Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2016/06/27 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the June 27, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, June 27, 2016 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 Richard Plonsker, Kevin Lewis, Nancy Novit, Mark Pasquesi, Michael J. Sieman and Lloyd Culbertson Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None 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. Recognition of former Chairman Robert Franksen. Chairman Pickus thanked former Chairman Robert Franksen for his time and commitment to the Board, the City and the residents of Lake Forest and presented him with a plaque commemorating his service. 3. Consideration of the minutes from the April 25, 2016 meeting. The minutes of the April 25, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance to allow a replacement single family residence to encroach partially into the front yard setback at 835 Oakwood Avenue to align with other homes in the neighborhood. Owners: David and Catherine Swarthout Representative: Peter Witmer, architect 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 Mr. Witmer and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Witmer introduced the petition and noted that the project was recently reviewed and supported by the Building Review Board. He noted that homes in the neighborhood are setback as little as 20’ from the front property line, with the average Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 16 setback of homes ranging from 23’ to 24’. He explained that particular consideration was given to the siting of the houses immediately adjacent to this property during the design process. He stated that the neighboring homes are setback 20’ and 30’ respectively. He stated that the main mass of the proposed house, beyond the front porch, is setback 33’ from the property line. He stated that the porch is an important element in the design and extends further into the setback as a transition between the homes on either side. He described the character of the neighboring homes noting that unfortunately, many of the original open porches have been filled in. He explained the proposed site plan noting that all other setbacks are met for the house and detached garage. He explained that the house is designed to be accessible and space is provided behind the house, for an accessible vehicle, with grades that allow for easy access to the elevator in the residence. Ms. Friedrich described the property and reviewed the variance that is requested to allow a portion of the replacement house to encroach into the front yard setback. She noted that the existing house on the site is non-conforming to the current setbacks and is sited toward the rear of the lot. She confirmed that the Building Review Board heard this matter and recommended approval of the demolition of the existing house and approval of the replacement residence to the City Council. She noted that the front yard setback in the R-1 district is 40 feet. She stated that this is a modest variance request and commented that the open front porch will help to reduce the perceived massing of the house from the streetscape. She noted that because the lot was created by a subdivision that occurred prior to current Code requirements, the lot does not meet the minimum lot width or lot size requirements found in the Code today. She stated that the variance requests approval to allow the open porch of the replacement house and a portion of the main mass of the house to encroach a total of 15 feet into the front yard setback. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Witmer noted that the porch is 7 feet wide and confirmed that the porch, along with a portion of the house, encroaches 15 feet into the 40-foot setback. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment, hearing none; he invited further comments for the Board. Board member Pasquesi stated that he visited the site and believes that the proposed project will be an improvement to the neighborhood. He stated that the petition warrants approval. Board member Lewis stated his support for the project and noted the consistency of the proposed plan with the setbacks on the rest of the block. Chairman Pickus agreed that the project will be an improvement to the site and stated his support for the project. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 16 Board member Novit stated support for the project and noted that the front porch is a nice amenity adding that consideration should be given to making it large enough to be useable. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pickus invited a motion from the Board. Board member Pasquesi made a motion to recommend approval of a front yard setback variance to allow the replacement residence, including the open front porch, to encroach into the front yard setback a distance not to exceed 15 feet, consistent with the site plan in the packet and the staff recommendation and based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Lewis and was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for a variance from the side yard setback to allow construction of a second story addition over an existing one story element located at 611 E. Illinois Road. Owners: Zachary Jacobs and Stephanie Caparelli Representative: Michael Hrusovsky, designer 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 Mr. Hrusovsky and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Hrusovsky stated that a variance from the side yard setback is requested to allow additions to update the home. He stated that the house is designed in the Arts and Crafts style and the new owners are looking to remodel the house and create a more functional space for their family. He noted that the property is across from the Lake Forest College athletic field, between Wildwood and Washington Roads. He described the neighborhood and noted it is comprised of long narrow properties that were built upon prior to the current zoning setback regulations. He stated that the existing house is non-conforming to the side yard setback on the west side. He noted that the neighboring properties to the south are in the GR-3 district which has a lesser side yard setback requirement. He stated that the neighboring property owners were contacted and expressed support for the project. He noted that the property to the west is wider and pointed out that the house on that property is located to the west, away from the subject property. He pointed out that there is landscape screening on the neighboring property and a fence that will shield the proposed additions from the neighbor. He described the existing residence and reviewed the design of the proposed addition. He noted that a variance is requested for a second story addition over an existing one story element that already encroaches into the setback. He noted that the other elements of the project respect the current setback requirements. He reviewed the floor plans of the proposed addition and noted the trees toward the rear of the property adding that the proposed construction is a Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 16 sufficient distance from the trees to avoid impacting them. He presented an alternative plan for the Board’s consideration noting that the alternative allows for a better design for the homeowners, but would require an additional variance for the rear addition. He noted that the alternative allows a better flow through the house and out into the rear yard. He requested that the Board consider the alternative which would require variances for both the second floor addition and the rear addition, instead of the plan presented to staff. Ms. Friedrich noted that the plan as presented to staff requests a side yard setback variance for a second story addition over an existing one story element that already encroaches into the setback about 6 feet. She noted that the staff report presents findings in support of the requested variance. She noted that the home was built prior to current setback requirements. She explained that there are other additions and alterations to the home planned as part of the project however, those components meet the current setback requirements, at least in the plans as presented to staff for review. She noted that the Building Review Board will consider this matter next week. She noted two significant trees in the rear yard and stated that the City Arborist asked that all construction activity be a minimum of 25 feet from the trees. She stated that as presented, the second floor addition encroaches 6 feet into the side yard setback, the same distance as the existing first floor element. In response to a question from Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that detailed plans would be required before a permit could be issued for construction. In response to a question from Board member Lewis, Mr. Hrusovsky explained that the alternate plan presented shifts the one story addition at the rear of the home to the west, about 2 feet into the required setback. He acknowledged that the staff report addresses and supports the petition as originally submitted but asked that the Board consider the additional variance. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the encroachment addressed in the staff report is for a six foot encroachment, for a second story addition, over an existing one story element. She stated that the alternate plan presented was not part of the request submitted to staff. In response to questions from Board member Culberts on, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the alternate plan shifts the proposed rear addition into the side yard setback but not to the extent of the encroachment of the existing house and the proposed second story addition. In response to questions from Board member Culberts on, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that staff normally encourages petitioners to present a plan that minimizes the encroachment into the setback to the extent possible. She noted the Board’s past support for second story additions over existing encroaching one story elements in older neighborhoods. She noted that the alternate plan, as presented at the meeting Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 5 of 16 by the petitioner’s representative, shifts the rear addition, which was originally configured to conform to the side yard setback, to the west, partially into the side yard setback. She confirmed that the rear addition expands the footprint of the house as opposed to the separate second story addition which is proposed on top of an existing one-story element. She stated that the alternate plan represents a further encroachment into the side yard setback, toward the neighbor to the west. In response to comments from the Board, Mr. Hrusovsky noted that the one story addition, if shifted to the west as proposed in the alternate plan, will not be visible from the neighboring property to the west because of the neighbor’s landscaping and the fence along the property line. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Friedrich explained that the notice sent to the neighboring residents presented the design as submitted to staff for review, not the alternate plan now being presented. She explained that if the Board so directs, staff will send additional notices to neighboring residents with information on the alternate plan and additional variance request. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Hrusovsky commented on the grade change in the rear yard and confirmed that the rear addition is a sufficient distance from those trees. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City Arborist looked at the trees on the neighboring property, but only in the context of a second story addition, not in the context of shifting the proposed rear addition toward the west property line. She said that the City Arborist will look at the neighbor’s trees again in the context of the proposed construction closer to the west property line. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Caparelli explained that she spoke to the neighbors and both were supportive of a much larger addition and greater encroachment than is currently proposed. She stated that she would like to move the project along quickly noting that this will be her family’s home for many years. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hrusovsky asked whether the Board is supportive of the alternate plan stating that if so, further design work will be completed. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the alternate plan was not provided to the neighbors or addressed in the staff report. She suggested that if the Board is supportive of the alternate concept, the plan should be further detailed and submitted for formal consideration by the Board. She suggested that if the Board would like to proceed in that manner, continuation of the petition would be appropriate. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment; hearing none, he stated support for the alternate plan but agreed that the proper notice requirements have not been met making it difficult for the Board to take action at this time. He invited final comments from the Board. Board member Novit stated that the petition should be continued to allow review by the Building Review Board before further consideration of the alternate plan by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Board member Lewis questioned whether the alternate plan meets the criteria that the Board must apply. He stated support for the variance as detailed in the staff report. Chairman Pickus acknowledged that there is no guarantee that the alternate plan, once further detailed, will be approved by the Board. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Building Review Board will review the architectural details and massing of the proposed additions. She stated that staff will inform the Building Review Board of the Zoning Board of Appeals’ discussion of the alternate plan. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited a motion. Board member Novit made a motion to continue the petition to allow the opportunity for review of the project by the Building Review Board and with direction to the petitioner to further detail the alternate plan if that is the plan that the Board is asked to consider. Board member Pasquesi seconded the motion and the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. 6. Continued consideration of a request for an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit for Farwell Field at Lake Forest College, 250 Washington Road, to allow temporary lighting on the field annually for three weeks, after the end of daylight savings time, and general updates. Owner: Lake Forest College Representative: President Stephen Schutt Jackie Slaats, Director of Athletics and Senior Advisor to the President 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. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 7 of 16 Stephen Schutt, President of Lake Forest College, introduced the petition noting that he was unable to attend the last meeting. He discussed the competition among colleges for students stating that even small differences in what Colleges offer to students can make a difference in a student’s selection of a college. He explained that it is not ideal to have student athletes leave campus to practice noting that such an arrangement can cause students to miss classes or meals and explaining that it is not good for team spirit or the recruitment process. He stated that such an arrangement puts Lake Forest College at a disadvantage in comparison to other similar schools. He noted that about 30 percent of Lake Forest College students are on an athletic team and about 150 students are on the football and soccer teams which are both directly will directly benefit from this request. He stated that since the petition was last before the Board, the time during which lights would be used has been reduced to no more than 3.5 hours per day, up to five days a week. He stated that the lights will be used for practices only, not for games. He noted that the lights are now pl aced to direct light away from Illinois Road which he noted is not ideal for the athletes, but is better for the neighbors. He explained that baffles for all of the generators will be purchased by the College and installed prior to use. He stated that some additional landscaping was recently installed at the perimeter of the field. He stated agreement with the staff recommendation that a lighting and sound consultant be brought in to observe the practices, at the College’s expense, to identify opportunities for further mitigation of impacts on the neighboring properties. He stated that the College has reached out to the neighbors on several occasions to discuss the project. He concluded stating that approval of the request will help in the College’s recruitment efforts. Ms. Slaats reiterated that the request was modified to reduce the maximum number of hours that the lights could be used. She stated that during each of the three weeks, the lights would be used for a maximum of 52.5 hours. She noted that the previous request established a maximum of 60 hours per week. She noted that the length of practices would be correspondingly reduced. She stated that since the last meeting, additional landscaping was installed along Illinois Road and nine arbor vitae were planted along the north fence line of Farwell Field. She stated that the neighbors were invited to a meeting in June to hear an update on the request. She reviewed that during the use of lights in fall, 2015, the positioning of the lights was adjusted periodically to determine which configuration minimized the impact of the lights to the greatest extent. She confirmed that every light will be baffled on all four sides. She noted the distances from the closest homes to the field. She stated that music will not be played at practices. Ms. Czerniak explained that the special use process provides the opportunity for a public review when non-residential uses, located in residential zoning districts, grow or change over time. She stated that special uses include churches, schools, private clubs, the hospital and the College. She stated for instance, the special use process was recently used to review the plans for the new hospital and to consider requests from private clubs for the addition of paddle courts and lighting. She stated that as Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 8 of 16 recommended by the Board, and as approved by the City Council, the College used temporary lights for three weeks in the fall of 2015. She stated that trial period provided helpful information which was used by the College and staff to craft the current proposal and recommended conditions of approval. She stated that during and after the use of lights in 2015, the College provided opportunities for residents to raise questions, concerns and offer input. She emphasized that unlike other special uses in the community, the College is not requesting approval of permanent lights. She stated that the College is requesting approval to use temporary lights on Farwell Field for up to 52.5 total hours, over a three week period, Monday through Friday, 4pm – 7:30p.m. She stated that the lights will be used for practices only, not for games. She stated that no music will be played during practices. She stated that all of the lights will be fully baffl ed with a system purchased by the College. She stated that the College has worked to balance the concerns of the neighboring residents with the need to make the field safe for the College teams. She stated that City staff received input from lighting consultants and acoustical engineers who stated that the best way for them to offer input on possible further mitigation measures, is to observe the lights and generators in action, in the fall. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, President Schutt confirmed that no music will be played during practice and stated that the College will accept a limitation on the lumens consistent with the statement submitted to the Board as part of the packet. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak offered that a condition could be added to address a future change in the end of daylight savings time. In response to a question from Board member Sieman, President Schutt stated that 150 student athletes would benefit from the temporary lights. In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Slaats reviewed the need for lights during the three week period and explained that if the teams are not successfully in post season play, the lights would be used for less than the full three weeks. She stated that during the use of lights last year, no decibel readings were taken. In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that Farwell Field, and the rest of the College, is located in a residential district. She stated that residential districts permitting various densities are located around the College Campus. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the Special Use Permit with a condition that the City Council review the use of lights after a five year period. She stated that during that review, if determined to be appropriate by the City Council, Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 9 of 16 the matter could be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review. She added that if at any time during the five year period, the conditions of approval are not met; the City Council could direct an earlier review or rescind the Special Use Permit. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Slaats stated that practices are held from 4pm – 7pm prior to daylight savings time concurrently, on various fields. She confirmed that prior to 2013; the football team was bussed to the Bears facility for practices after the end of daylight savings time. She stated that prior to 2013, the College soccer teams were not in post season play and as a result, did not need a practice field at that time a year. She explained that now that the teams are doing well, the football and soccer teams need to share the field. She noted it is not ideal to move any teams off campus for practice pointing out that even when the Bears’ facility was used; it was not the best solution. Chairman Pickus called for a 10 minute recess. Chairman Pickus reconvened the meeting and invited public testimony. Adam Hutchinson, 597 Rosemary Road, stated that he has spoken with College representatives on several occasions and acknowledged that the College has reached out to the neighbors. He stated that the lights, as currently proposed, are positioned to shine on his property. He acknowledged the plantings but noted that the plantings will not mitigate the lights shining into the second floor of his house. Henry Green, 177 Washington Road, noted that he is thrilled to be a neighbor of the College adding that he is an alumnus of the College. He stated that the student athletes are amazing. Mark Mattheison, 555 Illinois Road, stated that he has testified before the Board in the past. He acknowledged that the lights were repositioned and no longer directly faces his property but stated that the lights and the noise from the generators hurt his property. He stated his belief that the request violates the Illinois State Statutes and that approval is not in the best interest of the public. He noted that the neighborhood is quiet and is disrupted by the noise. He stated that the noise limits his enjoyment of his property. He stated that the proposed use does not fit into the neighborhood. He stated that he does not believe that the lights are necessary for recruiting students. Jim Cantanzoro stated that he is the head coach for the Lake Forest College football team. He stated that it is not beneficial when team practices are held off campus. He stated that it is easier to recruit athletes when practice fields are on campus, where the games are played. He added that it is safer to practice on turf, rather than grass, particularly in the late fall when weather conditions are not optimum. He stated that the request is for temporary lights because the College is making an accommodation for the neighbors. He stated that in his opinion, permanent lights would be a better solution. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 10 of 16 Edward Coe, 496 Illinois Road, stated that he has lived in Lake Forest, “in the back yard” of the College for 38 years. He stated that problems with the College have continued over the years and have not been solved. He questioned the professionalism of the announcers for the games. He stated that in his opinion, if the request for temporary lights is approved, the College will continue to ask for more and more. Dean Tinti, 524 Illinois Road, stated that his property runs parallel to the west side of the field. He stated that he is happy to live so close to the field. He said that during the use of the lights last fall, he sat on his deck and had conversations with his family while the lights and generators were on. He said that conversation was easy. He said that in his opinion, the temporary lights are a bearable inconvenience. Tom Swarthout, 987 Maplewood Road, stated that he is a 60 plus year resident of Lake Forest and a neighbor of the College and said that the College is a terrific neighbor. He explained that he grew up across the street from West Park and pointed out that there are lights and music in West Park for different events and said that the activity did not both his family. He stated that his parents still live across from West Park. He stated that recruiting students is competitive noting that the College needs to be able to offer amenities on par with similar schools. He stated that Farwell Field is a historic athletic facility which predates the houses in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the College has delivered on prior commitments to landscape various areas of the campus and pointed out that the screening of the student athletic building was done well. He stated full support for the College. Kevin Bry stated that he is an attorney representing Locke Walsh, a resident at 595 Illinois Road. He stated that he attended the open house held by the College prior to this meeting and acknowledged that the College representatives were very cordial. He noted that the College has tried several configurations for the temporary lights to date and noted that there were opportunities to do the testing that is now suggested for next fall. He stated that this is a request to keep experimenting with the lights. He stated that in his opinion, last year, the lights were moved around too much to really understand the effect on the neighbors. He stated that in his opinion, there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of the College and the College is still trying to figure out what will work. He noted that at the last meeting, the Board asked the College to come back with something different. Bob Pasquesi, 172 Washington Road, said that he has lived in the neighborhood for 63 years and watched the Bears and the Cardinals play at Farwell Field. He said that no teams in the past needed lights on the field and questioned why lights are needed now. He asked the Board members if they would vote to approve the request if the field was next to their house. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 11 of 16 Chairman Pickus invited any further public testimony. Hearing no additional requests to speak, he noted that Mr. Bry filed a request to cross examine the petition and invited him to do so. In response to questions from Mr. Bry, Ms. Slaats stated that decibel level readings were not taken last fall. She stated that the information presented on sound levels is from the manufacturers’ specifications. She stated that the College believes that the baffling reduced the noise impact. In response to questions from Mr. Bry, President Schutt confirmed that last fall, only some of the generators were baffled as a test. He stated that the College is committed to fully baffling all of the generators going forward. In response to questions from Mr. Bry, Ms. Slaats, agreed that at 4 p.m., prior to the end of daylight savings time, there is still daylight. She said that based on the information from the manufacturer, without baffling, the generators sound like a vacuum cleaner. She acknowledged that there are other fields on campus but noted that they are grass fields which can be unsafe for players at that time of year. She stated that the College does its best to keep up the grass fields but noted that the condition of the fields is not guaranteed like it is on Farwell Field which is a turf field. She stated that the best practice is to use the safest field and the field on which games are played throughout the year. In response to questions from Mr. Bry, President Schutt noted that the prior prohibition on lights on the field pertained to the use of the field by the Chicago Fire. Mr. Bry stated that he had no further questions. Chairman Pickus invited final questions and comments from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, President Schutt confirmed that the generators will be baffl ed as completely as possible, on all four sides and on top, to the extent possible. He agreed to consider any further measures recommended by the consultants to the extent that they are not cost prohibitive. He stated that the College made a good faith effort to try the baffling last year and is committed to finding the best way to lower the noise level from the generators. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the criteria for evaluating a request for a Special Use Permit are reviewed on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. She stated that the College is part of the character of the neighborhood. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak clarified that some of the language in the 2003 Special Use Permit pertained to the construction of the press box and bleachers which is now completed and the use of the field by the Chicago Fire. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 12 of 16 She stated that staff is recommending that conditions that are no longer relevant be eliminated as part of amendment now being considered. She stated that a blackline of the 2003 Special Use Permit was provided to the Board detailing the language proposed for deletion. She stated that there is language in the Special Use Permit that requires noise from mechanical equipment to be mitigated. She added that there is also a condition in the existing Special Use Permit prohibiting generators from being used to heat or water the field because of the potential impact to the neighbors on an ongoing basis. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited a response to public testimony from the College. President Schutt noted that Lake Forest College is intentionally a small college. He stated that because of that, 150 students are significant and do matter. He stated that only temporary lights are requested with use permitted no more than three weeks a year. He noted that the College is open to input from the consultant on ways that any impact to the neighbors can be further mitigated in a cost effective manner. He thanked the neighbors for their input and thanked the Board for their attention. Chairman Pickus invited a response to public testimony from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted that the written testimony received on this matter was provided to the Board. She pointed out that the prohibition on lights on Farwell Field in the 2003 Special Use Permit is related to the use of the field by the Chicago Fire, a professional team. She stated that no professional team currently uses the field and if in the future such a use is proposed, a further amendment to the Special Use Permit would be required. She suggested four additional conditions for the Board’s consideration based on the Board members’ comments: a limitation on the lumens per light tower, a prohibition on playing music during practices that are conducted under the lights, a requirement that the College implement further mitigation measures if so directed by the City and language requiring that if there is a change in the timing of daylight savings time, the three week period for the lights cannot be extended without further approvals from the City. Chairman Pickus noted that he is concerned most by that the fact that the Board does not know what an acceptable decibel level for residential properties is and how the noise from the baffled generators will measure up to that standard. Board member Culbertson noted that he is ready to trust the process and the City staff to work with the College to implement any recommendations from the consultant. He noted that this is the third meeting on this matter in the last year. He stated that in his opinion, the College has made significant compromises in response to the neighbors’ concerns including the elimination of music when the lights are in use, modifications to the lights, the installation of baffles on all of the generators and a willingness to work with and pay for consultants selected by the City. He added that the lights will only be Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 13 of 16 used for three weeks a year, at the most. He acknowledged the College for the spirit of cooperation shown noting that the outcome is better than what was originally proposed. Board member Pasquesi agreed with Board member Culbertson’s comments. He stated that the effort made by the College and the changes made since the March 2016 meeting are significant. He stated that the reduced hours now proposed by the College will be a benefit to the neighbors. Board member Lewis questioned what the repercussions are on the College if the conditions of approval are not followed. He questioned why a five year period was selected prior to review. Chairman Pickus stated that a five year time period is proposed because there is some level of cost to the College and the College needs to have some level of certainty that they are going to be able to continue to use the materials purchased for some period of time. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, President Schutt stated that the College has spent about $50,000 to date on enhanced landscaping and the baffles for some of the lights. He stated a commitment to making the further investment necessary to fully implement the conditions as proposed by staff. Board member Plonsker noted that he is concerned that this is an experiment with a five year time frame. He agreed that the College has made improvements to the plan in response to the neighbors’ concerns. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, President Schutt confirmed that approval of the lighting for a five year period, with a review by the City Council after that period, is workable and provides sufficient certainty for the College. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Czerniak explained that at the five year review, the City Council could remand the matter back to the Zoning Board of Appeals if the Council determines that further study is necessary or if there are concerns. She confirmed that the City has the ability to revoke a Special Use Permit if the conditions of approval are violated after appropriate notice and a cure period. Board members Lewis and Culbertson discussed LED lights noting that they could have less of an off site impact. They acknowledged that the College previously noted that LED lights are not available as temporary lights. In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that within five years, new technology may be available or the College may have other alternatives to the temporary lights. She stated that a five year period is proposed, as opposed to a shorter period, recognizing that the College needs some Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 14 of 16 certainty and that the College will be making an investment in the baffles and additional landscaping. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, President Schutt agreed to work with the City to implement recommendations offered by the consultant to further mitigate impacts on the neighboring properties. He stated that the College is prepared to invest the money necessary to make this work as well as possible for all parties. Board member Plonsker commented that he would have preferred that a consultant was brought in last year during the use of the lights. Board member Pasquesi agreed with the recommendation to bring in a consultant to advise the City and the College on how impacts could be further mitigated. He stated that based on the information available, the noise from the generators, with baffling, does not appear to be too significant. Chairman Pickus summarized the conditions recommended by staff and the additional conditions discussed by the Board. He stated that it is time for the Board to forward a recommendation on this matter to the City Council. He restated that this request is for a three week period of time each year and noted that many conditions of use are recommended. He invited a motion on the request for authorization to use temporary lights on Farwell Field. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow the use of temporary lights on Farwell Field, annually, based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. No permanent lights or electric service to support permanent lights shall be installed on the field. 2. The lights will be used only for football and soccer practices, no games are permitted under the lights and no music is permitted to be played during practices. 3. Use of the lights is permitted for a maximum of three weeks each year, beginning the day after daylight savings time ends, and extending for up to three weeks thereafter. (In the event that the end date for daylight savings time changes, the three-week period during which the use of lights is authorized shall not be exceeded without further amendment to the Special Use Permit. 4. Up to six portable, diesel powered lights are permitted. The lumens shall not exceed 440,000 per tower. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 15 of 16 5. Use of the lights and the associated generators is permitted only from 4 p.m. until 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 6. The light fixtures shall direct lights downward, to the field, and shall be configured to limit spillover light to neighboring homes while at the same time, providing adequate and even light on the field to allow the teams to practice safely. 7. The light poles will be extended to full height, not to exceed 30 feet, only during the hours of use. 8. The generators at the base of every light must be baffled with sound attenuating materials. 9. Setup of the portable lights and generators on the field is permitted no more than 10 days prior to the start of the three week period. Removal of the lights and generators from the field and the campus must be completed within 10 days after the three week period. 10. During fall, 2016, and in future years as determined to be necessary by the City, a consultant with expertise in sound and lighting shall be engaged by the City, at the cost of the College, to evaluate the off site light and sound impacts and offer recommendations on whether impacts on the neighboring residences can be further mitigated with reasonable measures. To the extent possible generally accepted levels of sound and light in residential area shall be documented as part of the consultant’s review for ongoing reference. The City shall direct implementation of recommendations which may include without limitation modifications to the layout or angle of the lights, sound attenuation methods, or changes to the type of equipment. 11. After a period of five years, staff shall provide a report to the City Council on the experiences with the temporary lighting, over the five-year period, and any other relevant information to allow the City Council to determine if the terms of the Special Use Permit should be reconsidered and if so, the Council shall direct the Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct said reconsideration. Board member Novit seconded the motion. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Arborist will regularly review the perimeter landscaping to assure that an appropriate buffer is maintained. Zoning Board of Appeals’ Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 16 of 16 Chairman Pickus called for a vote on the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairman Pickus invited a motion on the amendments to remove conditions that are no longer relevant from the 2003 Special Use Permit as recommended by staff. Board member Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of the elimination of the conditions from the 2003 Special Use Permit that are no longer relevant as reflected in the blackline provided by staff and directed staff to review condition number eleven to determine if that condition should be removed as well. Board member Pasquesi seconded the motion and it was approved by a 7 to 0 vote. 7. Public testimony on non-agenda items. No further public testimony was presented to the Board. 8. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30pm. Respectfully submitted, Michelle E. Friedrich Planning Technician