoning regulations.
In response to a question from Cha irman Franksen, Ms. Neuman stated that the building scale
overage was relatively small, in the range of 2%.
Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the
petitioner or staff.
Ms. Neu man offered that two letters of support for the project were submitted by neighboring
property owners.
Chairman Franksen invited final comments or a motion from the Board.
Board member Christoff stated support for the requested variance noting that the project does not
include an expansion of the building foot print and noting that overall, the project will be an
improvement to the exist ing conditions.
Chairman Franksen agreed noting the location of the house and the addition far back from the
street which limits any visibility from the streetscape.
Board member Ciccarelli made a motion to recommend approval of the variance as requested to
allow construction of a second floor addition within the side yard setback but no closer than 33
feet to the west property line. He stated that findings in support of the motion are detailed in the
staff report for this petition.
The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and was unanimously approved by the
Board.
OTHER ITEMS
7. 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.
8. Additional information from staff.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
May 28 , 2013 Page 7
There was not additional information presented by City staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7: 26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine J. Czerniak
Director of Community Development