Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/11/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the November 26, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, November 26, 2012, 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: Sam Ciccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff, Jay Kennedy and Stewart Dixon. Zoning Board of Appeals Board member absent: Robert Franksen Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures 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 August 30, 2012 and October 22, 2012 regular meetings. The minutes of the August 30, 2012 and October 22, 2012 meetings were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the lot-in-depth zoning setback requirements to allow construction of an addition and alterations at 301 E. Vine Avenue. Owners: Herbert and Marianne Stride Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board members Culbertson and Dixon stated that they know the petitioners but will be able to rule on the petition objectively. Chairman Kehr also noted that she is acquainted with Ms. Stride but will be able to rule on the petition objectively. Chairman Kehr swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Streightiff presented the request stating that a variance is requested from lot in depth setback requirements to allow exterior improvements. He stated that the existing house is non- conforming with the current setbacks for lots-in-depth. He provided an overview of the property noting its configuration and relationship to neighboring properties. He pointed out that the house is not visible from Vine Avenue. He reviewed the footprint of the existing house noting the limited buildable area on the lot. He pointed out the significant vegetation on the property noting that the views to and from the house are limited. He provided photos illustrating the heavy screening. He explained that the Strides have lived in house for 14 years. He explained that this Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 2 house was originally built as a “spec” house and the quality and materials were selected to minimize costs. He stated that the goal of this project is to enhance the quality of the house through design refinements and upgrades to existing materials. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations. He reviewed the proposed changes including removal of an existing large chimney noting that it is awkwardly placed in the interior. He stated that the chimney will be replaced with a one story screen porch and smaller chimney. He stated that the existing non- aligned front entry will be removed and replaced with an entry of an appropriate design. He stated that the first floor horizontal siding will be replaced with lannon stone veneer and noted various other improvements planned for the exterior elements including the columns, fascia, trim, gutters and windows. He reviewed the various elevations noting more specifically the work proposed. He stated that the intent of the project is to enhance the quality and character of the house. He stated that no overall expansion of the interior living space is proposed. He concluded stating that the petitioners have talked with the neighboring property owners and received support for the project. Ms. Neuman provided some history on the property noting that a zoning variance was granted at the time the original permits for the house were issued. She explained that subdivision of the property occurred in the 1970’s prior to the lot-in-depth setback provisions. She explained that with the current setbacks, there is only a very narrow sliver of the lot that is buildable. She reviewed the various elements of the project. She explained that the project got a little ahead of itself due to confusion resulting from the issuance of a permit for interior work that proceeded and resulted in some exterior work. She confirmed that this project will be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration of the request for a building scale variance. She recommended approval of the variance as requested noting that findings in support of the project are provided in the staff report. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that the large chimney has already been removed. He confirmed that the screen porch is intended to remain as an open porch. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that any project that would increase the massing within the required setback area would require a zoning variance. Ms. Neuman noted that two letters of support were submitted and were provided to the Board. Chairman Kehr invited public comments. Hearing none, she invited final comments from the Board and a motion. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow the additions and alterations as presented no closer than 16 feet to the property line. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff. Chairman Kehr asked whether the Board’s recommendation should include a requirement that the screen porch remain open based on the openness. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 3 Ms. Neuman noted that it is clear in the findings that approval of the variance is based in part on open character of the screen porch. She stated that if the owner desires to enclose the porch in the future, a variance would be required. After further Board discussion, Board member Culbertson amended the motion to emphasize that support for the variance is based on the open character of the porch as presented by the petitioner. Board member Christoff accepted the amendment to the motion and the motion was approved by the Board by a 6 – 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There were no other items presented to the Board by members of the public. 5. Additional information from staff. Staff reminded the Board that there is not meeting scheduled in December. The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development