Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/05/29 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the May 29, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 29, 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 Lloyd Culbertson, Sam Ciccarelli, Jay Kennedy, and Richard Christoff Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Stuart Dixon and Robert Franksen Staff present: Catherine J. Czerniak, Director of Community Development and Megan C. O’Neill, Planner 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 February 27, 2012 and April 23, 2012 regular meetings. The minutes of the February 27, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. The minutes of the April 23, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. RETURNING PETITION 3. Consideration of a request for a variance from the lot-in-depth setback requirements for an addition to an existing structure at 1296 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: Jess and Katie Belcher Representative: Austin DePree, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board members for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from Mr. DePree. Mr. DePree introduced the petition explaining that he was hired to explore the possibility of constructing an addition to the house. He provided a history of the property noting that originally, the house sat on a large parcel of land but over time, the surrounding properties were subdivided. He reviewed photos of the existing house describing views of the house from various points. He described some of the surrounding homes. He pointed out the shared private driveway noting that it takes up a significant part of the property. He added that since the property is a lot-in-depth, the parcel has virtually no buildable area due to the lot–in-depth setbacks and the shared driveway. He described the proposed porch additions on the first and second floors. He reviewed the floor plan and the elevations pointing out the location of the two proposed screen porches. He reviewed a graphic simulation of the home showing the existing home with the proposed porches. He noted that the property owners have spoken with the neighbors about the project. He noted that landscape improvements are a large part of the project. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 29, 2012 Page 2 Craig Bergmann, landscape architect, noted that some of the earlier subdivision activity on the surrounding properties was unfortunate. He noted that a pool, installed by the former owners is proposed for removal and replacement with a smaller reflecting pool and a yard. He noted that the screen porches are intended to gain some “outdoor” spaces for the house. He stated that the plan includes the re-routing of driveway to create a more visually pleasing approach to the home. He noted that the existing Norway Spruce will be relocated to provide screening in appropriate locations. He noted the existing juncture of three driveways noting that the propose relocation of the driveway on this site shifts that juncture minimizing the potential for blind spots and conflicts between the driveways. He noted that in addition to improving the relationship between the driveways, the driveway shift will avoid the current situation of a drive approach that focuses on the garage doors rather than on the house. He described the landscaping in relation to the entrance noting that more of a courtyard experience will be created. He noted that over time, plantings have been added haphazardly to this property and stated that the inconsistent plantings will be removed. He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the proposed driveway re-configuration along with the porch additions. He provided a sketch of the rear of the home noting the massing that will result after the addition of the screen porches. He noted that the removal of the pool creates a large open space and re-opens a vista across neighboring properties that has been closed for 25 years. He reviewed the proposed tree removals noting that the planned removals were reviewed with the City’s Certified Arborist. Mr. DePree summarized confirming that the project was before the Historic Preservation Commission at two meetings and the project, along with a building scale variance, were unanimously approved by the Commission. Ms. O’Neill confirmed that this lot was part of a larger property long ago and overtime, the properties around it were subdivided leaving this remnant, nonconforming parcel. She pointed out that the residence was built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Code and before the lot in depth provisions were adopted as a later amendment to the Zoning Code. She noted various unique aspects of the property including the configuration, size, encumbrance with a shared driveway and the historically significant home. She stated that findings in support of the variance, based on these unique factors, are provided in the staff report. She made the point that the proposed screen porches are lighter than solid additions. She confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously approved a building scale variance and the overall project. She described the setback variance that is requested noting that the porches will be no closer than 18.5 feet to the west property line. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that there is only a small sliver of the property as it is now configured that would be buildable under the current Code provisions. She reviewed the setback requirements for lots in depth and for a standard lot in the R-4 district. She confirmed that it is appropriate for the Board to consider various aspects of the project including the overall height, massing and siting of the house on the property as they relate to the criteria for a variance in considering the request. She commented that the specific architectural details of the project were reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Bergmann confirmed that a stockade fence and the associated landscaping will provide screening between this house and the nearby residence. He confirmed that the pool will be removed and replaced with a smaller Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 29, 2012 Page 3 reflecting pond but noted that the reflecting pond still requires a fence based on the provisions in the Code for life safety. Chairman Kehr confirmed that it is within the Board’s purview to consider how any changes impact the surrounding neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and voted to approve the fence as proposed along with the associated landscaping. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she returned the discussion to the Board. Board member Culbertson commented that the proposed project was properly vetted through the Historic Preservation Commission. He stated that his only reservation is the appropriateness of the stockade fence noting that he understands the reason for the fence and acknowledging that the Historic Preservation Commission supported the fence as part of the project. Board member Ciccarelli commented that the addition of the screen porches balances the house and complimented the project. He noted that the landscape plan restores an open view across the property that does not currently exist. Board member Kennedy stated that the project is well thought out and does not appear to present any negative issues to the neighboring properties. ‘ Board member Christoff acknowledged the limitations of the lot as it exists today as a non- conforming, lot in depth. He stated that the requested variance is reasonable and will be an improvement to the home. He noted that any addition to the home will require a zoning variance. . Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow the addition of screen porches to the existing house at a distance no closer than 18.5 feet to west property line. He stated that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved by the Board. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There were no additional comments from the public. 5. Additional information from staff. There were no additional comments from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 29, 2012 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development