Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2015/01/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the January 26, 2015 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, January 26, 2015 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 Robert Franksen and Board members: Jay Kennedy, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Plonsker, Louis Pickus and Kevin Lewis Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None, one position vacant Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Chairman Franksen 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 of the December 8, 2014 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The minutes of the December 8, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a side yard setback variance for an addition to the residence at 425 Illinois Road. Owners: James and Laura Duggan Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Franksen recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition due to a personal and professional association with the petitioner. He appointed Board member Culbertson to serve as Acting Chairman for this item and left the Council Chambers. Acting Chairman Culbertson asked the Board for any other conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak on this petition. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition explaining that an addition is proposed at the rear of the residence. He stated that a variance from the side yard setback is requested to allow the addition to conform to the footprint of the existing house. He noted that the existing house encroaches into the side yard setback. He presented photos of the house, a two story colonial. He reviewed the location of the proposed one story addition, above the existing garage. He stated that the garage will remain. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 2 He noted that the existing arbor and chimney will be removed and noted that the addition constructed in their place will have a sloping roof. He pointed out that the proposed addition will encroach into the side yard setback 3 feet on north side of the property. He reviewed the proposed exterior materials and detailing noting that the addition will match the original 1909 residence. He noted that a new chimney will be constructed to work with the family room addition. He stated that the addition will not extend into the side yard setback any further than the existing garage. He presented streets cape photos noting the evergreen trees that will screen the addition from the streetscape and from the property to the north. He stated that the property owners contacted the neighbors to the north and south and both submitted correspondence in support of the project. He reviewed the site plan noting that the property is 1.2 acres in size and over 600 feet deep and only 90 feet wide. He reviewed the floor plan of the addition noting some adjacent existing rooms that will be reconfigured to work with the addition. He reviewed the proposed location for the replacement chimney noting that the existing chimney projects further into the side yard setback than the proposed chimney. He explained that the 3-foot variance will allow proper construction in that the wall of the addition will be placed over the existing lower wall. He explained that constructing the addition in a manner that meets the current setbacks is not possible and would not be architecturally appropriate. He noted that the only area where there is an encroachment into the setback is on the north side, in the area of the existing encroachment. He explained that the hardship is the fact that the Zoning Code was enacted well after the house was built. He noted that in its present configuration, the house has only a small kitchen and family room not in keeping with the overall size of the house. He noted that these short comings resulted in the house remaining on the market for an extended time. He stated that the proposed addition will have minimal impacts to the area. He stated that the house, with the addition, is in compliance with the allowed square footage. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the hardship results from the creation of the lot and the construction of the house well before the City adopted a Zoning Code. She explained that when constructed, the house was in conformance with all applicable requirements. She noted that although the size of the lot is in conformance with today’s Code, the width of the lot is not. She stated that the proposed encroachment into the side yard is minimal and consistent with the foot print of the existing house. She noted that two letters in support of the project were provided to the Board. She stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Culbertson, Mr. Krasnodebski clarified that the wall of the addition encroaches 2.3 feet into the setback and the fireplace encroaches 3.8 feet. He reiterated that the replacement chimney will encroach into the setback a lesser extent than the existing chimney. In response to questions from Board member Pickus, Mr. Krasnodebski reviewed the roof and the extent of the overhang on the roof. He confirmed that the overhang will encroach into the setback almost as far as the chimney. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 3 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Kennedy stated that the request is reasonable noting that the addition will not encroach any further than the existing residence. He stated that the addition is an improvement to the existing residence and stated support for the request. Board member Pickus agreed with the points made by Board member Kennedy. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited a motion. Board member Kennedy made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow the encroachment of an addition at the rear of the house and a replacement chimney into the side yard setback as detailed on the plans presented to the Board. He added that the encroachment does not extend beyond the line of the existing house. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Plonsker and was approved by the Board in a 5 to 0 vote. Chairman Franksen rejoined the Board. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a steep slope setback variance for a screen porch addition to the residence at 367 Bluffs Edge Drive. Owners: Arlington and Karen Gunther Representative: Scott Streightiff, Architect Chairman Franksen 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 on this petition. Mr. Streightiff introduced the petition noting that a variance is requested to allow the construction of a 468 square foot screen porch within the steep slope setback. He stated that the project complies with all other zoning requirements. He described the existing house noting that it was built in the 1950’s prior to the steep slope setback requirement. He noted that about 70% of the existing residence is within the steep slope setback. He pointed out the stone terrace and retaining wall near the edge of the bluff, within the steep slope setback, noting that they are remnants from the McCormick Estate built in the 1940’s. He stated that these elements provide support for the bluff. He stated that the current owners have lived in the house for two years and stated that their intent is to preserve the character of the home and the property. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 4 He stated that the screen porch is desired by the owners to allow use of the yard noting that there are many mosquitos due to the heavy tree cover. He stated that the screen porch is a modest project. He explained that alternate locations were considered for the screen porch however, no better alternatives were found. He explained that since most of the house is in the steep slope setback, a variance would be required for the screen porch at almost any location. He presented photos of the proposed location of the screen porch and noted the proximity of the house to the bluff. He stated that the proposed porch will be located 30 feet from the top of the bluff and will be constructed on a frost foundation anchored as directed by the City Engineer. He explained that the piers will mitigate any lateral pressure from the frost foundation. He stated that the porch will set on an unexcavated slab on grade. He noted that the porch will be further away from the edge of the bluff than the existing residence. He summarized the findings in support of the variance noting that the historic terrace re-enforces the bluff, the bluff shows no indication of instability, and the porch will be less non-conforming than the existing residence. Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board does not often hear requests for steep slope setback variances but noted that in this case, the pre-existing conditions on the property support this request. She noted that the site is heavily wooded and the owners desire a screened outdoor area to allow them to enjoy the property. She stated that the addition is proposed as a screen porch, no solid walls are proposed. She stated that the lightweight, screen nature of the porch is an important consideration. She noted that the staff report recommends a condition requiring that the porch not be enclosed with solid walls in the future without reconsideration of the steep slope issue. She noted that the City Engineer carefully reviewed this project and agreed that as proposed, the project does not appear to impact the stability of the bluff. She stated that at present, the bluff does not show any signs of instability. She stated that prior to the issuance of a building permit; final engineering plans and a plan for construction access; staging and storage of materials will be required and will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. She stated that findings in support of the requested variance are detailed in the staff and conditions of approval are also offered for the Board’s consideration. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Streightiff reviewed the proposed construction noting that the frost wall will be supported by helical piers that will be drilled into the ground. He explained that a frost foundation is required by the Building Code for any structure with a roof. He added that the foundation will preserve the structural integrity of the porch over time. He confirmed that the screen porch will generally align with the footprint of the existing patio. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Streightiff stated that one tree will be removed to allow construction of the screen porch. He stated that several replacement trees will be planted to provide an inch for inch replacement of the tree removed. He confirmed that a landscape plan will be submitted to the City for the project. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 5 In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Ms. Czerniak stated that based on review of stability studies and visual inspection by City Engineering staff, the bluff in this area appears to have been stable over an extended period of time. She stated that with the construction as proposed, including the use of helical piers, the City Engineer believes that the stability of the bluff will not be impacted. She explained that prior to the issuance of a building permit, detailed construction plans will be submitted to review and approval by the City Engineer along with construction access and staging plans. She noted that during construction, City inspectors will monitor the site and added that an as built drawing will be required and will be kept on file at the City for future reference. In response to questions form Board member Pickus, Mr. Streightiff stated that the helical piers will extend about 10 feet below the foundation. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the staff recommends a condition requiring the screen porch to remain as a lightweight, open element unless in the future an additional variance is granted allowing the element to be enclosed with solid walls. She noted that if such a request is made, the stability of the bluff would be re-examined and the City Engineer would evaluate whether the frost foundation under the screen porch would need to be modified to support a solid structure. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Streightiff stated that the frost foundation as proposed may be sufficient to support an enclosed structure in the future noting however, the petitioners are not proposing an enclosed structure. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony. Hearing no requests to speak from the public, he stated support for a condition, as recommended in the staff report, requiring that the open nature of the screen porch be maintained and the structure not be enclosed without further review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the surrounding area is wooded and acknowledged that no concerns were raised by neighboring property owners. He invited final comments from the Board. Board member Pickus noted that the screen porch will be generally in the footprint of the existing patio. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Lewis made a motion to recommend approval of a variance from the steep slope setback to allow the construction of a screen porch addition as detailed in the plans presented to the Board. He stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and subject is to the following conditions. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 6 1. The screen porch shall not be enclosed with walls, partial walls or glass but shall remain as a lightweight, screen element intended for seasonal, not year round, use. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans for the screen porch shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. All requirements of the City Engineer pertaining to the foundation, piers and slab shall be satisfied. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan for construction access, parking and staging of materials shall be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As part of the construction access plan, information on the type, size and weight of equipment that will be used during construction shall be provided. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of a front yard setback variance for a second floor addition over an existing first floor at 1450 W. Old Mill Road. Owners and Representatives: Frank and Becky Ponterio Chairman Franksen 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 on this petition. Mr. Ponterio stated they have owned the property and lived in the house for 14 years. He explained that the house was originally a gate house, constructed in the 1920’s as part of the Lasker Estate. He noted that since it was a gate house, it was sited very close to the road. He pointed out that at the time the structure was built, this area was not part of Lake Forest. He noted that under the current zoning regulations, most of the house is located within the front yard setback. He stated that a variance is requested to allow the construction of a second floor addition over an existing one story element of the house. He introduced the project architect to provide more details about the proposed addition. Steve Rugo, project architect, presented photographs of the property. He noted that the front, one-story portion of the house, the original structure, is perpendicular to the road and is setback 22 feet from Old Mill Road. He reviewed the site plan and identified the area where the addition is proposed, above the dining room and kitchen. He noted that the addition will replicate the roof pitch and the dormer on the existing two story portion of the house. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations. He noted that the exterior materials of the addition will match the wood siding and stucco on the existing house. He provided an overview of the surrounding properties. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Ponterio explained that the hardship of the existing house is that there is only one bathroom on the second floor and they have a teenage daughter. He explained that since purchasing the house, they have completed a significant amount of restoration and repair. He stated that they have spent considerable time thinking about how best to expand the house in a manner that is sensitive to the architecture and in keeping with the character of the property. He explained that the entire Lasker Estate, including this property, was designed in a European farm vernacular. He stated that the proposed addition does not expand the building foot print and in his opinion, is the option that has the least impact on the property and best preserves the historic integrity of the building. Ms. Czerniak stated that this structure was originally on an estate of over 500 acres and was one of many outbuildings several of which remain and are adaptively reused as residences today. She explained that as the estate was subdivided, most of the structures became non-conforming with zoning setbacks. She stated that the petitioners are proposing a creative way to update the structure to make it more functional for them as a single family house. She acknowledged that the addition is proposed on the streetscape side of the structure but noted that the design and massing are consistent with the overall compact character of the structure. She stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Czerniak stated that the property is not in a local historic district and is not individually landmarked so the project is not under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson about the size of the dormers, Mr. Ponterio pointed out that the proposed dormers reflect the exact pitch and height of the existing dormers. He stated that the dormer allows for head room given the intimate nature of the second floor. He reviewed the existing dormers and compared them to the dormers proposed as part of the addition. Board member Culbertson questioned whether the project should be reviewed by the Building Review Board, if not by the Historic Preservation Commission. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Lewis noted his initial concern was that the proposed addition is very close to the road. He added that the history of the structure as a gate house located on the road; is a mitigating and unique circumstance. He expressed concern that the proposed increase in mass is significant and that the addition may tower over the street. He acknowledged that the roofline steps back from the front of the property. He expressed hesitation but noted that requiring the addition to be set back further from the street does not seem be a reasonable idea. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 8 Chairman Franksen stated that based on the history of the structure he can support the variance. Board member Plonsker stated if the Board does not support unique projects like this one, people will be hesitant to invest in historic properties and as a result, the properties will deteriorate. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Ponterio said that he has had success in finding common brick of the exact size and color for the restoration and repair work completed to date. He reviewed other details of the exterior materials noting that the addition will be indistinguishable from the original materials. He reviewed the front elevation noting that the roof ridge is 25 feet back from the front plane of the addition. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Rugo stated that the scale of the proposed addition is relatively modest. He confirmed that the addition will not impact existing trees or utility wires. Mr. Ponterio stated that he would support undergrounding of the utilities if that opportunity was offered by the utility companies. In response to a question from Board member Pickus, Mr. Ponterio confirmed that the pitch of the roof on the addition matches the pitch of the roof on the existing structure. Chairman Franksen stated that in his opinion, this petition meets the criteria for a zoning variance noting that the proposed addition will not change the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the hardship is the location of the house close to the front yard setback. Board member Plonsker agreed stating that he is inclined to support the request. He observed that with roof pitching away from the front of the house, the impact on the streetscape may be mitigated. Board Member Kennedy stated that the proximity of the house to Old Mill Road is a condition that exists today. Board member Lewis agreed noting that if the roof did not recede back, away from the streetscape, the impact would be different. He stated that the proposed addition is a good use of space. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Pickus made a motion to recommend approval of a front yard variance to allow a second floor addition consistent with the plans presented to the Board and not extending closer to the property line than the existing structure. He Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 26, 2015 Page 9 stated that the motion is based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. The motion was seconded by Board member Lewis and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There was no other public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7: 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development