Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2017/05/30 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the May 30, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 30, 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, Kevin Lewis, Mark Pasquesi, Nancy Novit and Richard Plonsker Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Lisa Nehring Staff present: 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 April 4, 2017 meeting. The minutes of the April 4, 2017 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of variances from the side yard setback requirements to allow a front porch addition and alterations to the existing residence at 180 Atteridge Road. Owners: Michael and Sarah Metzger Representative: Michael Metzger Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Metzger introduced the petition and noted that his family has lived in Lake Forest for several generations. He stated that his family is invested in the community and in maintaining the character of the West Park neighborhood. He explained that the project started because the roof was leaking. He stated that after some investigation, it was determined that the best approach was to remove the gambrel roof element noting that the element is just a façade, is not insulated and does not add square footage to the house. He stated that the siding around the home is in poor condition and will be replaced as part of the project. He stated that with the removal of the gambrel roof element, there is an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 2 of 9 house by adding a front porch. He noted that many other homes in the neighborhood have front porches and showed some photos of homes with front porches. He stated that the initial plan presented to staff proposed a front porch that extended across the full width of the house. He noted that after talking with staff, the length of the front porch was reduced to comply with the side yard setbacks with the exception of the eave overhang element of the porch which encroaches into the setback. He stated that the size of the property is nonconforming to current Zoning Code requirements because the subdivision that created the property was approved prior to the current requirements. He stated that as a result, the existing house encroaches into the required side yard setbacks. He stated that the proposed project does not expand the footprint of the house beyond the extent of the existing encroachments. He reviewed the proposed landscape plan noting that low landscaping is proposed in front of the porch. He stated that the variances requested will allow a front porch to be constructed that is similar to porches on other homes in the neighborhood. He added that there are other nonconforming situations in the neighborhood. He stated that the house has not changed since it was originally built. He stated that the variance requested meets the criteria. Ms. Czerniak noted that this area of the community predates the adoption of a Zoning Code by the City. She stated that this neighborhood developed consistent with the requirements that were in place in the early 1900’s. She stated that the proposed project is intended to repair and update the existing house adding that no expansion, other than the addition of a front porch, is proposed. She explained that because the existing house encroaches into the side yard setbacks on both sides, the proposed roof modifications involve work within the setbacks and require variances. She stated that as noted by the petitioner, the proposed front porch is designed to conform to the current setbacks with only the eave of the porch, on the west side, encroaching into the setback area. She stated that findings in support of the requested variances are included in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Metzger confirmed that his preference is to have the front porch extend across the full width of the house. Board member Novit stated support for the wider front porch as initially proposed by the petitioner. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak explained that staff routinely works with petitioners to minimize the extent of any encroachment into the required zoning setbacks if reasonable options to do so exist. She stated that in this case, modification of the roof elements within the setback is necessary to address leaks resulting from the portions of the house that were constructed prior to the current setbacks. She noted that the addition of a covered front porch is desired by the property owner and can be accomplished, in an architecturally appropriate way, with the porch stepped in proportionally from the outside walls of the house to conform to the current setbacks so staff suggested that the petitioner consider that approach. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 3 of 9 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment. Hearing none; he invited final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Pasquesi agreed with Board member Novit’s comments. In response to Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Board could recommend approval of a larger variance to allow the full width front porch. She pointed out however that the public notice described the request for the lesser variance required for the front porch design that steps in from the existing side walls. She stated that it is possible that a neighbor could object to the larger variance. She noted however that to date, staff has not heard any objections from neighbors on this petition. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Metzger explained that the wider porch will not extend into the setbacks beyond the encroachment of the existing house. In response to a question from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Metzger confirmed that he prefers the wider front porch. In response to questions from Board members Plonsker and Pasquesi, Ms. Czerniak stated that based on the design presented for Board review, the project does not require review by the Building Review Board. She confirmed that the Zoning Board of Appeals could make a recommendation that allows for a larger variance of “up to” a certain distance from the property line. She explained this would give the petitioner the flexibility to increase the width of the porch subject to presenting a design that is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. At the request of Board member Novit, Mr. Metzger presented images of other houses in the neighborhood with various types of front porches. In response to questions from Board members Lewis and Novit, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Board can recommend approval of a variance to allow a greater encroachment of the porch into both side yards than reflected on the plans and specify that the encroachment may not exceed the extent of the encroachment of the existing house. She suggested that the Board not design the porch, but instead, allow the petitioner to do so consistent with parameters established in the Board’s recommendation. She stated that the Board’s recommendation could provide the petitioner with some flexibility in the ultimate design of the porch. Board member Plonsker stated that the intent is not to increase the review time for the petitioner, but to give the petitioner options. Chairman Pickus stated concern that the neighboring property owners were not provided with notice of the increased encroachment that is now being considered. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 4 of 9 In response to a request to speak from a neighbor, Chairman Pickus invited further public testimony and swore in those intending to speak. Ms. O’Keefe, 172 Atteridge Road, stated that she is the neighboring property owner to the west, adjacent to the area where the additional encroachment is proposed. She stated that she is very supportive of the project and has no objection to allowing a further encroachment than what was described in the public notice. She stated that she will be the neighbor most affected by the encroachment. Hearing no further requests to speak from members of the public, Chairman Pickus returned the matter to the Board for final comments and action. He stated that he is supportive of a full width front porch from an aesthetic point of view. He noted however that he is concerned about the precedent that could be set for future petitions that may be more complicated. He noted the importance of developing findings that support the decision of the Board based on the criteria so that the basis for the decision is well documented and does not set a broad precedent. Board member Lewis stated that both options for the porch are attractive. He stated however that he is concerned that if the Board chooses to allow a greater variance than detailed in the public notice, there could be a problem. He suggested that the Board recommend approval of the variance as noticed and presented, noting that if the petitioners want to pursue a greater variance with the knowledge that the Board is supportive of that approach, they could file a new petition. He stated that in his opinion, there are two areas of concern, the notice and the precedent that could be set if adequate findings are not developed to support the Board’s decision based on the unique factors of this petition. He stated support for the variance as presented. Board Sieman stated that if the petition had been presented with the larger variance request, and if findings were presented documenting that the variance met the applicable criteria, he would have voted in support of the petition. He stated that it is incumbent on the Board to make the right decision in each case. He stated that in this case, he would be in favor of a recommendation that provides the flexibility up to the extent of the existing encroachment. Board member Novit stated that it is important that the homeowners get what they want if it is a reasonable request. She noted that the reduced porch width design was presented because the petitioners were advised by staff to present the project in that manner. Board member Plonsker noted that despite the advice of staff, the petitioner could have presented a full width porch along with an explanation of the justification for the greater variance if they so desired. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak explained that zoning variances are granted based on the finding of a hardship. She noted that modification of the Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 5 of 9 existing roof form, within the required setback, was determined by staff to be justified based on the fact that the roof elements proposed for modification already encroach into the required setbacks and the proposed work was to repair a construction default that was causing leaks inside the house. She noted that from the staff perspective, the desire for a full width front porch was not based on a clear hardship. She stated that staff suggested that since a well-designed, properly proportioned porch could be designed in conformance with the required setbacks, the petitioners might want to approach the project in that manner. She stated however that the Board can direct that findings be developed to justify a hardship to support the larger variance for a wider front porch. Board member Plonsker suggested that the petitioners should go back through the process if they want the Board to consider a modified request noting that this would allow proper public notice to be provided. He stated that if a wider porch is proposed, with a greater encroachment, and the request is supported by adequate findings, he would support the request. Board member Pasquesi stated that if most of the Board members agree that they would support the variance needed for a wider front porch, staff should be directed to develop findings to support that recommendation. He stated that because the most affected neighbor testified in support of the project on the record, he is not concerned with the notice deficiency. He stated that since the neighbor is present at the hearing, he could argue that notice was properly provided. Chairman Pickus agreed with Board member Pasquesi’s comments noting that the neighbor most affected does not see the farther encroachment as a hardship on her property. Board member Lewis made a motion to recommend approval of variances from the side yard setbacks to allow modifications to the existing roof elements which are located within the setback area and to allow the addition of a covered front porch. He noted that the width of the front porch shall not exceed the extent of the encroachment of the existing house into the required side yard setback. He noted that staff is directed to modify the findings to support the Board’s recommendation based on the specifics of this property. Board member Plonsker seconded the motion. Ms. Czerniak asked for clarification on whether the Board’s recommendation is based in part on the fact that the proposed front porch is open, rather than enclosed and whether it is the Board’s intent that the porch remain open. Board member Lewis amended the motion to include a condition that the front porch remain open in perpetuity. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 6 of 9 Board member Plonsker seconded the amended motion and the motion was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of variances from the front yard and side yard setback requirements to allow a second story addition and alterations to the existing residence at 1137 Griffith Road. Owner: Barbara J. Stephens Contract Purchaser: Lauren McKracken Representative: Jeff Letzter, Project Manager, Aspect Design Group Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Board member Pasquesi stated that his office is involved in the sale of the property and recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition. He left the Council Chambers. Hearing no further conflicts of interest from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Letzter introduced the petition. He noted that the property is under contract to be sold and the buyer would like to make some changes to the home. He stated that the intent is to work with significant portions of the existing home and to stay within the existing footprint. He said that the existing house is a one-story ranch home and noted that the foundation is in good shape. He stated that the buyer wants to remodel the first floor and add a second story to the home. He stated that the property is in the GR-3 zoning district which today requires a 40-foot front yard setback and six foot side yard setbacks. He stated that a portion of the house encroaches into the six foot setback on the north side pointing out that the house is set at an angle to the north property line. He noted that the northwest corner of the home conforms to the side yard setback and is setback about seven and a half feet from the property line. He noted however that the northeast corner of the house encroaches into the required setback because it is only about three and a half feet from the property line. He stated that the proposed second floor addition is setback from the north wall of the house to fully conform to the six foot side yard setback requirement. He noted however that in order to add the second story, the portion of the existing first floor roof, which is within the side yard setback, will need to be modified and therefore, a setback variance is required. He stated that although the existing roof needs to be modified, there will be no further encroachment into the setback than exists today. He stated that the furthest extent of the encroachment will be the gutter on the side of the house. He stated that the front of the existing home does not conform to the required 40-foot setback because the subdivision was approved in 1913 and at that time, a 25-foot front yard setback was established on the plat of subdivision. He stated that when the house was constructed, in 1946, it was sited consistent with the regulations in place at that time and consistent with the pattern of other homes on the Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 7 of 9 street. He stated that at the point of furthest encroachment, the existing house is just less than 26 feet from the front property line. He stated that the proposed second story will not encroach further into the front yard setback than the wall of the existing house. He stated that a small roof, supported by brackets, to provide shelter from the rain, is proposed over the front door. He stated that although a variance is required for the small roof, it will not encroach any further into the setback than the furthest extent of the existing house. He stated that the house conforms to the current setbacks on the south side and in the rear yard. He stated that the house conforms to the square footage and height limitations noting that no other variances are required for the project. He stated that the requested side and front yard variances will allow the existing home to be reused and will preserve the rhythm of the streetscape. He reviewed the criteria that must be satisfied for a zoning variance and noted that the proposed project will not alter the character of the property or the neighborhood. He noted that the design is sensitive to the property to the north by stepping back the proposed second floor addition to meet the required setbacks. He reiterated that no variances are requested for the second story element. He reiterated that the existing residence is non-conforming because it was constructed prior to the current regulations being established. He stated that the areas of the home where the variances are required will not impair light or air to neighboring properties. He stated that the proposed improvements should positively impact property values of nearby properties. Ms. Czerniak noted that the petitioner went to great lengths to minimize the extent of the variance requests. She noted that in early discussions, staff encouraged the petitioner to set the second story mass back from the north side of the house, to conform to the side yard setback and to minimize the impact on the neighboring property. She stated that stepping the second floor back results in less square footage but still provides a workable space. She explained that a variance from the side yard setback is required to allow the existing roof on the north side of the house to be re- worked to accommodate the second floor addition. She stated that there will be no further encroachment into the setback than exists today. She stated that the second floor addition encroaches into the front yard setback, but does not encroach further than the existing one-story house. She confirmed that the house conforms to the zoning setbacks that were in place at the time the house was built and conforms to the established front yard setback pattern along the street. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the variance requests as presented. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Letzter stated that the tree near the front door, next to the driveway, will be removed because it is damaging the driveway. He stated that the City Arborist recommended its removal because it is compromised due to its location so close to the house and driveway. He stated that the other trees on the site will be protected during construction along with the existing landscaping. He stated that some additional landscaping is planned to enhance what already exists. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 8 of 9 In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Arborist agrees that the tree should be removed. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment. Hearing none; he invited final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Novit stated that she visited the site and found the proposed addition to be appropriately scaled to the house. She applauded the efforts to minimize the extent of the encroachment into the setbacks. Board member Sieman commended the reuse of the existing structure noting that if a demolition was proposed, a new home on the site might have been incompatible with the surrounding homes. He stated support for the variances as requested. Chairman Pickus agreed with the comments of Board members Novit and Sieman and commended the planned improvements to the house. He stated that in his opinion, the improvements will enhance the streetscape and are in keeping with the character of the neighboring homes. He stated appreciation for the petitioner’s creativity in stepping the second floor addition back from the north side to avoid the need for an additional variance. He stated that the project appears to be well thought out. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Sieman made a motion to recommend approval of side yard variance to allow re-working of the existing first floor roof as necessary to accommodate the second floor addition and encroachment of the second floor addition and a porch roof into the front yard setback no further than the encroachment of the existing house as further detailed in the materials submitted to the Board. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Novit and was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. Public testimony on non-agenda items. No public testimony was presented to the Board on non-agenda items. 6. Additional information from staff. Board member Lewis asked for clarification on items that are exempted from zoning setbacks such as eaves in the front yard. He noted that when the Board is asked to consider front yard variances, it would be helpful to have data on the average front yard setback of homes in the immediate area. He noted that with respect to the 180 Atteridge Road petition, it was his intent that the fact that the porch element is proposed as a one story element, rather than a two story element, be entered into the record as part of the basis for support of the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Meeting Page 9 of 9 In response to comments and questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will prepare a memo for the Board reviewing the provisions in the Code that exempt specific elements from some zoning setback requirements. She stated that staff will work with the petitioners to provide data on the setbacks of nearby homes to help the Board in considering future petitions. She stated that the record on the 180 Atteridge Road petition will reflect that the fact that the porch element is proposed as a one-story element was in part a basis for the Board’s decision and will note that the element should remain one-story. The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development