Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2017/04/04 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the April 4, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Louis Pickus and Board members Michael Sieman, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Plonsker, Nancy Novit and Kevin Lewis (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Mark Pasquesi Staff present: Michelle Friedrich, Planning Technician and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Pickus reviewed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes from the February 27, 2017 meeting. The minutes of the February 27, 2017 meeting were approved as presented. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of variances from the front yard, corner side yard and interior side yard setback requirements to allow additions and alterations to the existing residence located at 845 Maplewood Road. Owners: Mark Allen and Denise Campbell Representative: Scott Streightiff, architect Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Board member Plonsker noted that he is acquainted with the neighbors to the south, but stated that he can be impartial in reviewing the petition. He noted that he has not spoken with the neighbors about this matter. Chairman Pickus invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 2 of 9 Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition and noted that the project includes a 2,250 square foot addition, façade improvements and interior alterations. He noted that the project requires variances from the front, corner side, and interior side yard setbacks because the existing house is currently non-conforming with the required setbacks. He noted that the project complies with the allowable square footage. He described the neighborhood and noted that there are a number of homes in the area that do not conform to the setbacks because they were constructed prior to current requirements. He pointed out the relationship of the neighboring homes to the College. He noted that the existing house is a single story and was built in 1955. He noted that originally, the property was part of a larger estate, prior to subdivision of the estate property. He noted that the owners currently live in the home and enjoy the property and wish to update the home. He noted that their intent is to work with the existing structure. He noted that the proposed design converts the existing two car garage to living space to move active areas of the home away from the Sheridan Road streetscape. He further explained that the service parts of the home are moved to the west side of the property, closer to the College campus. He explained that the owner want a first floor master suite since they plan to remain in the home as they age. He noted that the owners wish to keep the appearance of a single story home; generally similar to what exists today. He reviewed design options that were considered including locating the garage at the northwest corner of the property, attaching a garage at the northeast corner of the house and completely demolishing the house and building a new home. He explained that some of the options considered resulted in further encroachment into the zoning setbacks than those proposed on the plan presented for approval. He added that the options studied were not as functional as the plan now presented and did not meet the owners’ needs as well as the selected plan. He reviewed the proposed plan noting that a new garage is proposed at the southwest corner of the property along with a new curb cut and driveway from Sheridan Road. He described the proposed exterior materials and the architectural elements. He noted that with the proposed modifications, the extent of the encroachment into the side yard setback along the south property line does not exceed the extent of the encroachment of the existing house. He described the entry gates proposed on Sheridan Road. He noted that a preliminary landscape plan was included in the Board’s packet and provides for inch for inch replacement of the trees proposed for removal. He noted that the proposed landscape plan provides additional screening on the property to mitigate the proposed increase in the size of the house. He noted that the proposed addition and modifications to the house will not alter the character of the existing neighborhood. He noted that several letters were received from neighboring property owners, stating support for the project, and were included in the Board’s packet. Ms. Friedrich reviewed that variances from front yard, corner side yard and interior side yard setback requirements are requested. She explained that the front yard of the property is along Sheridan Road, the corner side yard along Maplewood Road, the rear yard is the east side of the property and the interior side yard setback is along the south property line. She noted that the petition will also be heard by the Historic Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 3 of 9 Preservation Commission later in April and the design aspects of the project will be considered. She reviewed the history of the property and noted that the property does not meet the current minimum lot size adding that the zoning regulations that apply to the property were modified after the house was constructed and after the subdivision that created the lot was approved. She noted that the improvements proposed on the south elevation encroach into the interior side yard setback 6’9” at the furthest point. She suggested that to minimize the extent of the encroachment, the proposed driveway from Sheridan Road should be shifted to the north, and out of the setback, to the extent possible. She noted that the proposed driveway requires a variance because the portion of the driveway, within the front yard setback, exceeds the permitted 16 foot width. She noted that the proposed garage/master suite addition also encroaches into the front yard setback. She noted that the northeast portion of the existing residence slightly encroaches into the corner side yard setback. She noted that a bay window and eaves, a front porch addition, and the master suite portion of the proposed addition are all proposed on the north elevation. She noted that portions of the proposed modifications will require a corner side yard setback variance. She suggested that the Board consider a reduction in the expanse of the existing driveway off of Maplewood Road to minimize the amount of impervious surface on the property since an additional driveway is proposed from Sheridan Road to provide access to a new garage. She noted that as proposed, the existing driveway will remain to provide additional parking area on the property. She noted that the City’s Certified Arborist visited the site after the footprint of the proposed addition was staked. She noted that he recommends approval of the proposed tree removal s since the trees will be impacted by the proposed addition. She added that he also recommends approval of the preliminary landscape plan and replacement tree planting plan. She noted that the City’s Arborist recommends that the curb cut on Sheridan Road be shifted to the north and located in between two existing City parkway trees. She noted that the staff report includes findings in support of the petition and conditions of approval as recommended by staff. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the house to the south of the subject property encroaches into the side yard setback. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Streightiff clarified that the addition as proposed would create a 1-½ story appearance by raising the roof of the existing ranch home. He stated that there are no plans to build out the roof area for living space. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Streightiff confirmed that the new roof will be 24 feet in height at the highest ridge. He stated that the existing house is about 18 feet at the ridge. He confirmed that the proposed dormers are decorative since the area under the roof is not planned to be built out. He stated that the space under the extended roof may be used for storage. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 4 of 9 In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that in the future, the space under the roof of the addition proposed for the west side of the house might be able to be built out without changing the exterior appearance or mass of the house. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Streightiff explained that the space that will be created by raising the roof over the existing house will be about the size of a narrow room. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Streightiff explained the relationship between the south elevation and the property to the south. He noted that currently, there is a row of arbor vitae along the property line. He stated that as part of this project, the arbor vitae will be extended further along the property line. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City’s engineer will review the plans prior to the issuance of a building permit to verify that no off site drainage impacts will result from the proposed construction. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Streightiff agreed to work with the petitioners to shift the new curb cut on Sheridan Road to the north, away from the south property line. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Friedrich explained that staff recommends that consideration be given to reducing the expanse of the existing driveway and the associated parking area to reduce the overall impervious surface on the site. She noted that with the proposed addition and the new driveway, a significant amount of impervious surface will be added to the site. She suggested that a portion of the existing driveway could be replaced with a pervious material. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Streightiff stated that the property owners want to keep the existing driveway off of Maplewood Road to provide an area for parking for guests . He noted that parking is not permitted on Sheridan Road. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Friedrich noted that inch for inch replacement will be required for trees lost due to the addition of impervious surface on the site. She noted that if, as a result of the new driveway, the parkway tree along Sheridan Road is impacted, a replacement parkway tree will be required. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Streightiff described the driveway gates proposed on the Sheridan Road street frontage. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Friedrich noted that if the driveway is located between the two parkway trees on Sheridan Road, it will be far enough from the corner of Sheridan and Maplewood Roads. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 5 of 9 In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Allen stated that the fencing around the property will be replaced, not removed. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment. Hearing none; he invited final questions or comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Novit, Ms. Friedrich stated that no comments were received from the owners of the property to the south. Board member Novit stated concern about the proximity of the new 1-1/2 story mass to the south property line. She acknowledged however that the neighbor to the south did not voice any concerns. Mr. Allen said that he spoke to the neighbor to the south. He added that the property to the south is on the market. Board member Culbertson commended the design and stated that the proposed project will be an improvement to the property. He stated support for the variances as requested. He added that he supports the staff recommendations to shift the new driveway to the north, away from the south property line, and to minimize the size of the existing driveway and parking area. Board member Sieman stated agreement with Board member Culbertson and stated support for the sta ff recommendations. He noted that if an entirely new house was constructed on the site, it might be much larger. He stated that the project as proposed is a good solution. Chairman Pickus stated appreciation for the presentation of the options that were considered by the architect and property owners. He stated that the project as proposed is a good solution for a difficult lot. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of variances from the front, corner side and interior side yard setbacks to the City Council to allow an addition and modifications as presented by the petitioner. He noted that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions. 1. The existing driveway off of Maplewood Road shall be minimized to reduce the encroachment into the setback and to provide space for more fully screening views of parked cars from the streetscape. Pervious materials shall be used to minimize the expanse of hardscape on the site. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscape plan must be submitted. The plan shall provide for enhanced screening along the south and west property lines in the areas where the encroachment into Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 6 of 9 the setbacks are the most extensive. Screening shall occur through the use of fencing and additional plantings on the site. The screening shall in particular obscure views of parked cars and garage doors from the streetscapes to the extent possible. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist. 3. A fully dimensioned site plan shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council. The plan should note all setback dimensions as they vary due to the lot configuration. The motion was seconded by Board member Plonsker and approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Lewis joined the meeting. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of variances from the steep slope and rear yard setback requirements for a beach house and related beach front amenities at 347 Bluffs Edge Drive. Owner: Thomas Fuller Trust Representative: Ron McCormack, architect Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, Chairman Pickus invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. McCormack introduced the property owner, Tom Fuller, Jon Witrock, the general contractor, and John Shabica, the project engineer. He explained the unique Lake front setting of the property. He explained that there is a 73 foot drop from the top of the bluff to the beach. He stated that the proposed improvements on the bluff will not be visible from the tabl eland. He described the location of the beach house on the bluff and stated that the height of the accessory structure will not exceed 25 feet. He explained that given the location of the beach house and the other proposed amenities, variances from the steep slope setback and rear yard setback requirements are needed. He explained that a replacement stone stairway is proposed generally in the location of the existing stairway. He noted that the existing stairway is in hazardous condition adding that the existing wood steps are failing. XXX He described the proposed tram noting that it will be located generally in the southeast corner of the property. He reviewed the proposed locations of the walkway, beach house, boat ramp and launch. He explained that beach protection, the existing revetment, was completed by a previous owner. He explained that the property owner has disabled and aging family members and the tram will help them get down to the beach house and the beach area. Ms. Friedrich reviewed that steep slope and rear yard setback variances are required for the beach house, replacement stairs, tram, walkway and the boat Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 7 of 9 ramp and launch. She noted that prior approvals were granted to allow the original house on the property to be demolished and she noted that construction of a new house on the property is underway. She noted that the new house is in compliance with all setback requirements. She noted that the City Engineer reviewed plans and documentation related to the stability of the bluff and recommended approval of the steep slope setback as requested. She stated that City staff received a contact from the neighboring property owner to the south who said that he was contacted by Mr. Fuller and provided with the opportunity to review the plans and understand the project. He stated support for the project. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. McCormack confirmed that the beach house will be built into the bluff, beginning at the toe of the bluff. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City Engineer will review final plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. She reiterated that the City Engineer is supportive of the variance request based on the information submitted to date. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. McCormack described the boat ramp and confirmed that pedestrian access is preserved along the beach consistent with the requirements of the easement. In response to the questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City is not a party to the pedestrian access easement but confirmed that staff did review the easement in relation to this project with the City Attorney. She stated that as proposed, the project appears to preserve the access rights afforded by the easement. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Shabica explained from a jurisdictional standpoint, the City has jurisdiction up to the toe of the bluff. He explained that anything past the toe of the bluff, and areas with sand coverage, are under the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment. Ethan Meister, 277 Bluffs Edge Drive, noted that he lives north of the subject property and asked whether the proposed boat ramp will be visible from his property. In response to public testimony, Mr. Shabica explained that the ramp will be placed south of the existing break water and will not be visible from the north. He stated that the ramp proposed is a standard marine rail system with a cradle for the boat. He explained that the boat will rest at about the elevation of the beach. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 8 of 9 In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Shabica said that the pedestrian easement, at the present time, is in about 4 feet of water. He stated that the proposed project will improve the walkability of the beach in the area. He noted that the rail system for the boat ramp was selected because it will not impede pedestrian access. He noted that the existing breakwater system will remain and the boat ramp will be located to the south of the breakwater. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public; Chairman Pickus invited final questions or comments from the Board. In response to a question from Board member Sieman, Mr. Shabica stated that there is not another rail boat ramp system in Lake Forest. Board member Novit stated that she is supportive of the project noting that the proposed amenities will allow the owner to fully enjoy the property, home and the lakefront area. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Board member Culbertson clarified that the Zoning Board of Appeals is responsible for considering the requests for variances from the steep slope and rear yard setbacks. He noted that the design aspects of the project were already reviewed by the Building Review Board. Board member Sieman stated that he walked the property. He expressed concern about the ramp being in conflict with the pedestrian easement but acknowledged that the City is not a party to the pedestrian easement or responsible for assuring that the easement is preserved. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Shabica stated that approvals from the City for portions of the project are sought first, before approvals are requested from the State and Federal agencies. He noted that the State and Federal processes take a long time and stated that in his experience, the City’s approvals are granted with the understanding that outside approvals are necessary. Chairman Pickus stated that he does not believe that the Board recommendation needs to be made contingent on the approvals required from the State and Federal agencies since the aspects of the project under the jurisdiction of those agencies cannot proceed without the outside approvals. He noted concern about the excavation proposed into the bluff but noted that given the City Engineer’s review role, he is comfortable moving the project forward and invited a motion. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested to allow construction of the boat house, replacement stairs, tram, boat ramp and launch to the City Council based on the findings detailed in the staff report. Board member Novit seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes April 4, 2017 Meeting Page 9 of 9 5. Public testimony on non-agenda items. No public testimony was presented to the Board on non-agenda items. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by City staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle E. Friedrich Planning Technician