PLAN COMMISSION 2013/05/08 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Plan Commission
Proceedings of the May 8, 2013 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday,
May 8 , 2013, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Commission members present: Chairman Michael Ley and Commissioners Augie
Ziccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson and Jeff Kuchman
Commissioners absent: Commissioners John Anderson and Jim Carris, one
position vacant
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff.
Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff.
2. Recognition of Former Plan Commission Chairman Jack Reisenberg.
Chairman Ley recognized former Plan Commission Chairman Jack Reisenberg.
He noted that Mr. Reisenberg served as a Commissioner from 2007 to 2010 and
then as Chairman from 2010 to 2013. He noted that Mr. Reisenberg is now
serving in an elected position as 3rd Ward alderman. He noted that during Mr.
Reisenberg’s time on the Commission, much was accomplished including most
notably, approval of the Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Master. He added
that various other developments were reviewed and approved along with
various Code amendments. He presented Mr. Reisenberg with a plaque
recognizing his time on the Commission and thanked him for his service to the
community.
Past Chairman Reisenberg thanked Chairman Ley for the words of recognition
and commented that he thoroughly enjoyed his time on the Commission and in
particular, his time as Chairman. He stated that the Commission accomplished
a great deal over the past seven years starting with the discussion of the future
of Barat Campus. He agreed that approval of the hospital master plan was a
signature project during his tenure. He thanked the Commissioners for their
support and professionalism noting that together, they worked through some
tough situations. He stated that he is proud of the accomplishments of the
Commission. He recognized and thanked City staff for being a good partner
and for providing guidance.
3. Approval of minutes of the April 10, 2013 meeting of the Plan Commission.
The minutes were approved as submitted.
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 2 of 7
4. Introduction and Preliminary Discussion: Permitting the use of coach houses
and garage apartments as secondary residential units on properties zoned
for single family use. No action is scheduled on this item at this time.
Presented by: City staff
Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or declarations
of conflicts on this matter. Hearing none, he noted that no Commission action is
requested on this item at this time.
Ms. Czerniak introduced the item explaining that in February, 2013, Alderman
David Moore held the first Community Engagement meeting. She explained
that these meetings are a new approach that is being explored by the City
Council to offer the community opportunities to be involved in the discussion of
issues early and on an ongoing basis rather than just at the time when decisions
are being made. She explained that the topic covered at this first meeting was
“granny flats”, secondary living units on properties zoned for single family use.
She explained that at the meeting, some residents pointed out that the term
“granny flats” is misleading and as a result, the terms coach house and garage
apartments are being substituted. She explained that the discussion of this topic
was prompted by three key points. She noted that 1) due to the economy,
some of the larger properties in the community may be more difficult to sell and
providing the option of allowing a secondary residential unit in existing
accessory structures on these large properties may be attractive to potential
buyers; 2) allowing the use of historic accessory structures as second living units
may be an incentive to property owners to repair, restore and preserve the
structures; and 3) use of accessory structures as smaller living units offers a type
of housing that may meet a demand that is not currently being adequately met
in the community. She reviewed some slides of accessory structures in the
community. She noted that many of these structures were originally built as
living units for gardeners, chauffeurs or other household help. She explained
that through the years, the City Code limited the number of living units
permitted on properties zoned for single family use to one. She noted that in
some cases, accessory units have been used as secondary living units for years
and that those in continuous residential use are grandfathered in as pre-existing
uses. She noted that the use of those units can continue, but that accessory
units that have not been in continuous use as residential units may not be
converted back to residential units today, under the current Code. She
explained that the current Code permits accessory structures to be used in a
variety of ways including as home offices, exercise rooms, art studios, pool
houses, storage area, play houses, family bedrooms as an extension of the main
house and family rooms. She stated that the use of an accessory structure as a
second, separate, rental living unit on property zoned for single family use is not
currently permitted by the Code. She noted that at the community forum, it
was mentioned that these types of smaller living units might be attractive to
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 3 of 7
teachers, employees of the hospital or City, or smaller families. She noted that
currently, use of accessory structures for care taker’s residences or guest houses
are permitted only as Special Uses and must be considered through a Special
Use Permit public hearing process. She summarized that the question posed as
a result of the community discussion was, “are there opportunities that the
community should be exploring to support a diversity of housing types and sizes,
support preservation of historic accessory structures and support the economic
viability of some of the larger properties in the community. She noted that a
copy of the T-Form, a summary from the Community Engagement Forum, was
included in the Commission’s packet. She emphasized that the T-Form is simply
a summary of the ideas that were raised at the meeting, the pros, cons,
opportunities and challenges. She explained that as a follow up to the
Community Engagement Forum, Alderman Moore presented the T-Form to the
full City Council and after review; the Council agreed that further consideration
of this issue was appropriate and directed the matter to the Plan Commission for
study. She reviewed that tonight’s presentation is intended to introduce the
topic to the Plan Commission and to get direction from the Commission on
whether it is interested in further study and consideration of possible Code
amendment language at a future meeting. She asked the Commission for
direction.
In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that
at this point , an in depth inventory of accessory structures has not been
prepared pending direction from the Commission on whether this concept
should be pursued. She noted however that a preliminary count was
completed using the City’s electronic mapping system and about 180
accessory structures were identified. She explained that this number likely
includes structures that would not be appropriate for use as living units. She
stated that based on information available to staff, a very rough estimate is that
maybe 40 to 60 of the structures might be appropriate for consideration for
residential use. She estimated that currently, between 10 and 20 accessory
structures are grandfathered in as secondary living units on single family
properties. She explained that the staff memo in the Commission’s identifies
some limitations that the Commission might want to consider for secondary
residential living units such as requiring that they be within the historic district,
meet a minimum lot size or be located within the buildable area of the property.
She noted that at the Community Engagement Forum, some concern was
expressed about the impacts that secondary living units could have in tighter
neighborhoods, on small lots. She added that there was also a distinction in the
discussion indicating general support for the reuse of existing structures, but
hesitation about whether new structures, built specifically to accommodate a
second living unit, should be permitted. She explained that as a result, the
discussion was focused on the adaptive reuse of existing accessory structures,
not the construction of new structures. She emphasized that pending input from
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 4 of 7
the Commission, there is no staff recommendation on this topic and no specific
Code amendment language presented for discussion at this time.
Commissioner Ziccarelli suggested that it will be important to have a precise
definition of what constitutes a garage apartment or coach house. He
questioned for instance whether the structure would need to be detached from
the main house, be located above grade, or meet a maximum square footage
requirement. He stated that to support the discussion, a clear definition will be
an important first step. He noted concern about whether these structures meet
building and life safety codes such as the required ventilation and fire alarm
requirements. He stated that consideration of those factors will need to be
provided for in the public process.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that
about 30 people attended the Community Engagement Forum on this topic.
She acknowledged that people supportive of this topic were the most likely to
attend. She stated that the forum encouraged all points of view to be put on
the table and encouraged people to think about issues from a point of view
that may be different from theirs. She reviewed the topics of the upcoming
community forums.
In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak clarified that currently,
the Code does not permit the use of any accessory structures as a residential
unit except those that are grandfathered uses. She suggested that if a Code
amendment is developed, the Commission may want to consider limiting the
total number of secondary living units that would be permitted on a single lot.
Chairman Ley stated that he attended the Community Engagement Forum on
this matter and observed a great deal of creative, participative energy at the
meeting. He stated that people were clearly in favor of this idea from a
preservation standpoint. He noted that to keep the meeting balanced, the
participants were asked to think about concerns that others might have about
the proposed use of accessory structures as secondary living units. He stated
that in his opinion, both sides of the issue as discussed at the forum are
summarized on the T-Form. He asked for a sense from the Commission on
whether staff should be directed to further explore this issue and bring draft
Code language to the Commission for consideration and public discussion. He
received a general consensus from the Commission that this topic should be
considered further.
Chairman Ley invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited a motion from
the Commission directing further study by staff.
Commissioner Culbertson made a motion direct ing staff to develop draft Code
language for Commission consideration and for public comment.
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 5 of 7
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kuchman and was approved in a
vote of 4 to 0 with all members present voting aye.
5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning
Code, Section 46-24, to establish a review process for requests to extend
private roads outside of the City limits.
Presented by: City staff
Ms. Czerniak stated that on an ongoing basis, City staff, in coordination with the
City Attorney, reviews the City Code to identify any areas that may be unclear
and areas where there may be gaps. She stated that during a recent review it
was noted that currently, there is no review process for a situation where a
private road or driveway is proposed for extension to serve development and
uses outside the City limits. She noted that in particular, there is no opportunity
for a public hearing or consideration of how such a proposed extension might
impact City services or neighboring properties in the City. She explained that
this gap was brought to the attention of the City Council and the Council
directed the Plan Commission to consider a Code amendment to establish a
review process for this situation. She stated that this amendment is a proactive
step to assure that if this situation arises, there is a process in the Code to allow
for review and public input. She explained that the proposed Code
amendment would establish the extension of a road outside the City limits as a
Special Use and consideration of the request would occur consistent with the
process already in the Code for consideration of Special Uses. She pointed out
that the proposed amendment does not make a judgment on whether the
extension of a private road outside the City limits should or should not occur, but
only establishes a process through which the request can be publicly
considered. She explained that as with other requests for Special Use Permits,
the Plan Commission would hold a public hearing on the matter and forward a
recommendation to the City Council. She stated that the staff recommends
approval of the proposed Code amendment to fill a gap in the Code.
In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed
that construction of a private road or driveway in the City limits would require a
permit from the City under the current Code, but explained that the potential
for any impact on the City, or impact on properties in the City would not be
considered as part of that process. She acknowledged that the scenario would
be unusual and may never happen.
In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that under
the current Code, other than issuing a permit for the construction of a road,
there is currently no process in place that would provide the opportunity for
public discussion about the extension of a road outside the City limits. She
confirmed that the process would allow residents the opportunity to be informed
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 6 of 7
and comment on the proposal since it would be before the Plan Commission
and City Council as part of the proposed process.
In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak explained
that currently, in reviewing an application for permit for a driveway extension
across the City limits, staff considers technical issues such as grading, drainage
and tree removals, but not uses or impacts. She acknowledged that other
communities may be more vulnerable from impacts as a result of road
extensions given Lake Forest’s limited perimeter with the Lake to the east
however; other communities have experienced unexpected consequences
such as impacts on City services and increased traffic.
Commissioner Ziccarelli summarized the discussion to this point noting that
consideration of an application for a permit to extend a driveway or private
road is reviewed at the staff level for technical issues such as drainage and
pavement thickness. He stated that currently, there is no public review process
for this type of a request and no way to prevent the extension if technical
requirements are met. He stated that he understands that this amendment
would move the consideration of a request to extend a private road outside the
City limits from the staff level, to a public process and as a result, there would be
greater oversight and consideration of zoning and land use issues.
In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that she does
not know whether home rule status gives a municipality authority or greater
power over extra-territorial development.
In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak reviewed
current Code regulations pertaining to driveways noting that driveway locations
are not limited by setbacks except in the front yard at the point where they
connect with public streets. She added that the number of driveway curb cuts
is limited by the street frontage of the lot. She stated that there are no current
regulations that would allow the City to prevent the extension of a road or
driveway outside the City limits if technical requirements are met. She stated
that the proposed Code amendment is a proactive measure.
Chairman Ley invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited a motion on this
agenda item.
Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to recommend to the City Council
approval of an amendment to the Code establishing a public process for
considering requests to extend private driveways or roads outside the City limits
to serve development or uses outside the City boundaries.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziccarelli and approved by a vote
of 4 – 0 with all Commissioners present voting aye.
Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013
Page 7 of 7
6. Public Testimony on non-agenda items.
There was no public testimony on non-agenda items.
7. Additional information from staff.
Ms. Czerniak reminded the Commission that staff will conduct a poll to find a
date that works for a majority of the Commission for the next meeting which will
include a tour of the former Municipal Services site at Laurel and Western
Avenues.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Czerniak
Director of Community Development