ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2011/01/24 Minutes
The City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the January 24, 2011 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday,
January 24, 2011, 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 Cardy Davis and Board
members Mike Adelman, Daniel Jasica, Rosemary Kehr, Angela DeDolph, Sam
Ciccarelli and Stewart Dixon
Zoning Board of Appeals member absent: None
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development.
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Davis
Chairman Davis reviewed the meeting procedures and asked the members of the
Board and staff to introduce themselves.
2. Approval of the minutes of the November 22, 2010 regular meeting.
The minutes of the November 22, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. A request from the First Presbyterian Church, 700 N. Sheridan Road, for an
amendment to the Special Use Permit to authorize the incorporation of the property
at 750 N. Sheridan Road into the Church campus. The property is proposed for
continued residential use as a manse, a residence for the Pastor, and open space
for Church use.
Owner: First Presbyterian Church of Lake Forest
Representative: John F. Johnson, Executive Director
Chairman Davis asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts.
Hearing none, he noted that as he stated at the previous meeting, he is a member of
the First Presbyterian Church. He stated however that he will be able to rule impartially
on the request. He swore in all those intending to speak on this matter.
Mr. Johnson introduced the petition noting that since the last meeting, the Church has
made every effort to follow the direction of the Board and to be understanding and
respectful of the interests of all affected parties. He noted the various meetings that
have occurred since the last Board meeting with the neighbors and City staff. He
reviewed an overall site plan of the church campus noting the location of the 750 N.
Sheridan Road property. He reviewed some of the recent improvements made to the
overall Church property pointing out the landscape improvements made along
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 2
Sheridan Road. He noted the intent of the Church to make comparable improvements
to the 750 N. Sheridan Road property consistent with the residential character of the
neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed plan for the rear yard of the 750 property
noting that most of the concerns heard from the neighbors pertained to that area. He
reviewed revisions and enhancements made to the plan since the last meeting. He
stated that the revised plan was presented to the neighbors and that further study was
then conducted of key viewpoints from the neighbor’s property. He reviewed the
intended landscape buffer planned along the west property line, the designation of a
parking area at the southeast corner of the parcel and a plan for fencing and
landscape screening of any additional parking that is created. He noted that care was
taken to consider the views from the neighboring homes in placing the various
screening elements to provide all season screening. He noted that the yard directly
associated with the Manse was expanded slightly to restrict the size of the Church yard
and to physically limit the type of activities that might take place there. He noted that
the 20’ buffer is respected the full length of the yard. He noted that the identified future
parking area is limited to the area currently covered by the driveway and garage and
is further limited to a maximum of 2,750 square feet. He stated an understanding of the
neighbors’ concern about seeing cars in this area. He noted that careful attention was
given to assuring year round screening of the additional parking. He noted that with
respect to the house, improvements to the first floor are complete and work on the
second floor will soon get underway. He summarized noting that the Church has met
with the neighbors and has heard and tried to be responsive to their concerns about
parking, lights, landscaping and use. He clarified that the site is intended for small
Church related uses and is not intended as a public park. He reiterated that several
meetings have occurred and that he has talked with all of the neighbors personally
over the past two weeks and stated that to the best of his knowledge, all parties are in
agreement.
Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that the process for this petition took longer than many
would have liked, but stated that due to the interest and willingness of all parties, the
process worked and a good solution, supported by all parties, is now presented to the
Board. She noted that good ideas and offers of compromise were put forth by all
parties. She noted that staff attended some, but not all of the meetings held, and that
meetings were held at the Church and also at a neighboring home to view the areas of
concern. She stated that the petition, as now presented, is the work of all parties. She
stated that although none of the neighbors are in attendance, they have
communicated support for the revised site plan and the conditions as now presented.
She stated that the staff report details the 16 conditions as part of the staff
recommendation. She noted that the conditions address various issues including
permitted uses, the location of any additional parking and landscape screening. She
offered to review the conditions in detail if desired by the Board. She stated
confidence that the proposed landscape screening, as well as the new garage, will
provide additional screening of existing views and of any new parking on the Church
property. She commented that the Special Use Permit recognizes the specific uses the
Church intends for the property and importantly, provides ongoing protections to
preserve the privacy and character of the surrounding residential homes. She
commented that the 750 property today is likely in the condition that it is because the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 3
same type of protections were not in place to provide buffering for this property from
Church uses. She recommended Board approval of the Special Use Permit as
requested subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report.
She thanked all of the neighbors and Church representatives for their involvement and
commitment to the process.
In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
revised landscape plan and revised conditions of approval were distributed to all
neighbors who expressed an interest in the project. She noted that she received
several e-mails from neighbors stating support of the project and conditions as now
proposed. She confirmed that she has heard no objections to the present plan. She
confirmed that Mr. Landis, the property owner immediately to the west, communicated
that he is supportive of the revised site plan so long as the conditions as now proposed
are included in the Special Use Permit.
Board member Adelman noted that it is his understanding that some of the neighboring
residents in this area reside in Florida during the winter, he asked for assurance that all
residents have had adequate time to review the proposal and provide input.
In response, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that to the best of her knowledge, all of the
interested neighbors have been kept informed throughout the process, have
participated in one or more meetings and were included in numerous e-mail
correspondences. She reiterated that based on the communications she has received,
all neighbors support the present plan and that she has heard no objections.
Board member Adelman noted that nothing was provided to the Board in writing from
the neighbors indicating their support. He agreed that the new garage will provide
some additional screening of the existing Church parking area which will benefit the
neighbors. He discussed recommended condition #12 noting that although unlikely, if
re-subdivision of the property to re-establish a single family lot in single ownership is
requested, the condition should provide assurance that any added parking spaces
must be removed and the lot returned to its current, pre-Special Use Permit,
configuration.
In response to Mr. Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the intent of the condition was
to prevent a re-subdivision that would create an unusually small lot carving off only the
house and new garage. She offered that the condition could be modified to address
Board member Adelman’s concern and to specify that the current configuration of the
lot be restored, or at least that no reduction from the pre-Special Use Permit size of the
lot be permitted and that no reduction, beyond the current width and depth of the lot,
be permitted.
In response to questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if a re-
subdivision is requested in the future, additional land would need to be added to meet
the minimum lot size or a variance would need to be requested.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 4
In response to questions from Board member DeDolph, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as
part of any future re-subdivision, a variance would need to be requested for the
garage as well. She stated that approval of any future re-subdivision could be difficult.
She confirmed the location of the Landis property. She discussed recommended
condition #2 stating that the condition attempts to address a situation where the
Church may desire that the house, the Manse, be occupied by someone other than
the Church Pastor.
In response to questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that
conditions #1 and #2 both state that the house must be used in a manner consistent
with the R-3 residential zoning district in which it is located. She noted however that
condition #2 is intended to address more specifically who is permitted to occupy the
house recognizing that there may be a time when the house does not work for the
Church Pastor for one reason or another. She confirmed that the only use permitted in
the house is use as a single family residence.
In response to additional questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak explained
that the gates referenced in recommended condition #7 are intended to facilitate use
of the yard as part of Church activities. She suggested that to address Board member
Jasica’s point, language could be added to the condition to clarify that the gates are
intended to both facilitate use of the yard for Church activities, and to limit use of the
yard to activities related to the Church.
In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the
Church moves forward with installation of the additional parking spaces; grading and
drainage plans would need to be submitted for review by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of permits.
Chairman Davis invited public comment. Hearing no public comment, he invited final
comments from the petitioner.
Mr. Johnson clarified that he met with Mr. Landis most recently two days ago and
reviewed the various changes made to the plan to address his concerns. He stated
that the fencing, gates and proposed landscaping were all agreed upon.
Board member Jasica suggested modifications to condition #7 pertaining to the gates
consistent with the Board’s discussion.
In response to a question from Chairman Davis, Ms. Czerniak summarized that also
consistent with the Board’s discussion, conditions #1 and #2 could be modified to make
it clear that use of the property must be consistent with the R-3 zoning district,
recognizing that other aspects of the development such as the setbacks, will not be
under the approved plan. She also noted that in response to comments from Board
member Adelman, condition #12 could be modified to state that in the event of a
request for future re-subdivision, at a minimum, the existing configuration (the pre-
Special Use Permit configuration) of the lot must be restored and that reduction in the
size of a new lot smaller than the pre-existing lot, should not be permitted.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 5
Board member Kehr made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit
based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of
approval.
Prior to issuance of a permit
The Manse and Manse Yard – Front portion of the 750 property.
1. Use of the Manse and Manse yard shall be consistent with all regulations of the R-3,
single family residential zoning district in which the property is located.
2. The residence at 750 Sheridan Road, the Manse, shall be occupied by a single family and
said family shall be the family of the Pastor, a member of the clergy or other member or
Church staff as authorized by the Church as part of an employment agreement. Any
occupancy of the house by a single family, other than those described above, shall be in
full conformance with the uses permitted in the R-3, single family residential district.
3. No additional impervious surface shall be constructed on the Manse parcel beyond that
reflected on the site plan attached to this Special Use Permit.
Specifically:
The driveway in front of the house shall not be expanded and the existing
landscaped area shall be retained in the configuration as reflected on the site plan
attached to the Special Use Permit.
No additional structures or impervious area, beyond the garage, patio areas and
walkways as reflected on the site plan shall be permitted.
4. A fence, 7 feet in height, the maximum height permitted by the Code, shall be maintained
by the Church in good condition along, or close to, the west property line along the
Manse yard.
5. A landscape buffer of 20 feet shall be maintained along the fence on the west property
line. Landscaping in the buffer area shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan
which is to be kept on file in the City of Lake Forest Community Development
Department. This buffer area is intended for passive use only, no permanent or
temporary structures shall be constructed or located in this area and no active or
organized activities shall encroach into this area.
The Church Yard - The rear portion of the 750 property.
6. The Church yard shall be maintained as landscaped open space and used for Church
authorized activities which may include, but are not limited to, after service gatherings,
small social events and private meditation. The activities shall be generally consistent
with activities that are permitted in the yards of residentially zoned properties.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 6
7. The area of the Church yard currently developed with the driveway, the garage and the
garden shed, shall be cleared and landscaped consistent with the approved landscape plan
except for the southeast edge of the site which may be developed with up to 9 parking
spaces consistent with the site plan attached as an exhibit to the Special Use Permit. If
the parking spaces are installed, they must be screened through a combination of fencing
and landscaping to screen views of the parked cars from the adjacent residential
properties.
If the parking spaces are not installed, the screening, a combination of fencing and
landscaping, shall be installed along the east property line, adjacent to the existing
Church driveway.
To facilitate and limit use of the Church yard, the fence whether located on the east
property line or if the 9 parking spaces are constructed, along the east edge of the Church
yard adjacent to the parking spaces, shall have one or more gates to allow passage into
the yard from the larger Church property.
8. The final detailed planting plan shall be subject to final approval by the City’s Certified
Arborist and shall be consistent with the landscape plan presented to the Board. In
particular, the plan shall provide for year round screening of parking and driveways areas
on the Church property, from the adjacent residential properties.
Replacement of any vegetation that is determined by the City’s Certified Arborist to be
dead or failing to thrive, shall be the responsibility of the Church.
9. No portion of the Church yard, except the area referenced above, may be used for parking
now or in the future.
10. Any lighting in the Church yard shall be in conformance with the Residential Lighting
Guidelines which apply to all residential properties.
11. A fence, 7 feet in height, the maximum permitted by the Code, shall be maintained in
good condition along, or close to, the west property line the full length of the Church
yard. A landscape buffer of 20 feet shall be maintained along the fence. Landscaping in
the buffer area shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan. This area is
intended for passive use only, that is, no permanent or temporary structures shall be
constructed or located in this area and no active or organized activities shall encroach into
this area.
General
12. Once the residential parcel addressed as 750 Sheridan Road is incorporated into the
Church property through this Special Use Permit, a separate residential lot may only be
re-established through resubdivision of the property. As part of any resubdivision,
removal of the parking spaces approved as part of this Special Use Permit shall be
required. Further, if one or more variances are requested as part of a resubdivision
request, it is the intent of this approval that this lot shall not be re-created in an manner
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 7
that reduces the lot size, setbacks or lot coverage, or changes the configuration, from the
conditions existing prior to the approval of this Special Use Permit.
13. The historic garage and cottage on the larger Church property, identified on the attached
exhibit, shall be maintained on a continuous basis to prevent water infiltration,
deterioration or demolition by neglect unless and until approval is granted through the
standard public review process for alteration, relocation or demolition of the structures.
14. The Church shall provide regular security patrols of the Manse, Manse yard and Church
yard consistent with the schedule of security patrols of the overall Church campus.
15. Any future requests for modification of the Special Use Permit shall be evaluated by the
appropriate City Board, Commission and by the City Council with careful consideration
of the findings which served as the basis for this approval and to assure that the overall
residential character of the neighborhood is retained and that the integrity of the historic
district in which the Church is located is preserved.
16. The Church shall provide a minimum of 90 days written notice to neighboring properties,
a minimum of three properties deep surrounding the Church property, prior to the
submittal of any future petition to the City requesting amendment to this Special Use
Permit.
The motion was seconded by Board member Ciccarelli and it was unanimously
approved by the Board.
Chairman Davis thanked all parties for the hard work that went into making this project
acceptable to all involved and affected.
4. A request for approval of variances from the side and rear yard setback
requirements to allow modification to the existing attached garage at 865 Church
Road.
Owners: Walter and Nancy Johnston
Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect
Chairman Davis introduced the petition and swore in those intending to speak on the
petition. He asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing
none, he invited a presentation from Mr. Krasnodebski.
Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition noting that two variances are requested, from
the side yard and rear yard requirements, to allow construction of the addition
proposed by the homeowners. He provided photos of the petitioners’ home and of
other homes in the neighborhood. He noted that the home, as it sits today, is well
screened from the street. He added that the house sits far back on the lot and pointed
out the garage as it exists today. He discussed the existing non-conforming conditions.
He noted that the existing garage encroaches into the side and rear yard setbacks and
pointed out that the house is also nonconforming. He explained that the non-
conforming condition is the result of a City initiated zone change that affected the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 8
property causing the non-conforming condition. He offered views to the site from the
neighboring properties. He reviewed the site plan and stated that there will be no
change to the existing footprint of the house. He stated that this design minimizes the
impact on the site and stays within the lines of the existing non-conformities. He stated
that the project is proposed to make this older home more livable. He stated that the
proposed addition is in keeping with the architecture of the home. He noted that the
volumetric change will be a height increase of less than 4 feet in the wall height. He
reviewed each elevation. He stated that the primary intent of the design is to keep the
addition as low as possible. He noted that the dormer on the north elevation is setback
from the existing plane of the garage to diminish the encroachment. He stated that
the proposed addition meets all of the criteria for a variance and noted that no
building scale variance is requested. He asked for Board support of the project.
Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the nonconforming situation on the property results from a
City initiated change. She stated that the home was constructed in 1935 and was in full
conformance with the zoning in effect at that time. She stated that as part of a larger
zone change, the property was later rezoned and new requirements were placed on
the property creating the non-conforming situation. She reiterated that no change to
the footprint is proposed and that efforts were made to keep the height increase to the
minimum necessary to achieve the owner’s desired expansion. She noted that in
particular, the dormers on the north elevation were pulled back from the existing
façade to more closely conform to the setback requirement. She confirmed that no
building scale or lot coverage variances are requested. She stated that the request is
for approval of side and rear yard variances to allow construction of an addition within
the footprint of the existing house. She stated that public notice was mailed consistent
with standard practices and stated that staff did not receive any contacts from
neighboring property owners. She recommended approval of the variance based on
the findings and subject to the conditions of approval both of which are included in the
staff report.
In response to questions from Board member Kehr, Mr. Krasnodebski explained the
connecting structure proposed between the garage and the house noting that the
existing eave line will remain and the roof pitch will be increased to allow a person to
walk through that area. He noted that no dormers are proposed in this area and that it
recedes from the plane of the structure. He pointed out that shingles would be used to
minimize the visibility of this element.
In response to questions from Board member DeDolph, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that
consideration was given to constructing the addition on the south side of the home. He
noted that an addition on the south side would be more visible and would have more
impact on both the existing home and he stated that a variance would be required in
that location as well.
Board member Dixon noted that the house is a great Stanley Anderson house.
Chairman Davis invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from
the Board members.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
January 24, 2011
Page 9
Board member Ciccarelli commended the petition noting that the addition is minimal
and has been carefully designed to respect the views of the neighbors.
Board member Kehr commented that the proposed addition improves the scale and
proportion of the original home.
Board member Adelman stated his agreement with the comments of the other Board
members and noted that the home has significant charm and character.
Board member Jasica made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as
requested based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of
approval as recommended in the report.
The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and it was unanimously approved
by the Board.
Board member Adelman commented that both petitions presented at this meeting
were well thought-out and a testimony to how the process works. He noted that the
work presented was comprehensive.
OTHER ITEMS
5. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on
the agenda.
There were no additional public comments.
6. Additional information from staff.
Ms. Czerniak stated that at this point, no petitions have been submitted for
consideration at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in February.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Czerniak,
Director of Community Development