Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2016/07/25 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the July 25, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, July 25, 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, and Michael J. Sieman Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Culbertson 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 June 27, 2016 meeting. The minutes of the June 27, 2016 meeting were approved with one correction as requested by Board member Plonsker. 3. Continued consideration of a request for variances from the side yard setback to allow the construction of additions 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 introduced the petition and noted that this item was before the Board in June 2016. He described the neighborhood and the zoning in the area. He described the property and the immediate neighboring properties. He noted the heritage trees in the rear of the property and pointed out that the additions are sited to keep from impacting the trees. He described the project and the request for a variance for the proposed second story addition over the existing non-conforming one story element, and the additional variance request for a one story addition at the rear of the house with a roof deck. He reviewed the benefits of the proposed design. He confirmed Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 14 that proper notice was sent out for the plan as now proposed. He stated that the Building Review Board approved the design that is presented for approval. He noted that a letter in support of the project was received from the neighbor to the west. He stated that the neighbor expressed concern about light impacts and he explained the intent to provide only a minimum amount of exterior lighting on the additions. He noted staff’s recommendation to step the roof deck back to conform to the side yard setback to lessen the impact to the neighbor to the west. He explained that the change may not be the best architectural decision. He stated that the roof deck as proposed will not impact the neighbor to the west. Ms. Friedrich noted that this petition was before the Board at the June meeting and that since that time, the Building Review Board reviewed the project and recommended approval of the plan that is before the Board. She noted that the mailed and legal notices regarding this plan were completed properly. She described the project and reviewed the variance requests; a second story addition over a one story element with an encroachment of 7.5 feet into the side yard setback, including the eaves, and a one story, rear addition with a roof deck that encroaches 3 feet into the side yard setback, including the roof eaves. She noted that it is possible that other areas of the existing house may need to be reconstructed as part of the project to allow proper transitions to the additions. She noted that a variance is requested to cover reconstruction of any parts of the existing house that are currently located in the side yard setback. She noted that the City Arborist indicated that the additions, including the patio, should remain at least 25 feet away from the heritage trees and that additional narrow, tall landscaping could be added along the western property line, in the areas of the additions, to help provide further screening of the new additions. She noted that the findings of fact in the staff report recommend approval of the plan subject to three conditions including stepping back the roof deck to conform to the side year setback, limiting exterior lighting to that required by the Code for safety and enhanced landscaping along the west property line. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich indicated that the Code requires lighting at the door to the roof deck. She noted that the proposed additions are void of windows on the western elevation so interior light spillover should not be an issue. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that the lighting on the second floor roof deck will be shielded and directed down to eliminate off site impacts. He confirmed that the lighting would have a timer on it, in accordance with the City’s lighting requirements. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Hrusovsky indicated there is no need for significant lighting on the roof deck and agreed that the minimum lighting required by the Code would be adequate. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 14 In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the staff recommendation is to bring in the roof deck railing to comply with the side yard setback requirement to minimize the impact of activity on the second floor roof deck on the neighboring property. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Mr. Hrusovsky confirmed that his clients are asking for a variance to allow the roof deck to encroach into the side yard setback. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Hrusovsky stated that the neighbor’s house to the west is about 50 to 55 feet from the proposed addition. He noted the trees that exist on the neighbor’s property in the area of the proposed additions and that the line of sight is not direct from the neighboring property to the area of the additions. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Hrusovsky agreed that tall plantings could be added along the west property line in the area of the additions. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City Arborist reviewed the plan and confirmed that as proposed, the additions do not appear that they will impact the heritage trees in the rear yard or the neighbor’s trees along the western property line. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that enlarging the patio would not require a variance and therefore, is not within the Zoning Board’s purview. She confirmed that the City Arborist will review the patio to minimize any impact on the heritage trees. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment, hearing none; he invited further comments from the Board. Board member Novit expressed support for the roof deck as proposed and for the variances as requested. In response to questions from Chairman Novit, Ms. Friedrich noted stepping the roof deck back to meet the setback was not specifically requested by the neighbor but is recommended by staff due to the potential for light and noise impacts on the neighboring property from a roof top deck located partially within the side yard setback. Board member Lewis stated support for the roof deck as proposed by the petitioner. Board member Pasquesi agreed and that aesthetically, the roof deck, in the configuration proposed by the petitioner, is preferable and will not likely create the potential for negative impacts on the neighboring property. He stated support for the Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 4 of 14 conditions recommended by staff pertaining to additional landscaping and limitations on exterior lighting on the roof deck. He stated that the conditions are responsive to the concerns raised by the neighboring property owner. Board member Novit acknowledged staff’s intent to respond to the neighbor’s concern, but stated that she does not see that the minimal encroachment of the roof deck space would impact the neighbor. In response to Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich noted that the Code requires exterior lighting, except for security lighting, to be on a timer and turned off by 11 p.m. Chairman Pickus expressed support for the project, with conditions pertaining to landscaping along the western property line and limitations on lighting. He agreed that stepping by the roof deck is not necessary. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion from the Board. Board member Sieman made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings of fact provided in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1. The lights on the roof deck, on the rear elevation, shall be limited to the minimum required by the Code and the fixtures shall fully shield the source of the light and direct the light downward, on to the deck. No additional lighting is permitted on the roof deck. 2. Landscaping is required along the west property line, in the area of the additions, to help to minimize the impact of the mass of the additions, light spillover and to provide a buffer from activity that may occur on the roof deck. The motion was seconded by Board member Pasquesi and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow construction of a replacement single family residence located at 104 Washington Circle. Owner and Representative: David Lidstrom This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner. 5. Consideration of a request for a variance from the side, rear and steep slope setbacks to allow construction of an elevator at the residence located at 1167 N. Sheridan Road. Owners: Robert and Susan Wood Representative: Monica Artmann-Ruggles, architect Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 5 of 14 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 Ms. Artmann-Ruggles and swore in all those intending to speak. Ms. Artmann-Ruggles introduced the petition and explained that the goal of this project is to provide the accessibility in the house to meet the needs of the owners. She reviewed the history of the property. She reviewed the request noting that an elevator addition is proposed at the west side of the residence, in the location of the existing chimney which would be removed. She described the existing non- conforming nature of the residence. She explained that the location will allow the elevator to be unobtrusive. She reviewed the site plan noting the similarity in the footprint of the chimney and the elevator. She reviewed the interior floor plan noting the limited options for locating an elevator interior to the home. She stated that all of the existing landscaping will remain and vines will be re-established on the elevator element similar to the vines currently on the chimney. She noted that only a minimal foundation is required for the elevator and reviewed the proposed exterior materials. She noted that the elevator addition will be shorter in height than the existing chimney. She noted the existing fence and landscaping in the area of the proposed elevator which will remain. Ms. Friedrich reviewed the history of the larger area and the subdivision that created this parcel and the adjacent parcels from a larger estate in 1955. She noted that the Historic Preservation Commission approved the proposed elevator addition in April, 2016. She explained that nearly the entire residence is non-conforming with respect to setbacks and noted that the proposed elevator addition is less non-conforming than the existing chimney. She noted that one of the variances requested is a steep slope setback variance due to the proximity of the area to a ravine. She stated that the City Engineer reviewed the request and recommends approval noting that the encroachment into the setback area is less than exists today. She noted that letters were received from neighboring property owners and were provided to the Board. She stated there are findings of fact in the staff report supporting approval of the variances as presented, including a 12’ 6” encroachment into the side yard setback, a rear yard setback variance to allow the elevator to encroach no further than the existing chimney and a 2’6” encroachment into the steep slope setback. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Artmann-Ruggles indicated that a quiet hydraulic elevator is proposed. She confirmed that noise is not a concern. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Artmann-Ruggles described the limited options for locating an elevator in the home. She reviewed the negatives of various options that were considered. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that staff reviewed the alternatives considered by the petitioner. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 6 of 14 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public comment. Ms. Hvalack, 1165 N. Sheridan Road, noted that she has reviewed the request. She stated that she contacted the contractor that completed a renovation of the house in the 1990s and learned that the previous owners planned to add an elevator in the house, rather than in a manner that would change the outside appearance of the structure. She stated concern about the potential for impacts to the ravine. She stated that the proposed location of the elevator will impact views from her home. She stated support for locating the elevator internal to the house. Mr. Wood, petitioner, stated that he appreciates the neighbor’s concerns and has tried to respond to them. He stated that the existing chimney is 50 feet from the edge of the ravine and noted that the proposed elevator will not extend any closer to the ravine than the chimney. He noted that the previous owners, the Krauses, constructed a retaining wall to protect the ravine and he expanded it about ten years ago to provide further protection. He acknowledged that the Krauses identified a location for an interior elevator however; the proposed location would require relocating all of the mechanicals for the house. He stated that the house has no basement and there is not a viable alternate location for the mechanicals. He stated that the existing laundry room is not large enough to accommodate the mechanicals. He explained that the garage is not attached to the house and is not heated and as a result, locating the mechanicals in the garage is not an option. He stated that the size of the elevator element is minimized to the extent possible out of respect for the neighbor. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Pickus invited further comments for the Board. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Wood stated that he does not have an estimate for the cost of moving all of the mechanicals to allow the elevator to be located inside the house. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Artmann-Ruggles explained that the elevator element is designed to match the home. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Artmann-Ruggles confirmed that the main roof will remain intact, except for a very small area. In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City Engineer reviewed the project as proposed and identified no concern about impacts to the ravine. She stated that the City Engineer recommends approval of the project. She confirmed that the footprint of the elevator element is smaller than that of the existing chimney. She stated that the elevator element will not encroach into the rear or steep slope setbacks as far as the chimney. She stated that the elevator element will encroach into the side yard setback to the same extent as the chimney. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 7 of 14 Board member Lewis stated that the architect responded to the variance criteria very clearly. He stated support for the variance as proposed. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the design aspects of the project. Chairman Pickus also noted the support of the Historic Preservation Commission with respect to the aesthetics and agreed that the standards for a variance are met. Board member Pasquesi stated that the petitioner has evaluated various options and commented that the project as proposed appears to be a reasonable way to achieve the goal of making the house accessible. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Pickus invited a motion from the Board. Board member Lewis made a motion to approve the variance as submitted based on the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Sieman and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow construction of a two story addition and a motor court at 1220 Elm Tree Road. Owners: John and Kathryn Collins Representative: Jeff Harting, 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 the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak. Mr. Collins, owner, introduced the petition stating that he has lived in the house since 2007 and his family has grown and there are aspects of the house that need to be corrected. He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project over the course of two meetings and ultimately approved the project. He stated that the project is designed to tr y to save some of the trees but explained that given the proximity of the trees to the house, saving trees is difficult. He stated that in the past, vegetation along the south property line has not survived due to the heavy plantings on the neighboring property, and the resulting shade. He stated that the property was staked Friday evening, to reflect the proposed project. Mr. Harting reviewed the project details and noted the challenges of the project including the age of the house, the setbacks, the trees and the curvature of the street. He reviewed the existing conditions on the site and the relationship of the existing structures to the setbacks. He stated that a new four car attached garage, mudroom and additional living space are proposed. He added that removal of the existing detached garage is proposed. He noted that the four doors on the new garage will face south and will not be visible from the street. He noted that the addition is Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 8 of 14 designed to meet the side yard setback, but noted that all of the designs considered require a variance from the front yard setback. Mr. Collins noted that the encroaching portion of the proposed addition is less square footage than the existing detached garage which is located entirely in the front yard setback. He noted that the head lights from the cars will be directed away from the neighboring property as the cars turn to enter the garage. He explained the proposed driveway layout noting the need to provide driveway access to the front door as well as into the garage. Mr. Harting reviewed the variance criteria. He noted that the portion of the addition that encroaches into the front yard is minimal compared to what exists today. Mr. Collins added that the garage doors are 27 feet from the south property line. Ms. Friedrich stated that a variance is requested to allow a new, attached four car garage, with second floor living space, to encroach into the front yard setback. She stated that a variance is also requested to allow a motor court, near the front door, to encroach into the front yard setback. She confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project over the course of two meetings and ultimately approved the petition. She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission found the petition challenging. She noted that a small portion of the existing house and the entire detached garage encroach into the front yard setback today. She pointed out that the staff report details several areas of concern and requested Board input. She noted that staff visited the site on Thursday to confirm that the site was staked to reflect the areas of the proposed encroachment. She noted that the area of the proposed addition was staked, but the proposed driveway and motor court were not staked so staff was unable to verify whether the trees identified for preservation could in fact be adequately protected during construction to allow survival over the longer term. She noted that if the site was fully staked as required by the Code, some areas of concern and questions may have been addressed. She noted that the mass of the addition is quite large and suggested that reducing the mass could eliminate the need for a front yard variance. She stated that based on the project as presented, the City Arborist noted that it is likely that as a result of construction, more heritage trees will likely be lost than those identified for removal on the plan. She stated that the loss of the trees will change the streetscape in this area due to the loss of a significant tree canopy. She noted that the City Arborist also pointed out that based on the garage apron needed to access the four car garage, there will be little if an space for plantings on the property to help minimize the impact of the garage, driveway and the second story of the addition on the neighboring property. She noted that the staff report recommends continuation of the petition to allow the petitioner to explore alternative designs that eliminate the need for a front yard variance, reduce impacts on heritage trees, mitigate the impact of the four car garage on the neighboring property and to allow the site to be fully staked so the Board and staff can better understand the impact on the streetscape, trees and to Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 9 of 14 confirm that as designed, the paved areas are functional and will not need to be enlarged in the future. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the City Arborist questions whether sufficient space is provided along the south property line to allow vegetation to thrive in this area and provide a buffer for the neighbor. She noted that as a condition of approval of variances, petitioners are most often required to provide an adequate buffer to mitigate off site impacts rather than relying on the impacted neighbor to do so. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Collins explained that a four car garage, rather than a three car garage, is desired to allow all of their cars to fit in the garage. He questioned whether it is under the purview of the Board to question whether a three or four car garage is appropriate. He noted that the project is expensive and stated that appearing before the Boards and Commissions several times adds to the expense. Board member Novit explained that it is the Board’s charge to review the hardships on which the request for a variance is based and she stated that the size of the garage is directly related to that question. She stated that a three car garage could potentially eliminate the need for a zoning variance. Mr. Collins pointed out that the project as proposed creates less of an encroachment than exists on the site today. In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Friedrich stated that a plan showing the exact location and dimensions of the front motor court has not yet been provided to the City by the petitioner. Board member Novit noted that she visited the site on Sunday and found the staking for the addition helpful. She stated that she did not see any staking for the driveway or motor court areas. She noted that the Board is charged with considering the impact on the streetscape and on neighboring properties. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Collins stated that the addition steps down in height from the main mass of the house. He stated that the driveway and motor court were staked on Sunday. He pointed out the configuration of the new driveway. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Collins noted that the motor court is to scale on the plans and is not intended for parking, just for drop off at the front door and as a turnaround. He noted that the center of the motor court is a pattern in the paving. Mr. Harting added that the proposed motor court is 28’x28’. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 10 of 14 In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Mr. Harting noted that 24’x24’ is the minimum area needed to allow proper turning movements in a motor court for a 16’ sedan, and assuming a two point turn. He noted there will be low plantings around the motor court which could provide for some spillover area. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Collins noted that the motor court is proposed to be 5’-8’ from the heritage oak tree that is identified for preservation. He noted that the motor court will be approximately the same distance from the heritage oak tree as the existing driveway. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Harting noted that the lights on the garage will be directed downward to avoid impacts on the neighboring property. He stated that the second floor windows in the addition will be about 16 feet above the ground. He stated that the second floor of the addition will not be aligned with the second floor of the neighboring house. He noted that the proposed two story connection between the main house and the addition is stairway, not living space. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the staff recommendation is to continue the petition to allow further information to be provided. She added that the Board may choose to proceed differently. 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 questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the design of the addition was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. She noted that the Board is reviewing the petition with respect to the request for variances from the front yard setbacks. She confirmed that the massing of the proposed addition, as it relates to the need for a variance, is an appropriate consideration for the Board. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Code limits the maximum width of a driveway to 16 feet within the front yard setback. She confirmed that a motor court or parking area is not permitted within the front yard setback and therefore, in this case, a variance is requested. She stated that the plan provided to staff is not clearly dimensioned so it is difficult to understand exactly what is proposed, the extent of the variance required and the potential impact on the trees. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Harting stated that the motor court will be cobblestone and gravel and the southern driveway will be asphalt. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Harting stated that the motor court must be at least 24’x24’ to be usable. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 11 of 14 In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Friedrich confirmed that the motor court was reflected on the plan approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Collins noted that today, there is a car parked in the area of the proposed motor every day due to the lack of an adequate garage. Ms. Czerniak noted that if the Board is inclined to move this petition forward, a condition requiring a plan with specific dimensions will be needed before the Board’s recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Mr. Collins agreed to provide a fully dimensioned plan and requested Board approval of the variances. He stated that if the petition is continued, he would like to understand what additional study or materials are needed. In response to questions, Mr. Harting stated that he cannot provide an exact dimension from the motor court to the property line at this time. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak noted that inch for inch or double inch for inch replacement will be required for heritage trees that are removed to accommodate the construction or impacted during construction. She stated that the intent is for the replacement trees restore, over time, the lost canopy. She added that the specific tree species proposed would be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Friedrich clarified that trees numbered 503, 504, and 505 are identified in the plan for removal to allow construction of the new driveway. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Collins acknowledged that tree number 502 will also be lost due to driveway construction. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Friedrich explained that a heritage tree is defined as a tree that is 18” in diameter when measured at 54” above the ground. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that heritage trees are not limited to certain species. In response to comments from the Board, Mr. Collins stated the intent to save the oak tree near the motor court and stated that the plan is designed to protect the tree. In response to questions from Board member Lewis, Ms. Czerniak noted that the Board has, in the past, approved various types of variances based on the specifics and the hardships of each situation. She noted that the variance for this project is for the fourth bay of the garage and the second floor above it noting that eliminating the fourth Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 12 of 14 bay would likely avoid the need for a variance for the addition. She stated that she does not recall whether a variance has been granted in the past for a two story addition but noted that variances have been granted for construction of a second story over an existing single story element that already encroaches into the setback. She stated that she is uncertain whether variances have been granted for motor courts or parking areas within the front yard setback in the past. She stated that the Board is charged with considering the merits of each request and the unique characteristics of the property, neighborhood and streetscape. She stated that as the Board always does, this petition requires the balancing of various interests and consideration of the concerns raised by the neighbors. She stated that unfortunately, in this case, there has not been communication between the petitioners and the neighboring property owners in an effort to try to address concerns. Ms. Friedrich added that the Board could recommend approval subject to conditions that require that outstanding items be addressed. She noted that alternatively, the Board could provide direction to the petitioner and staff on any refinements, further study and additional information that is needed for further consideration. Chairman Pickus agreed that the four car garage could be looked at further and expressed concern that the addition will alter the surrounding area. He noted however that the Historic Preservation Commission approval of the massing of the garage carries significant weight. He stated that the front yard setback variance is the matter before the Board for consideration particularly with respect to the motor court and potential damage to an additional heritage tree. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Collins confirmed that the garage door on the north elevation of the proposed addition is a functional door. He noted that the motor court leads to part of the door justifying its placement. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Collins stated that the motor court cannot be moved closer to the front door because a sidewalk is needed in that area. He noted that the service door of the garage addition will exit on to the motor court. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Harting noted that to avoid the need for a front yard variance, the garage addition would likely only accommodate two cars. Board member Plonsker noted that the motor court is a flat surface and will not be visible to neighbors. He agreed that the potential loss of the additional oak tree is an issue that needs to be addressed. Ms. Czerniak offered some additional conditions for the Board’s consideration based on the Board’s deliberations to date. Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 13 of 14 Board member Lewis stated that it is not unusual for the Board to continue a petition to allow a petitioner to provide additional information and clarification. Board member Pasquesi stated concern about the motor court and the potential impact on an additional heritage tree on the site. He noted however, the petition appears to satisfy the criteria for a variance subject to the conditions offered by staff with specific attention to landscaping to provide a buffer for the neighboring property. He stated that the outstanding items can be addressed at the staff level. Chairman Pickus noted that it is not unusual that a landscape plan is not fully developed at this point but noted that it should be prior to the issuance of a permit. He stated support for proceeding with conditions to assure that the outstanding items are addressed. In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Czerniak stated that normally, conditions establish requirements that need to be met prior to issuance of a permit; however in this case, additional information will be needed from the petitioner in order to allow an Ordinance to be written for City Council consideration. Chairman Pickus stated that the driveway near the south property line should be asphalt, rather than gravel, to avoid additional noise impacts on the neighboring property. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited a motion from the Board. Board member Plonsker made a motion to recommend approval of variances for the two story addition and the motor court, based on the findings as discussed by the Board and subject to the following conditions. 1. A fully dimensioned plan, prepared by an engineer must be provided prior to final consideration of the petition to allow final consideration. 2. The motor court shall not exceed 28’x28’ and shall be configured to minimize impacts on heritage trees. 3. The heritage tree near the motor court and other trees identified for preservation shall be monitored throughout the construction process as directed by the City Arborist. If it is determined that one or more trees identified for preservation have been harmed or compromised in a manner that threatens their viability; double inch for inch replacement shall be required in a manner as directed by the City Arborist with the intent of restoring, over time, the streetscape canopy that is lost. A payment in lieu of on site planting may be accepted if trees cannot be planted on the property consistent with good forestry practices. 4. Replacement inches shall be required for all trees identified for removal. A replacement planting plan shall be submitted, along with a tree removal plan, Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes July 25, 2016 Meeting Page 14 of 14 prior to the issuance of a building permit and will be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan for the overall area where construction is occurring and in particular, for the south property line, shall be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. Plantings shall be provided to screen the massing and any light from the addition. 6. All exterior lights fixtures shall direct light downward and fully screen the source of the light. Lights shall be put on timers to turn off no later than 11 p.m. The motion was seconded by Board member Pasquesi and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 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 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle E. Friedrich Planning Technician